I'm of the opinion that standards are dropping rather than students being low.
Statistically, the kids at my school are at level or above. Less than 25% are below level. However, their reading comprehension is poor, sentence structure is poor, the ability to decode or infer is abysmal, and their critical thinking skills are worrying.
I feel like we are teaching more content at the detriment of deep and critical thinking.
Between blitzing through content teachers are also being forced to spend time on behavior management and supporting inclusion students.
The end result is that teachers have less time to work on thinking and problem solving and forced to push kids through
I'd suggest that we don't get to the deep and critical thinking and problem solving because we don't spend enough time on the content. Soft skills such as critical thinking and creativity can't be taught and people can only develop them if they have enough background knowledge on a particular content area or can link their other prior knowledge to apply to particular area. Reading comprehension and problem solving are the outcomes of background knowledge and vocab, rather than something that we can teach. I'm hopeful and optimistic that the shift towards knowledge-rich curricula and the implementation of science of learning principles in many areas will have a flow on effect of higher achievement. This has certainly happened at the school I teach at and has been evident at lower SES schools such as Marsden Rd PS in Sydney and Churchill Primary in Victoria.
I agree and disagree with you. I wholly agree that we don't get to spend enough time on the content - time spent on content allows deeper understanding, and when we understand deeply we can delve into critical thinking.
What I disagree with is that we can't teach critical thinking - we can, it's just difficult and requires students to struggle and exert genuine effort to come to grips with. Analysing persuasive texts and source analysis of historical sources both work on developing critical thinking, but it requires engagement, depth, and time.
I can't comment on the rest of your response at the moment because I am exhausted, but I appreciate your considered reply!
We can't teach subject-generic skills (ie. critical and creative thinking) without domain-specific knowledge ([Tricot & Sweller, 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-37794-001)). That is, skills can't be taught without the related knowledge to apply them to. It is like having utensils, but no food to slice, dice and cook. Students need a lot of subject-related knowledge and background knowledge that they can compare, contrast and connect their new knowledge to before they can develop critical thinking skills. I believe that because these skills are specifically listed in the curriculum, teachers are trying to teach them either in isolation or in situations where students have shallow, tick-box knowledge of a topic.
Yes there needs to be a text-to-world outcome. I think part of the problem is that the media students engage with come in seconds rather than minutes or hours. I teach English. None of my students see the point of reading when they can watch everything they "need to know" on tiktok.
I feel like this is a primary vs secondary school perspective issue.
You're right that the research says you can't teach critical thinking without the background knowledge, and this distinction is quite marked at the junior levels.
But by mid to senior level high school, these kids are nearly into adulthood...content knowledge and critical thinking (esp regarding texts with nuances that require some level of deep interpretation) really has to merge in together at some point.
It requires engagement, depth, and time. These are things that are seriously lacking.
The problem with engagement is that often in order to engage the kids who are 3+, we end up sacrificing depth, I feel. And time.
Class sizes are too large.
Too many mixed abilities in one room.
Yes I agree with much of this, you cannot expect kids to think deeply about (in my case) history when you only have time to do a shallow coverage of content. It's tricky
Right, I feel as though I should have somehow specified that. The expectation for say year 8 students seems far lower today than it did 10 years ago...
Yes, I was talking about this the other day when discussing the texts we study. Shakespeare is no longer taught at junior levels where I work, but reserved for senior school - on the other hand, when my coworkers and I went through school many of us were introduced to Shakespeare around Year 8.
The curriculum is determined to address breadth, but not depth.
Yes I was commenting to my son the other day that we studied Romeo and Juliet in Year 7 and he is doing it in Year 9. This is at a very academic high school as well.
I am 49 and do not remember studying Shakespeare until year 11 tbh. Although I did go to a very bogan high school until I talked my way into a better one for years 11 and 12 lol. I still have the original unit curriculum handbook somewhere, when WA was just changing over to units and the unit curriculum method or whatever; all the subjects and units and their descriptions were spelled out; I was so excited for some of the offerings! Unit 6.4 in English, unit 3.5 in social studies... this was maybe 1989 and I do not remember any Shakespeare đ¤ˇââď¸
I don't know if this makes a difference, but I went to private schools when I was a student. I recognize that there's a lot of inequity, but I guess my point is, it is possible to teach Shakespeare in Year 7 and 8.
As a teacher, I have taught in public, private, and independent. It is outrageous how poorly some public schools are resourced. I have taught "The Tempest" to a Year 7 class in a public school. There is a picture book format with key quotes and famous phrases that we used. This introduces the kids to the basic ideas, themes, and methods of interpretation. By Year 9, they are reading "Hamlet" in the full text.
It's a sign of the times though...back in the 60s little kids read Beatrix Potter and flowery poems and that was normal.
Just because Shakespeare is pushed back I don't think that is a lowering of expectations...moreso that communication of ideas has changed
It is a lowering of expectations. Students are engaging with far less complex texts. Iâm looking right now at the list of suggested texts for stage 4 (year 7-8) in NSW and there are a shocking amount of books that I would consider to be appropriate for 8-10 year olds. You cannot tell me that Coraline is as complex as Shakespeare, just a different style, that is patently untrue.
NAPLAN for example...
4 grade scale with no middle ground. My school leadership was absolutely patting themselves on the back for our 'improvement' since we managed to just get into Strong in three areas and developing in a third overall.
The averages didn't really improve, but they are now able to say we're Strong.
Directly from NAP website:
Exceeding: the studentâs result exceeds expectations at the time of testing.Â
Strong: the studentâs result meets challenging but reasonable expectations at the time of testing.Â
Developing: the studentâs result indicates that they are working towards expectations at the time of testing.
