As a subject teacher used to write around 170 reports, 3 times a year. They are not “simple summaries”. One tries to encapsulate an entire term in around 4 sentences, including suggestions for improvement. One has to do this in a way which cannot possibly be construed as offensive, and people are very sensitive these days. On average, I would make about 6 mistakes. This would usually be 3 errors left from redrafting (such as a double full stop), one grammar point that the Headmistress thought wrong and the OED said was OK, and 2 spelling mistakes. Then, with my tutor hat on, I’d proof-read 100-ish reports from other teachers. The proof-reader (£14 ph) would take over from me (approx £40 ph), so I can get on with departmental planning. Eminently sensible business decision, and I’d been advocating it for years.

Or, if you like, I could have cut-and-pasted pre-checked sentences, which is what a lot of teachers do these days to avoid the aggro. Of course this tells the parents very little.

When I was a pupil, reports were frequently one-liners. “More basic care required” or “His work lacks depth” is much less likely to be mis-spelled than that which teachers are currently expected to produce.

So the reports written by teachers require spelling & grammar checks before they go out to parents?

Wow.

Wouldn’t it make better sense and be cheaper to sack the teachers teaching our children who can’t spell and/or make effective use of grammar?

A council that spends tax payers’ money proof reading school reports is more interested in putting a gloss on the job it is doing than in educating children.

Can we assume from your comprehension skills that are you an English teacher?

If the teachers, whether through ignorance, carelessness or lack of time, write these reports in a shoddy manner, the schools could end up with orders to retain disruptive pupils or to pay damages for alleged misfortunes of the pupils.

Maybe the £140 per hour could better be spent on better educating the next generation of teachers?