There's a "culture of low expectation" in secondary schools. Do you agree?

My DH is a secondary school teacher - has worked in both comprehensive and selective schools (AFAIK, this was about non-selective secondaries).

I think there is a practical tendency to focus on the middle - schools and teachers are in big trouble if they don't meet their A-C targets, which in practice means it's more important to focus on the many kids who might get a D but could get a C or a B than those who will get a B even if you don't focus on them. I don't think any teacher worth their salt would do this all the time, but there's also an argument that getting a C instead of a D will make a much bigger difference to a child's life/prospects than an A instead of an A, for instance.

So yes, in large comprehensive schools I think there is some truth in the notion that the brighter kids don't always get stretched as much as they might.

On the other hand, this government wants the teaching of more facts and less development of the skills required to interpret, analyse and understand factual information. It really shows in the Ofsted guy's comments. If I was teaching this 'fact' (that loads of kids don't get As or A*s who got level 5s in their primary SATS) to a bunch of GCSE students I'd ask them the following questions:

1. How reliable are the level 5s given out in primary schools? (There are plenty of pressures on primary school teachers to inflate grades, and it is regularly discovered in Year 7 that the new intake don't reliably match the levels they have been assigned).

1. Are there other pressures on children outside of school that might account for some of this? (i.e., is it that teachers have a 'culture of low expectations', or is there something that happens to teenagers/other pressures/other factors which might contribute to this apparent dip in performance?)

1. Is the suggested progression of a level a year an accurate reflection of teenagers' physiological and intellectual needs? How reliable is the system and how does it compare to other systems?

1. Why was yesterday's headline a complaint that too many children are getting As and As, and today's a complain that not enough are getting As and As, and if teachers are slacking off then why hasn't OFSTED, whose job it is to monitor this, done anything about it before this seemingly huge problem has manifested itself?

1. What is the political context of all this? (Answer: Gove - look back through his recent statements and you'll see a pretty damning pattern.)

1. What reason would teachers have not to expect the best from their students? Why would this be a nationwide problem, as the report suggests?

In short, while I think there is a small measure of truth in all this, I am also tempted to say 'nice try Tories. Come back when you have the reasoning ability of an A* GCSE student and don't try to trick us with bare 'facts' which don't mean anything once you actually start thinking about them. And while you're at it, you might want to stop proving how uninformed, under-researched, under-reasoned spouting of 'facts' (your chosen educational policy, it seems) leads to totally idiotic decision-making ... Must try harder!

my curriculum is not a joke at all, it's what I will do when I take over from this sorry shower in charge at the mo.

Ok well I don't appreciate a character critique from someone I don't even know . Would you like me to sum you up?

I agree lljkk

It's a saying I picked up from my Nana.

He's so bloody awkward that one, he could start an argument in a cardboard box.

I think it sums you up perfectly noddy .

I am not trying to turn it into anything Argument in a cardboard box? Sod off. I am just singing the praises of our local school and recognising that.

Generational changes, I like this graph. And yes it shows UK could do better. But is not horrendous either, imho.

lljkk - yes, there are other OECD countries with high drop out rates, but we are still in the top 10, which means that there are plenty other cultures with much less of a problem than the UK.

Also, countries like Brazil & Mexico who are worse than us, probably have very different socio-economic reasons for those drop outs?

One of mine has a couple of truly inspirational teachers.

Sadly (or maybe not?) they aren't in English or Maths, where he'll probably get a C or b at best. But hey ho, he's likely to get FAB music and drama results and he can now play the ukelele, drums, guitar and gamelan which will stand him in good stead for a life of hippydom

Plenty of kids in other cultures do see school as a massive PITA. . The drop out rates are plenty high elsewhere in OECD countries.