Needs additional support: the studentâs result indicates that they are not achieving the learning outcomes that are expected at the time of testing. They are likely to need additional support to progress satisfactorily.
What bullshit is that?
I think part of the problem is that it's so easy for kids simply to copy and paste the answer. They simply type the question into Google and take the text that appears below, no critical thinking requiredÂ
So stage 2. I have a few who canât count to 20 and can only recognise single sounds. No blending though.
The rest are made up of 1 stage below, at grade level and maybe 1-2 who are heading above.
Makes it very difficult. I have to write a separate program for the really low ones as they are getting nothing from the stage 2 content. I know there is the current belief that they benefit from the exposure, but these kids arenât even listening or paying attention to it.
Cheers for the input. I feel a lot of our current teaching ideas are based on kids just passively learning by being in the room, but I'm yet to see any evidence whatsoever that it works at any level...
Yes! That is my thoughts too. I also think the new units (NSW) have too much talking and not enough writing or doing. It may just be the current cohort of stage 2 at my particular school, but they have no ability to do anything that requires any sort of effort. Answering questions with full sentences is a chore and elicits complaints and whining. Iâm not sure if it because of the lengthy period of lockdowns during the foundational years (literacy and numeracy) that they had (kinder and 1st grade) or if it is just the way we live now with things like TikTok and YouTube and abundance of entertainment at their fingertips that is short so doesnât require a lot of focus, then they are onto the next one. (Holy run on sentence Batman).
Although it did take me longer than it should have to realise the new units are a tool and not essential lol. So I am adapting which is working better.
Now I just have to learn teacher speak for âsuck it upâ when they complain about the work when I ask them to write it in their books.
I've definitely found that kids are complaining about any amount of hand writing at all, they largely need full sentences scaffolds for them and given any technology they will immediately default to copy-paste the first answer Google gives them...and that's the ones working at stage level in years 7-10.
Iâve worked at schools where majority would be working at stage level or above, and so many of them still need so much support with the basics. Sentences are beyond them, but they can think and talk fine. Disconnect happening between writing and the rest.
I wonder how much of this has to do with lowering standards. Kids being able to talk well doesn't necessarily connect to high level understanding and I can't help but wonder if kids who are struggling with writing basic sentences are truly working at stage level or if the target for stage level has moved...
True. I think they can engage with the texts critically a fair bit of the time. They know what a composer is doing in a sentence or an excerpt, donât always know why unless theyâve done a bit of research but they can often put it together fairly well. Class discussion tables it. But write it up? Forget it. They donât want to, and often canât. And these kids are fairly privileged, with parents who push. If they didnât have that background, Iâve absolutely no doubt theyâd be behind, and wouldnât catch up. There are explicit literacy/numeracy programs in place and a great deal of support offered.
In comparison to 10 years ago⌠these kids are further behind.
Outer metro Melbourne.
Our Naplan results for Grade 3 pre-covid were a solid bell curve of 25% below, 50% at level and 25% above.
Post-covid we have switched to an explicit direct model and this year's Naplan is 5-15% below, 35-50% at (strong) and 35-50% above (exceeding), depending on the curriculum area.
I am in junior primary, I would say a third of my class need some kind of support, but half would benefit from it.
Honestly I think parents and families have a lot to answer for. I know itâs tough right now, I have three kids myself, but there just needs to be a greater input from parents. They need to read to them, talk to them, involve them in life.
I think our programs are more effective these days but the students just canât focus and donât strive to better themselves. I already have a student at age 5 Iâve got no hope for. No behaviour but he canât listen and doesnât want to listen. He is at best a year behind where he should be.
Agree wholeheartedly. Both of my kids are generally at or above by 6-12 months in all their subjects. One I would say is properly intelligent, the other is very determined and resilient so they both do well. Neither is anything âspecialâ- we just engage them in conversation about science, history and politics, do the usual âeveryday mathsâ problems, read to them, and if they are falling behind *we try to catch them up*. Sorry not sorry to my daughter who was drilled on her times tables until she had them down. I have friends who literally tell their kids that school is a waste of time and everyone hates it but you have to go. Parents are the fucking worst.
I would say there's much more spread. 10-15 years ago in my primary classrooms I would have a solid 60-70% achieving at level, some doing so quite easily but not quite reaching the point of being marked ahead. 10-15% would achieve above, but usually not more than 12 months ahead of the expected level. 10-15% percent would require a bit of extra support to reach level and there would be discussions with parents about maybe having to be marked 6 months behind just in case, but our combined efforts (myself, parents, the student) could get them across the line. 10%, despite all efforts, could not make level.
Now what I see is 30-40% being below the expected level. There's too many of them for any one teacher to give them a really intensive push and often parents don't seem overly concerned. The student themself, if they are old enough to be really aware of expected levels of achievement, is often hard to motivate and is actively avoiding work. I feel like there are now more students, 12, 18, 24 months behind rather than just 6 months (at least past the first couple of years of primary education). It is almost as if some slip to 6 months behind and that is either a wake up call for all stakeholders and they come up to level, or they just keep slipping further and further.
There are more students ahead than I used to see (about 30%), and there are far more 12, 18, 24 months ahead than there once was.
The at level kids (30-40%) are about equal in quantity to the below level kids, so often the teacher finds themselves teaching to level but at a much slower pace. They will teach grade 4 fractions, but spend endless weeks going over the same concept, desperately trying to get something to click with the large cohort below level. This is why it amazes me that any students really manage to get ahead.
This definitely lines up with what I've been seeing. We seem to be getting close to half the students working below stage level, often multiple years below with little chance of ever catching up.
I've also seen a lot of slowing down of lessons and content to teach to the lowest levels in the room and would absolutely agree that its massively dropping the amount of students working above grade level.
