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

I'm joining you behind the sofa, la!

My subject is English. Children are taught similes, metaphors, alliteration and personification to death. Of Mice and Men is wheeled out regardless of the ability of the class, because the teacher feels safe and comfortable teaching it. Other literary techniques, critical analysis, longer, more challenging texts are often - not always - avoided.

These produce Cs but they do those who deserve more a huge disservice and I think that is a shame.

Aris I'm a governor of a school who don't get anyhting like those type of applicants [envious emoticon]

I think that if schools struggle to attract top staff they should be able to pay more. I think perhaps paying teachers more may raise standards.

I did not go into teaching originally because of the pay.

IME Laqueen that is exactly how comprehensive schools are staffed.

So talking you don't think there's a problem then?

All comprehensives serve their bright pupils well?

If a teacher could not get an A* at their subject at A Level never mind GCSE they should not be teaching.

Apart from anything else, how on earth would you provide model answers and how would you mark work?

I am not saying that teachers are of the same academic calibre as doctors. Generally speaking I do not think they are, but an A* in their subject at GCSE and A Level - or an A if you are old like me and a 2:1 is the minimum you should expect.

Ideally we would as well Aris but the choice just isn't always there. I work in a lovely secondary school, 11-18, about a thousand on roll, nice rural location, good behaviour. We aren't particularly close to any major training providers, perhaps that's why we don't tend to get our pick? Not sure.

We could then go back to the old days, when adults relaxed a bit while smoking fags, drinking gin and discussing Schopenhauer and why anyone would ever want to make their own Battenburg cake. And yer know, laughing a bit. Instead of endlessly fretting and obsessing over grades and house prices in catchment to the best schools. Ugh.

Ah but Aris first you're talking about now.

Some of the older teachers won't be that qualified, will they?

And second, it depends where in the country you live. In some areas you struggle to recruit good teachers!

wordfactory
www.bstubbs.co.uk/gcse.htm
3.4% nationally

DCs school is 300 kids per year - that is 9 A* and the rest of the top two sets getting an A

you need to check your maths before being so dismissive about kids at non selective schools

Blackbird as someone who interviews teachers we would not look at someone who achieved Cs and Ds at A Level. We look for an A grade in their teaching subject or a linked subject at A Level and at least a 2:1 at degree.

And how many kids out of that 200 would arrive with a L5 in English?

I know that I bore some pupils .

As an outsider I look the work my son does and it looks very boring.

Well I was relaibly informed yesterday (here on MN) that 3% of pupils get an A* in English.

So in a school of 200 per year, we'd expect what? Six kids. Let's say one or two probably scrpaes in with a lot of graft. The middle are comfortable. The top two find it relatively unchallenging.

I am going to get pulverised for this!

I suspect a lot of teachers would struggle to get A*'s in the subjects they teach. You only have to look at a typical set of school reports prior to being proofread to see how low the basic standards of literacy are.

While I know there are many exceptions (I am one) a lot of teachers are very earnest, very hard working sorts of people who do not necessarily have brilliant academic knowledge. How many departments are solely staffed by teachers who are very highly educated with excellent degrees and A levels? 'Typical' A levels for the teachers I have interviewed are often Ds and Cs.

I am not 'teacher bashing' but feel that unlike medicine, which demands the cream of the A level crop, teaching does not always attract the best graduates. This is true of primary and secondary but most people with a degree should be able to stretch ten year olds. This is harder when they are fifteen.

Ideally, a rigorous system would keep our brightest engaged and challenged but it doesn't because to challenge a bright fifteen year old would also challenge a lot of teachers.

I spent time this week dealing with three pupils who got L5 in their SATS. One has just moved two bus rides away so did not attend her exam last week. One has flatly refused to pick up a pen despite cajoling, threats, bribes, pleading - you name it, we tried it. One has just attempted suicide - thank God, unsuccessfully.

Guess what? None of them will make an A or A*.

I also have a girl who broke her fingers before her SAT and had a scribe. She got a L5a She is more like a 4c despite intensive work through Y7.

Gove, Wilshaw et al don't have a bloody clue.

Or three!

mind you, aris, and this is not meant to be inflammatory, I bet the teachers at their school would say the same thing. No teacher is going to say, yeah, I'm boring as fuck and so are the lessons...

It does clarify things a bit to realise there are people who think that in a comprehensive top set, only one child might be expected to get an A* though!

Okay then one or three students. Or maybe one student who is working way beyond that.

These students need others like them to really thrive.

We should find ways to let them learn in a collegiate atmosphere with similar students! And also to access to appropriate resources.

Didn't this report only involve 41 schools? That's not very many.

The Levels of Progress thing is fairly new, I think. Progress has been the buzz word in school this year, whereas before it was A*-C.

Over 50% of my Yr 11s made 5 levels of progress, so I'm expecting a big pat on the back (optimistic)

I mean fortunate the children aren't bored

Why don't they do away with A*, A and B grades?