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!

Generational changes, I like this graph. And yes it shows UK could do better. But is not horrendous either, imho.

I am not trying to turn it into anything Argument in a cardboard box? Sod off. I am just singing the praises of our local school and recognising that.

It's a saying I picked up from my Nana.

He's so bloody awkward that one, he could start an argument in a cardboard box.

I think it sums you up perfectly noddy .

I agree lljkk

Ok well I don't appreciate a character critique from someone I don't even know . Would you like me to sum you up?

my curriculum is not a joke at all, it's what I will do when I take over from this sorry shower in charge at the mo.

My DH is a secondary school teacher - has worked in both comprehensive and selective schools (AFAIK, this was about non-selective secondaries).

I think there is a practical tendency to focus on the middle - schools and teachers are in big trouble if they don't meet their A-C targets, which in practice means it's more important to focus on the many kids who might get a D but could get a C or a B than those who will get a B even if you don't focus on them. I don't think any teacher worth their salt would do this all the time, but there's also an argument that getting a C instead of a D will make a much bigger difference to a child's life/prospects than an A instead of an A, for instance.

So yes, in large comprehensive schools I think there is some truth in the notion that the brighter kids don't always get stretched as much as they might.

On the other hand, this government wants the teaching of more facts and less development of the skills required to interpret, analyse and understand factual information. It really shows in the Ofsted guy's comments. If I was teaching this 'fact' (that loads of kids don't get As or A*s who got level 5s in their primary SATS) to a bunch of GCSE students I'd ask them the following questions:

1. How reliable are the level 5s given out in primary schools? (There are plenty of pressures on primary school teachers to inflate grades, and it is regularly discovered in Year 7 that the new intake don't reliably match the levels they have been assigned).

1. Are there other pressures on children outside of school that might account for some of this? (i.e., is it that teachers have a 'culture of low expectations', or is there something that happens to teenagers/other pressures/other factors which might contribute to this apparent dip in performance?)

1. Is the suggested progression of a level a year an accurate reflection of teenagers' physiological and intellectual needs? How reliable is the system and how does it compare to other systems?

1. Why was yesterday's headline a complaint that too many children are getting As and As, and today's a complain that not enough are getting As and As, and if teachers are slacking off then why hasn't OFSTED, whose job it is to monitor this, done anything about it before this seemingly huge problem has manifested itself?

1. What is the political context of all this? (Answer: Gove - look back through his recent statements and you'll see a pretty damning pattern.)

1. What reason would teachers have not to expect the best from their students? Why would this be a nationwide problem, as the report suggests?

In short, while I think there is a small measure of truth in all this, I am also tempted to say 'nice try Tories. Come back when you have the reasoning ability of an A* GCSE student and don't try to trick us with bare 'facts' which don't mean anything once you actually start thinking about them. And while you're at it, you might want to stop proving how uninformed, under-researched, under-reasoned spouting of 'facts' (your chosen educational policy, it seems) leads to totally idiotic decision-making ... Must try harder!

Suffolk, I went to look around a middle school in Suffolk in November and the kids were doing mock SATS! That's hot housing in the extreme - they were off timetable .

Hullygully/wordfactory - to be fair the school is doing very well with DS2 who is just on the edge of the top 25th percentile attainment level in the national scale. For him, teaching to the average is great - because he is average in that school. The facilities are great too.

Also to be fair, DS1 is achieving at a high level but nowhere near his potential. It is not stretching DS1 and I have made the mistake of allowing the situation to drift and allowing 'teachers to teach'. Yes they teach. Yes they work hard but they teach to give the least able and average pupils a good education. They put much less effort into the most able students because no one is asking them to and no one is monitoring it and frankly because no one would reward them if they did.

The reality is that the school is just too comfortable in its position as the best of the two private schools in town and much better than the majority of state schools in our area which in some cases are utterly dire if based on their published results. The Catholic secondary schools we are not eligible for are quite good as is the local Catholic Primary school.

I think the low expectations come from the top. The government constantly messing things around, talking everyone down, pumping out their low beliefs about everyone.

