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

I think he's just doing the general 'oh, our schools are utterly shit, let's demoralise everyone a bit more but ignore the fact that it is government policy for ranking schools that causes most of the problems in the system, probably because the teachers would actually agree with that.

"A comp school that is already outperformong those around it, or those in its county, is afraid or not allowed to do better becuase it is already outshining others."

Evidence? In my experience, schools complete like hell with each other- one round here actually handed out leaflets to prospective parents detailing the results of other schools in the area and boasting about how much better theirs were!

So when the league tables talk about "expected progress" does that mean Cs for the high achieving cohort?

Yes.
A comp school that is already outperformong those around it, or those in its county, is afraid or not allowed to do better becuase it is already outshining others.
Plus there is compacency in said school.

As regards marks getting higher. The pass marks and marks needed to get grades are altered nationally year on year as far as I know.

In the run up to GCSEs there is intense activity, coaching, intervention and minute examination of the the cohort of DCs who could get a C but are just below.
There is nothing for those who tick the box as secure C or above.
This is why the English fiasco had such impact last year.

Gove and Wilshaw are both so busy talking anecdotal crap for which there is no empirical evidence ....

Every day I become more convinced that the Belgium "no government for 16 months" is the answer.

I don't think I quite understand- is he saying that every child who gets a 5 in year 6 should get As in GCSE? Or every child who gets 3 level 5s?. But don't something like 2O% get 3 level 5s ? Surely he doesn't think 20% should get all As and As? Or am I being thick........?

Thank you Bonsoir.

I have been told by a secondary teacher that she has been instructed to focus on those who are working just below a C and have the potential to improve. Those who don't are to be allowed to fail and those who are securely in the higher grades are to be left to coast. She seems to think it is a very common approach.

This is horribly familiar to those whose children were coached intensively in English Maths and Science as they approached Y6 SATs and then saw it all dropped once the tests were over.

I don't agree.

I think in general (which is what that arse Wilshaw is talking about) there's a culture that anything less than stupendous results (all a*s in GCSEs and at least 4 a-levels, an Oxbridge first, etc, etc) is utterly worthless so we should just stop bothering. This won't help anyone.

Also, given that gove is determined to reduce the grades given in secondary exams, I'd say we should expect to see more kids getting Bs and Cs. It seems a bit silly to pretend that exams and exam results are politically neutral.

I'd really question the assumption that those who do best at primary school will necessarily do the best at later stages of education. It doesn't necessarily work that way at all.

My local rural comp is exactly as Wilshaw describes. There is a relentless push in the middle. Resources are poured into getting those D grades up to a C. I know this because I am a governor and have watched over the years. I have always made a point of asking what is being done to boost the As and the answer is always a washy idea that if standards go up overall then an increase in As is a natural consequence.
I tried my best to have some help in stretching DS1 in Maths but to no avail. I asked them to consider FSMQs, Maths challenges but no. He spent 5 years bored to death in Maths and completely unstimulated.
Fortunately things are different at his sixth form, a different school, and he is now racing along with a renewed love of his subject.

It feels true round here. All the feeder primaries are good, on just about every measure. But the local secondary is v poor. Has the same level of disadvantaged kids as the primaries, but fails them epically. Less than 30% get a-c including maths and English.

And school stops at 16 so there are no role models of continued education. We'll be moving before secondary applications come round, unless there is a massive unexpected improvement.

I agree. Proper streaming but with room for kids to move up and down.

So you can always learn at your pace with others doing same. Fast in some subjects, not in others etc.

And don't always give the best teachers to the highest sets.

I agree that brighter DC are often let down by secondary schools. I don't think 'a culture of low expectation' is to blame. I think it's a focus on bloody targets. Schools are judged by the % of A* to C grades they get, so it makes sense that they focus more effort on the bottom of that group. If all politicians stayed out of education it would be a lot better.

Yes, to some degree. The answer is very simple but lots of people don't like it: proper streaming from day 1 in all subjects. The comps that do this in London are all successful schools who send the brightest to Oxbridge (Graveney, Fortismere...etc).

If it is the case that they find work to easy and are not being challenged - then why have the GCSE marks gone up and up and up since they were introduced in 1988?

I don't understand how pupils are not getting better marks when they are getting better marks

Agree with Goldmandra. Her scenario is very common. Woe betide those DC who cannot plug the gaps the way she has.

Good for you, by the way. It isn't nice or easy to deal with that type of school management team.

There is such a huge variation between the best state schools and the weakest that it is hard to generalise.

My children are older and have left school now so things might have changed but the expectations at the local independent school they went to were certainly higher than those at the local high school (graded as good by OFSTED)

The brightest state schooled pupils are still not smashing through the invisible barriers to elite tertiary education. So Wayne with three A* from Wakefield, who does street athletics, is still going to be at a disadvantage to Hugo from the rowing club at Westminster. Hugo can ring up Oxford's rowing club and get advice on what to put in the application. (Look on the website for corroboration of this.)

spot on lemonsole why they never factor in puberty and peer pressure is beyond me! It is simply cooler to do 'ok' and spend your time hanging out with mates, watching crap on Youtube and plodding along for some kids.

I can relate to this. My DS was top of the class at primary school and is now in Year 8 at a state comp, which has recently been downgraded from outstanding to good. At parents evening the teachers said he was doing fine, and seemed surprised when we asked what could he do to get on even better. He is bored and frustrated by repeating work he has already done in primary school, and other kids disrupting lessons.

Unfortunately we have left it too late for him to change school now and I am not sure what to do, see my other thread.

I worked with one school which was telling its students that they should all be getting above the school's average results

Firstly, the KS2 tests are not a reliable indicator. Primary school children are very different to secondary school children.

I would say the culture of low expectation is not produced by the schools, but has its origins in the wider world and is very difficult for schools to counteract.

Our children need to be supported and inspired within their homes and given inspirational role models by the media. Children bring what they experience in the home and on the street into school with them.

How can they be overachieving on the one hand (too many A*s) and underachieving on the other?

Schools simply can't win.

I am sure this is about spin and also based on SATs results for which Primary pupils are specifically coached.

Having said that, my DD is expecting good GCSE results which will be greatly attributable to the fact that I have made an enormous fuss about teaching which wasn't up to scratch and insisted that she was moved to groups where the teacher was more competent. DD herself has worked hard to fill gaps left by her teachers and I, in common with many parents at this school, have paid for 1 to 1 tuition where the teaching was still wanting.

I have made myself a right royal PITA to get her the teaching she deserves - something many other parents can't or won't do. Their children will be let down by low expectations and poor teaching. I have no doubt of this.

The fault lies with the senior management team of the school who appear to have taken no steps to support teachers who were struggling or make improvements in response to complaints and the fact that the school is an academy which gives them far too much autonomy.

They moved DD to better teaching groups to shut me up and left other pupils floundering.

The only other point I wanted to make was that Michael Wilshaw is a massive, massive wanker.