A win for conservative educational values.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019

  Outstanding GCSE results for Katherine Birbalsingh's free school run on "traditional" lines.. Maybe, just maybe, the progressive educational establishment will take note. Fat chance I fear but at least the Grauniad deigned to report it.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/aug/22/controversial-michaela-fr...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/22/britains-strictest-schools-firs...

23
In reply to Postmanpat:

Very impressive considering the cohort of potentially disadvantaged children. Outperforming selective and fee paying schools on a diet of old fashioned discipline. Having said that, I'm pretty sure the teaching must be pretty good as well otherwise gulags,  work camps and the armed forces would have been producing geniuses long before this school

1
In reply to Postmanpat:

Hopefully the pupils have been well enough educated to recognise the problem with ambiguous statements like "four times better than the average". 

OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Very impressive considering the cohort of potentially disadvantaged children. Outperforming selective and fee paying schools on a diet of old fashioned discipline. >

Absolutely, the discipline element is a means to create a good environment for learning. The teachers are actually encouraged and enabled to teach and impart knowledge,

1
 Timmd 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Why should these be conservative values?

''Birbalsingh puts Michaela’s success down to “conservative values – with a small c”. She lists them – belief in personal responsibility, respect for authority and a sense of duty towards others.''

I helped a lady and two children out who were struggling with some heavy binbigs (for them) to cross a busy road a while ago, because I didn't want something bad to happen to the children, the children couldn't quite manage their 2. It's likely down to the nice parents I was brought up by, but it felt like a sense of duty to help. 

They're very remarkable results, though, without a doubt. I would think there's nurturing which goes on as well, alongside the discipline. The head teacher is a remarkable person.

Post edited at 10:35
2
 Offwidth 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Frankly I don't find such polarisation into left vs right school politics helpful. The school is a great success and should be congratulated. The system of respect and soft discipline is very much part of that and is much more small 'c' than big. I'd certainly support such policy elsewhere as classroom chaos and bullying is a blight on schools. In my day, the political (big 'C') right was obsessed with rote learning and demanding the retention of the ability to cane kids. As a head she also, in a small 'l' liberal sense, rejected the highly divisive and completely unevidenced fad of performance related pay for teachers.

I remember a while back her point during 'the school meal fuss' (where all hell broke loose when the kids of parents who broke their agrement to pay had to eat in another room from the rest) the critics seemed to forget that in other schools where parents didn't pay the kids often wouldn't get to eat.

2
OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> Why should these be conservative values?

>

Because that's how they've been branded, probably by their "progressive" detractors.

As Birbalsingh puts it "Perhaps now we can finally stop branding values like honour, discipline, decency, respect for authority, and good manners as somehow  “old-fashioned” - and simply describe them as “what works”.  "

13
In reply to Postmanpat:

Also, the discipline that is metered out by the teaching staff must be supported by the parents. Having a wife, sister and brother in law who all work in teaching, I know there are plenty of parents who don't support schools in this regard.

Interestingly, I wonder if the background of these children suit the environment. I am generalising but from personal experience of when I was at school in the 80's in NE London, many of my Indian and Pakistani friends in class had a much better work ethic from a more disciplined home life compared to myself and my white friends, and their exam results were generally better as well. I don't think it's rocket science that kids need boundaries that are enforced, but getting the balance right as a parent is hard. 

 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

In a narrow sense it is clearly a triumph. However from reports, it sounds like an oppressive hot-house  churning out automatons who can do exams well.  It would be interesting to know where attributes such as creativity, imagination, problem-solving fit in to this educational model, bearing in mind it is these that will be needed (are needed) by employers, as much as ability at long-division.

Post edited at 10:49
7
OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

  Yup, she discusses this a bit in this interview with Giles Fraser which is well worth a listen.

https://m.soundcloud.com/unherd-confessions/katharine-birbalsinghs-confessi...

One way or another she seems to get good parent buy in.

OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> In a narrow sense it is clearly a triumph. However from reports, it sounds like an oppressive hot-house  churning out automatons who can do exams well. 

>

  Her point, is that unless you have the basic knowledge as an underpinning, be it long division, the geography of the world, familiarity with great literature etc you can't actually solve problems or be creative.

"We instill a respect for authority and unashamedly champion a knowledge-based curriculum. Some characterise this as mere rote-learning which strips pupils of their ingenuity - but on the contrary, it involves analysis and exploration and promotes creativity, memory and independent thinking. Only by having knowledge at their fingertips can children write, speak and learn with confidence. "

  She may elaborate on this in the interview but she certainly does in her book.

1
 Mike Stretford 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat: There's been balanced reporting of the school for years from the G.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/30/no-excuses-inside-britain...

I know a few left wing teachers who do favour strict discipline in their state school, on a head master.

You seem to have some paranoid fear of an enemy that  isn't there.

2
 Harry Jarvis 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Yup, she discusses this a bit in this interview with Giles Fraser which is well worth a listen.

> One way or another she seems to get good parent buy in.

I recall listening to a talk by someone from the OECD with regard to the PISA rankings, which are used to assess attainment levels around the world. One very striking point that she made was that the highest achieving national systems were quite different in the way that teaching was delivered, but that the common value was the way in education was valued by society as a whole - those societies which placed a high value on education saw high levels of attainment, while those societies with less regard for the value of education saw lower levels of attainment. And of course, parental support and contributions will be a significant element of the value attached to education, particularly as perceived by the children. 

 summo 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> In a narrow sense it is clearly a triumph. However from reports, it sounds like an oppressive hot-house  churning out automatons who can do exams well.  It would be interesting to know where attributes such as creativity, imagination, problem-solving fit in to this educational model, bearing in mind it is these that will be needed (are needed) by employers, as much as ability at long-division.

Who has said they aren't creative and imaginative? If they'd all failed would you presume them to be great at problem solving? 

Arguably maths and physics questions can often be entirely problem solving; turning things around in your head, working from the solution backwards etc.  

1
 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>  it involves analysis and exploration and promotes creativity, memory and independent thinking.

Which is easy to say.  I'm sceptical.  How does didactic teaching and no talking encourage creativity or independent thinking?    Clearly knowledge is required and without reasonable discipline no learning of any type will be possible but it strikes me as a highly unbalanced model.  

BTW, when did you last need to do long-division?

3
 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> Who has said they aren't creative and imaginative? If they'd all failed would you presume them to be great at problem solving? 

No one said that but it is implied by the teaching model that these aspects aren't encouraged - in fact the opposite.

> Arguably maths and physics questions can often be entirely problem solving; turning things around in your head, working from the solution backwards etc.  

Yes, of course, but the reports suggest that isn't what is happening.

4
 summo 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

The report suggests? Implies? Classic wording which means anyone can interpret what they wish. 

OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> You seem to have some paranoid fear of an enemy that  isn't there.

>

  Given that, after expounding her views at the Tory conference, Ms.Birbalsingh was told that she would never work in a State school again and given her first attempt at setting up a free school was hounded by left wing pickets and given that her attempt to set up a school in Lambeth failed in the face (reportedly) of union and local council opposition etc etc. I think we can safely say that there is an enemy.

2
 Harry Jarvis 23 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> Arguably maths and physics questions can often be entirely problem solving; turning things around in your head, working from the solution backwards etc.  

They can be, but that is not the way current GCSE Papers are written. 

1
 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> The report suggests? Implies? Classic wording which means anyone can interpret what they wish. 

Yes

"This is a panacea for all educational shortcomings" is one.

"This is a dubious non-scalable model that meets one set of narrow educational success criteria in one case with questionable long-term effects on children while ignoring many other areas of education" is another.

No doubt you could come up with your own.

1
 Harry Jarvis 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Yes

> "This is a panacea for all educational shortcomings" is one.

> "This is a dubious non-scalable model that meets one set of narrow educational success criteria in one case with questionable long-term effects on children while ignoring many other areas of education" is another.

Quoting those without context and without reference to the author of those quotes doesn't add anything useful. 

One depressing element of this debate is the willingness of so many people to adopt a polarised view, to either decide that everything this school does is the best way to do things, or the worst way to do things. To my mind, it seems more useful to look at what is being done and how it is having an effect on the children's overall education. It is quite possible that there a number of elements which are combining successfully. It would also be useful to have an assessment of wider educational and social values and skills, beyond that which is measured by exam results. 

In reply to MG:

The article only says that there is no talking in the corridors when moving between classes. I expect talking about ideas is encouraged in the lessons, and doubt that talking is banned at break times.

As for didactic teaching, I'm not sure where you get this either? I would imagine the discipline is laid out when pupils first arrive at the school. In the classroom, I expect the teaching is rather good judging by the exam results. 

I suspect you have been triggered more by the poster (PMP) than by a school that appears to be doing very well

 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Quoting those without context and without reference to the author of those quotes doesn't add anything useful. 

Well they are my examples of possible interpretations so I don't think a citation is really needed!

1
Removed User 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Well maybe.

Two data points don't really prove a correlation. It would be nice to run a proper trial in the hope that the significant factors that contributed to an improvement in performance were identified.

I don't imagine there's the slightest chance of that happening though.

Nempnett Thrubwell 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes - good news - especially for those pupils achieving good grades this year.

But as the school opened in 2014 with only 1 year of pupils and has grown a year - each year since, then you could say that these pupils have been on the crest of the wave of the roll-out. It will be interesting whether in 5 years time - when the school has been at full capacity - whether these better than average levels are achieved by that years cohort.

 Harry Jarvis 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Well they are my examples of possible interpretations so I don't think a citation is really needed!

I'm sorry, I'm confused. When you wrote:

"This is a panacea for all educational shortcomings" is one.

"This is a dubious non-scalable model that meets one set of narrow educational success criteria in one case with questionable long-term effects on children while ignoring many other areas of education" is another.

your use of quote marks made me think you were in fact extracting quotes from published reports. Are you saying these are just quotes you've just made up? 

1
OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> I suspect you have been triggered more by the poster (PMP) than by a school that appears to be doing very well

>

 Good point.  Do you think I should ask Mr.James to preface me with a trigger warning?

I seem to be driving some people out of their minds.

Post edited at 11:38
2
 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Regarding didactic teaching, for example from this article the head is quoted as saying. 

“We have the teacher standing at the front and imparting knowledge..."

Which doesn't sound like creativity is encouraged to me.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/30/no-excuses-inside-britain...

Post edited at 11:34
2
 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

I was trying to make the point that newspaper articles can indeed be interpreted quite broadly to Summo and gave two possible interpretations, yes.  I used inverted commas to offset them from the rest of the text.  

1
OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

  Can I make a suggestion? That instead of shooting from the hip you at least listen to the interview I linked so that you have a better idea of what she is doing and why?

1
 Harry Jarvis 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> I was trying to make the point that newspaper articles can indeed be interpreted quite broadly to Summo and gave two possible interpretations, yes.  I used inverted commas to offset them from the rest of the text.  

So, your own interpretations, which come with own preconceived ideas. And do you have any specialist knowledge of this school, beyond that which you have read in newspapers or heard on the radio or TV? Do you know any of the pupils, parents or teachers of this school? 

1
 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Any particular point?  I dipped in and she was first talking about Baptist churches in the US and second with not focussing on racial oppression, neither of which seemed very relevant.

1
OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Any particular point? 

>

  I can't remember when she says what if that's what you are asking. Just put it on in the background. It's interesting.

 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> So, your own interpretations, which come with own preconceived ideas. And do you have any specialist knowledge of this school, beyond that which you have read in newspapers or heard on the radio or TV? Do you know any of the pupils, parents or teachers of this school? 

Why are you responding in this sarcastic manner?  No, as I suspect no one on the thread does, which is why we need to go by reports and make interpretations of them.  However, having spent twenty years dealing with the "products" of schools, I am reasonably placed to judge how effective different teaching models are.

1
Removed User 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> "We instill a respect for authority and unashamedly champion a knowledge-based curriculum. "

Two changes at once. It's not possible to tell whether it's the discipline, the knowledge based curriculum or a bit of both that have made the difference.

 Mike Stretford 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Given that, after expounding her views at the Tory conference, Ms.Birbalsingh was told that she would never work in a State school again and given her first attempt at setting up a free school was hounded by left wing pickets and given that her attempt to set up a school in Lambeth failed in the face (reportedly) of union and local council opposition etc etc. I think we can safely say that there is an enemy.

Yeah, and that's covered in the article I posted. Your 'enemy' are a obstructive and sometimes unpleasant minority. In your head they seem to be 'The Establishment'. 

I went to a progressive school in the 80s... it was awful so I do prefer discipline in schools, and I know the 'type' well. From what I can see those type of schools have been on the wane since then. There's loads of Labour council state schools with strict discipline, around here anyway (north west).

 Harry Jarvis 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Why are you responding in this sarcastic manner?  No, as I suspect no one on the thread does, which is why we need to go by reports and make interpretations of them.  However, having spent twenty years dealing with the "products" of schools, I am reasonably placed to judge how effective different teaching models are.

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm trying to assess what value to ascribe to your comments. As far as I can tell, you have no specialist knowledge, and no direct knowledge of this school. For example, what evidence do you have to support your assertion that:

> "This is a dubious non-scalable model that meets one set of narrow educational success criteria in one case with questionable long-term effects on children while ignoring many other areas of education"

Quite why you think 

> "we need to go by reports and make interpretations of them."

is beyond me. Why do you need make interpretations? I honestly don't understand why there seems to be such a need to express opinions on subjects about which you have little or no useful knowledge. Perhaps simply admitting that you don't know enough about the school to offer a useful opinion might be a start. 

 summo 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Yes

> "This is a panacea for all educational shortcomings" is one.

> "This is a dubious non-scalable model that meets one set of narrow educational success criteria in one case with questionable long-term effects on children while ignoring many other areas of education" is another.

Where are these quotes from? 

 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> I honestly don't understand why there seems to be such a need to express opinions on subjects about which you have little or no useful knowledge.

Well you seem happy to do so!  Why shouldn't others?  

Post edited at 12:08
1
 Toerag 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

>  How does didactic teaching and no talking encourage creativity or independent thinking?    Clearly knowledge is required and without reasonable discipline no learning of any type will be possible but it strikes me as a highly unbalanced model. 

Because it allows the pupils to actually take in what they're being taught. Pupils not listening aren't getting the basics which then allow them to take their thinking further. Teachers spending a significant proportion of their time trying to control their class aren't using that time to impart knowledge or help their pupils afterwards.  There is a time for listening, and a time for asking questions and independent thinking.   Being disruptive in class isn't being creative or thinking independently.

 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Toerag:

>  Being disruptive in class isn't being creative or thinking independently.

No one is suggesting that.

2
 Offwidth 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Free Schools are state schools? They also cost the taxpayer more than just having LEA schools and not all are as successful as this particular school.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/free-school-gcse-results-reveal-highs-and-lows/

One of the problems with her complaining to the conservative party conference was the asumption that the "progressives" she disliked controlled everything everywhere... that's paranoia. Most progressive individuals I know support a soft disciplined environment that doesn't tolerate bullying. What counts as "progressive" is often a massive misuse of the word. Being Nottingham based, the local city schools were damaged for decades by what was the opposite of progressive in terms of leftist control... it was more Stalinist in style as one man (Fred Riddell) controlled everything.  

On the other hand, where arguments about creativity crop up in this school's case they often seem bogus to me... if kids are not developing creativity, their English Language and Literature results will be notably poorer.

1
 Jon Greengrass 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> One way or another she seems to get good parent buy in.

is this another way of saying that the school has a selective intake?

 Harry Jarvis 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Well you seem happy to do so!  Why shouldn't others?  

Really? What comments have I made about this school and the performance of the pupils? 

