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

I teach in a " bog standard comp" in fact because of the grammar it probably isn't even that!

I think it would be quite unlikely that only one child would be expected to get an a* in the top set.

Though dd is in a not-even- setted French class and still expected to get a*, which I've every confidence she will.

But word comps should have a class full of students with A targets and definitely with A/A targets .

You are very fortunate aris.

littlefrieda the devil is in the detail!!!!

Many schools do have their GCSE stats on their websites though. They make interesting reading. After all the self congratulatory bullshit about 75% getting 5GCSEs...you can see that only one student got an A* in maths!

Add message | Report | Message poster Hullygully Thu 13-Jun-13 19:00:00
I think the subject content is on the whole boring, the teaching is boring and the pace is too slow. My dc are at a grammar in top sets etc etc and they are still bored in most lessons, not because they are super de duper de duper kids, but for the above reasons and because there is a finite syllabus beyond which the teaching does not venture. And yes, I know it probably should, but hey ho it doesn't.

My DS is at a grammar and he gets bored and I know my other children would be bored to tears there. My second daughter and step son have attended or are attending the school at which I teach, which is not a grammar and they are on the whole far from bored.

Thing is nit if you're the only one in your top set who realistically could get an A* then you're really not going to be well served in a class of 29 others who aren't at that level.

You'd need a class of your own. You aint gonna get it.

Wheras in a selective school, ther's likely to be a bunch of you. You can learn in a collegaite atmosphere and are far more likely to actually achieve that A*.

That said, someone on here once mentioned clustering to put the brightest toegther from several schools during certain lessons. That makes sense, particularly if the schools are close by.

In our nearest town there are three comps. They should share resources and pool their high ability kids, I think.

My dd was always a good all rounder at primary but really only blossomed at secondary: she got three 5bs at SATS which would mean her targets for GCSE would be Bs in English, maths and all three sciences. Nobody has predicted her Bs, though. But if they had, by this report's measure, that would be fine!

*poster LaQueen Thu 13-Jun-13 18:51:03
I agree word the top set at a comprehensive, won't quite compare with the top set at a grammar.At a comprehensive, the top set comprises of the best of a very mixed bag of abilities. In the top set you will have the A pupils certainly...but, unless the comp sets to the nth degree, then you're going to also get the A/B pupils too.

Again not my experience in a school which is somewhere between a secondary modern and a comprehensive. My top set GCSE classes are made up exclusively of students with A* and A grade targets. Mostly the former. I will be disappointed if any of them get a B grade and I am certainly not aiming for the grade.

I taught my set 2 class today, in there my targets are all A/ B targets and that is where they are performing.

But then I would radically change the entire education system.

The solution is to publish all state schools' complete exam results, not just silly highlights that incentivise distortion of the whole picture like %A-C and %EBacc A-C

MeanT sorry!

I think we must be thinking at cross purposes then, Word: I thought you just mean bright children who should get A* at GCSE, which is what I think the report was discussing.

I think the subject content is on the whole boring, the teaching is boring and the pace is too slow. My dc are at a grammar in top sets etc etc and they are still bored in most lessons, not because they are super de duper de duper kids, but for the above reasons and because there is a finite syllabus beyond which the teaching does not venture. And yes, I know it probably should, but hey ho it doesn't.

Add message | Report | Message poster LaQueen Thu 13-Jun-13 17:23:41
I have worked in over half a dozen local schools, where IME the brighter pupils are left to pretty much coast along...while all the main effort is focused on the lower ability pupils (of which there are far more), to drag them up to that Holy Grail C grade. However, these schools are, in reality just secondary moderns, because we live in a grammar school area, so the very brightest top 20% are creamed off

I teach in a school in a grammar school area, I don't think we would call ourselves a secondary modern because we are not in the centre of the grammar catchment so we do not loose as many students to the grammar. But the description above does not match my experiences of a comprehensive / secondary modern. We send students to Oxbridge every year and are highly ambitious for our students who often win national academic competitions. I have classes which are mostly made up of students with A* targets. Teachers are judged against every student's individual target , there is no special focus on the C/D borderline at the cost of other students.

I am not pretending everything is rosy, I do think there is an issue generally in society with dumbing down which will be reflected in schools. However I don't think this is as wide spread as some would have us believe. I also think that much of the data that comes from primary schools is useless and provides an unfair benchmark against which to judge their academic progress for the next five years.

Not if there are enough of you nit and there will be in a selective school...you then become a class.

But if there's just you in a comp, then there's just you!

If they're going to need individual teaching, then I imagine they'll be 'outliers' anywhere!

Well nit how long is a pice of string?

It depends on the subject and what level the pupil is at, doesn't it.

Some students might only need access to more challenging books etc, some might need a different curriculum or individual teaching.

You just can't expect a school to provide it! You need enough kids at the same level to make it worthwhile.

I don't the the mere A pupils cause a problem though: I think they benefit more from the a pupils than the a pupils lose by sitting near them.

My answer is based upon my experience and that of DH who goes to over 100 schools a year - around half of them secondaries (private, grammar, special, comp, academy - you name it).

Wilshaw is talking garbage.

Well Evil it is OFSTED who are in charge of ensuring that happens and it seems...they don't think it does!

Schools are no longer allowed to focus just on the old 5 A*-C statistic. Schools are measured on the amount of progress students make. "Good" progress means 4 levels of progress between the end of KS2 and the end of KS4. So a child getting Level 5s in English, Maths & Science at KS2 would be expected to get A grades at KS4. A child who gets, say, 4 for English, 5 for Maths and 4 for Science should be getting a B for English, and A for Maths and and B for Sciences. In my school, the non-core subjects work from an amalgamated KS2 score - so the 4/5/4 student would have a non-core baseline of 4a with the expectation that they would achieve top grade B at the least in their GCSEs.

IME, the "chasing C grades" scenario is a bit outdated in most schools.

What sort of resources are you thinking of, though?