I think this is most blatant in the redefining of literacy (you'd think it was like being able to read & write at adulthood, but the UK defines it as having 5+ years of schooling. If we're going to raise standards and expectations, we need a government and media that thinks we can read and write and ensuring it.

Ha ha laqueen - I didn't say my own proposals wouldn't be equally stupid! (They probably would )

Agree with you about the gold standard. Quite often, though, Gove says that things are not being taught in schools which actually are. There's a huge amount of detailed fact-learning in GCSE history, which is the one I know the most about. I'm not saying there's not room for improvement, but saying, for instance, that the new history GCSE will be at least 40% British history implies that it isn't already. It is! I heard Gove slagging off primary teaching on Radio 4 at the beginning of this government, saying that primary school children don't learn basic three-dimensional shapes. 1) he actually got his shapes wrong during the discussion, much to the mirth of everybody around him; and 2) those shapes have never, ever been taken off the curriculum. So while I agree that there's room for discussion about factual learning and it's more than possible that things have swung too far one way (I don't know, but I am sure this is at least possibly true), half the time the government says kids aren't learning x, y and z when they are. It's too much politicking and not enough evidence for my liking.

Constant headlines about the laziness/stupidity/ineffectual nature of teachers are not going to help improve the education system. I'm not saying there aren't problems, and I'm not saying that all teachers are great. But ill-informed attack is what I object to - anybody can see that if there are problems, they are bound to be more complex than simply being down to the inherent laziness of an entire profession and will require more creative/complex solutions.

I don't have them, though ...

I'm very pleased with the education my DD is receiving in her (supposedly) non-selective faith secondary. I think it compares very favourably with the education I received a generation ago (obviously ! - in the 70s) at my grammar school.
I'm particularly impressed that she has a much clearer sense of what the specific targets and criteria are for different levels and grades, and an accurate idea of where she is in relation to these.
I think things were a lot fussier in this regard in the 70's !
I think these things are crucial in developing personal responsibility for one's own learning, and just to knowing what is needed to take the next steps forward in our understanding and mastery of a subject.

I'm also more generally impressed with the schools high expectations particularly of their brightest students (stealth boast - like it ?). For example in English Literature she is being introduced to concepts and terms that I never came across even by the end of my O level studies, whereas DD is in Y9 and has yet to really start her GCSE studies in earnest - yet is aready au fait with "iambic pentameter" and such-like

LaQueen - it hasnt quite got to the stage of 'needing' outside tutoring yet. Me and DW can cover most subjects quite well up to GCSE but what is enraging is that two teachers who retired from the 'other' private school in town immediately flipped to a nice little earner of private tutoring pupils at my DSs school. It really is beyond the pale and my DSs school should be ashamed of themselves.

Another parent told me about it a few days ago as she is using one of these tutors and in some state of desperation.

I know it is not just me who feels this way but the general feeling I get is that the teachers at DSs school as a body are themselves coasting along in a nice school doing quite well with the cohort of pupils they have that are in general nice well behaved children with supportive parents who dont question them too much because they dont know how to or dont have the confidence to or simply dont feel they have a choice.

I want to see drive and ambition to get pupils to the very peak of performace that they are capable of and not teachers sitting back on their laurels. As I say, this is almost a 'cultural issue' among a wide group of teachers and - not a private vs comprehensive thing.

I agree that bright pupils are being let down. My DD left her non selective fully comprehensive secondary school last year.

None of the 6th form pupils achieved all top grades at A level. The school just didn't manage to teach them to that standard. There were whispers of private tuition and fortunately universities were lenient and the few that applied got into their courses at RG universities, even if they missed their offers.

I don't recall anyone applying let alone getting into Vet,Med,Dentistry. Mine did but via a foundation year.

Congrats to your DD Scrazy

Thanks Juggling, she was grateful to have the opportunity.

LaQueen - I didnt want to say it but you have hit the nail very squarely on the head there. I think as lot of the teachers at DS school are exactly like that.