 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Sorry, I don't know what your difficulty is with people expressing opinions about this school without specific firsthand knowledge while you seem quite happy to comment on  PISA or GSCE maths paper authorship without, I assume, firsthand knowledge.  This is a discussion forum.

1
 Harry Jarvis 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Sorry, I don't know what your difficulty is with people expressing opinions about this school without specific firsthand knowledge while you seem quite happy to comment on  PISA or GSCE maths paper authorship without, I assume, firsthand knowledge.  This is a discussion forum.

A couple of things: 

I have no difficulty in people expressing opinions. However, not all opinions are worthy of equal weighting. For example, if asked about the organisation of a Himalayan mountaineering expedition, I would value the opinion of, for example, Chris Bonington, some way ahead of someone whose only mountaineering expedition was a weekend in the Lake District. I'm afraid that as far as I can tell from the evidence you have provided, your opinions are at the weekend in the Lake District end of the spectrum.  

You assume I have no firsthand knowledge of PISA rankings or GCSE Maths paper authorship. I don't know why you make those assumptions. You have no knowledge of my professional standing, and your assumption is false. If you don't know something, I find it is often better to admit to that state, rather than just making things up. 

1
OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

> is this another way of saying that the school has a selective intake?

>

  No.

 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> A couple of things: 

> your opinions are at the weekend in the Lake District end of the spectrum.  

OK.  That's your opinion of my opinion.  Fine.

To be clear, have your authored a GCSE maths paper?

Have you had input into developing the PISA methodology?

1
OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Yeah, and that's covered in the article I posted. Your 'enemy' are a obstructive and sometimes unpleasant minority. In your head they seem to be 'The Establishment'. 

>  

I'm not quite sure of your position. Do you accept that there was a movement towards "progressive schooling" from the sixties onwards that became dominant in the State school sector? Who or what was behind that? Does it still exist?

3
 Mike Stretford 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> >  

> I'm not quite sure of your position. Do you accept that there was a movement towards "progressive schooling" from the sixties onwards that became dominant in the State school sector?

I don't think it did become dominant. Like I say I went to one of these schools and did not enjoy it. That school got shut down, and the towns more traditional school is still going today. That's in a very safe Labour seat.

> Who or what was behind that?

A section of, roughly, my parents generation.

> Does it still exist?

In pockets.

I reacted to your post, partly because I do look at the Telegraph to get a handle of things. They do ramp ramp up this hysteria about the 'enemy' that I saw in your OP, but it isn't a realistic view of society. It's London centric conservative home counties vs Islington mentality. They're lovin Corbyn being in charge.

 Mike Stretford 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat: And I think it is important. There's a lot of right wing older people with a distorted view of society, who vote accordingly. One of the reason for the shitty divided state of the country.

1
 Harry Jarvis 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> OK.  That's your opinion of my opinion.  Fine.

> To be clear, have your authored a GCSE maths paper?

Yes

> Have you had input into developing the PISA methodology?

Yes

 MG 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Fair enough, apologies for a wrong assumption,

 jkarran 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

It's described as a non-selective school but it strikes me a small new school founded on the principle of discipline and restricted curriculum would attract a rather unusual self selecting intake.

I can think of an example from back home founded on radically different principals (teaching in a then-dead Gaelic language) which has achieved similarly remarkable results over the years not because of any intrinsically right way of doing things but because it attracted highly engaged staff and probably more importantly, families.

jk

 marsbar 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Whilst generally speaking I support what she is doing and what she has achieved and it's great for her pupils, sadly I don't think it's the whole picture.  

I assume that somewhere down the road there is a school with the pupils who didn't get on in that school. 

Someone has to teach the children who have feckless parents.  All the "good" schools in London seem to be doing their best to swerve those children who don't have supportive parents. 

 I'm not sure what the answer is, personally I'd like to see schools ignoring unsupportive parents who complain when their child needs discipline, but that doesn't get much support!  

In reply to jkarran:

On that basis, isn't any outstanding (ofsted) school self selecting as most families in the catchment area will be wanting their kids to go there?

 Harry Jarvis 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Fair enough, apologies for a wrong assumption,

Thank you. 

 jkarran 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> On that basis, isn't any outstanding (ofsted) school self selecting as most families in the catchment area will be wanting their kids to go there?

Not really unless those kids with disengaged parents who live in the catchment area deliberately avoid the good school for some reason. I suspect a lot of parents will have avoided this start-up for a number of reasons: the risk of the unknown, the ethos or perhaps simply the hassle involved in finding out what it's all about.

jk

1
 Offwidth 23 Aug 2019
In reply to marsbar:

You can't blame a new good school for its failing neighbours (other than the differential reduction in funds for the LEA to help) . You are right that way too many troubled kids with feckless parents get kicked out of too many schools and their impact is an issue for society.

Even the scum is worried.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9021676/unteachable-children-forced-out-of-sc...

 jethro kiernan 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/eton-privat...

Another win for conservative educational values 😏

 marsbar 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not blaming the good school for the failing neighbours.  

I'm not blaming the good school for anything, they've done a great job by all accounts.  

All I'm saying is that this can't be replicated everywhere in the current climate where parents think they can scream at teachers for doing their jobs.  

Behaviour of the parents is worse than the kids in some cases and it needs to be dealt with.  

Obviously a minority of parents but enough to cause problems.  

Post edited at 15:34
 marsbar 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Outstanding means nothing now as once the school gets it they very rarely get inspected again.  

We had to move miss marsbar from a so called outstanding but actually reasonably hopeless school.  I'm pleased to say she did much better once she changed schools.  

In reply to marsbar:

"Outstanding means nothing now as once the school gets it they very rarely get inspected again.  "

HHmm, ok, not really convinced ....but it is still a starting point for school comparisons. I would expect most parents would do their own due diligence through tours, speaking to other parents and looking at ofsted reports and attainment scores. I assume "feckless" parents will probably just pick the closest.

I do agree that an outstanding school may not be right for every pupil though. I certainly didn't excel at the grammar school I went to.

 Timmd 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Because that's how they've been branded, probably by their "progressive" detractors.

> As Birbalsingh puts it "Perhaps now we can finally stop branding values like honour, discipline, decency, respect for authority, and good manners as somehow  “old-fashioned” - and simply describe them as “what works”.  "

It struck me while on the tram that it's the definition of different qualities which people don't agree on. 

A Tory's sense of definition of personal responsibility would be different to a socialist's one.

 Offwidth 23 Aug 2019
In reply to marsbar:

Fair enough...

The Freakanomics crew did an investigation in the US that showed supportive parents were more important for results than choice of school quality (as long as things were not so bad that the kids couldn't work).

http://freakonomics.com/2007/10/04/more-evidence-on-the-lack-of-impact-of-s...

 DaveHK 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

We might not be arguing so much about this if they'd said traditional rather than conservative.

 summo 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

There are also studies that show what happens even before school age is equally critical. Reading, basic numeracy, games that involve learning without even knowing it etc.. versus TV and the like.  

I despair at my own family with this. My brother and his wife both work in a school for kids excluded from mainstream education. They have kid, nearly 3, the tv is never off even when there are visitors. The lad is like a zombie and he doesn't talk as much most 3 year olds I've met, although all kids differ. 

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ooh good, an education thread.

Everybody's an expert on this one.

I tell you what, it's not as good as it used to be, those kids today aren't as good as we wuz, and I'm not supporting it mind, but corporal punishment never did me any harm....

 marsbar 23 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

She is quite scathing in some ways.  

I'm not a big fan of standing in front of the class imparting knowledge.  

I'm a big fan of making children do their own work and thinking for themselves rather than sitting listening to me for extended lengths of time.  

As for picking up stuff off the floor, I'd ask and I'd expect it done.  

OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to DaveHK:

> We might not be arguing so much about this if they'd said traditional rather than conservative.

  It hadn’t occurred to me that some people actually can’t distinguish between conservativism and Conservativism.

1
OP Postmanpat 23 Aug 2019
In reply to DaveHK:

> We might not be arguing so much about this if they'd said traditional rather than conservative.

  It hadn’t occurred to me that some people actually can’t distinguish between conservative and Conservative. But I fear you’re right.

2
 Timmd 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> Ooh good, an education thread.

> Everybody's an expert on this one.

> I tell you what, it's not as good as it used to be, those kids today aren't as good as we wuz, and I'm not supporting it mind, but corporal punishment never did me any harm....

I find it interesting that such a rigorous school can have great results, and that schools which use the Forest Schools methodology, which is child lead learning, can have great results too. 

Post edited at 22:00
XXXX 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think it's great that these kids are getting great opportunities in life. But it's hardly surprising that such an approach gets good results in GCSEs that have been redesigned to value such an approach.

 Coel Hellier 23 Aug 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> I find it interesting that such a rigorous school can have great results, and that schools which use the Forest Schools methodology, which is child lead learning, can have great results too. 

Most likely because -- all the evidence is -- that the prime factor determining the results a school gets is not the school itself, it's how good the kids are. 

In order to make any proper assessment of this story, we really need to know how the kids did at primary school, and how that compares with the national average.  

As I understand it, this school is not selective, but on the other hand it is a brand new school with a different ethos from other schools in the area, and so parents opting to send their kids too it are likely not a random sample of the locality.

And it's notable that none of the reporting even mentions such factors.

In reply to Timmd:

> I find it interesting that such a rigorous school can have great results, and that schools which use the Forest Schools methodology, which is child lead learning, can have great results too. 

I know, I find it interesting too. Education, like people is really complicated - or, it can be, like people really simple. It depends what you want your child to become, what you are beginning with and how you judge success. 

I guess a traditional, say a private boarding school is going to instill a different ethos and a different view of what success looks like compared with a comp with a mixed catchment area. 

I find it wearisome when people with limited life experience make judgements about education when they are only really reflecting their own narrow view of what education is and what it is for. The same people usually talk very loudly and are boorish. They often end up, unfortunately, as our leaders. 

 summo 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Purpose of education. So a person can fulfil a role in society ie work and care for themselves. As well as have reasonable or acceptable numeracy, literacy and communication skills?

What work, any work. A job they enjoy no matter how simple or complex. 

But, we also need future generations to excel, we need to find those with ability and nurture it. It would be great if average grades and average performance were all we required. But society arguably needs the doctors, surgeons, scientists, pharmacists, IT experts of the future too. There is a case to debate we need creative arts to help us relax, they write books, make films and so on. 

The trick is how do you have an education system where one method catches all? There is no solution, many countries do it differently, they all have differing flaws. To chase the highest levels you risk lower achievers falling through cracks etc. You have a system that mops up everyone but the high achievers don't get stimulated.....

Post edited at 06:53
1
 summo 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Timmd:

Forest schools I know of aren't child led. They just use the outdoors as a classroom, they still have teacher planned aims and objectives etc.  The subtlety is making a person think it's their plan. "Should we go out and collect x and y?" versus "we are going... you will". They sit still on a circle of logs listening to the teachers, not on chairs in a class room. It may look different, but all the basic elements are the same. 

Post edited at 06:53
1
 Timmd 24 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

'Forest School' is a name for a certain approach to learning, rather than it being just about the practice of using the outdoors as the class room. That is, there's outdoor learning, and there's the 'forest school' approach to learning. 

I wouldn't be able to do it justice in some forum posts; it could seem to be something of a thread hijack, and I don't quite have the time to devote to posting about it to feel I'd covered it adequately enough. 

But here's a link if you're interested...

https://www.forestschoolassociation.org/forest-school-myth-busting/

Post edited at 09:35
 marsbar 24 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

That’s not my impression.  I thought that forest schools were predominantly child led.  

 marsbar 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> I find it interesting that such a rigorous school can have great results, and that schools which use the Forest Schools methodology, which is child lead learning, can have great results too. 

To get good results children need to feel safe and cared for.  There are many different ways to achieve this.  

 Timmd 24 Aug 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> That’s not my impression.  I thought that forest schools were predominantly child led.  

They are, when 'forest schools' is a learning approach, rather than - playing and learning in the woods (which it also is). 

I'm off to carry on tidying. I didn't sleep at all last night, partly due to a hectic past week or so, and partly due to brooding about this and that, and partly due to a messy house, so I've been up since six tidying.....I might as well be productive. 

Post edited at 10:07
 summo 24 Aug 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> That’s not my impression.  I thought that forest schools were predominantly child led.  

I was referring more to the outdoor nurseries, where they don't use any indoors as such. Just a few 2 or 3 sided lean tos. 

Post edited at 10:40
 summo 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Timmd:

Full marks to forest school they've managed to brand and sell something which is in fact just different styles of practical teaching. 

They've even got people paying to be level 1, level 2... instructors or training to become a 'forest school practitioner'.

This is something pretty much every nursery(1-7years) does in sweden all year round. Even the older years go out and turn an academic subject into a practical one using the outdoors. They often have entire days outside, all lessons and food. 

It's not forest school, it's just teaching outside the classroom.

What next playground activity facilitators? Teaching the kids tag, spot, hide & seek! 

 summo 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> They are, when 'forest schools' is a learning approach, rather than - playing and learning in the woods (which it also is). 

You can't have GCSE level education child led. How would they know what they need to learn? If you don't yet understand say differentiation how can you decide how to teach it? How do kids prioritise something they don't know they need, they don't understand and don't know how it ties in with other subjects. Whilst it's not fluffy, sometimes kids just need to be told to sit down and listen. 

OP Postmanpat 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

  The progressive education movement really got going with the Plowden report in 1967.

This became the blueprint for State education for a decade or two. It was followed up by such influential reports  as Michael Young's (Toby's dad!)  "Knowledge and Social Control" which argued that traditional knowledge oppresses working class children and perpetrates social inequity – this was used to explain (and excuse) poor pupil behaviour and justify low attainment. Basically this type of approach became the mantra of educationalists and therefore of State education until the Thatcher's attempts at reform.

  Nevertheless, the new GCSEs in 1986 were accompanied a handbook saying things like , “ learning is active and pupil-centred, with the stimulus of varied activities, and where a wide range of skills is valued.” They went on to make clear, “Skills cannot be taught in the traditional didactic manner…some teachers may need to change their teaching methods so they can become facilitators rather than givers of knowledge.”

Between 1985 -1991 Leeds EA £14 million was spent implementing a progressive curriculum and teaching methods. Results declined.

In 2000 radical progressive, David Hargreaves, was placed in charge of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) before moving to run the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT) and given the authority to ‘guide’ new City Academies.

To be fair, David Blunkett fought hard against "fashionable teaching methods" but withut a whole lot of success.

In 2007 the new Chief Inspector, Christine Gilbert publishes 2020 Vision which enthusiastically promotes child-centred education. At the same time, new Professional Standards for Teachers are published which mandate the requirement for personalised learning and provision.

  And on and on and on. Key roles and key influential positions in the education sector were taken by (often hard line) progressives. Several ministers eg Ken Clarke, Patten , Blunkett, fought back but none really succeeded. The momentum for progressive education may have peaked in the 1980s as its failings became obvious but, at least until 2008, despite resistance from various quarters, it was never satisfactorily rolled back. As you point out, many sensible teachers and headteachers found their own way but was in spite of rather than because of the guidance of powerful educationalists.

1
 stevieb 24 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> This is something pretty much every nursery(1-7years) does in sweden all year round. Even the older years go out and turn an academic subject into a practical one using the outdoors. They often have entire days outside, all lessons and food. 

> It's not forest school, it's just teaching outside the classroom.

My children’s state primary school also has its own woodland classroom and farm, but this is very much in the minority in the UK. 

lots of schools also used to have playing fields, but 10000 of those (1/3 of all schools) were sold off between 1979-97 in one of the biggest and most short-sighted privatisations of all.  

