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!

Post, they can, as I was that teenager.

But why should they have to? :) What is the point of paying teachers' salaries if we say 'oh well, the children can do it themselves'?

There is a difference between someone not getting an A in their subject at 18 and whether they'd get an A at 25 after having done a degree in the subject...

Don't know the answer to that one, but it still isn't addressing how we get kids in the UK to realise they are so lucky to get free education (at the point of delivery) and that school is not a waste of time.

I do see what you mean Arbitary, but I feel many teachers do not stretch and challenge higher ability pupils because they themselves would struggle to grasp the concepts they are trying to teach their students.

This isn't such a big problem at primary schools because most adults with a degree could stretch and challenge a ten year old. To do so for a fifteen year old - especially one disengaged with the curriculum anyway - is another matter.

I don't feel that the above is the sole problem outlined in the OP, but is, I feel, a part of it.

wordfactory
There is a problem in some schools BUT this "story" is political posturing based on a very small data set - whose statistical validity has not been proven.
Therefore to extrapolate from a biased data set to all schools is inappropriate.

Maybe Ofsted needs to be brought under the wing of the National Office for Statistics and then it will get away with publishing less junk.

Having a degree in a subject does not make one a good teacher.
I have a Geography degree but I call myself an Accountant, not a Geographer.
And I'd be a rubbish teacher even though I'm very good at explaining to small groups.
I'm bright enough to understand that about myself.
Gove is not bright enough to understand his own limitations.

Having a degree in a subject is not the only requirement in a good secondary teacher , but it it one of the requirements.

But post, I'd say the vast majority of the population only do things - particularly things they find difficult, or even boring - if there is some kind of incentive there. How many of us would go to work without our pay at the end of the month ? Expecting Teens to be grateful they have a free education system is a bit far fetched, they need to be coaxed, rewarded, incentivised, encouraged, and challenged, just like the rest of society.
In my experience - and I repeat, I know this varies from school to school, and I also think more schools are now catching up with better tracking systems - but in my ds's school, they just weren't interested in stretching the capable coasters, because they had too much pressure to push the 'not quite Cs' into the golden band.

But this is why the whole system is so mad.

Stick a bunch of 30 14 year olds in a room and tell them about moles (not the blind furry kind) for 40 minutes. Or the structure of a leaf. It's a wonder there isn't mass suicide.

And you want them to be GRATEFUL??

Apologies if I am repeating what others have said upthread...

But if you reward, incentivise and severely punish schools on the basis of A to C grades, consistently, over years, then schools - however they feel, morally, about it - will work to maximise A to C grades. Disproportionately, the schools that struggle most to make that benchmark will focus most on it.

Schools far, far above the benchmark A* to C grades have the luxury - and in these days where failure to meet flor targets means sacked headteachers and forced academization, it is a luxury - of devoting some of each day's 24 hours per teacher to the stretching of the most able. Most MN-popular schools will have that luxury, many other schools do not.

You cannot simultaneously put extraordinary pressure on schools and teachers to do Task A (get a certain proportion of children to jump through Hoop 1) and expect them, by the way and unrewarded / unrecognised, to also do task B (ensure a certain proportion fo children jump through a different hoop, Hoop B). When the jobs and livelihoods, mental and physical health of teachers and heads depends on the A to C percentage (and the Ofsted grades that are ever more tightly linked to these), then funnily enough, that's what they concentrate on. In some schools, where due to the luck of the cohort that pressure is felt less keenly, then there is sufficient time, enough effort, and enough resources to also ensure that the most able students get As.

People, in all walks of life, do their best to do what they are asked to do, what they are rewarded / punished for and what is valued in the environment they are in. No-one should be surprised that in a punitive environment where A to C percentages are the be-all and end-all, the A/ A percentage is not ocused on to the same degree. If it becomes something that is highly valued, then in those schools with resources available, it will be focused on. In those schools very near the floor level for A* to C, where there are quite simply no more moments to be wrung out of every day or hours out of every teacher, it may be focused on less - not due to the will of the teachers, just due to the physically and mentally impossible demands bein placed upon them.

On a personal note, DS's (very MN) non-selective is supurb at stretching pupils. But it has the luxury of a very able cohort.

I absolutely agree with you teacherwith2kids. I do not in any way blame the teaching staff, but the whole politicising of the education system.

Yes I do agree. The people I know who came out with the best GCSE results were best at regurgitating facts but didn't necessarily understand the content.

Also it's not necessarily down to the teachers, but down to the targets given to the children.

I cometely agree too. Teachers can only do so much.

(I also agree with an earlier post that the newer focus on progress should result - because of a different balance of what is expected / rewarded - on more focus on the top end.

However, it does seem to me that this was implemented as a policy with no 'downside' - the most able are now expected to make more progress but there is still severe punishment for those schools where not enough children get A to C EVEN IF that represents absolutely astonishing progress for a very low ability cohort. So those schools with low ability cohorts have to put in superhuman efforts on the A to C measure AND move their small number of high achievers on further than before...all in the same 24 hour day. The schools with over 50% low attainers still have to reach the magic benchmark of 40% 5 good A* to C GCSEs to avoid being branded 'failing'. The fact that is a much more difficult feat than for schools with a more balanced intake is ignored...)

What you can expect them to do is to teach and expect to a* where appropriate, which is what they do.

teacherwith2kids has it in one. Compensation drives behaviour - as does fear. If government want to change teachers' focus and behaviour then they need to change the way those teachers are foaled and measured. No different to any other industry.

Yes, Rainbows. And that is why it is ALL SO MAD

Schools, let us remember, were always meant to be holding pens so the adults could work, hence the long summer hols for harvest help etc etc

They are a hopelessly unrealistic creation now. Bizarre subjects taught by the fed-up to the hopelessly bored, great big strong humans who should be busy and working and doing, not sitting at a small desk "learning " something in which they have no interest...

oh well

So how come teens in other countries don't see school as a massive PITA? There is something about our culture that under values education.

I accept that not everyone wants to learn about moles but there should be something that a young person wants to learn!

HullyGully - exactly

(And incidentally in response to posts earlier I have a 2:1 from a RG uni in my subject, and 3As and 1B in Maths, F Maths, Chem and Phys at A level. Plus a handful of S-levels, professional quals and NVQs in various stuff from my previous career)

Bugsy - the vast majority of pupils actually do enjoy at least some, if not most, of their subjects - however much they like to posture and say otherwise as teenagers do See them in a lesson and you will see they do love it (apart from moles, agreed on that one!). But you just need a few disaffected ones who "should" be getting A/A* as they got 5 at KS2 SAT to produce the data they are quoting!

And that's nuts as well.

"all the extra revision/booster/help/retake classes"

Why are these classes even necessary Rainbow? Is it because poor discipline gets in the way of efficient delivery of the curriculum first time round?

Absolutely not! It's to boost results and actually I find mostly to reassure (girls mainly) that actually, yes, they do know the stuff.

Mainly it's a change in culture - towards spoonfeeding. When we did exams we would go home and revise at home, yes? Not so much nowadays - a lot of pupils do all revision in school in guided revision sessions. Parents are informed of these sessions as well etc. It's becoming more and more expected. :(

The chap who is spearheading this is drawing up a curriculum aligned to human rights, it's refreshing and at least an attempt to move away from the anachronous gumpf that we have at the moment.