Ofsted say literacy levels are falling.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Ofsted are saying that literacy levels are dropping and that those leaving primary at lower end of level 4 are not gaining GCSE C or above.

I just wondered what teachers and parents thought and if you agree where you think the problem lies and what should be done and by whom.

My view is more writing in lessons. My dd seems to do many projects involving drawing or computers and does very little writing, spelling. Also, she is brighter than her brothers but at a lower level than they were at her age.

We'll probably need to look at some of the trends and analysis. But with the Internet and TV books and writing do have an awful lot of competition. Who writes letters these days? How many times have you been into a house and seen no books at all? Is writing simply becoming less important in today's world? How many people type things on the Internet with no idea of punctuation, grammar, (popularly spelled grammer) and endless muddled up homonyms.

They're not saying literacy is dropping.

They are saying the number of children leaving primary school on a level 4 for reading hasn't improved since 2005.

Indigo, do you think it needs to improve are ofsted saying it is bad or are they scare mongering?

There seem to be at least two arguments going on, because the one that the unions seem to be upset about is an unfavourable international comparison, the UK appears to have slipped down the literacy rankings. To have an opinion I'm sure one would need to see how these international comparisons are being made.

Depends on your viewpoint :)

I think it would be great if it improved - and that it will improve in about 7 years time when we start to see the results of much better phonics teaching filter through.

I think Ofsted are also scaremongering. But I'm pleased to hear they are going to be placing so much effort on monitoring reading.

I certainly think many, many children are being failed who shouldnt be.

But this is real life. If you have the same money, the same schools, the same teachers, the same amount of hours in the day, the same parents and the same students is it reasonable to expect things to improve?

I think that there are problems with the general literacy curriculum in general.

My oldest is in Y6 and a level 5 and knows a lot about writing in general (persuasive writing etc...) but I feel that his spelling and punctuation (ie. the fundamentals) are shocking. He is of the opinion that spelling doesn't matter as a spellchecker will point out any problems. I bet the tests that they do to compare international standards focus on the fundamentals.

I have read on here that these days when secondary schools study a text (say Shakespeare) they don't even read the whole book and that watching the movie or knowing one scene in depth is considered adequate.

Shakespeare is a complicated one because it's not written in modern English, so much of what's discussed about it is what it's about rather than how it's written. And much of its attention, like Chaucer, is devoted to what this or that passage actually means. Once you know what it means you can then discuss its significance. Well, if you watch a recording of a play you can skip much of the decoding part. And watching a recording is quicker than taking the whole class to the theatre, (and cheaper.)

Gosh I remember ploughing through Chaucer and Shakespeare. We did study passages but by hell you had to read the whole book/ play. In fact with O level [showing my age] I remember the whole play being read in parts in class. Mortifying for those who read with no expression as they got tittered at.

[We all read the translation of 'The Miller's Tale cos of rude bits. Our official tale was the more staid 'A Knights Tale'!].

Mind you we were all fans of York notes and Brodie's notes for major help with Shakespeare and Chaucer. Are they still about?

I hope many more contribute to this post as I am passionate about supporting the curriculum and have been throughout my 3 childrens education. Unfortunately, the system failed me and I am wary all the time of not allowing this to happen to any of mine. Although, I'm sure it would be less likely in this day and age!

I am in my 40s and had good and bad teachers morethanpotatoprints. I think poor teaching is more likely to be picked up on more these days which is good. [I was let down big time by poor maths teachers many moons ago].

agghhh what crap sentence construction!!

IndigoBell is right that Ofsted are saying standards are not improving rather than saying they are falling. However, we are slipping down international league tables that measure reading standards for 15 year olds.

We should always be looking to improve. It does not necessarily need more money, more time, different teachers, different parents, etc.

Maths was the first subject that I disliked in the first year of secondary school. The teacher used to chalk up reams and reams of sums on the blackboard and our job was to calculate all the answers. I used to read a book under the table.

They're not falling as has been said.

Until there is proof that high literacy at a particular age corrolates to a high standrad later in life I don't see the relevance either.

Haven't had a chance to see our data in regards to International Standards, but again that's not necessarily a reflection on what goes on here. Just because my neighbour is getting richer, doesn't mean I'm poorer.

Lambethlil, thank you for the analogy. I think sometimes its easy to be taken in with headlines and if you struggle to understand the system, it's not always easy to decipher the facts.

Ofsted doesn't say literacy levels are falling - it says that whilst they have improved considerably since 1995 (in terms of SATs results...), they stopped improving since about 2005 (not the same as getting worse again...). It also says other countries are overtaking us, which means other countries are improving faster/continuing to improve, not that we are getting worse... And none of the media reports set out how the statistics are calculated - what is compared to what; what the extent of the actual differences are between the countries (all assessed, presumably, on the basis of their own national languages, rather than English?); how much the statistics are considered to be a reflection of teaching practices and how much relate to culture, socio-economic circumstances and family involvement; what the differences in attainment are in each country, between the lowest and highest performing students and how the differences are accounted for, etc, etc. Basically, it's impossible to have an educated opinion on the basis of so little information. But why let a few random statistics and a headline get in the way of a good opinion? That would be like letting learning to read get in the way of enjoying a good book.

When I've gone away and ploughed through the OECD reports and other sources of information from which OFSTED got its statistics (and then came up with one rather simplistic conclusion which isn't very helpful...), I might report back....

I heard on a news report that this international comparison, in which levels are falling, has a cut-off of 2009.

If that's right, it isn't telling us what's happening in schools now, but what was happening in the mid/late 00s. There has been a big push towards establishing a good phonics base in reception and KS1 since then. I hope this does indeed yield the expected improvements.

I quite like Michael Rosen's response

Ofsted chief raises Doctors' waiting room height measures and declares that British population has shrunk.

For anyone who is interested, here is a link to the OECD data

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf

You might also like to look at why the figures aren't terribly reliable www.comenius-individual-support.eu/Material-Dateien/Brussels2-20110203/PISA_Presentation_digest%202.pdf

Rules allowed countries to exclude up to 5% of the target population. Exclusions for intellectual disability depended on the professional opinion of the school principal or by other qualified staff - a completely uncontrollable source of uncertainty.
It appears that some countries defined additional criteria: Denmark, Finland,
Ireland, Poland, and Spain excluded students with dyslexia; Denmark also students with dyscalculia; Luxembourg recently immigrated students.

In my opinion there is not enough support for children entering primary school with behaviour and/or emotional difficulties due to sn or for other reasons. So much more time needs to be spent on managing behaviour in the classroom than previously.

It's inevitable that this will affect levels achieved. I think improved phonics will help literacy but the next generation of children coming through KS1 at the moment are much more needy and demanding of adults' time and attention, than before.

If managing disruptive behaviour in classes means that teachers can't devote enough time to teaching, then either parents will have to take on a role of teaching their own children (which I believe they should already be doing anyway) or schools will have to relearn how to get rid of the disruptive pupils.

Learnandsay - your attitude towards schools and kids with any kinds of problems is so awful.

If you don't want school to teach your DD Home Ed her.

If you don't want her to mix with 'disruptive' pupils you'll need to pay for a private school.

I wish you wouldn't post such hurtful things.

My children can be disruptive at times. They still deserve an education and a future. They have loads of strengths as well as some problems.

I don't know why you think it's OK to be horrible about my kids. It isn't OK.