 Timmd 24 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> Full marks to forest school they've managed to brand and sell something which is in fact just different styles of practical teaching. 

Having done a level 3 course, with the aim of having a 'tick in the box' for applying it to something else to the goal of my tutor, I think your cynicism may appear to have been adopted before a thorough examination.

That's the nature of the internet I guess...if you want to look into it you probably will do.

Post edited at 11:33
 stevieb 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Aren’t you confusing two issues in your last post? Discipline and learning approach? 

Child centred learning does not need to be paired with low discipline and lack of targets. 

 summo 24 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

That's my point. Teaching beyond the classroom walls isn't unusual. It's the fact that this company has some how managed to create a brand out of it. 

 summo 24 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> Aren’t you confusing two issues in your last post? Discipline and learning approach? 

> Child centred learning does not need to be paired with low discipline and lack of targets. 

Isn't all school learning child centred?  A topic is taught to kids by a method deemed most appropriate for a child to learn from. A level of the child's understanding is assessed and the teacher evolves the lessons accordingly. 

 stevieb 24 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> That's my point. Teaching beyond the classroom walls isn't unusual. It's the fact that this company has some how managed to create a brand out of it. 

My point is that teaching beyond the classroom walls is unusual in the UK because they have limited outside space. There are schools near me in a nice part of Nottingham with no outside green space, and the total outside space is not too much bigger than the footprint of the school. 

 stevieb 24 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> Isn't all school learning child centred?  A topic is taught to kids by a method deemed most appropriate for a child to learn from. A level of the child's understanding is assessed and the teacher evolves the lessons accordingly. 

Child centred learning has a widely understood meaning as distinct from teacher centred learning. https://teach.com/what/teachers-know/teaching-methods/

OP Postmanpat 24 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> Aren’t you confusing two issues in your last post? Discipline and learning approach? 

> Child centred learning does not need to be paired with low discipline and lack of targets. 


Progressive education came as a "package", the main precepts being: that education should be child-centred, that knowledge is not central to education, strict discipline and moral education are oppressive (the Plowden report called for "permissive discipline), socio-economic background dictates success.

1
 stevieb 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

That may have been the case but it doesn’t change the fact that discipline and child centred learning are not mutually exclusive. CCL is clearly less authoritarian and less top down but that doesn’t mean discipline is not part of it. 

I don’t know the Plowden report, but the phrase permissive discipline is used once in a 600 page report and the main thrust of the actual detail seems to be to minimise humiliating punishment and corporal punishment in primary schools which was much more common between WW2 and his report than it is now.  It never argues against sanctions. Doesn’t sound like the worst idea even if it was badly enacted. 

 summo 24 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> Child centred learning has a widely understood meaning as distinct from teacher centred.....

I'm now realising why I found elements of my cert ed so frustrating! It's all teacher and child centred . Teacher draws on the board and explains algebra. Teacher sets the students a project, group work, or research to see how algebra is used in day to day lives. All teacher led, they set the work, the terms, the scope etc. The student might work differently  but they are not free to stray off beyond what was set by the teacher. 

Green spaces. Given that forest school really just means different types of non classroom practical lessons, our kids probably also follow the same principles when they visit the local water or sewage plant, fire station, or factory as part of a lesson. So grass or trees aren't essential. 

It is incredibly sad that any school doesn't have at least a football field sized area of grass. No wonder kids are bouncing off the walls inside during lesson time. 

Post edited at 14:08
OP Postmanpat 24 Aug 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> That may have been the case but it doesn’t change the fact that discipline and child centred learning are not mutually exclusive.

>

  In  the literature and in practice they were generally grouped together. There is a reason for this: it was theorised that children naturally wanted to learn and therefore that if lessons were properly designed and facilitated there would be no need for discipline. The two elements were not viewed as mutually exclusive but as complementary.

  It's true that (arguably) Plowden's report could be read as focusing mainly (in terms of discipline) on the abolition of corporal punishment. But it was promoting "the modern, relaxed, friendly approach" which in in practice meant progressive schools abandoning many other traditional rules and sanctions.

Post edited at 14:22
1
 marsbar 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Progressive education came as a "package", the main precepts being: that education should be child-centred, that knowledge is not central to education, strict discipline and moral education are oppressive (the Plowden report called for "permissive discipline), socio-economic background dictates success.

I wasn't even born when Plowden came out. 

I did experience a certain amount of progressive education and it suited me.  

However as with all things a balance is needed. 

I aim for a classroom where I don't need to enforce discipline because I aim to train the children to choose to do the right thing.   I want them to know what they should be doing and to choose to get on with it.  However I'm not idealistic enough to think that this just happens.  It takes a lot of work and a lot of experience to get there.  Tolerating bad behaviour whilst this happens isn't helpful.  

As for socioeconomic background, it shouldn't make a difference and it is wrong to just assume it will.  

Parent's attitudes and work ethic make a difference.  Money doesn't.  I've seen fantastic levels of attainment from Eastern European girls for example.  

 Tyler 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > 

>   It hadn’t occurred to me that some people actually can’t distinguish between conservativism and Conservativism.

Why not? It's the kinds of conflation the PR arm of the Tories spend a great deal of time trying engender in the mind of the electorate  to try and disguise the more malevolent parts of Conservative policy.

1
 The New NickB 24 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> Isn't all school learning child centred?  A topic is taught to kids by a method deemed most appropriate for a child to learn from. A level of the child's understanding is assessed and the teacher evolves the lessons accordingly. 

I think you probably need to go back to school on this one!

 summo 24 Aug 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> I think you probably need to go back to school on this one!

Isn't all school learning about being student focussed but teacher led? How the task is carried out might vary, listening, individual work, group, research, discussion, presentation etc..  but the original task is set by the Teacher, with deliberate aims and objectives. According to what method the teacher expects them to carry out the task, they employ differing methods to assess level of understanding. Again, student focused, but teacher led. 

It does not matter if you have your new age forest school or this school with it's so called traditional values, it doesn't matter, the idea is the teachers through variety of methods improve a child's knowledge, skill and personal attributes. I'm sure if this school was doing everything in a liberal trendy new age way many of the posters here would be tripping over themselves to praise the exact same results. 

3
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Progressive education came as a "package", the main precepts being: that education should be child-centred, that knowledge is not central to education, strict discipline and moral education are oppressive (the Plowden report called for "permissive discipline), socio-economic background dictates success.

Is this your interpretation of the Plowden report? The first point is good teaching practice whenever practical. No secondary school teacher today would agree that knowledge is not central to education. The third point is open to interpretation. How strict? What sort of morality? The church's? That institution has not been setting a good moral example recently. The last point is certainly just as true now than it was in 1968 primarily due to private schools and parental choice. 

1
OP Postmanpat 24 Aug 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> Is this your interpretation of the Plowden report? The first point is good teaching practice whenever practical. No secondary school teacher today would agree that knowledge is not central to education. The third point is open to interpretation. How strict? What sort of morality? The church's? That institution has not been setting a good moral example recently. The last point is certainly just as true now than it was in 1968 primarily due to private schools and parental choice. 

>

  No, it's a summary of the core precepts of progressive education. Obviously, as you imply, it was interpreted and implemented in different ways and to different degrees. It probably reached its low point in the 70s and 80s at places like William Tyndale but the resistance to Birbasingh's (and other such initiatives) tells you that it's influence lives on.

1
 Mike Stretford 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   And on and on and on. Key roles and key influential positions in the education sector were taken by (often hard line) progressives. Several ministers eg Ken Clarke, Patten , Blunkett, fought back but none really succeeded. The momentum for progressive education may have peaked in the 1980s as its failings became obvious but, at least until 2008, despite resistance from various quarters, it was never satisfactorily rolled back. As you point out, many sensible teachers and headteachers found their own way but was in spite of rather than because of the guidance of powerful educationalists.

I think you are overestimating the power of these educationalists, and ignoring more relevant social trends.

The Ploweden report was pushing at an open door as many teachers starting out at the time had been through pretty brutal 50s educations. That resulted in parents and teachers with a slack attitude to discipline as the pendulum swung the other way. Additionally, in the 80s, teachers who only knew discipline through corporal punishment were having to adapt to life without the cane and many couldn't do it. I remember it well, schools were a mix of frustrated traditionalists and new 'progressive' teachers, who did seem to conform to a stereotype.

Times have now changed, most teachers went to school 80s or later. Many parent are choosing schools with a discipline policy. There growing awareness of kids on the autistic spectrum, and protecting those means some form of discipline. Most importantly, there's a generation of teachers who have learnt to keep discipline without corporal punishment.

The problem is, as Marsbar points out, the schools are self selecting, exclusion is the final sanction. There'll be right wing fantasist who think some kind of boot camp school will help the left behind, but realistically that ain't going to work and will just lead to another backlash.

Would be good to depoliticise education and adopt an evidence based approach.

Post edited at 14:08
 Mike Stretford 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   It hadn’t occurred to me that some people actually can’t distinguish between conservativism and Conservativism.

Don't be silly Pat. The 'ism' renders the big C little c thing irrelevant. 'conservatism' is a political ideology those is the Tory party would proudly identify with, it's their central tenet. In you original OP you politicised the issue.

OP Postmanpat 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Don't be silly Pat. The 'ism' renders the big C little c thing irrelevant. 'conservatism' is a political ideology those is the Tory party would proudly identify with, it's their central tenet. In you original OP you politicised the issue.

>

  No, it doesn't and I didn't , at least in the sense of party politics. You just chose to read it that way. There will be plenty of conservatives who are not Conservatives.

5
 Mike Stretford 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/conservatism

In modern lexicon and certainly the context of your op, 2 is the relevant definition (rather than 2.1)

If you want to be clear try and avoid the silly reference to the Gaurdian, does kind of give the impression you have a political axe to grind.

1
OP Postmanpat 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

 

> Would be good to depoliticise education and adopt an evidence based approach.

>

  A nice idea but hard to achieve. Both styles of teaching and the nature of the curriculum are inherently political.

  Progressive teaching was founded on the belief that both authority and knowledge are oppressive and were the bastions of an establishment and its culture that needed to be swept away. That is a political stance. Obviously most teachers were unaware of this as probably were most of those training them, but that was the philosophical rationale.

  So the flip side of that is obviously that authority (of teachers and also in society as a whole) is required for stability and to impart knowledge, and that knowledge is not oppressive, it is required to provide the cultural literacy for people to flourish. The latter becomes political if only because it is the antithesis to the progressive dogma.

     Even if, as you suggest (and are probably right) the worst excesses of progressivism have been dismissed as the nonsense they were, we are still left with the live issues of whether, for example, process or knowledge should dominate the curriculum. Beyond that, in the humanities we are left with what the relevant knowledge is; Peterloo or Waterloo? (the answer is obviously both, together with the analytical skills to understand their importance).

  Birbalsingh agrees with you that education should be about "what works" but it rather depends on what "works" means. That in itself is a political question.

5
OP Postmanpat 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> If you want to be clear try and avoid the silly reference to the Gaurdian,

>

  Oh, come on, I'm only human!

1
 Mike Stretford 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat: Off to bbq, will respond tomorrow. Not my dislike!

OP Postmanpat 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Off to bbq, will respond tomorrow. Not my dislike!


Enjoy!

 marsbar 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

It’s not necessarily knowledge that is bad, but who chooses which knowledge is important?  

If you look at the curriculum studied by my generation and those older it was really quite selective and biased and very much focused on white males.  

OP Postmanpat 25 Aug 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> It’s not necessarily knowledge that is bad, but who chooses which knowledge is important?  

> If you look at the curriculum studied by my generation and those older it was really quite selective and biased and very much focused on white males.  

>

  Which was the point I made. Actually, knowledge itself was considered bad by progressives (maybe because they believed in an alternative knowledge, or maybe not)

But, if that position is dismissed the next,(highly political)  argument is about what knowledge should be taught. If society was dominated by the patriarchy for a thousand years is it “biased” to acknowledge and reflect that or “biased” to present an alternative?

3
 TobyA 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

They must have some limitation on how many kids they can take each year of entry. Do they do it purely by catchment area?

 TobyA 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Yes

I hope you had chance to visit Finland a few years ago where until the last PISA round you would have been treated as a national hero! 

I moved from Helsinki 5 years ago when, IIRC, PISA was just starting to not be seen as the best thing since sliced bread.

 marsbar 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Personally I think skills are important.  

Practical skills and thinking skills. 

Reasoning, reading for understanding, comparing sources, all that kind of thing.  

It's shocking how many children can't use scissors neatly, or measure an angle, or draw a circle.  

 TobyA 25 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Have you done teacher training? I did, starting 5 years ago, so I've been a qualified teacher now for 4 - pretty recent, but enough time to get a feel for what's happening in the secondary sector at least.

I really don't recognise your picture of education. We have to teach "British values", (don't say it out loud, but we have to Prevent anyone from becoming a terrorist!) and performance management is invariably linked to our classes exam results, so how can knowledge not be central to education, as you desperately try to cram enough into some poor kid's head so they get at least a 4 in their GCSE? 

From 89 onwards schools have been marketized, and made to compete - from the old league tables, to the dread and panic of an Ofsted visit, to forced academisation and the fear of being snapped up by some MAT, currently favoured by DfE (until another scandal takes out their CEO!), because your school's data isn't going up. I still haven't really worked out how all schools are going to end up above average, but fortunately I don't teach maths. 

 elsewhere 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Which was the point I made. Actually, knowledge itself was considered bad by progressives (maybe because they believed in an alternative knowledge, or maybe not)

A question for UKC to decide if postmanpat is right.

Was/is your education characterised by  "knowledge itself was considered bad"?

 neilh 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

It’s a bit of a meaningless result when you do not know how many pupils were at the school, how many teachers per student etc etc. Also you will want it to be repeated year after year.

good head teachers make a difference to most schools.

personally I am impressed by these Birmingham heads who put up with this anti sex education nonsense from their local communities. 

 MG 26 Aug 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Was/is your education characterised by  "knowledge itself was considered bad"?

Of course not.  Except at some ludicrous extremes, no education takes this view. 

I was at state schools in the early 80s in a "loony-left" Labour stronghold.  By PMPs account I would be illiterate, innumerate and have experienced non-stop carnage and chaos at school.  Of course I didn't.  I can even do long division and spell accommodation.

1
 Mark Bannan 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Outstanding GCSE results for Katherine Birbalsingh's free school run on "traditional" lines.. Maybe, just maybe, the progressive educational establishment will take note...

So what! One school from a particular sector got good results. I don't think this contradicts the fact that the system is divisive, unfair and perpetrates inequality of opportunity. It's hardly a reliable statistic either. Nor does this make up for the rightful concern about many very poorly run free schools. The whole shitstorm is getting worse too.

OP Postmanpat 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

1) The words "a win" are not the same as the words "incontrovertible proof" so will people please stop making this obvious point?

2) That somebody went to a poor progressive school and is not a complete moron is neither proof of anything nor much of a win.

3) As said above, the worst of the progressive dogma probably peaked in the 1980s, so pointing out that most schools nowadays have better discipline and teach more knowledge than the worst of those in the  1980s is not at issue. But they are also a mile away from the approach of eg.Michaela Academy. There IS a difference.

4) Taking a look at the KS3-4 curriculum from 2007 (pre Gove) you will see that it is almost entirely focused on method and process:eg. history: identifying sources, analysing sources, organising and structuring explanations etc. (all very valuable skills, obviously) Almost nothing on knowledge. Students studied random unconnected topics used to develop the above skills but were left with no real knowledge or chronolgy of history.