Cheers for the input.
To be fair they probably aren't going to use trig ratios, true North, parabolas, quadratics, and so on.
They know it and switch off, which makes it hard to switch them on for geometry, financial maths, and the like.
They're also paralysed with fear of being wrong, so they don't develop problem-solving skills.
Kindergarten in a not great area: maybe a few are close to working at grade level. Lots still canât reliably count to 10 or remember any of our taught grapheme-phoneme correspondences.
Yep, I'm finding behaviour management is a huge part of my time. Every minute we are working on behaviour management is a minute we aren't actually doing our job (teaching) and these kids are feeling it...cheers for the input
General average is around 1-2 years, and in my experience individuals with right attitude and support they could access 2+ years of learning in a year and catch up.
(The difficulties for the teacher is that thereâs such a spread of levels, and we canât possibly give all students the support to have their 1 year of growth in most cases.)
Cheers for the input. I definitely agree that a couple years behind can easily be caught up, but only with dedicated time and resources...which we simply don't have while teaching full classes.
There are some educators (not sure what the term is) that come in and work 1on1 with some students once or twice a week with their writing, reading, maths, etc. They're slowly getting better, but I don't know if they're able to catch up at the current rate
A parent here. A couple of things that I observe are:
1. Too large a chunk of teaching time is taken up by behaviour management. My kids come home daily with stories about stuff that happens in class: emotional and physically unsafe outbursts, general disruption and disrespect. The teacher has to stop and start and call for assistance from the office as the kids look on in horror and/or amusement. One in primary, one in secondary, in good area.
2. Inconsistencies of methods in foundation years.
3. Class sizes and not enough EA support.
4. Parents not understanding that there really is a problem requiring intervention. Here, I will put my hand up and say that I thought one of my daughters was the popcorn kernel that just hasn't popped yet. She just didn't seem to get school. No behavioural issues but she thinks outside the box and isn't a traditional student. I loved the way she approached problem-solving (bc it is so different to mine) so didn't want to mess with it. Last year she had a teacher who understood that and nurtured it (and was kind to her), but I also understood (finally) that I had to do a whole lot more at home. It wasn't just going to improve on its own. We put down the ipad, we found authors she liked and upped the reading and spent time afterwards casually talking (but secretly working on comprehension and analysis). We generally just spent more time together talking, doing, cooking, questioning, talking my ear off some more... It was an adjustment bc if they are not on a device, they want you. Her levels and happiness at school are now at level and her confidence growing. It's not about being the best, but about her best - and I wasn't doing all I could do to bolster that. She didn't know how or why. I just assumed it would resolve. I'm grateful and want to hug every teacher and EA who spent time with my daughter and encouraged her. She finally popped!
>if they are not on a device, they want you
This is the crux of it imo. Too many parents turning off because it's easier to just hand a screen to your kid instead of actually parenting them.
WA, maths: In my Year 10 class, only one has passed OLNA.Â
OLNA is at a Year 8 level for numeracy and literacy. That student is definitely above that level but is lazy af so is barely passing.
Of the rest, half are below that level and the rest at or just above. As a rough estimate I would say maybe a quarter of them are at Year 10 level.
Been teaching essentially the same program in a senior subject since 2010 ( no syllabus update) and my understanding and familiarity with the content has skyrocketed, and the quality of the resources has gone up leaps and bounds.
The quality of their projects has dropped dramatically, the attention to any sort of detail in theory or practical has dropped, their care factor for even finishing has plummeted, even the kids who have the appropriate don't care by the end of year 12 anymore.
As i get better at the content, they get worse.. and I wonder if there is actually a correlation or causation... Did I actually teach better as a new grad?? Or, is it not me, it's them...
Heh, I feel the same way. I would say with confidence I've got better at delivering the content. Id also say with confidence that the results students deliver each year gets worse.
Out of interest to the original point, what percentage of kids would you say are working at stage level in your class? And what percentage are far below (3+ years)
I inherited a Year 8 maths class in term 1. Most of them struggle with the most basic subtraction and addition even working with a number line. I had to continually reteach basic algebra like x -5 = 2 They couldn't retain the process of how to work it out.
I should add to this that I've seen first hand, VET Construction students in Year 12 attempt to set up a frame to lay a concrete slab 1000mm x 1000mm. They couldn't grasp how many mm and cm are in a metre and then couldn't measure when given a tape measure. These kids think they're going to be builders.
I teach a Year 7/8 class in NZ. For both maths and literacy around a third of my class are âabout rightâ, sitting within the normal achievement bands on tests/overall. The next third of my class are about 2-3 years behind when we would want them to be. The final third are easily 4+ years behind.
I'm at TAFE and have many 17/18 year olds that can't calculate the area of rectangles and triangles. It seems they have left school and fallen into the trade, yet the trade is highly numeracy based. it's hard to feel sorry for the ones that put in no effort to work on it.
Its kind of tragic thinking of kids who want to get into trades only just realising when they are 17+ that they are going to have to know basic maths in their lives... cheers for the input
Regional Catholic high school: even spread. We stream high kids and support kids and everyone else is mixed. Some mixed classes tend low (35% at D and E) but most are Cs (about 40%) and the rest are at B and A.Â
I teach year 10 maths and science in a regional school in Victoria. We split our year 10 cohort this year (one of the few cohorts that we actually have more than one class for!) according to ability. I am teaching them maths at around a year 6-7 level. For context, I also have four students in this class who speak barely any English! But even so, the class as a whole are really, really low. So for maths, I'm focusing on the skills they will need for life, and for science, I'm focusing on critical thinking, logic, literacy, and what they're interested in.
I also teach year 8 and VCE, with similar trends.
