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

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello. You may have seen/heard on the news today that Ofsted is warning that thousands of bright secondary-school-age children are being "systematically failed" at school.

And we'd like to know what you think about this.

Ofsted says there is a culture of low expectations in England's non-selective secondaries - meaning that, according to a new Ofsted report, more than a quarter (27%) of pupils who achieved the highest results in primary school fail to achieve at least a B grade in both their English and their Maths GCSE.

The most academically able, says Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw, arrive "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" from primary school, but things start "to go wrong very early. They tread water. They mark time. They do stuff they've already done in primary school. They find work too easy and they are not being sufficiently challenged."

Do you think this is a fair reflection of life at secondary school? Do you think your child's secondary school has a low expectation of its pupils/your child? Does/did your child "tread water" in Year 7? Do you wish secondary schools did more to challenge their more academically able pupils?

Please do tell!

I so agree with this from Lemon sole

"This stunning observation owes more to the huge weight placed on KS2 Sats, which few teachers regard as a reliable predictor because they are coached for relentlessly by primary schools, and are testing a tiny part of the pupil's overall curriculum.

On another level, when schools' reputations hang on the 5 A*-C measure, it's not rocket science that they channel more of their efforts into converting Ds to Cs than into Bs to As. That doesn't make it right; it's a logical consequence of making league tables a key measure of a school's worth.

It also reflects the reality that primaries find it a lot easier to counter the impact of a difficult home environment than secondaries, when adolescence and peer pressure kick in. Most children in Willshaw's report are described as being those from families more likely to be vulnerable."

Also meant to add low expectations and non pushing of able dcs in comps has fuelled the popularity of grammar schools and the accompanying mad tutoring to get dcs into them. In grammars hopefully dcs will be pushed to get A*/A rather than just settle for a C/B. I'm glad Michael Wilshaw has started this discussion its been so obvious for years.

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

Thats quite funny considering that some posters on here are for putting failed bankers and ex-military in schools.

curlew
I suspect that a lot of this concentrating on getting Cs stuff is urban myth
not in comps - where 1/3 will not get grade C : but the financial difference to the school between 37% D and below asa against 32 % C and below is SO HUGE that teachers are mega mega pressured into that boundary, rather than the c/b or even B/A
hence my point on my Gove thread about sliding scales not cliffs

I can only talk from my own personal experience as my children are not of school age. My secondary school was absolutely appalling, although I didnt know it at the time. Years later I realised that there was a fundamental change when I started at the 'big school.' All the local primary schools were pooled together so you instantly made new friends with kids from wider areas. Teachers no longer knew everyone's name, nor cared. And, no longer was it cool to enthusiastically put your hand up in class and say,'Yes, Sir I went to church on Sunday.' Why? because nobody bothered to ask anymore. Even though it was still a catholic school I was attending.

I think what was missing was that sense of care and warmth that primary schools are so good at providing. I also recall being brilliant at spelling and just loving getting good marks etc. The enthusiasm wanes for sure in secondary because one is also blatantly exposed to the 'class idiots.' Which of course at the time are quite funny, but invariably are also the ones who left school with literally no education to speak of.

It was years later that I started thinking about my educational experience because I went to University and felt I was surrounded by people who 'seemed' like they had had such a wide exposure prior to Uni life. I didn't necessarily think they were brighter than me but they just had a certain something that I felt I severely lacked. I guess 'exposure' and 'overall confidence' is probably what I am trying to say but invariably it was much more than this.

There are a number of teachers that I remember well. One guy who was our P.E. teacher. I recall him quite vividly because he would talk to all the girls' chests. Naturally, he was called 'Mr XXX the Perv.' Another, who was a bit of a snob and you just knew he felt he was surrounded by working class brats who would come to nothing. I remember him trying to get a bunch of class clowns to sit and concentrate and I cant recall his exact words but he was basically saying you will end up on the scrap heap if you continue like this. Of course they didnt listen.

Then to top it all I got an E for my Art A'level. No being big headed but my work was impressive and I worked harder than anyone at that subject. The reason? Unbeknown to us we hadn't submitted the correct criteria for the exam board. Enough said.

I think in low income areas and in particular very low performing areas teachers do have low expectations. I simply cannot remember anyone ever talking to me about going to university. And this was early 1990's. I am not surprised at all! Its been going on for years.

Yes, comps were pretty dire in the early 90s, in my experience.