  Conversely the current curriculum lists:

a) know and understand the history of these islands as a coherent, chronological narrative, from the earliest times to the present day: how people’s lives have shaped this nation and how Britain has influenced and been influenced by the wider world
b) know and understand significant aspects of the history of the wider world: the nature of ancient civilisations; the expansion and dissolution of empires; characteristic features of past non-European societies; achievements and follies of mankind.....

and also:

c)understand historical concepts such as continuity and change, cause and consequence, similarity, difference and significance, and use them to make connections, draw contrasts, analyse trends, frame historically-valid questions and create their own structured accounts, including written narratives and analyses
d)understand the methods of historical enquiry, including how evidence is used rigorously to make historical claims, and discern how and why contrasting arguments and interpretations of the past have been constructed

 So skill and concepts learned within the context of foundational knowledge.

4) In any school and in any system there will be teachers and headteachers who make it work.

6)) Anybody learning to teach in the past five years is part of the post Gove era, and is teaching to the most knowledge based syllabus in 40 years.

7) The English education system has failed a generation or more of children. In 2016

23% of 16-18 year olds, 17% of 19 – 24 year olds are at the lowest level of literacy (level 1 or below).

29% of 16-18 year olds, 25% of 19 – 24 year olds are at the lowest level of numeracy (level 1 or below),

  So almost a quarter of young people are functionally illiterate or innumerate in one of the richest countries in the world.

Post edited at 14:41
 Timmd 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Which was the point I made. Actually, knowledge itself was considered bad by progressives (maybe because they believed in an alternative knowledge, or maybe not)

Que?!

OP Postmanpat 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> Que?!

  Far be it from me to be cynical but I wonder if they would have been so averse to the teaching of knowledge if the knowledge was, for example, the Marxist narrative of history.

Post edited at 16:24
4
 MG 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I assume your numbers are from here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

Which also shows adults in the range 35-65 have much higher literacy and numeracy skills than  younger adults. (p64).  These older groups were educated duringwhat you see as the nadir of educational standards (1970s-80s), which suggests your argument might be missing something.  Connection with reality, for example.

1
OP Postmanpat 26 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

  And those in the 55-65 age bracket have better literacy levels than those leaving school. Basically, as this conclusion from the University of Sheffield (2010)shows, there has been no significant improvement in nearly sixty years. You will note, of course, that, as you point out but misunderstand, reading tends to improve in early middle age. This doesn't necessarily demonstrate much about the success or otherwise of schools.

There was an improvement in average reading scores from 1948 to 1960.
• Average levels remained remarkably constant from 1960 to 1988.
• There is a gap in the evidence base from 1988 to about 1997.
• Some data suggest a gentle rise between 1997 and 2004, then a further plateau.
• But the proportion of young adults with poor reading (below Level 1) seems to have remained stubbornly at about 17%. A lifecourse trend (improvement into early middle age, then usually a plateau, then decline) will have lifted some people into adequate literacy levels by their early to mid 20s, but many still have poor literacy at all later ages.

  It's incredible, given the resources thrown at education and the psychology of education that we have basically got nowhere since 1960.

Post edited at 17:16
2
 elsewhere 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Have you or yours encountered many teachers averse to teaching facts?  Were your teachers Marxists? 

It is not something I recall from my schooldays at a comp in a Labour heartland of the early eighties.

Did anybody else on UKC encounter fact averse and Marxist teaching at school?

Post edited at 17:22
 MG 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   It's incredible, given the resources thrown at education and the psychology of education that we have basically got nowhere since 1960.

You think so?  I'd suggest the reason is fairly obvious.

1
 MG 26 Aug 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Did anybody else on UKC encounter fact averse and Marxist teaching at school?

I do actually remember precisely one teacher who fits PMP's caricature.  She was widely regarded by staff and students as obviously hopeless., of course.

The main problem was lack of money.

 Andy Clarke 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm a retired headteacher. My state community comprehensive enjoyed excellent results (eg consistently top 5% for value-added) and made the odd appearance in the educational press for its work on international links. We consciously rejected the kind of "demerit" system it would appear is in use at Michaela free school. I congratulate Birbalsingh and her students on their excellent results but I find her politicking and denigration of the state sector infuriating. Her labelling of the perfectly normal school values of belief in personal responsibility, respect for authority and a sense of duty towards others as somehow 'conservative' or 'old-fashioned' is ridiculous.

 RomTheBear 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Conservative values such as : Individual responsibility, individual freedoms, careful incremental change, and pragmatism  ?

In a nutshell everything modern conservatives dislike, do everything to destroy, and everything you’ve been preaching against.

Post edited at 17:56
1
OP Postmanpat 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Clarke:

> I'm a retired headteacher. My state community comprehensive enjoyed excellent results (eg consistently top 5% for value-added) and made the odd appearance in the educational press for its work on international links.

>

  See my point 4 above, (which I misnumbered) "In any school and in any system there will be teachers and headteachers who make it work."  

   What does intrigues me is, if the values that you and Ms.Birbarsingh share (and which bothe of you agree should not actually be regarded as "old fashioned") are shared by most of the State sector, why are certain elements of the teaching unions and the educationalists so opposed to people like her implementing them?

 Andy Clarke 26 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    What does intrigues me is, if the values that you and Ms.Birbarsingh share (and which bothe of you agree should not actually be regarded as "old fashioned") are shared by most of the State sector, why are certain elements of the teaching unions and the educationalists so opposed to people like her implementing them?

I can't think of any currently influential educationalist who is opposed to such conventional school values as "belief in personal responsibility, respect for authority and sense of duty towards others." As I hope I've made clear, I find Birbalsingh's antagonistic politicising of educational issues distasteful, and inappropriate for those who hold senior positions within a school. It was her attack on the state sector, with unfounded suggestions that such values were not widespread within it, that alienated me. During my career, I never made my politics public, as I did not see how I could be a unifying representative of the whole community's aspirations if I did. I accept she's done a great job for her students' results, but a headteacher's role demands a lot more than that.

Post edited at 19:45
 TobyA 26 Aug 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

My first sociology A level group got me a mug with a picture of Karl and the logo "WWMD - What would Marx do?" on it. It was very sweet although I still maintained most of them couldn't really separate Marxism as a sociological perspective and Marxism as a political ideology, which wouldn't have helped in the theory and methods section of the exams!

This year a group got me a mug that says "Climbing makes me happy. You, not do much." which makes me think they got me better.

 1234None 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, the educational establishment should take note, and all schools should shift towards similar conservative/traditional values.  I'm sure that would give us more economic success and a population of content citizens.  Yawn.

Are you really suggesting that a similar approach might boost results elsewhere and/or that GCSE results are a good measure of educational success and predictor of long-term success, rather than just something that is easy to measure, which has little to no link to what these young people might actually need to get on in life 20 or 30 years from now?

Post edited at 06:50
 summo 27 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> Are you really suggesting that a similar approach might boost results elsewhere and/or that GCSE results are a good measure of educational success and predictor of long-term success, rather than just something that is easy to measure, which has little to no link to what these young people might actually need to get on in life 20 or 30 years from now?

That maybe true and everyone loves to cite the successful people who left school with nothing. But most who leave school with nothing aren't so fortunate. 

Because the UK doesn't have general education but options aged 13/14 their gcses are often the start of a specific path. This path of course can be changed, by going back to college or waiting until they are old enough to join courses as a mature student.

Like it or not good exam results open the doors to the next level etc. 

 1234None 27 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> That maybe true and everyone loves to cite the successful people who left school with nothing. But most who leave school with nothing aren't so fortunate. 

> Because the UK doesn't have general education but options aged 13/14 their gcses are often the start of a specific path. This path of course can be changed, by going back to college or waiting until they are old enough to join courses as a mature student.

> Like it or not good exam results open the doors to the next level etc. 

Thanks for the egg-sucking lesson

Of course, I am well aware of how GCSE results are currently useful.  However, what I am questioning is the suggestion that we should look at a single school getting good results, assume that those good results must be a result of their "traditional/conservative" approach, then propose that other schools use the same approach.  It's hardly an approach based on solid evidence of what works....but does sort of follow the UK's track record in education over the last couple of decades.

Of course GCSE results currently open doors, but using the stats they provide as evidence for system-wide reform won't get us very far, in my opinion.  It is possible these days to widen the scope of assessments to cover other equally useful skills, in a way that will allow more students to demonstrate what they can do.  It is also increasingly possible to look at long-term outcomes relating to income, contentment, proportions of people going into high-tech professions etc.  Of course, these things are difficult to measure, so we do not bother.   What I propose is that we look at those who are "successful" (obviously not easy to define) and work backwards.  In what proportion of cases were their GCSE results the determining factors, to what degree did they "open doors."  Which GCSE subjects were most important in their door-opening capacity.  We also should listen to the CBI and similar organisations more about what employers want, and start to offer well-planned assessments to match those skills.  

Whether you like it or not, we are sort of stuck with an outdated system that still largely assesses kids based on what they can write on a piece of paper and ignores long-term outcomes.  There is a wanton lack of real scientific thinking being taught in schools and creativity and original thinking are still massively under-valued.  Postmanpat's implication that we should get the education establishment to sit up and take notice of things like this fits well with our insistence on ignoring large-scale reform and use of education as a political football.  Doing what is suggested by the OP is a step in the wrong direction, using anecdotal "evidence" as justification for a return to the rose-tinted days where our maths and grammar were perhaps better and behaviour standards in schools were better.

I don't dispute for one minute that we need education reform, but I do dispute whether we should do it based on stuff like this.

Post edited at 08:02
OP Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

 

> I don't dispute for one minute that we need education reform, but I do dispute whether we should do it based on stuff like this.

>

  So what do you think it should be?

 1234None 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think it should be based on solid research evidence and more based on long-term outcomes.  Not easy to achieve, but certainly possible. A sticking-plaster, quick-fix approach to education reform based on stuff such as the article you linked to has left us with an education system that poorly serves future generations.

Suggesting that the approach of one school should be expanded to others purely because their results are better this year is symptomatic of the poor approach we take to education.  The measures of success we use for schools are lacking...as is the evidence that a similar approach might work elsewhere.  All I advocate is a more well-considered, evidence-based approach to reform.  

Post edited at 08:22
OP Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> I All I advocate is a more well-considered, evidence-based approach too reform.  

>

  I've no problem with that although you seem to be pre-empting it already......

Post edited at 08:42
1
 Rob Exile Ward 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

'I've no problem with that although you seem to be pre-empting it already......' The irony of that sentence in the context of your opening remarks to this thread is probably lost on you, isn't it?

'Maybe, just maybe, the progressive educational establishment will take note. Fat chance I fear...'

1
 neilh 27 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

Such an approach denies one part of the system which you have to carry with you...parents.

If parents on - a huge scale - do not buy in to such an approach then it is doomed to fail from the start.

Its one of the reasons why the existing fragmented approach has evolved.

 summo 27 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

I agree with most of what you say , the UK system is out dated in so many different ways. But the schools don't get to pick the system, all they can do is try and excel within the existing structure. Change comes from political will, which either way means parents or voters, whilst avoiding the inevitable union backlash. 

Yes industry, be it tech, manufacturing, creative arts should have an input towards what they think kids of the future should be capable of. The same with university degree courses. 

OP Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'I've no problem with that although you seem to be pre-empting it already......' The irony of that sentence in the context of your opening remarks to this thread is probably lost on you, isn't it?

>

   He's the one who propounded the idea! I'm just not objecting to it.....!!

  But of course in reality such evidence is a chimera. Besides the obvious difficulty in creating a reliable evidence base that follows a large cohort through their lives, how does one settle the argument over causation and correlation? How does one agree what is a "successful" outcome? etc etc. One fears that such research would just provide more evidence to argue about.

   There is a vast amount of research and evidence already available on education. You pays your money and makes your choice.The success (if one agrees that it is a success) of the Michaela Academy is just one more piece, albeit quite a striking one , of the evidence base.

PS. Talking of irony, read your post to me about Johnson last night.......

Post edited at 09:36
 neilh 27 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

Is it really out dated or just your own parental perception.

I reckon any education system struggles these days to keep up with the way the world and society is moving on.

And lets not hark back to the days of yore,it helps nobody.

 krikoman 27 Aug 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Did anybody else on UKC encounter fact averse and Marxist teaching at school?

No!

Did any else on UKC every get "taught" their politics?

I came to my own political views myself, my belief in protest and questioning "what were told" are all things which formed in early life and were "grown" over a period of time and through experiences, not what someone told me I should be thinking.

 Andy Hardy 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   But of course in reality such evidence is a chimera. Besides the obvious difficulty in creating a reliable evidence base that follows a large cohort through their lives, how does one settle the argument over causation and correlation? How does one agree what is a "successful" outcome? etc etc. One fears that such research would just provide more evidence to argue about.

This is the problem with meddling by politicians in education, every cohort gets a new minister, keen to make their mark by "improving" the system. What they should do is leave content choice and delivery up to educationalists - the government should mainy be there to pay the bills.

>    There is a vast amount of research and evidence already available on education. You pays your money and makes your choice.The success (if one agrees that it is a success) of the Michaela Academy is just one more piece, albeit quite a striking one , of the evidence base.

1 years results from 1 school are statistically irrelevant, however much you admire their politics. In the 80s the Maharishi school in Skelmersdale was getting outstanding results (in terms of added value) by teaching all the kids transcendental meditation, maybe we should give that a whirl?

OP Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> No!

> Did any else on UKC every get "taught" their politics?

>

   Keep up at the back. The argument is not and never has been that people were "taught their politics" except perhaps in the broadest sense of any curriculum, just like any news programme, being a subjective choice of what "matters".

OP Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> What they should do is leave content choice and delivery up to educationalists >

And leave banking to the bankers?

Or how about the government set a general framework and let teachers and parents get on with it?

 Rob Exile Ward 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

That's not really comparable is it? Bankers exist to maximise shareholder value - actually, scrub that, they exist to maximise their own value by maximising shareholder value, and will do right up to any constraints necessarily imposed by government to maintain some sort of order and stability.

Educationalists, on the other hand, exist to … educate. 

 summo 27 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Is it really out dated or just your own parental perception.

It's out dated if a school has any religious affiliation or influence? 

> I reckon any education system struggles these days to keep up with the way the world and society is moving on.

Continual catch up? 

If everyone at 16 either continues academic or vocational training, perhaps less grade obsessed results would work better and have it more about giving them the skills in every field to move up to the next level. Ie. No options at 14, you do all the core subjects and then specialise at 16, when you may have more idea on what pushes your buttons.  

OP Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Educationalists, on the other hand, exist to … educate. 

>

  To educate who, what , how?  Should a completely unaccountable group of people who may have their own prejudices and interests (which may not even be those of the children) be left to dictate what, how and to whom things are taught?

PS. I'm referring to educationalists, not teachers.

1
 1234None 27 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Such an approach denies one part of the system which you have to carry with you...parents.

What approach?  Would parents object to more options for how to assess kids (video presentations, practical science etc? ).  Why would they object to things like communication skills and critical thinking being assessed?  Would they object to people studying long-term outcomes?  I doubt it.

> If parents on - a huge scale - do not buy in to such an approach then it is doomed to fail from the start.#

Sorry, but it's a myth that parents are the dinosaurs here.  Parents are, in my experience, almost always open to innovation and large scale change.  It is education policy makers and many school leaders who are not.

> Its one of the reasons why the existing fragmented approach has evolved.

I disagree that parents are the reason for the current shambles, but I can agree to disagree.

1
 1234None 27 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Is it really out dated or just your own parental perception.

As a parent and someone who worked as a teacher for a quite a while yes, it is massively outdated.  Look at the assessment methods used as one example.  Most subjects are still largely assessed by what a young person can write on a piece of paper.  Computer memory is cheap these days and it would be possible to radically change assessment methods to be more varied and more inclusive.  

