We’ve been talking a lot about high expectations in these first few days of term here at Durrington. How we set them, how we maintain them, how we communicate them.
When it comes to high expectations, the words we choose really matter. They have the capacity to either raise or lower the bar we expect our pupils to reach.
This is not just in what we say in the classroom but also how we speak to each other in offices and corridors.
When discussing how schools can truly embody high expectations of disadvantaged pupils Marc Rowland often refers to removing the deficit discourse in our schools. More specifically, that disadvantaged pupils and their families are not spoken about as a problem to be resolved but instead held in high regard as intrinsic to our school communities.
This is key, as we know we carry significant bias as teachers (whether we like to acknowledge it or not). Papers such as “She doesn’t shout at no girls” explore the effect of teacher bias, albeit connected to gender in this case. If these biases are allowed to run unchecked they can amplify the low expectations that can unfortunately follow labels such as PP and SEND.
This means we need to be conscious of the language we use when discussing our pupils and ensure we live and breathe the high expectations we all want to embody. For example, when scanning your new September class list with a colleague one response to noticing a particular pupil on the list might be:
“I’m going to struggle with XXX this year, they are really lazy.”
That sort of discourse seeps into the fabric of our thinking and will chip away at high expectations. This makes subsequent attempts to set and maintain high expectations more of a veneer than a lived reality.
Ultimately, if we don’t really believe in the high expectations we may espouse in classrooms, the ultimate impact on pupils is likely to be limited. The evidence for this stretches back more than 50 years, most famously with the much quoted Pygmalion in the classroom study from the 1960s. This study found that when teachers were told (completely falsely) that some children were “spurters” they approached teaching differently and the children rose to meet those high expectations.
Accepting the language outside of the classroom sets the foundations for high expectations, it is the language used inside the classroom that can directly change pupil behaviour.
Knowing this is one thing, but practical steps for achieving it is another. Thankfully this is something that several educational publications have attempted to articulate. In Making Every Lesson Count, the first chapter on challenge explains how we can ensure challenging lessons for all pupils, no matter their starting point. An example would be:
Set single challenging learning objectives
This is not about what is written or projected, but a belief that all pupils will reach the challenging objective we set for each chunk of learning. Getting to that point will be different and will require responsive teaching (as shown by the diagram below), however we must not communicate that certain chunks of learning or lessons are only applicable to high attaining pupils.
Again, language is key here. If, in a history lesson, we say to certain pupils that they should only read the shorter sources, how can we expect them to believe they are capable of meeting the same goals as the pupil sitting next to them who is asked to look at everything. Instead, through strategies such as reading text aloud to the class and explicit vocabulary instruction, we can then use the language with our pupils that no element of the lesson is ring-fenced for certain pupils.