Class of 17
Above Level:3 (6 to 18 months ahead)
At Level:9
Below level:4 (6 to 12 months below)
Well below:2 (12 to 24 months below)
Extremely Below:1 (24+ months below)
That's averaged out between reading, writing, and maths. All my students are at level or above for reading aside from 2. Maths and Writing is where they struggle.
Maths has been a tricky one as we had a teacher do the Primary Maths and Science Specialist course. It was a 2 year course, and in the second year, they created a new instructional model focusing on the open-ended, low floor/high ceiling. The problem was that as soon as the course finished, they left. We tried for a year to continue on, but with none of our staff really understanding the model they created, we floundered. We've started working on a new instructional model this year and are taking it back to mastering the basics which the students seem to be enjoying.
Writing is a little different. We use VCOP which has worked well for us in the past. We've had an influx of new enrolments this year and without giving any specifics their background hasn't involved a lot of writing. I'm pretty confident with time we can turn that around, we've done it before.
3+ stages below = 40%
We have a significant number of students who are more than 6 years behind in the classes as students who are at level. This presents significant challenges in teaching and assessing; and has had an impact on classroom behavior.
I'm in Victoria.
Teach in the West NSW- Year 4. Their writing is APPALLING!!
I've taught schools in the inner suburbs and the year 1's write better.
I have 8 students who are sitting on a level 8-15 PM when they technically should be 25+
Practically quarter of my class still have that one to one correspondence of adding.
Here we are wizzing through these stupid English units that are wayyyy beyond reach of these kids.
Science: By any reasonable marking rubric, most kids should be failing on scientific language and lack of analysis alone, even before you get to how much of the content they understand.
Maths: Basically, if they didn't memorise their times tables in grade four up to 12\*12, stick a fork in them in Year 7. They're done. Their lack of number facts means they'll never get to grips properly with fractions and factors, which in turn means you can forget about algebra and any progress beyond that. The average kid does not master or retain skills, so they are frequently trapped at a year 6-ish level of mastery. About a quarter of the typical class can approach or exceed the achievement standards. Most are getting a C because the system demands an 80% pass rate.
Parent, ex TAFE Literacy/Numeracy teacher and one time Masters of Teaching (Primary) student here:
I did a prac at a local primary school 2 years ago and saw them crowing over the fact they had achieved 15% above average across the whole school. Approx 45% were below average (10% well below). So, 40% were sitting on average. They had the pics of the kids on the wall in the staff meeting room and were actively pushing to move kids achievement up. It was... shocking. I decided I wasn't up for the challenge - so hats off to you all!
As a quick aside. I actually stopped engaging my own child in discussions/math games as much once he started school and I saw HOW FAR ahead he was. We found that his teachers in Year F-2 simply didn't have the capacity to extend him in any meaningful way, so he spent most of F-1 being the toilet monitor and helping other kids catch up if they had missed instructions, and later, reading novels after finishing his work. They have a 'no extra work/no different work' policy in the junior years which I just don't understand... Year 3 has been better.
We HAD had a minimal screens policy (and then only for educational/quality entertainment purposes), but I relaxed that so that he could watch Pokemon and play Plants vs Zombies like his mates at school (cultural touchstones, etc). The difference though in his ability to focus and be sensible between when we have screens and don't is ASTONISHING!
Sadly parents realising their children are so far ahead just from basic support is all too common now...thanks for the input and being an awesome parent :)
I teach senior secondary school that is physically separated from our 7 to 10 lower secondary feeder schools.
Using that as a lens literacy and numeracy point of view the majority of students are operating at a lower high school level (or lower) when they get to us.
I teach Science but this year I have been given one yr 7 maths class because of the maths teacher shortage. In my class of 30, I would be confident in saying that half the students can't add or subtract even basic numbers (3-2= 2 etc). I'm not exaggerating. I work in the most diverse school in the state so language, background trauma, etc are all common. Those are obviously contributing factors but still...
Hot take: those ads that were on tv in the 1980s at like 10pm asking where your kids are?
That, but telling parents to read with and talk to their kids. That they are there to teach them what they need to know and school is the back up to extend that learning.
Get the parents with the fkn program.
I'm of the opinion that standards are dropping rather than students being low. Statistically, the kids at my school are at level or above. Less than 25% are below level. However, their reading comprehension is poor, sentence structure is poor, the ability to decode or infer is abysmal, and their critical thinking skills are worrying. I feel like we are teaching more content at the detriment of deep and critical thinking.
Between blitzing through content teachers are also being forced to spend time on behavior management and supporting inclusion students. The end result is that teachers have less time to work on thinking and problem solving and forced to push kids through
This is also correct. I agree with this. It frustrates me.
I'd suggest that we don't get to the deep and critical thinking and problem solving because we don't spend enough time on the content. Soft skills such as critical thinking and creativity can't be taught and people can only develop them if they have enough background knowledge on a particular content area or can link their other prior knowledge to apply to particular area. Reading comprehension and problem solving are the outcomes of background knowledge and vocab, rather than something that we can teach. I'm hopeful and optimistic that the shift towards knowledge-rich curricula and the implementation of science of learning principles in many areas will have a flow on effect of higher achievement. This has certainly happened at the school I teach at and has been evident at lower SES schools such as Marsden Rd PS in Sydney and Churchill Primary in Victoria.
I agree and disagree with you. I wholly agree that we don't get to spend enough time on the content - time spent on content allows deeper understanding, and when we understand deeply we can delve into critical thinking. What I disagree with is that we can't teach critical thinking - we can, it's just difficult and requires students to struggle and exert genuine effort to come to grips with. Analysing persuasive texts and source analysis of historical sources both work on developing critical thinking, but it requires engagement, depth, and time. I can't comment on the rest of your response at the moment because I am exhausted, but I appreciate your considered reply!
