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!

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

But then I would radically change the entire education system.

*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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

You are very fortunate aris.

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

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.

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

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

I mean fortunate the children aren't bored

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)

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.

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!

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...

Or three!

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.

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.

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 know that I bore some pupils .

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

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

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.