We still teach kids to, for example, label the parts of a bunsen burner, or recall facts (the sexual reproductive organs of a flower, for example).  I use these things as examples, as we spend so much time on things like these at the expense of other things that might serve young people better.

We focus on "marking" - just the very term is archaic.  We put red pen in books that most kids never look at.  At what opportunity cost?  If I follow the marking policy in many schools I could spend 20 hours per week "marking" books - to evidence my work for inspectors, rather than doing useful stuff for the kids.  Verbal, in-person feedback is so much more effective, and the research shows this.  There are many other things that we could spend that 20 hours per week on, instead of box-ticking, that would be way  more useful to the kids.  Why do we do this?  Because we always have.  There is no evidence to suggest that written feedback is effective but there is a huge focus on this in many schools.

I use these things purely as examples that are symptomatic of a massively outdated system

> I reckon any education system struggles these days to keep up with the way the world and society is moving on.

Our education system struggles more than most.  I have consulted in some govt schools in China and elsewhere and while they are not perfect they are quite often way ahead when it comes to innovation and encouraging creativity/critical thinking.  Maker spaces are everywhere and science is often 60-70% investigation/practical based.  There is a lot of BS propaganda around that suggests that elsewhere it is all still rote learning.  For me, the proof is in the pudding.  Lots of major innovations (not just copying stuff) are starting to come out of China and similar countries.  I worked a few years in the USA and saw that most of the pharmaceutical R&D management teams (for example) are Chinese and Indian.  This isn't because they can be paid less...it's because of innovation and ability to  create.

> And lets not hark back to the days of yore,it helps nobody.

Agreed

 Andy Hardy 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> And leave banking to the bankers?

Horses and courses spring to mind. Teachers didn't engender the 2008 crash for example, (OK to be pedantic, not directly)

> Or how about the government set a general framework and let teachers and parents get on with it?

Well that would be lovely. 

Have you ever had occassion to read about the Finnish education system? A number of years ago they were at or near the bottom of lots of international league tables for pupil performance so they basically put teachers in charge, there were other changes - teacher training standards were raised etc but crucially this was lead by teachers - net result Finland now consistently rank among the highest performing pupils when they leave at 18. The schools would probably have Col. Cholmondley-Warner choking on his pink gin down at the Con club, what with not giving out homework and only starting when they are aged 7 (IIRC), but they seem to work on a large (i.e national) scale.

OP Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Horses and courses spring to mind. Teachers didn't engender the 2008 crash for example, (OK to be pedantic, not directly)

> Well that would be lovely. 

>

  So, set key topics to be studied and skills learn in a few core subjects and then give schools and their headteachers funding and lots of independence to get on with it?

 Andy Hardy 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Nearly - not enough time to answer in full, but in my view education should not be treated as a 'market' wherein freedom to fail is enshrined by the jungle's laws, and it's every school for itself.

 neilh 27 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

I was making an observation that if you do not carry the parents with you then any top down system will ultimately fail.

 neilh 27 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

There again I read in the economist that alot of Chinese go into science as the free and independent thinking that is required in arts/creative subjects is curtailed because of state censorship. In sciences it is less controlled.But that is another subject. 

 TobyA 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   So, set key topics to be studied and skills learn in a few core subjects and then give schools and their headteachers funding and lots of independence to get on with it?

Basically you've described the national curriculum and academisation, except for it should be "sufficient funding" rather than the current case of "inadequate funding".

Can I ask Postman, what experience of UK education you have? When were you at school? Have you had kids go through state schools in recent years? Your view of what the system is like just doesn't seem to be anything like what I've seen as a teacher and a parent. I have had Google news suggest some Telegraph articles on education and free schools in particular in recent days, and your view does feel rather close to sort of thing in those articles though!

 Andy Clarke 27 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> As a parent and someone who worked as a teacher for a quite a while yes, it is massively outdated.  Look at the assessment methods used as one example.  Most subjects are still largely assessed by what a young person can write on a piece of paper.  Computer memory is cheap these days and it would be possible to radically change assessment methods to be more varied and more inclusive.  

Formal (exam) assessment was far more varied - and fair - until just a few years ago, when coursework was ripped out from so many subjects. It beggars belief that English GCSE no longer takes account of students' oral skills in the grade awarded. It certainly wasn't parents who were the driving force behind this massively retrograde step. It was the political right, with its ingrained distrust of teachers (presumably based on the belief that the profession tends to the political left). I am of course well aware that this change was marketed as making exams fairer (because middle-class parents wouldn't be able to write Toby's and Lucinda's essays for them) and workloads easier. Both these claims were fatuous. As a headteacher I expected to be trusted to ensure that all assessment carried out in my school was fair - but I wasn't.

I can remember teaching A-level English when a student's original poetry and self-chosen wider reading essay could be submitted as part of the coursework component. It seems like a vanished golden age. The system has been dragged back into the distant past - and not by teachers.

Post edited at 18:41
 neilh 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I assume that was also because parents also  bought into the system. 

OP Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> Basically you've described the national curriculum and academisation, except for it should be "sufficient funding" rather than the current case of "inadequate funding".

>

  Funny that

> Can I ask Postman, what experience of UK education you have? When were you at school? Have you had kids go through state schools in recent years? Your view of what the system is like just doesn't seem to be anything like what I've seen as a teacher and a parent.>

  No direct. I have several teacher friends in the independent and private sectors. It just interests me so I've read several books and many articles on the subject. Actually, if I have a conclusion, it's that a good headteacher will attract, maintain and develop good teachers and produce good outcomes. What I wonder is why the teachers' unions and educationalist seem narrowly focused in their views.

  It's an interesting question. Obviously one should take very seriously the evidence of individual teachers and headteachers, but essentially that is going to be anecdotal. So how do you stack that up against the evidence of people devoted to achieving an overview and assembling the evidence to accordingly? And how do you balance the evidence of summaries of Ofsted reports against the views of individual teachers or, for that matter, politicians.

Post edited at 18:38
ElArt 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I’d agree with the gulags and work camps but the Armed Forces aren’t bad educators!!!

i get your point though 👍👍

 1234None 27 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> There again I read in the economist that alot of Chinese go into science as the free and independent thinking that is required in arts/creative subjects is curtailed because of state censorship. In sciences it is less controlled.But that is another subject. 

Indeed, another subject, but real science (not the science that is taught in schools as part of the GCSE or any other course currently taught) should involve as much free and independent thinking as the arts or "creative subjects."  Our way of thinking about science as something that can be taught purely from a textbook or through boring, bog-standard practicals with a list of instructions, needs to change. 

I have taught some kids who asked questions that demonstrated great scientific thinking, really taking things to the next level.  An example - one kid staring out of the window one day.  I asked him what he was thinking about.  We had been discussing different types of "fats" - saturated vs unsaturated and the fact that unsaturated fats and oils are most often found in high levels in plants.  He asked why we could not genetically engineer animals, in the same way we do sweetcorn (we had also discussed the GM varieties of corn) to make more unsaturated fats.  it got me thinking instantly whether anyone had tried etc.  This wasn't an isolated incident, but despite this kid having a great scientific mind and a really good understanding of the science, his writing was poor and he had never achieved a "pass" mark in an exam throughout his science education.  There were many like him. They could have made great scientists, but their inability to recall the name of the parts of a bunsen burner, or their poor handwriting, meant they never got the credit for what they could do as the courses I taught were minimum 80% written exam.  Anecdotal, I know, but heartbreaking as a passionate science educator.

In the days where computers are everywhere there is no excuse for not letting these kids use them in exams, or not letting them record their thoughts in other ways - through presentations or videos etc.  That'll shock some dinosaurs I know, and they'll paint me as some sort of tree-huggy idealist, but that's just the point - to me education should be about creating ooportunities for young people to discover their passions, to show us what they can do/create.  

Post edited at 18:44
 Coel Hellier 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Clarke:

> I can remember teaching A-level English when a student's original poetry and self-chosen wider reading essay could be submitted as part of the coursework component

Out of interest, how did you, as a headmaster, ensure that such things really were the student's work, and not the product of considerable assistance from others, such as parents?

OP Postmanpat 27 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> I have taught some kids who asked questions that demonstrated great scientific thinking, really taking things to the next level.  They could have made great scientists, but their inability to recall the name of the parts of a bunsen burner, or their poor handwriting, meant they never got the credit for what they could do.  Anecdotal, I know, but heartbreaking as a passionate science educator.

>

  I was Nuffield science guinea pig in the 1970s. The concept was "learning through discovery". So we did experiments with bunsen burners and electrical circuits and were expected to be latter day Priestleys, Newtons or Faradays working out the laws of science that the experiments demonstrated. All that happened is that various boys made various guesses until the same three boys each week got the answer. I thought at the time it was because these boys were so clever (actually they were) but strongly suspect that it was more because they spent their spare time playing with chemistry sets and reading science magazines whilst I was reading "The hard years" and Penthouse magazine.

  The rest of us were left feeling a bit dim and still confused because we'd heard so many crap suggestions that we didn't really know which was correct . In a word, except for the few boys who were very interested in and talented at science it was frustrating and confusing and an incredibly inefficient way of learning. Apples were falling off trees for along time before Newton explained it.

 Andy Clarke 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Out of interest, how did you, as a headmaster, ensure that such things really were the student's work, and not the product of considerable assistance from others, such as parents?

The key guarantor of coursework integrity was of course the individual teacher. For instance, as an A-level English teacher who had seen numerous examples of a student's work completed in class and under my personal supervision, it would have been immediately obvious to me if the standard suddenly improved when a piece had been completed at home. It always amazed me that the tabloid press seemed to find it so difficult to grasp this very simple classroom reality. All teachers rapidly build up a detailed knowledge of the standard at which a student is operating and any quantum leap which occurred unsupervised would immediately be investigated.

It's also worth pointing out that much practical coursework - eg Science investigations, Technology projects, English oral activities - would take place mainly under supervision anyway.

As headteacher, I ensured the school had in place a rigorous system for checking and moderating teachers' individual coursework assessments within subject departments, which would involve teams of teachers meeting to scrutinise folders of students' work from classes they did not themselves teach. CPD time would always be allocated to this.

 neilh 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Clarke:

Until you get a duff  teacher who is not interested in their pupils. Never forgotten my daughters A level ICT teacher who at the end of her 1st  year did not know in a class of 8 ( she was the only girl) that she wanted to do computer science at Uni. 

And that was at a so called top performing comp school

Post edited at 19:36
 Coel Hellier 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Clarke:

> ... it would have been immediately obvious to me if the standard suddenly improved when a piece had been completed at home.

Agreed, that would be clear to the teacher. 

But, (1) teachers generally want their students to succeed, and (2) schools want their students to succeed because schools are judged on their students' outcomes (this thread for example!). 

Thus there is both scope and inventive for turning a blind eye.  Of course plenty of teachers would not, but some might, and having a system that incentivises bad behaviour is not good. 

By the way, I work in a university, where, to a large extent:  (1) the university has control over what degree classes students get, and (2) universities have incentives, such as league tables and student-satisfaction ratings, to award more good degrees.   And has anyone noticed what has happened to the fraction of the cohort getting first class degrees in the last couple of decades?   Has anyone noticed what has happened to the fraction getting 3rds or 2:2s?  

 1234None 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   I was Nuffield science guinea pig in the 1970s. The concept was "learning through discovery". So we did experiments with bunsen burners and electrical circuits and were expected to be latter day Priestleys, Newtons or Faradays working out the laws of science that the experiments demonstrated. All that happened is that various boys made various guesses until the same three boys each week got the answer. I thought at the time it was because these boys were so clever (actually they were) but strongly suspect that it was more because they spent their spare time playing with chemistry sets and reading science magazines whilst I was reading "The hard years" and Penthouse magazine.

>   The rest of us were left feeling a bit dim and still confused because we'd heard so many crap suggestions that we didn't really know which was correct . In a word, except for the few boys who were very interested in and talented at science it was frustrating and confusing and an incredibly inefficient way of learning.

Depends what you want to learn, I suppose....  For what it's worth I think there is room for both the approach you describe AND a more teacher-guided approach...or indeed something in the middle.  Most importantly though, the approach of the teacher should suit them as a person, and the kids they are teaching.  The system we currently has tried to over-simplify a job that involves a massively complex web of human interactions and emotions.  It's getting better, but the OFSTED inspection system used to have one model for an effective lesson, and one model only.  I used to want to want my lessons to be so different and so innovative that they didn't know which box to tick...which category to put me in.  But II had more passion than most in the profession.  

> Apples were falling off trees for along time before Newton explained it.

Indeed.  I recall being pressured to demonstrate that most (ideally all) my students had achieved the "learning objective" during each lesson.  So, like most teachers, I tried to give the students a chance to figure things out for themselves through scaffolded, well-structured practical investigation, and some thought-provoking questions thrown in at just the right moments.  Invariably, a few students figured out what they were supposed to for themselves.  Usually, quite a few didn't.  The problem (in my view) is that the current system then sort of encourages us as teachers to just tell the students who don;t figure it out what they are supposed to know.  But, you see, over time, most kids will figure out that it takes a lot of effort to figure things out for themselves.  They also figure out that they'll be told how it works anyway at the end of the lesson (or sequence of lessons) anyway because we assume that the students' performance is more a result of teacher performance, rather than a collaboration.  So, as a young person, why bother trying so hard to figure things out, when it requires much more investment of energy and a much higher failure rate...when all the stuff you need to know will be served up on a plate a little later anyway in a much lower effort format.  We then, as teachers and parents, bemoan the poor effort levels of kids in the classroom....  Hmmmmm

I experimented for a while in just telling the kids who didn't get there after my painstakingly planned investigation/project-based lesson sequences that I wasn't just going to give them the answers and that they would figure it out one day.  If that worried them, then they could come to after-school tutorials (in my own time) where I'd offer small-group tuition and explanation (even after that, some kids are never going to get there - not everyone is made to be a scientist or even to understand the basics, even if the system expects all students to be above average!).  I was lucky to have a supportive head who could see what I was going with it.  I broke my balls for those kids as I knew, hand on heart that they'd get there.  Eventually...most did.  The kids and parents bought into it.  I was also very lucky to have in-classroom technology and the difference it can make to assessment practice and communication for kids with poor writing skills is incredible.

I'm a big fan of constructivist approaches to learning in science.  Yes, there needs to be some structure and yes, questioning and practical work needs to be well-thought out so that most students progress towards the deep understanding we'd like them to have.  But that doesn't mean worksheets and textbook work are an effective means of encouraging young scientists, or to develop original thinking.

I understand your point about the Nuffield guinea pig thing, and its easy to use that to advocate a more teacher-led, conservative approach, but I really don't think that's the answer.  That's why I responded to your OP in the way I did.  To me it was an over-simplification.

 krikoman 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    Keep up at the back. The argument is not and never has been that people were "taught their politics" except perhaps in the broadest sense of any curriculum, just like any news programme, being a subjective choice of what "matters".


Sorry, I was taught at a comprehensive, so what do you expect?

I thought we were discussing the "conservative" part of the teaching, it was you who first mentioned Marx and people objections.

1
 Coel Hellier 27 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> I'm a big fan of constructivist approaches to learning in science.  Yes, there needs to be some structure and yes, questioning and practical work needs to be well-thought out so that most students progress towards the deep understanding we'd like them to have. 

As with all these issues, we really need a balance. 

Yes, teaching science with the kids experimenting, following scientific methods, figuring things out for themselves, in open-ended investigation, is a very good thing.

But, there's a really big but.  It's way too hard and way too time-consuming to be the main method of learning.  There's a vast amount of useful, known science out there, and any one person only has time and ability to attain a tiny part of it, if they do it be the figure-it-out-for-themselves method.