I can't recall a single truly inspirational teacher from my school days. Maybe one when I was 7. Probably none that were awful, either, they were all much the same & adequate.
Since we're answering from our experience... in my world, kids who excel are self-motivated. They find aspects of the work to extend themselves. Kids who don't do that may be bright but don't have the work ethic; that's life. I don't trust an education system that spoon-feeds. Movies get made about truly inspirational teachers, they aren't the norm and can't be by definition; I remember only one from university (6 yrs of Uni).

Why are you trying to turn this into a state versus private debate noddy?

The OP is about issues in state schools. All beta has said, is that there are similar problems in his DS private school!

Talk about starting an argumnet in a cardboard box!!!

I think it would help if schools were measured on"realising potential" rather than straight results.
DD arrived in primary school able to read and write and by the end of reception was at a level to pass Y2 SATS (they tested her then).
After that she was left to her own devices - the school effectively stopped putting anything in as she already had got to the outcome (able to pass Y2 SAT) that they are measured on.
As a result we pulled her out of that school and put her in another school whose aim is to get pupils interested, engaged, enthusiastic and doing stuff. The side output of their philosophy is pupils pass exams - but this is not the primary goal.
As a result, DD has leapt up in terms of self confidence, inventiveness, speaking skills, she is still very bright but now she is motivated to do things, learn things (not all exam related) and initiate things (putting on a play at assembly). These are the rimary focus of her school - not add ons that are at other schools that I visited.

I'm so glad I was able to put DD in a school that doesn't chase exam results - but that is what the targets are and "what gets measured gets done". Sadly, politicians seem to love targets especially ones that are easy to measure.
DD came home the other day saying "Teacher X said something REALLY interesting today mummy". If only that was a target!!!!

My ds went to the local comp I went to private. I cannot tell you how much better and more 'real' and relevant his education has been. The teachers have been amazing and the whole experience has left him and his friends with a positive view of education. My oldest friend has 4 kids all privately educated and I see no difference in them socially or educationally.

God i hate this shit

Cross? I'd be livid!!!

Why on earth do you keep paying beta? Why not find a better school?

Yes, I can see that. I'd be really cross at paying a hundred grand for the same old shit the rest of us get for free.

The culture of low expectation can also happen in private schools as does 'teaching to the middle'. Teachers are humans and are variable in quality and motivations and expectations.

Our DS1 is very bright and has a scholarship to a good private senior school but far too many of the teachers just let him coast along. He never comes home stimulated and excited about learning.

I have had enough of this after two years and will be intervening heavily from now on. He is just about to enter Year 9 and embark on his GCSE courses. This NOT just a comprehensive school issue.

The teaching profession on average IME does not deal well with bright children but of course the very good teachers do. It can be done.

Some parents are paying for extra private tuition where teachers are weak - which I flatly refuse to do as I am already paying.

Following on from Arbitrary's post, I'd like to propose another new subject:

"How to cut through spin & hyperbole and get to the facts and whatever you do, never believe a politician."

I've been reading more about this and it's hilarious. Over 1/3 of children achieve a level 5 or above in maths in the Y6 SATs; nearly 1/2 do so in reading. These are the markers of the 'most able' according to Wilshaw. And these pupil should be getting As or A*s at GCSE (at least in English and maths). Failure to ensure that over 1/3 of children achieve this means the school is 'failing' them.

Yet over in Gove's world, there are far too many As and As at GCSE level and this is Not Acceptable. He's irate when less than 1/5 are currently getting As and As in English and maths (and only c.15% last year). By Gove's criteria, schools should be 'failing' at least 65% of these 'most able' children, ideally far more.

Wilshaw is also curiously quiet on the 41% of the 'most able' currently failed in the same way by selective grammar schools.

Not in my dc school they are very heavy in Maths and tbh majority of the subjects!! Id say in our case high expectations!

Hmmm, the truly recalcitrant. Ok, they get taken away on their own to sit on an small island with absolutely nothing to do for long enough that they have a rethink. There is food to eat and books to read. I always planned to do that with my dc should they take to excessive drinking/drugs.