And yes, a child who left year 6 with level 5s would be expected to get a or a* at GCSE.

baba tosn
you have both fallen cataclysmically into Goves trap.
your recollections of what went on at your secondary are worse than irrelevant to what kids are doing today

I base my evidence on two teenage kids today
and a husband who works in schols day in day out year in year out
and DATA

you and Gove should all read a LOT more before commenting

What about the early and middle 1980"s then, i left a comp without any academic qualifications Steaming Nit, and that is why i am so passionate about Grammar Schools and relived that both my niece and nephew have benefited from Grammar Schools.

No, Talking, I know my experience is irrelevant to today: I say so quite a lot in fact! In 1989-96 my comprehensive was dire, it was allowed to do nothing, it let me down, it was frankly rubbish.

It does not get away with that now, and I have been astounded and impressed at how different schools are now. I loathe it when people make points about What Schools Are Like based on their own schools, and that was actually the point I was trying quietly to make!

Early and middle eighties? I think they're the past too aren't they? The past Gove is trying to bring back.

I am a bog standard teacher ( actually am senior management but in terms of teaching ability I am your average teacher ) in your bog standard comprehensive ( probably a secondary modern / comprehensive ) and so much of this does not ring true to me.

I am not judged on my Ato C rate but how many pupils match their target. So I have to make sure the A students meet their targets and the C garde students, so I cannot neglect any students to focus on my C/D borderline.

There is not a pressure to get students through the C grade borderline because there are so many more options for them if they get a C rather than a D. But the greatest pressure is to get individual students to meet their target grade.

I am a state school educated adult who went to Oxbridge and every year students from my secondary modern/comprehensive go to Oxbridge.

I have children in a grammar and in the comp/ secondary modern in which I teach. They get stretched to the same degree, although the secondary modern/ comp gives the more freedom and independence.

LOL @ Talkinpeace - thanks for the 'advice' but I think I will happily comment at my will on mumsnet

Talkin, I hope you saw my post!

WHERE IS SEEKER!

Arisbottle- so can you confirm that OFSTED would not be happy if your school was aiming to get kids who were level 5 on entry to C at GCSE?

No Ofsted would not be happy, I have just got home from the pub so have just have a few so don't take wat I say as gospel . But our children finishing key stage three at a level 5 would be targeting for a grade C, certainly not gaining a level 5 at the end of key stage 2. They would be aiming for about a grade B, maybe A.

So all this stuff about aiming to get Cs for everyone and Cs being the goldstandard is the rubbish it appears to be?

Yeah, it's bollocks!

As I said I am under pressure to get every student to my target grade, regardless of that target.

I run extra classes just for C/D borderline s but I also run A* classes and groups to help students get that B grade - which in my school is much more of an issue than the C/D borderline.

I think some people are just keen to see teachers as mediocre people who focus in middle of the road targets to the cost of cep everyone else. Not sure why.

To their target not my, although it can feel like my target

As Arisbottle says, my DS' school (London Comp) made it clear from the start that they would be stretched within their ability. No one was going to be allowed to slack but they also acknowledge that not all kids have strong academic ability and that there are other options for them.

My DS went to a high-achieving primary and was middle of the road. At Secondary he is shining and it's done wonders for his confidence and inspires him to work harder.

So, just to be clear, it's not true that all a school has to do to jump successfully through the OfSTED hoops is to get as many GCSEs Cs as possible?

No it is true at all

Sorry no it is not true at all.

My dd went to a top 100 cofe school for two years. The results are very good although declining. After two years we moved her because of low expectations around the cohort that entered on open places and whose behaviour was poor and disruptive and about whom the school would not deal. The teaching staff were on the whole delightful, professional and hard working but somewhere in there there was an ugly culture and dd was not thriving. There were also pockets of poor teaching that were denied and not managed. For example in Year 8 in maths dd achieved brilliantly but only because we picked up the problem and had the £35 per week to pay for a private tutor. What of the children in the state system whose parents can't do that and are switched off one of the most important subjects for life.

We are articulate parents who did our best to work with the school; if we were beaten then I do think there is a huge problem out there that is not being dealt with.

Our dc went to a state primary. About one third of the primary went to the independent sector after Y6 (earlier for the boys generally), half went to the local state schools and the remainder to local selectives. It would be an interesting exercise to meet up with them all at 30 to see what happened to them all.