So, the "textbook" method really is needed.  Even for professional scientists, the vast majority of the science they know -- everything other than the tiny part of knowledge that they've created themselves -- they will learn by the "textbook" method.  And they need to be good at assimilating that, otherwise they won't have the toolkit necessary for doing the figure-it-out-for-themselves part. 

 summo 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

If every generation only learnt what they managed to discover for themselves we'd still be in the stone age. One of the reasons we have advanced is the condensing and passing on knowledge learnt, the formation of text books to store the knowledge etc. 

Yes it's an extreme example, but with only a finite amount of time, a vast and ever growing range of information, I think the first stage of education needs to be fairly structured and dense. There is of course plenty opportunities for kids to do the kind of learning you talk about when very young prior formal school and arguably there are benefits in this phase lasting until their 6th or 7th year as many other countries do. 

 1234None 28 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

I advocate use of both more traditional style "textbook" learning AND open-ended investigation.  It is also possible to plan well-scaffolded projects that are something in the middle, especially with the use of smart educational technology.  Of course, teacher explanation and some textbook stuff is useful for consolidation and so that students can link in their minds what they have observed in practical science.

I'm not sure of your level of expertise in this, but I can assure you the tools exist so that there does not need to be 30 kids in a classroom all learning exactly the same thing at the same time...at least not all of the time.   The tools could also be easily developed to match the levels of support to the requirements of the student.

I have nowhere suggested that there is no place for passing on of knowledge...simply that there should be more space for creativity, original thinking and open-ended investigation than currently exists. 

 1234None 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> As with all these issues, we really need a balance. 

> Yes, teaching science with the kids experimenting, following scientific methods, figuring things out for themselves, in open-ended investigation, is a very good thing.

> But, there's a really big but.  It's way too hard and way too time-consuming to be the main method of learning.  There's a vast amount of useful, known science out there, and any one person only has time and ability to attain a tiny part of it, if they do it be the figure-it-out-for-themselves method.

> So, the "textbook" method really is needed.  Even for professional scientists, the vast majority of the science they know -- everything other than the tiny part of knowledge that they've created themselves -- they will learn by the "textbook" method.  And they need to be good at assimilating that, otherwise they won't have the toolkit necessary for doing the figure-it-out-for-themselves part. 

How much can you imagine educational technology playing a role?  With educational tech it would not be too time-consuming to use the kind of approach I am advocating (which is a mix of both more traditional methods AND open-ended practical work).  It's fairly easy to imagine how existing tech could be used to really personalise learning...we expect teachers to differentiate for their 30 students in the room, when so much more could be achieved with investment in smart tech use...  We are educational dinosaurs in the UK in my opinion, but yes - the situation exists in many other places too...  

 wintertree 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> In the days where computers are everywhere there is no excuse for not letting these kids use them in exams, or not letting them record their thoughts in other ways - through presentations or videos etc.  That'll shock some dinosaurs I know, and they'll paint me as some sort of tree-huggy idealist, but that's just the point - to me education should be about creating ooportunities for young people to discover their passions, to show us what they can do/create.  

The use of handwritten exams is jeffing ridiculous.  Exams for the sciences largely based on recall of randomly chosen facts (“stamp collecting”) is jeffing ridiculous. The net effect is to grade students in a way largely uncorrelated with their aptitude, and training (I can’t say educating) them for these exams squanders their most formative years.

Teaching a STEM subject to post A-level students, half of what I do in their first year is to try and get them to acknowledge that we want them to understand and be able to explain stuff rather than to do Pavlovian recall of formula and bosh some numbers through.  It seems you can get A*++++’s across the board at A-level and have a head full of distilled knowledge but not really understand any of it.  I put a lot of effort in to work to diversify assessment with electronic assessment, graphical assessment and understanding based assessment and it’s interesting how some students really come through with this compared to more rote learning stuff

It’s not all roses though - go to university to do a wordy subject and all your continuous assessment essays must be submitted as electronically typed.  Then - big exam - boom - handwritten essay in a strict time limit.  This is such a different skill set to typing one that I can’t believe it’s used for such a major fraction of marks when it’s never taught and is so antiquated and irrelevant.

 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> In the days where computers are everywhere there is no excuse for not letting these kids use them in exams,

The issues here are practical.  If the kid can use their own computer then they could have hidden on it draft essays, copies of model answers of the last ten years of the exam, and all sorts of stuff.   How can you police that?

So one could then say they can use a school/university computer, with a specifically restricted set of software and functions.  And the student can borrow one to practice on.  

But then the school/university needs a set of such computers, one for each student, which would sit idle outside exams, and they need a technician to maintain them all and see they have the right software, and then they'd need a new set every 3 years or so.   One can do this, but it's expensive and a hassle.

Further, typing on a computer is noisier than writing, so could disturb other students.  A room with 50 people all typing is actually quite noisy. 

So, in practice, at my university, using a computer is allowed but restricted to students with specific issues such as dyslexia.

If there were an easy way of allowing students to use computers in a hassle-free way that didn't enable rampant cheating, then I'm sure this would be adopted.

By the way, if I were taking a science exam I'd much prefer to do it handwritten, since I can write lines of maths far faster than I can format equations on a computer.  

Second, I do think that schools can be too indulgent, treating "bad handwriting" as something the kid can't do anything about.  And yet, it's just a skill that can be learnt, just as kids learn to use their hands for playing computer games, pianos, table tennis, etc.  Nearly everyone -- excepting some with genuine medical issues -- can do it to a sufficient standard if they try. 

 Offwidth 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

Good quality exams demonstrate subject understanding under pressure and very few in STEM don't give formulae sheets. The professional accrediting bodies require a certain proportion of STEM courses to be examined. Students with formal evidence that they struggle with exams get extra time, individually invigilated rooms, breaks, and a computer to type on if required. Courses develop students to deal with any exams throughout the course... and most still come in based on exam results... there is no 'boom'. It's common for many different assessment methods to be encountered on a modern STEM course as befits the aims of the modules.

 Offwidth 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

"Nearly everyone -- excepting some with genuine medical issues -- can do it to a sufficient standard if they try. "

Genuine medical issues... is that why GPs have the worst handwriting?

 wintertree 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> Good quality exams demonstrate subject understanding under pressure 

Sure - but how often in your professional career have you had to demonstrate understanding under pressure?  Do we want to sift people who can “code or die” (Swordfish style) or do we want to sift people who can do useful stuff in real world conditions.

 My rant about exams and understanding was largely aimed at A-level however, the effects of which mainly comes across as a hurdle to be dismantled to prepare students for understanding based exams at uni.

> The professional accrediting bodies require a certain proportion of STEM courses to be examined.

They do - but that proportion is often a lot lower than what individual departments actually do.  There’s a rising change with these bodies over student mental welfare that’s going to break through soon enough as well.

> Students with formal evidence that they struggle with exams get extra time, individually invigilated rooms, breaks, and a computer to type on if required. 

Not those who “struggle” but those with medical circumstances (including dyslexia etc in that).  A shame for those not diagnosed or not wishing to request special treatment (a surprising number).  Also a shame for those who just aren’t good at exams but are very good at the subject.  I’ve advised a lot of people in that category and it’s hard for them.  Really hard.

> Courses develop students to deal with any exams throughout the course... and most still come in based on exam results... there is no 'boom'.

There really is in essay based subjects - all your coursework will be electronically submitted then there’s a hand written essay in the exam.  Sure there are mock exams but hand writing an essay under a time deadline is rather archaic at best.

> It's common for many different assessment methods to be encountered on a modern STEM course as befits the aims of the modules.

Agree.  Again my rant was more aimed at A-levels.

 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

From a business perspective you need both handwriting and computer skills.

Going down the one route will not be good for those students.

 wintertree 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Second, I do think that schools can be too indulgent, treating "bad handwriting" as something the kid can't do anything about.  And yet, it's just a skill that can be learnt, just as kids learn to use their hands for playing computer games, pianos, table tennis, etc

I’m not sure who to feel more sorry for - your department’s EDI/Juno/Athena swan committee or your severely dyslexic students...

On the handwriting front there’s a lot to be said for just teaching block letters - teach less stuff but better.  Block letters do me just fine and I much prefer reading block letters when marking text questions to all manner of scrawled cursive messes...

 wintertree 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> From a business perspective you need both handwriting and computer skills.

Thats a very wide ranging claim...  One I don’t have to look very far to find gaping exceptions to...

 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

>> "Nearly everyone -- excepting some with genuine medical issues -- can do it to a sufficient standard if they try. "

> Genuine medical issues... is that why GPs have the worst handwriting?

They simply don't try.   That's because they are required to write a lot, but with (usually) no penalty for poor handwriting, so they get sloppy. 

 Offwidth 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

Pretty much all the STEM courses at my post 92 are close to minimum and from our co- external examining we don't seem out of line on this ... on a new Engineering set of courses, backed by big local employers, we are unusual being at minimum.

The only reason there can be a 'boom' is incompetent course design and uncaring staff. Such courses would get a hammering these days in the NSS.

Special  exam conditions is pretty much those who really struggle these days ( in the good places). We have a school mental health counsellor who is highly supportive and who can require extra time for things like unusually high anxiety levels about exams without medical sign off. We monitor such exams in special controlled conditions (around 15%) compared to other indicators and we still think those taking them in are slightly underachieving but things are way fairer than they were more than a decade ago. Sadly dyslexics are the big recent losers as government have massively cut support.

 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

Of course it is. Some businesses you will need pure computer skills and some you will not. If you work in an environment where nobody uses handwriting then you cannot imagine another world.And there are plenty out there who use a mix. So make sure your students can use both or else you are doing them no favours at all.

I will give you a specific example. Every time I visit a defence contractor in Europe or the USA, my laptop and mobile phone are removed from me for secutiry reasons..You need to be able to write everything down and even draw diagrams on bits of paper at meetings.

Do not kid yourself that you do not need these skills.

Post edited at 09:31
 JohnBson 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

It's interesting. I was educated almost entirely under the Blair system and it wasn't great. My experience was that the system severely limited the potential to progress. In our 1st year at secondary school we were set. I ended up in set 4 which would rule me out of getting higher than a D at GCSE level. I then worked hard to get to set 2, and here the maximum grade I could achieve was a B.

The lunacy of this is that the exams were split into parts; foundation, intermediate and advanced. I was only submitted for the first two and scored 98% and left the exam 45mins early. Had I been submitted for the advanced also I would have scored an A as I would have still scored over 70% of the total marks without putting my pen to paper in that section!

Oh well, life's tough, too bad. But this isn't where the system was almost criminally designed to hobble the chances of those who were deemed to be 'not good enough'. I then went on to study Mathematics for A level. My first lecture was a 'recap' on differentiation. Because I'd never been taught the contents of the advanced paper I spent 4 months completely out of my depth, needing to be carried by my coursemates. Luckily I eventually cracked however I'm also very driven and generally of you tell me I can't do something I'll bloody well do it. 

This leads me onto my last point to prove that the system was f*cked before Gove got there. During my GCSEs I took the new Engineering double award. This was taught by three DT teachers with 'previous experience' in the field. I was lucky and took a placement at an engineering firm for my work experience and realised that most of what they were teaching about modern manufacturing was 10 years out of date! I am not the kind of person to sit back and let it happen so I told my teachers that they weren't doing their jobs and that they weren't teaching the course material correctly because of incompetence and ignorance.

I was taken into a side room during my last lesson after calling them out for it yet again. They told me that I would fail and never become an Engineer because I didn't listen. I was one of two who passed. I got two B's and the other guy got two C's. 30 others were failed.

It would be easy to say I was at a crap school for my GCSEs but the reality was it was the best in my catchment area and performed well nationally. 

My A level experience, different school, was better down to teachers who cared and educated people properly. They encouraged aspiration but this good education was only available to those who didn't drop away.

As I said if you tell me I can't do something I generally will so now I'm an Engineer pretty much just to say f*ck you to my GCSE teachers who repeatedly told me it would never happen.

We could look to Scotland for advice but as my partner and her sister will testify state schools there are full of teachers who will tell you that you won't make anything of yourself and you should do something easier. My partner is a university educated engineer also having battled up from humble beginnings without educational support at home or in school. Her sister is currently completing her apprenticeship with a large engineering firm having dropped out of school before 16 she's proving everyone wrong and flying high.

​I have little time for teachers and their input into what they think is a successful education system as they, like in most professions are equally susceptible to being arseholes and jobsworths. Creative politicians need to come up with a curriculum which favours social mobility and doesn't keep people down, like it did to so many people I was educated with who also had the potential. 

 summo 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

In the world of employment how many people have hand written more than a paragraph or one side of a4 in the last year? I'd bet a staggering small percentage. 

Communication isn't posted by hand it's sent electronically. There just isn't any reason to write, you'd have to scan it first. 

The problem is many school don't reflect how the world of work is. They should be teaching all the IT skills required to use a multitude of platforms efficiently. Because that's what they'll be sat in front in the future. Critically the biggest stumbling block is probably funding. 

Certainly in sweden in their 4th year (year they turn 11) all kids have their own school issued laptop or pad. It stays with them for the year. At least half the homework and test are on there. It helps the teachers too, they can instantly see the results of a test, which questions they got wrong and also critically how many got the same question wrong. Many are national programmes so you could potentially identify weaknesses in a curriculum etc.. modify lessons or the IT programmes through the school year. 

The secondary bonus is each student can do their own research online, presentations for class etc..   and they can still maintain a mobile phone ban in school as there isn't a reason for them to use one. 

1
 Offwidth 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

So if GPs can get sloppy, so can anyone and it can't be so much to do with schools, with GPs being amongst the highest fliers at school. My handwriting was always well below par, despite diligence, and I was told I was the best at physical sciences my secondary had seen.

 wintertree 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Of course it is. Some businesses you will need pure computer skills and some you will not. If you work in an environment where nobody uses handwriting then you cannot imagine another world.And there are plenty out there who use a mix. So make sure your students can use both or else you are doing them no favours at all.

I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick.  I have been ranting about the unfairness of examining with handwriting when all coursework is typed. I could rant more that teaching cursive rather than fast block writing is a pointless waste of time.  I could tell you about my dad who was MD of a business with 100+ staff and who couldn’t write legibly.

I have co-founded a small business, we have several staff and are growing.  I never need to hand write.  The handwriting component of any staff is limited to block printing measurements and notes in lab books etc.  I had a builder had his business help me renovate our property.  In 6 months the only hand written things were some measurements and plans.

I’m not so naive and dumb as to think people don’t need to be able to write - but there’s a big difference between being able to block letter the odd paragraph when needed and being able to hand write a whole essay under exam conditions,

I look at young children today using tablets and voice controlled devices and I can see the genuine death of widespread ability to do handwriting in the wind.

My original point was that handwriting in exams is increasingly silly, not that people shouldn’t be able to write.  But exams should only test what they’re supposed to test - a physics exam tests physics, a handwriting exam tests handwriting.  If you make a physics result dependant on an ability to handwrite, you’re not really testing physics any more.  You’re testing both.  Some degree of writing is really needed in maths based content as electronic versions are much less good.  But there’s more than one way to test an egg.

Post edited at 09:33
 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> It's fairly easy to imagine how existing tech could be used to really personalise learning...we expect teachers to differentiate for their 30 students in the room, when so much more could be achieved with investment in smart tech use... 

Yes, it would be a good thing to invest in: smart software that can react to the child, guiding and leading them through something, reacting to their responses, and also allowing them to explore directions they choose.

The hardware is there, but the software isn't.  It would take a massive program to develop that software, and it would really need to be done well otherwise the child will tolerate it for a while then disengage.