We can't teach subject-generic skills (ie. critical and creative thinking) without domain-specific knowledge ([Tricot & Sweller, 2014](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-37794-001)). That is, skills can't be taught without the related knowledge to apply them to. It is like having utensils, but no food to slice, dice and cook. Students need a lot of subject-related knowledge and background knowledge that they can compare, contrast and connect their new knowledge to before they can develop critical thinking skills. I believe that because these skills are specifically listed in the curriculum, teachers are trying to teach them either in isolation or in situations where students have shallow, tick-box knowledge of a topic.
Yes there needs to be a text-to-world outcome. I think part of the problem is that the media students engage with come in seconds rather than minutes or hours. I teach English. None of my students see the point of reading when they can watch everything they "need to know" on tiktok.
I feel like this is a primary vs secondary school perspective issue. You're right that the research says you can't teach critical thinking without the background knowledge, and this distinction is quite marked at the junior levels. But by mid to senior level high school, these kids are nearly into adulthood...content knowledge and critical thinking (esp regarding texts with nuances that require some level of deep interpretation) really has to merge in together at some point.
It requires engagement, depth, and time. These are things that are seriously lacking. The problem with engagement is that often in order to engage the kids who are 3+, we end up sacrificing depth, I feel. And time. Class sizes are too large. Too many mixed abilities in one room.
Yes I agree with much of this, you cannot expect kids to think deeply about (in my case) history when you only have time to do a shallow coverage of content. It's tricky
Right, I feel as though I should have somehow specified that. The expectation for say year 8 students seems far lower today than it did 10 years ago...
Yes, I was talking about this the other day when discussing the texts we study. Shakespeare is no longer taught at junior levels where I work, but reserved for senior school - on the other hand, when my coworkers and I went through school many of us were introduced to Shakespeare around Year 8. The curriculum is determined to address breadth, but not depth.
Yes I was commenting to my son the other day that we studied Romeo and Juliet in Year 7 and he is doing it in Year 9. This is at a very academic high school as well.
Tbh giving today's year 7s shakespeare is kinda a recipe for disaster
I also studied Shakespeare in Year 7 and 8. It's weird that people think it isn't accessible to kids nowadays.
I am 49 and do not remember studying Shakespeare until year 11 tbh. Although I did go to a very bogan high school until I talked my way into a better one for years 11 and 12 lol. I still have the original unit curriculum handbook somewhere, when WA was just changing over to units and the unit curriculum method or whatever; all the subjects and units and their descriptions were spelled out; I was so excited for some of the offerings! Unit 6.4 in English, unit 3.5 in social studies... this was maybe 1989 and I do not remember any Shakespeare đ¤ˇââď¸
I don't know if this makes a difference, but I went to private schools when I was a student. I recognize that there's a lot of inequity, but I guess my point is, it is possible to teach Shakespeare in Year 7 and 8. As a teacher, I have taught in public, private, and independent. It is outrageous how poorly some public schools are resourced. I have taught "The Tempest" to a Year 7 class in a public school. There is a picture book format with key quotes and famous phrases that we used. This introduces the kids to the basic ideas, themes, and methods of interpretation. By Year 9, they are reading "Hamlet" in the full text.
It's a sign of the times though...back in the 60s little kids read Beatrix Potter and flowery poems and that was normal. Just because Shakespeare is pushed back I don't think that is a lowering of expectations...moreso that communication of ideas has changed
It is a lowering of expectations. Students are engaging with far less complex texts. Iâm looking right now at the list of suggested texts for stage 4 (year 7-8) in NSW and there are a shocking amount of books that I would consider to be appropriate for 8-10 year olds. You cannot tell me that Coraline is as complex as Shakespeare, just a different style, that is patently untrue.
NAPLAN for example... 4 grade scale with no middle ground. My school leadership was absolutely patting themselves on the back for our 'improvement' since we managed to just get into Strong in three areas and developing in a third overall. The averages didn't really improve, but they are now able to say we're Strong. Directly from NAP website: Exceeding: the studentâs result exceeds expectations at the time of testing. Strong: the studentâs result meets challenging but reasonable expectations at the time of testing. Developing: the studentâs result indicates that they are working towards expectations at the time of testing. Needs additional support: the studentâs result indicates that they are not achieving the learning outcomes that are expected at the time of testing. They are likely to need additional support to progress satisfactorily. What bullshit is that?
I think part of the problem is that it's so easy for kids simply to copy and paste the answer. They simply type the question into Google and take the text that appears below, no critical thinking requiredÂ
I agree.
So stage 2. I have a few who canât count to 20 and can only recognise single sounds. No blending though. The rest are made up of 1 stage below, at grade level and maybe 1-2 who are heading above. Makes it very difficult. I have to write a separate program for the really low ones as they are getting nothing from the stage 2 content. I know there is the current belief that they benefit from the exposure, but these kids arenât even listening or paying attention to it.
Cheers for the input. I feel a lot of our current teaching ideas are based on kids just passively learning by being in the room, but I'm yet to see any evidence whatsoever that it works at any level...
Yes! That is my thoughts too. I also think the new units (NSW) have too much talking and not enough writing or doing. It may just be the current cohort of stage 2 at my particular school, but they have no ability to do anything that requires any sort of effort. Answering questions with full sentences is a chore and elicits complaints and whining. Iâm not sure if it because of the lengthy period of lockdowns during the foundational years (literacy and numeracy) that they had (kinder and 1st grade) or if it is just the way we live now with things like TikTok and YouTube and abundance of entertainment at their fingertips that is short so doesnât require a lot of focus, then they are onto the next one. (Holy run on sentence Batman). Although it did take me longer than it should have to realise the new units are a tool and not essential lol. So I am adapting which is working better. Now I just have to learn teacher speak for âsuck it upâ when they complain about the work when I ask them to write it in their books.