There is a whole industry dedicated to producing software that reacts to and engages the child, it's the gaming industry,  which spends tens of billions a year on the software. 

Maybe society should consider spending that on educational software?

But, one thing to note is that kids are humans and humans need interaction with humans.  So the interaction with the teacher would remain important. 

 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

See my edit on my post.

 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> So if GPs can get sloppy, so can anyone and it can't be so much to do with schools, ...

It's to do with schools saying: "your handwriting is bad; don't worry, it's not your fault, we'll make allowances", rather than: "You're being sloppy, take more care and make it legible, even if you need to do it slower". 

You can bet that GPs could write legibly, if they really needed to. 

 wintertree 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> See my edit on my post.

As I said I was ranting against extensive handwriting in exams.  I never claimed you can make it in general without being able to write...  But a great many business people hand write very little these days.  Your example of having to take - presumably extensive - paper notes in a security restricted setting is hardly a widespread or representative example mind.

 Offwidth 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

As ever you are blinkered and ignore reality. I know many STEM academics who struggled with writing all their lives and had a torrid time at school in this area, despite trying very hard. It's one of the main reasons they ended up where are.... less emphasis on writing on the subjects they chose.

Post edited at 09:47
 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

How many work in defence or similar sectors?Quite a few.

The issue is as always if in your environment that you do not use it, then you will consider it redundant.

Crikey in Maths at Uni they still heaven forbid use chalk and a blackboard and woe betide anybody who even thinks of using whiteboards or other technologies.

Everything has its place.

 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

>  If you make a physics result dependant on an ability to handwrite, you’re not really testing physics any more. 

Most physics exams require a few sentences in appropriate places (rather than extended essays), and the marking accepts anything legible, so most people (excepting a few with severe dyslexia) should be able to do that sufficiently.

Given that the prose is interspersed with maths and diagrams and other stuff, it's still (for most people) currently way better to do this by hand than on a computer.

 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> As ever you are blinkered and ignore reality.

As ever you quickly resort to attack-dog nastiness. 

 wintertree 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh: 

> The issue is as always if in your environment that you do not use it, then you will consider it redundant.

I never said it is redundant. To paraphrase, I said I don’t like it being such a big factor in the assessment of unrelated subjects.  

> Everything has its place.

I never said otherwise.  Although the place for handwriting is getting ever smaller.  As I said earlier I’d happily see pupils taught exclusively block writing to a higher standard as that’s a better match to the dark corners of the world where handwriting still has its place...

 Offwidth 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Seems fair to me as you seem really callously detached from the hell that some fellow academics in similar subjects faced when dealing with their handwriting at school. Plus many other kids besides. Especially true of my generation and earlier where some were physically beaten at times by sadists with similar views, that we were just stubbornly  lazy (with canes, slippers,  rulers etc).

1
 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> Seems fair to me as you seem really callously detached ... 

Look, I never said that some kids don't struggle more than others with certain things.  Of course they do.  What I said is that (excepting some cases of severe dyslexia or similar) the better attitude is "this is a weakness of mine, therefore I need to work at it", rather than being told: "it's not your fault, we'll indulge you".

> beaten at times by sadists with similar views, that we were just stubbornly  lazy (with canes, slippers,  rulers etc).

And it seems to have emotionally damaged you, given that you seem to have turned into a nasty little shit judging by your typical posting style.

3
 1234None 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The issues here are practical.  If the kid can use their own computer then they could have hidden on it draft essays, copies of model answers of the last ten years of the exam, and all sorts of stuff.   How can you police that?

Errrmmmm...fairly easily these days...schools have computers and networks and the software and documents available can be fairly easily controlled.

> So one could then say they can use a school/university computer, with a specifically restricted set of software and functions.  And the student can borrow one to practice on.  

> But then the school/university needs a set of such computers, one for each student, which would sit idle outside exams, and they need a technician to maintain them all and see they have the right software, and then they'd need a new set every 3 years or so.   One can do this, but it's expensive and a hassle.

Not all students sit their exams at the same time, so no - there does not need to be one computer per student.  And most schools already have IT staff, plus a requirement to update computer hardware and network infrastcuture.  These things could and should be available in schools anyway if we are going to provide any sort of education.

> Further, typing on a computer is noisier than writing, so could disturb other students.  A room with 50 people all typing is actually quite noisy. 

Another reason why not....I hear so many reasons (excuses) to avoid change....  When these young people go to work will they work in silent environments? is this really the sort of justification we are going to use to avoid modernisation? 

> So, in practice, at my university, using a computer is allowed but restricted to students with specific issues such as dyslexia.

Yes, and it has been like that for some time.  it will stay like that with the sort of thinking and excuses to avoid change on display here.

> If there were an easy way of allowing students to use computers in a hassle-free way that didn't enable rampant cheating, then I'm sure this would be adopted.

It is all achievable.  It might not be "easy".  

> By the way, if I were taking a science exam I'd much prefer to do it handwritten, since I can write lines of maths far faster than I can format equations on a computer.  

You're showing how out of touch you are with secondary education here, Coel and also with how technology might be used to modernise and improve assessment.  Do you really think it is all about writing "lines of maths" and "formatting equations."  I'm thinking more along the lines of using technology to record video footage of kids presenting their understanding of a subject, of using computer simulations to allow kids to perform interesting practical activities, with associated questions to check understanding.  Where there is a requirement to "write lines of maths" then yes,, give kids the choice to hand-write if they wish.  Standardisation makes things easier...forcing all kids to respond in the same format, but that doesn't mean it is the best way and it doesn't mean that we can't do better.,

> Second, I do think that schools can be too indulgent, treating "bad handwriting" as something the kid can't do anything about.  And yet, it's just a skill that can be learnt, just as kids learn to use their hands for playing computer games, pianos, table tennis, etc.  Nearly everyone -- excepting some with genuine medical issues -- can do it to a sufficient standard if they try. 

I don't necessarily totally disagree, Coel, but that is a separate issue.  Again, you're showing a lack of experience working with these young people in schools.  There are hundreds of thousands of kids who reach age 16 for whom handwriting is a problem.  Perhaps you're right that it is just a skill that anyone could achieve with better training, or perhaps because "you're alright, Jack" and you haven't experienced how much this can hold someone back in assessment, you just think we are being over-indulgent.  I'm not a handwriting expert, but in terms of assessment in science, why force a kid who does struggle writing to show their understanding in writing?  Why set them up to fail?  if they can type...let them type.  

I've heard everything you've said before, but to my mind all of these things are just excuses to avoid a major overhaul of and investment in our assessment system, so that it better allows more young people to show what they can do...

 1234None 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree: 

> The use of handwritten exams is jeffing ridiculous.  Exams for the sciences largely based on recall of randomly chosen facts (“stamp collecting”) is jeffing ridiculous. The net effect is to grade students in a way largely uncorrelated with their aptitude, and training (I can’t say educating) them for these exams squanders their most formative years.

Agree 100%

> Teaching a STEM subject to post A-level students, half of what I do in their first year is to try and get them to acknowledge that we want them to understand and be able to explain stuff rather than to do Pavlovian recall of formula and bosh some numbers through.  It seems you can get A*++++’s across the board at A-level and have a head full of distilled knowledge but not really understand any of it.  I put a lot of effort in to work to diversify assessment with electronic assessment, graphical assessment and understanding based assessment and it’s interesting how some students really come through with this compared to more rote learning stuff

Bravo - the teaching profession needs more of this.  I was one of those A-Level students who got straight As, but had major gaps in my understanding.  Only when I taught the same material many years later did I finally understand the missing bits  

> It’s not all roses though - go to university to do a wordy subject and all your continuous assessment essays must be submitted as electronically typed.  Then - big exam - boom - handwritten essay in a strict time limit.  This is such a different skill set to typing one that I can’t believe it’s used for such a major fraction of marks when it’s never taught and is so antiquated and irrelevant.

Again - agree 100%.  The university assessment system needs an overhaul too.

 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

I do not know about you but every time I go into a meeting with my company’s solicitors I  see everything being hand written down in those legal books they use.My HR adviser is always going on at me for keeping handwritten notes of meetings with staff , even if they are then “typed” up.

An interesting discussion on these things can be used in different working environments.

 wintertree 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> I do not know about you but every time I go into a meeting with my company’s solicitors I  see everything being hand written down in those legal books they use.

I am the odd one out taking my notes on my phone in such (rare) meetings - but I can type a lot faster than I can write and it’s readable and searchable.  More secure than a paper copy too...  I do scribble electronically on copies of legal documents (using an iPad) when I’m reading them but it’s mainly just 1-2 words and a marker on the page to park a thought; anything extensive is typed in.

> My HR adviser is always going on at me for keeping handwritten notes of meetings with staff , even if they are then “typed” up.

That suggests to me that, one way or another, they don’t understand the laws on data protection very well.  Paper or electronic, the subject’s legal rights to access and ensure correctness are the same.  It’s just easier to shred paper and pretend it never existed...  

The next 20 years are going to be really interesting for handwriting.

 1234None 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> The next 20 years are going to be really interesting for handwriting.

I read the posts about handwriting with great interest.  I think it's a useful skill and possibly great for developing hand-eye co-ordination and fine motor skills, but it should not be the "be all and end all" for kids at school these days, as there are other options when it comes to communicating ideas.  it should also be accepted that so long as it is readable, the letters can be formed however the kid manages to form them... 

I live in France currently and my primary school-aged daughter is just getting started learning to write.  The hours wasted on insisting the kids add little flicks to letters in the French style (so that they can later be "joined up") are incredible.  It's this sort of thing that comes at an opportunity cost.  There are surely better uses of the time these days, and it is fairly obvious to see that spending months teaching "joined-up" writing is just largely a waste of time these days...  I remember doing the same when I was at school and when I now handwrite something, I  break all the "rules" I learned at school anyway.

OP Postmanpat 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> I read the posts about handwriting with great interest.  I think it's a useful skill and possibly great for developing hand-eye co-ordination and fine motor skills, but it should not be the "be all and end all" for kids at school these days, as there are other options when it comes to communicating ideas.  it should also be accepted that so long as it is readable, the letters can be formed however the kid manages to form them... 

  I agree. As an aside, and way before your time, the infamous Islington William Tyndale School abandoned teaching handwriting in the 1970s on the grounds that it wasn't necessary in the era of typewriters. No, really...

  Whilst checking that I hadn't imagined this I came across this quote in an article about Islington schools: 

"In 1996, the Sunday Times sent a reporter to Islington to find out why the top brass of the Labour Party (Blair, Hodges etc)  were avoiding their local schools. He reported: “The progressive ideologies of the 1960s . . . are still very much alive in [Tony Blair’s] back yard.”

Progressive education was not a passing fad of the Seventies. In schools across Britain, ideas which were once radical and revolutionary had by now become ubiquitous. Chris Pryce, the Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition at Islington Council, reported in 1996: “The people running Islington schools believe that personal achievement, especially in exams, is ‘middle-class’ and therefore suspect, and that failure of individual children should not be recognised because it is ‘discriminatory’.”

https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/may-2014/features-may-14-islington-child...

 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

It suggests they understand the importance of such things in legal disputes. It is why diaries are still important( and still kept by those in power and media etc etc, it helps substantiate what you did and where you were). And you still get journalists scribbling away.

 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> Do you really think it is all about writing "lines of maths" and "formatting equations."

No, of course I don't think it is *all* lines of maths.  But some of it is.  And, currently, for most students, maths, equations, diagrams, chemical formulae, and such, are all much easier by hand rather than on a computer.  (That may change as software to write a a stylus on a tablet improves.)

>   I'm thinking more along the lines of using technology to record video footage of kids presenting their understanding of a subject, ...

There are some things for which that would be fine.  But you can't do an answer to: "a ball is thrown upwards at 5 metres/sec, when does it return to the same height? Sketch a plot of the velocity as a function of time" that way.  Or at least, you could have a student *present* their answer that way, but they'd first have to work it out on paper (or with a stylus on a tablet).

> Again, you're showing a lack of experience working with these young people in schools.  There are hundreds of thousands of kids who reach age 16 for whom handwriting is a problem.

Well I do have plenty of experience of their handwriting when aged 18 (at least that portion of students who go on to university).

> in terms of assessment in science, why force a kid who does struggle writing to show their understanding in writing?  Why set them up to fail?  if they can type...let them type.  

I have no problem at all with them using such aids (with some reservations about the practicalities). But, currently, given the state of the technology, nearly all students would be better off with a pen on paper. 

 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> it is fairly obvious to see that spending months teaching "joined-up" writing is just largely a waste of time these days...

Here I agree.  And my hand writing is (and always was at school) un-joined lower-case letters. 

The vast majority of what we read (printed stuff) is un-joined lower-case letters.  That's also what kids start off doing. 

Then, for some reason, the school tells them they need to move to the more "grown up" handwriting of joining letters. 

Why?  Well I guess it's because joined-up writing is supposedly faster to write.  And I guess it might be, a bit.  But it produces a *huge* penalty in legibility! 

It's silly to make writing hugely less legible just for a marginal gain in writing speed. 

If someone has bad handwriting, then the best advice is  to tell them to stop joining the letters!  That by itself will nearly always be sufficient to make it legible.  And once you've practiced a bit and got used to it, one can do it with sufficient speed. 

Wintertree above recommends block-capitals for similar reasons, but it also works if you just do un-joined lower case.  

 summo 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> "In 1996, the Sunday Times sent a reporter to Islington to find out why the top brass of the Labour Party (Blair, Hodges etc)  were avoiding their local schools. He reported: “The progressive ideologies of the 1960s . . . are still very much alive in [Tony Blair’s] back yard.”

I went to a comp in Blair's constituency in the early 80s. By today standards it would be permanently in special measure. Some lessons literally nothing happened, the French teacher would read the paper for an hour while havoc reigned around them. English was little better. Unions ruled the roost so incompetent staff were never moved. Facilities were limited to say the least. Obviously it was early days but there were less than 10 BBC computers covering the 5 years of around 900 pupils. 

It churned out factory fodder, there was no inspiration from 99% of the teachers, less than 10% went on to A levels. Success was deemed to be 5 O levels at C or above. The rest who fell below that mark were factory fodder destined for assembly lines. It was just accepted that whole classes might just have to make do at best with a CSE 2 or 3, the idea of investing time in them wasn't there at all. 

I can't think of anything positive about it. Other than it gave me the drive to make sure I could move away and never be in a position where I'd have to risk sending my own kids there. 

 1234None 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No, of course I don't think it is *all* lines of maths.  But some of it is.  And, currently, for most students, maths, equations, diagrams, chemical formulae, and such, are all much easier by hand rather than on a computer.  (That may change as software to write a a stylus on a tablet improves.)

> There are some things for which that would be fine.  But you can't do an answer to: "a ball is thrown upwards at 5 metres/sec, when does it return to the same height? Sketch a plot of the velocity as a function of time" that way.  Or at least, you could have a student *present* their answer that way, but they'd first have to work it out on paper (or with a stylus on a tablet).

Again - all achievable....there are lots of ways.

> Well I do have plenty of experience of their handwriting when aged 18 (at least that portion of students who go on to university).

Precisely my point - a huge proportion (including many of those with poor handwriting) never make it to University.  One reason some people with real ability don't make it that far is handwriting....

> I have no problem at all with them using such aids (with some reservations about the practicalities). But, currently, given the state of the technology, nearly all students would be better off with a pen on paper. 

Really?  Why?  is this better and "more practical" for the system, or better for the students, or better for society in the long term?

 MG 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> Really?  Why?  is this better and "more practical" for the system, or better for the students, or better for society in the long term?