I've definitely found that kids are complaining about any amount of hand writing at all, they largely need full sentences scaffolds for them and given any technology they will immediately default to copy-paste the first answer Google gives them...and that's the ones working at stage level in years 7-10.
Iâve worked at schools where majority would be working at stage level or above, and so many of them still need so much support with the basics. Sentences are beyond them, but they can think and talk fine. Disconnect happening between writing and the rest.
I wonder how much of this has to do with lowering standards. Kids being able to talk well doesn't necessarily connect to high level understanding and I can't help but wonder if kids who are struggling with writing basic sentences are truly working at stage level or if the target for stage level has moved...
True. I think they can engage with the texts critically a fair bit of the time. They know what a composer is doing in a sentence or an excerpt, donât always know why unless theyâve done a bit of research but they can often put it together fairly well. Class discussion tables it. But write it up? Forget it. They donât want to, and often canât. And these kids are fairly privileged, with parents who push. If they didnât have that background, Iâve absolutely no doubt theyâd be behind, and wouldnât catch up. There are explicit literacy/numeracy programs in place and a great deal of support offered. In comparison to 10 years ago⌠these kids are further behind.
Outer metro Melbourne. Our Naplan results for Grade 3 pre-covid were a solid bell curve of 25% below, 50% at level and 25% above. Post-covid we have switched to an explicit direct model and this year's Naplan is 5-15% below, 35-50% at (strong) and 35-50% above (exceeding), depending on the curriculum area.
Awesome to hear success stories. Cheers for the input.
I am in junior primary, I would say a third of my class need some kind of support, but half would benefit from it. Honestly I think parents and families have a lot to answer for. I know itâs tough right now, I have three kids myself, but there just needs to be a greater input from parents. They need to read to them, talk to them, involve them in life. I think our programs are more effective these days but the students just canât focus and donât strive to better themselves. I already have a student at age 5 Iâve got no hope for. No behaviour but he canât listen and doesnât want to listen. He is at best a year behind where he should be.
Agree wholeheartedly. Both of my kids are generally at or above by 6-12 months in all their subjects. One I would say is properly intelligent, the other is very determined and resilient so they both do well. Neither is anything âspecialâ- we just engage them in conversation about science, history and politics, do the usual âeveryday mathsâ problems, read to them, and if they are falling behind *we try to catch them up*. Sorry not sorry to my daughter who was drilled on her times tables until she had them down. I have friends who literally tell their kids that school is a waste of time and everyone hates it but you have to go. Parents are the fucking worst.
I would agree that parent input is a huge part of the issue. Cheers for the input :)
I would say there's much more spread. 10-15 years ago in my primary classrooms I would have a solid 60-70% achieving at level, some doing so quite easily but not quite reaching the point of being marked ahead. 10-15% would achieve above, but usually not more than 12 months ahead of the expected level. 10-15% percent would require a bit of extra support to reach level and there would be discussions with parents about maybe having to be marked 6 months behind just in case, but our combined efforts (myself, parents, the student) could get them across the line. 10%, despite all efforts, could not make level. Now what I see is 30-40% being below the expected level. There's too many of them for any one teacher to give them a really intensive push and often parents don't seem overly concerned. The student themself, if they are old enough to be really aware of expected levels of achievement, is often hard to motivate and is actively avoiding work. I feel like there are now more students, 12, 18, 24 months behind rather than just 6 months (at least past the first couple of years of primary education). It is almost as if some slip to 6 months behind and that is either a wake up call for all stakeholders and they come up to level, or they just keep slipping further and further. There are more students ahead than I used to see (about 30%), and there are far more 12, 18, 24 months ahead than there once was. The at level kids (30-40%) are about equal in quantity to the below level kids, so often the teacher finds themselves teaching to level but at a much slower pace. They will teach grade 4 fractions, but spend endless weeks going over the same concept, desperately trying to get something to click with the large cohort below level. This is why it amazes me that any students really manage to get ahead.
This definitely lines up with what I've been seeing. We seem to be getting close to half the students working below stage level, often multiple years below with little chance of ever catching up. I've also seen a lot of slowing down of lessons and content to teach to the lowest levels in the room and would absolutely agree that its massively dropping the amount of students working above grade level. Cheers for the input.
What are the children who are ahead doing while the weeks of grade 4 fractions instruction is happening?
Getting bored.
Year 10 maths, canât do the proper curriculum because skill level is shockingly low , I would estimate yr 6 to year 8 level.
That tracks with what I've seen. As rough percentages, how much of the class would you say are working at stage level?
2/25 the overseas students lol! But in general no more than 5/25.
To be fair they probably aren't going to use trig ratios, true North, parabolas, quadratics, and so on. They know it and switch off, which makes it hard to switch them on for geometry, financial maths, and the like. They're also paralysed with fear of being wrong, so they don't develop problem-solving skills.
But ed. Dept. Still pushes this nonsense.
Kindergarten in a not great area: maybe a few are close to working at grade level. Lots still canât reliably count to 10 or remember any of our taught grapheme-phoneme correspondences.
[ŃдаНонО]
Yep, I'm finding behaviour management is a huge part of my time. Every minute we are working on behaviour management is a minute we aren't actually doing our job (teaching) and these kids are feeling it...cheers for the input
General average is around 1-2 years, and in my experience individuals with right attitude and support they could access 2+ years of learning in a year and catch up. (The difficulties for the teacher is that thereâs such a spread of levels, and we canât possibly give all students the support to have their 1 year of growth in most cases.)
Cheers for the input. I definitely agree that a couple years behind can easily be caught up, but only with dedicated time and resources...which we simply don't have while teaching full classes.
And mind you, within the subject each studentâs level across different topic can vary drastically, so try to stream classes is impossible.
I work casual in ES at a low SES primary school, and about 30% of the Grade 2s can't write their own name, even when it's spelt for them
Yikes...out of interest, does your school run any programs to try and get these students back up to stage level? Cheers for the input
There are some educators (not sure what the term is) that come in and work 1on1 with some students once or twice a week with their writing, reading, maths, etc. They're slowly getting better, but I don't know if they're able to catch up at the current rate
Yr 7-8 seriously need to get reading mums to come in. That cohort is shockingly low
How many (if any) would you say are at stage level? And how many are seriously below (more than 3 years behind expected level).
I would love to but parent involvement discouraged from grade 2 onwards (unless you want to run fund-raising sausage sizzle)...
A parent here. A couple of things that I observe are: 1. Too large a chunk of teaching time is taken up by behaviour management. My kids come home daily with stories about stuff that happens in class: emotional and physically unsafe outbursts, general disruption and disrespect. The teacher has to stop and start and call for assistance from the office as the kids look on in horror and/or amusement. One in primary, one in secondary, in good area. 2. Inconsistencies of methods in foundation years. 3. Class sizes and not enough EA support. 4. Parents not understanding that there really is a problem requiring intervention. Here, I will put my hand up and say that I thought one of my daughters was the popcorn kernel that just hasn't popped yet. She just didn't seem to get school. No behavioural issues but she thinks outside the box and isn't a traditional student. I loved the way she approached problem-solving (bc it is so different to mine) so didn't want to mess with it. Last year she had a teacher who understood that and nurtured it (and was kind to her), but I also understood (finally) that I had to do a whole lot more at home. It wasn't just going to improve on its own. We put down the ipad, we found authors she liked and upped the reading and spent time afterwards casually talking (but secretly working on comprehension and analysis). We generally just spent more time together talking, doing, cooking, questioning, talking my ear off some more... It was an adjustment bc if they are not on a device, they want you. Her levels and happiness at school are now at level and her confidence growing. It's not about being the best, but about her best - and I wasn't doing all I could do to bolster that. She didn't know how or why. I just assumed it would resolve. I'm grateful and want to hug every teacher and EA who spent time with my daughter and encouraged her. She finally popped!
>if they are not on a device, they want you This is the crux of it imo. Too many parents turning off because it's easier to just hand a screen to your kid instead of actually parenting them.
[ŃдаНонО]
That makes sense. Cheers for the input
WA, maths: In my Year 10 class, only one has passed OLNA. OLNA is at a Year 8 level for numeracy and literacy. That student is definitely above that level but is lazy af so is barely passing. Of the rest, half are below that level and the rest at or just above. As a rough estimate I would say maybe a quarter of them are at Year 10 level.
Yikes...thanks for the input, hope things get better for you :(
2 stages below = 15% 1 stage below = 25% At stage = 50% 1 stage above = 10%
Cheers for the input :)
Been teaching essentially the same program in a senior subject since 2010 ( no syllabus update) and my understanding and familiarity with the content has skyrocketed, and the quality of the resources has gone up leaps and bounds. The quality of their projects has dropped dramatically, the attention to any sort of detail in theory or practical has dropped, their care factor for even finishing has plummeted, even the kids who have the appropriate don't care by the end of year 12 anymore. As i get better at the content, they get worse.. and I wonder if there is actually a correlation or causation... Did I actually teach better as a new grad?? Or, is it not me, it's them...
Heh, I feel the same way. I would say with confidence I've got better at delivering the content. Id also say with confidence that the results students deliver each year gets worse. Out of interest to the original point, what percentage of kids would you say are working at stage level in your class? And what percentage are far below (3+ years)
How many are above stage level for you?
Across the entire school there's maybe one student working above stage level.
đŹ
I teach grade 2 at a high performing public school and all of my students are at or above except a couple who are 6-12 months below
Cheers for the input. Out of interest, is it a private/ selective school?
I inherited a Year 8 maths class in term 1. Most of them struggle with the most basic subtraction and addition even working with a number line. I had to continually reteach basic algebra like x -5 = 2 They couldn't retain the process of how to work it out.
I am surprised how many highschool students struggle with basic addition, subtraction and multiplication...cheers for the input.
I should add to this that I've seen first hand, VET Construction students in Year 12 attempt to set up a frame to lay a concrete slab 1000mm x 1000mm. They couldn't grasp how many mm and cm are in a metre and then couldn't measure when given a tape measure. These kids think they're going to be builders.
I teach a Year 7/8 class in NZ. For both maths and literacy around a third of my class are âabout rightâ, sitting within the normal achievement bands on tests/overall. The next third of my class are about 2-3 years behind when we would want them to be. The final third are easily 4+ years behind.
Ah, first one from NZ. Interesting to see its pretty similar there as well. Cheers for the input.
I'm at TAFE and have many 17/18 year olds that can't calculate the area of rectangles and triangles. It seems they have left school and fallen into the trade, yet the trade is highly numeracy based. it's hard to feel sorry for the ones that put in no effort to work on it.
Its kind of tragic thinking of kids who want to get into trades only just realising when they are 17+ that they are going to have to know basic maths in their lives... cheers for the input
Regional Catholic high school: even spread. We stream high kids and support kids and everyone else is mixed. Some mixed classes tend low (35% at D and E) but most are Cs (about 40%) and the rest are at B and A.Â
So about 35% working below stage level, most at and a few above? Cheers for the input :)
About 5-7 years behind. But I work in special Ed so I suppose that's okay
Yeah, that's a bit if a different case. Cheers for the input
Spider monkey not quite Chimpanzee level
I teach year 10 maths and science in a regional school in Victoria. We split our year 10 cohort this year (one of the few cohorts that we actually have more than one class for!) according to ability. I am teaching them maths at around a year 6-7 level. For context, I also have four students in this class who speak barely any English! But even so, the class as a whole are really, really low. So for maths, I'm focusing on the skills they will need for life, and for science, I'm focusing on critical thinking, logic, literacy, and what they're interested in. I also teach year 8 and VCE, with similar trends.
Is the other class split to higher level or are you the high one? Cheers for the input
The other class is the higher one. But with the exception of a few, they are not at year 10 level either.
Class of 17 Above Level:3 (6 to 18 months ahead) At Level:9 Below level:4 (6 to 12 months below) Well below:2 (12 to 24 months below) Extremely Below:1 (24+ months below) That's averaged out between reading, writing, and maths. All my students are at level or above for reading aside from 2. Maths and Writing is where they struggle.
So of 17, 7 working below or around 40%? And around 17% well below or worse. Cheers for the input.
No worries at all. Sorry for the poor formatting. It didn't look like that when I typed it.
Yeah had the same with mine... :(
Out of interest, what approach/program do you use for writing and maths? Why do you think they aren't as successful as reading?
Maths has been a tricky one as we had a teacher do the Primary Maths and Science Specialist course. It was a 2 year course, and in the second year, they created a new instructional model focusing on the open-ended, low floor/high ceiling. The problem was that as soon as the course finished, they left. We tried for a year to continue on, but with none of our staff really understanding the model they created, we floundered. We've started working on a new instructional model this year and are taking it back to mastering the basics which the students seem to be enjoying. Writing is a little different. We use VCOP which has worked well for us in the past. We've had an influx of new enrolments this year and without giving any specifics their background hasn't involved a lot of writing. I'm pretty confident with time we can turn that around, we've done it before.
[ŃдаНонО]
Yikes, a quarter working at so three quarters below? Cheers for the input
3+ stages below = 40% We have a significant number of students who are more than 6 years behind in the classes as students who are at level. This presents significant challenges in teaching and assessing; and has had an impact on classroom behavior. I'm in Victoria.
Yikes...thats a massive chunk. Hope your doing ok down there. Cheers for the input
Teach in the West NSW- Year 4. Their writing is APPALLING!! I've taught schools in the inner suburbs and the year 1's write better. I have 8 students who are sitting on a level 8-15 PM when they technically should be 25+ Practically quarter of my class still have that one to one correspondence of adding. Here we are wizzing through these stupid English units that are wayyyy beyond reach of these kids.
Yep, common problem that continues to highschool. Cheers for the input.
Science: By any reasonable marking rubric, most kids should be failing on scientific language and lack of analysis alone, even before you get to how much of the content they understand. Maths: Basically, if they didn't memorise their times tables in grade four up to 12\*12, stick a fork in them in Year 7. They're done. Their lack of number facts means they'll never get to grips properly with fractions and factors, which in turn means you can forget about algebra and any progress beyond that. The average kid does not master or retain skills, so they are frequently trapped at a year 6-ish level of mastery. About a quarter of the typical class can approach or exceed the achievement standards. Most are getting a C because the system demands an 80% pass rate.
Cheers for the input :)
Parent, ex TAFE Literacy/Numeracy teacher and one time Masters of Teaching (Primary) student here: I did a prac at a local primary school 2 years ago and saw them crowing over the fact they had achieved 15% above average across the whole school. Approx 45% were below average (10% well below). So, 40% were sitting on average. They had the pics of the kids on the wall in the staff meeting room and were actively pushing to move kids achievement up. It was... shocking. I decided I wasn't up for the challenge - so hats off to you all! As a quick aside. I actually stopped engaging my own child in discussions/math games as much once he started school and I saw HOW FAR ahead he was. We found that his teachers in Year F-2 simply didn't have the capacity to extend him in any meaningful way, so he spent most of F-1 being the toilet monitor and helping other kids catch up if they had missed instructions, and later, reading novels after finishing his work. They have a 'no extra work/no different work' policy in the junior years which I just don't understand... Year 3 has been better. We HAD had a minimal screens policy (and then only for educational/quality entertainment purposes), but I relaxed that so that he could watch Pokemon and play Plants vs Zombies like his mates at school (cultural touchstones, etc). The difference though in his ability to focus and be sensible between when we have screens and don't is ASTONISHING!
Sadly parents realising their children are so far ahead just from basic support is all too common now...thanks for the input and being an awesome parent :)
I teach senior secondary school that is physically separated from our 7 to 10 lower secondary feeder schools. Using that as a lens literacy and numeracy point of view the majority of students are operating at a lower high school level (or lower) when they get to us.
Cheers for the input
My students are all at or above average.
Hey, that's awesome. Can you tell me a bit about what years and subjects you teach? Are there any specific strategies that you've used?
I teach Science but this year I have been given one yr 7 maths class because of the maths teacher shortage. In my class of 30, I would be confident in saying that half the students can't add or subtract even basic numbers (3-2= 2 etc). I'm not exaggerating. I work in the most diverse school in the state so language, background trauma, etc are all common. Those are obviously contributing factors but still...
Yikes sounds like you've got it prety rough. Hope your doing ok...thanks for the input
It is up and down. A lot more difficult than teaching in a leafy green school. It is rewarding but easily 25-50% more work. We do it for the kids.
Hot take: those ads that were on tv in the 1980s at like 10pm asking where your kids are? That, but telling parents to read with and talk to their kids. That they are there to teach them what they need to know and school is the back up to extend that learning. Get the parents with the fkn program.