I think Coel is right here.  Currently, for rapidly developing ideas, trying out maths problems, quick diagrams to visualise things etc., computers are simply are not as quick by a long way as writing.  Tablets are getting there but still someway off. 

I'm not sure writing essays by hand is a very useful skill anymore, however.  Except maybe to develop the skills where writing is still needed!

 1234None 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Here I agree.  And my hand writing is (and always was at school) un-joined lower-case letters. 

It was really just an example of one of the many things we waste time on because we always have (or at least we have done for quite some time).  There are so many things we do at school that come at a huge opportunity cost.  

Another example is written feedback in books.  It is well-known and has been for some time that most kids never read it,but because of "accountability" most schools still insist on marking books.

I recall an observation where the observer picked holes because my books hadn't been marked.  What they didn't know was that I shared my feedback with students electronically as either MP4 or MP3 files (I used an app called Explain Everything, where I could annotate a PDF of their work and do a voice-over - much quicker for me and much more accessible for the student - the students didn't need any fancy equipment and it cost the school nothing).

When I suggested that the observer perhaps ask the students whether they felt like they were getting feedback, and explained my approach, I was told I needed to write the red pen in the books too and told my approach made me a "maverick".  Apparently, the parents and students weren't ready for anything modern.  In reality, the policy makers and most heads are dinosaurs and are so out of touch with the world outside of education that they just can't keep up with the change that is required.  In the instance of my electronic feedback -  the results spoke for themselves, but even this didn't stop the constant insistence on "marking books".  When I left UK teaching the last headteacher I worked for said he couldn't agree more with my reasons for leaving,and suggested that given 10 or 15 years the system might have been ready for things like this - I didn't have that sort of patience and nor should the patients or young people who are so poorly served by the current outdated system.

There are so many things like this.  Our system, overall, is archaic.  People trot out reasons why not to change all the time, and most of them are just poor excuses or borne out of of a lack of creativity and desire to innovate. 

 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

>> But, currently, given the state of the technology, nearly all students would be better off with a pen on paper. 

> Really?  Why?  is this better and "more practical" for the system, or better for the students, or better for society in the long term?

They are better off with pen-on-paper because it's way easier and quicker to produce a mixture of prose, equations and sketch diagrams that way than with current computer devices.  

For university course work (in a physics degree) they can  decide what to do, they can do it by pen-on-paper or they can use whatever computer devices they like to produce a hardcopy version of the work.    Currently (on the course I'm familiar with) only an occasional student, fewer than 5% overall, choses to use a computer. 

And really, for only an occasional student is there a legibility issue. 

 summo 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> Precisely my point - a huge proportion (including many of those with poor handwriting) never make it to University.  One reason some people with real ability don't make it that far is handwriting....

So in terms of teachers, parenting, motivation, funding, facilities etc. Etc..  What percentage do you attribute to hand writing preventing folk from reaching degree level education? 1,2%...? Or even smaller? 

You could write like Shakespeare with a quill, but if you are stuck in a large class with folk who want to kick off, a teacher who can't cope, parents who have sucked any aspiration out of them, in a school focused on passes so it wouldn't even enter marginal kids in exams etc. then you won't progress to even A levels, never mind uni. 

 Coel Hellier 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> schools have computers and networks and the software and documents available can be fairly easily controlled.

OK, so the school has a bank of computers for use in exams (with limited software, and stuff like internet disabled, so these are not general-purpose machines).

Do the kids get a choice of microsoft or chromebook or mac?  If not, some might be disadvantaged by having to work with unfamiliar software.   If the machines provide version 7.6.8 of some software, a kid might complain that they expected 8.0.1. But if you provide the latest 8.0.1 a kid might explain that he runs 7.5.7 at home, and got confused by the latest version under exam pressure.

Now, as you say, all of this can be sorted with enough will and funding, but again it is understandable why schools might shy away from doing this.

 Andy Clarke 28 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> In reality most... heads are dinosaurs and are so out of touch with the world outside of education that they just can't keep up with the change that is required.

In my extensive experience of UK education this sweeping generalisation is not remotely accurate. Do you have any experience of school management or leadership yourself? Were you around in the great days of school-led curriculum development and innovation? As I've already explained, it's right-wing politicians who have dragged education back into the past preceding these exciting times. It's certainly not teachers and heads. 

 marsbar 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

We do use general purpose computers for exams.  It’s very straightforward.  Just as pupil profiles are different to staff profiles we can set up an exam profile with no internet access or only access to the exam website.  

Equally as a teacher I can control what any given child I teach is able to access at any point in time.  I can set up so that one child can access only BBC bitesize, one has no internet at all and the rest have free access within the schools usual set up.  I can freeze or blank one or more screens with just a click. Vocational students take exams online all the time.  It’s really not difficult or new.   

As for the software versions, pupils are used to using a variety of online interfaces.  I don’t see that being an issue.  

Post edited at 23:35
 1234None 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Clarke:

> In my extensive experience of UK education this sweeping generalisation is not remotely accurate.

Perhaps that is true in your experience.  It is not so in mine.

>  Do you have any experience of school management or leadership yourself?

Yes.  I've worked with and for quite a few different heads....

> Were you around in the great days of school-led curriculum development and innovation?

No, but I know what you're going to say.  It didn't work so well then...so it won't work now....  Sorry, but yawn.  I'm not advocating we use exactly the same approach.  Times, people and technology change, and so should our approach to education.  Yes, it changes currently, but at snails pace and quite often in the wrong direction.

> As I've already explained, it's right-wing politicians who have dragged education back into the past preceding these exciting times. It's certainly not teachers and heads. 

I didn't say teachers were responsible, as most simply do as they are told by heads.  Heads, if they act en masse, probably have the capacity to challenge daft legislation.  I've worked alongside and for some great heads, but (and yes, I am only really basing this on my experience as a teacher and consultant in the field of education) they are few and far between.

I've thought for a while that if there's going to be any sort of system-wide radical change in the right direction then it needs to be "bottom-up", led by heads and SLT who really care about what and how we teach.  Waiting for the right policy to be handed down from above hasn't worked for quite some time.  You are going to give me a long list of reasons (excuses?) why this isn't possible...I know, and hence the same sort of people will be be recommending the same sort of changes in another few decades.

Post edited at 07:30
1
 1234None 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Coel - with a web-based interface for assessment software versions needn't be a barrier to anyone.  Same for operating systems. 

You're also showing that because you, as an....errrmmmm...slightly older person, might find it difficult to adapt between different user interfaces, you assume young people are the same.  In my experience, they pick these things up and run with them a lot better than you or I ever will   The sorts of things you use as reasons why not are based on your own skills with technology, and not that of kids.

How about a bit of "can do" thinking instead of the list of reasons (or excuses, if you like) to avoid change...

And yes, it can all be sorted with enough will and funding.  But as we don't have the will then we don't allocate the funding.  

1
 Coel Hellier 29 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> You're also showing that because you, as an....errrmmmm...slightly older person, might find it difficult to adapt between different user interfaces, you assume young people are the same. 

Well certainly if I were writing a long essay I'd much prefer to do it on a computer than pen-on-paper, but I'd like it a lot less if I didn't have my preferred editor (emacs) with custom key bindings.  Faffing with a different interface would distract a lot from concentrating on the writing.

 summo 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Do the kids get a choice of microsoft or chromebook or mac?  If not, some might be disadvantaged by having to work with unfamiliar software.   If the machines provide version 7.6.8 of some software, a kid might complain that they expected 8.0.1. But if you provide the latest 8.0.1 a kid might explain that he runs 7.5.7 at home, and got confused by the latest version under exam pressure.

It wouldn't take many practice sessions for the kids to get familiar prior to an exam. The speed at which kids can work out the functions of their phone, games machine etc. is staggering. Trial and error, testing every menu option they soon have a virtual map in their head, where many adults would despair after 10mins and put the kettle on. 

 1234None 29 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> It wouldn't take many practice sessions for the kids to get familiar prior to an exam. 

Precisely - given the amount of time they currently spend in the core subjects getting getting familiar with the paper exam format, wading through "past papers" I don't think this objection from Coel is valid...

I worked a lot with kids and technology.  They adapt to new interfaces and formats exceptionally quickly...

 Andy Clarke 29 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

> No, but I know what you're going to say.  It didn't work so well then...so it won't work now....  Sorry, but yawn.  I'm not advocating we use exactly the same approach.  Times, people and technology change, and so should our approach to education.  Yes, it changes currently, but at snails pace and quite often in the wrong direction.

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood me. I was there for the great days of school-led curriculum development and innovation. I revelled in it and I was absolutely convinced that it worked fantastically well. This was exactly the bottom-up approach you seem to think we need to be reminded of. I worked with some visionary people who were unafraid to challenge the status quo. It might be worth doing some reading on this period. I devoted my career to innovating at every level both within individual schools and across schools through subject and professional networks both national and international. I must say I find it rather irksome to hear the majority of my headteacher colleagues dismissed as dinosaurs. But with that I'll leave you to your preconceptions. 

 Greenbanks 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Clarke:

I’m afraid you’re witnessing Dunning-Kruger in all its glory here. No point in attempting rational & evidence-based argument with those whose positions are fixed immutably to their received knowledge. At a time when there is incontrovertible proof that data manipulation has become a major influence on global matters, your wide professional experience counts for very little. Welcome to populist Armageddon.

 neilh 29 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

I have to deal with employees who can barely write on a day to day basis.It has held their careers back as in a business world you need to be able to communicate across a variety of mediums ranging from speaking to other humans, to using the latest computer technology.

It is one reason why I think doing Drama at High School is useful even for young people who want to follow engineering or science based paths ( helps confidence in speaking etc).

There is alot of focus here on engineering and science without recognising that swathes of people follow totally different careers.

The ability to communicate includes handwriting( although in certain technological areas it is view as old fashioned).

You just do not know where young people will end up.We should not be advocating killing off their options.

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

I'm pretty sure your exaggerating about your school.  My comp was about the same size at A level and any chaos in class in the earlier years was nearly always sorted quickly. The A level results for those not capable of passing 11 plus or paying should be compared with the preceeding system of secondary moderns where you didn't get the chance. In my school, as well as the expected middle class kids and very bright working class, there were a lot of other kids who would have failed 11 plus (my brother was regarded as educationally sub normal at primary and went on to succeed at A level and study an Engineering degree). The next door catchment school had 0% A level as it did have chaos; middle class parents moved or paid for private education.

Post edited at 09:55
 summo 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

If only. There were two teachers who physically beat kids up in class and threw them out into the corridor, repeated events, never sacked.

The teacher who sat and did nothing had mental health issues, shouldn't have even been in work, rumour was his wife died tragically... he didn't even communicate with other staff and would sit in his car with a flask and sandwiches on breaks or lunch time. Sad in many respects. 

There were 180ish kids per year split into 6 classes. With one class being called 'remedial' which basically meant they would be allowed sit a few CSEs if they were lucky. They didn't get extra help or mentoring, it was the short straw for which ever teacher supervised them, or it was given to temporary staff covering sickness etc. 

They'd strike at the drop of hat for anything, one out all out.. but would not deal with incompetence within their own ranks. 

There were a few good teachers, I don't know how they stuck it out. I can only hope things have improved, this was the early 80s and lots should have changed by now. 

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

A traditionalist teacher told me success was impossible without some degree of cursive beauty. Yet we had local role models who had obvious business success with functional illiteracy and innumeracy (not criminals either). Hence, such rigid traditional views always seemed highly ignorant and insulting to me.

On a related point I remember the too many cases in the 1990s where we got struggling 1st year engineers dyslexia assessed, and discovered the patently obvious point that they had been  brutally overlooked all the way through their school struggles: their entitlement to extensive support nearly always caused their ability to flower (you need to be very bright to get that far under such circumstances).

Like Coel, I think academic subjects like Maths, Physics, Chemisty and Engineering are areas where handwriting can be a  big benefit under time pressure, as we flip between equations, tables with text content, and annotated graphs: use of a computer is much more of a pain that when producing just block text. It's not just exams that are time limited... lab notes and small group or individual tutorials often are as well. Ironic, as the subjects attract those who struggle in English compared to Science.

In a decade, voice recognition will produce good quality text from speech, cursive if desired.

 wintertree 29 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

> I have to deal with employees who can barely write on a day to day basis.

I agree that a lot of people are very poor at structuring comprehensible written communication - laid down by pen or electronically 

It has held their careers back as in a business world you need to be able to communicate across a variety of mediums ranging from speaking to other humans, to using the latest computer technology.

> It is one reason why I think doing Drama at High School is useful even for young people who want to follow engineering or science based paths ( helps confidence in speaking etc).

Difficult to sell me on that - I get my fill of people with a confident front and little to back it up.  I’d rather confidence came as a layer on top of competence.  The issue with general written communication I think is that it’s not explicitly taught in any great detail and not much feedback is given.

> There is alot of focus here on engineering and science without recognising that swathes of people follow totally different careers.

> The ability to communicate includes handwriting( although in certain technological areas it is view as old fashioned).

Not just technological fields.  For example a lot of restaurants take orders from mobile tablet/phone devices using a button based interface where the orders presumably go digitally to the kitchen and the ePOS system.  Trades workers are (very) gradually drifting towards electronic devices.

> You just do not know where young people will end up.We should not be advocating killing off their options.

Nobody on here has advocated against teaching handwriting.  I said I don’t want it to affect tests for unrelated things like an academic subject.  Several posters have commented that joined up writing may be well past it’s use-by date and counter productive.  

 wintertree 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> I'm pretty sure your exaggerating about your school. 

Ten years after Summo left, there were still comps in County Durham where the aspirational outcome was 5 GCSEs at grade C. The last one I know of got shut down about 7 years ago and given over to a free school with its own serious problems around religious bullying. 

 1234None 29 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

I’m not advocating getting rid of handwriting...in fact, far from it.  I’m advocating including it as just one of  any communication methods used in examinations and assessments.

As for providing more options...yes, I agree.  We should include options for young people to type, write, draw, make videos, give presentations...  This way, we would be assessing knowledge and understanding of subjects and specific ideas, rather than just a young person’s writing ability.

 1234None 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Andy Clarke:

> I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood me. I was there for the great days of school-led curriculum development and innovation. I revelled in it and I was absolutely convinced that it worked fantastically well. This was exactly the bottom-up approach you seem to think we need to be reminded of. I worked with some visionary people who were unafraid to challenge the status quo. It might be worth doing some reading on this period. I devoted my career to innovating at every level both within individual schools and across schools through subject and professional networks both national and international. I must say I find it rather irksome to hear the majority of my headteacher colleagues dismissed as dinosaurs. But with that I'll leave you to your preconceptions. 

I’m sorry that you find it rather irksome.  But I’ve worked for and with quite a few heads who I found rather irksome.  Arrogant, resistant to change, inflexible and very much “yes people” who were more than willing to force on their staff procedures and policies they themselves knew were pretty daft.  I’ve also worked for a few heads who were passionate and keen to change the system for the benefit of the young people in education.  Maybe you’re one of those people and in that case good luck to you.

I do believe it is all too easy to blame the policy-makers.  Head teachers, through collective action, have the power to resist changes for the worse and to initiate change for the better.  To say they hold no responsibility for the system as it stands ignores that fact that it is they who are in charge at a school level.  I came to teaching after years in industry and I love being in the classroom.  Because of my experience outside of education I perhaps was less willing to accept much of the BS than others.  Judgements on my teaching based on 1 or 2 twenty minute observations per year (not much of a represesentative sample and even a 13 year-old child could understand why things like that are no way to improve teaching).  Daft, unachievable marking policies that can only be achieved with a corner-cutting and box-ticking approach.  Using things like the BTEC to play a numbers game.  The list is fairly endless.  But how many teachers put on a dog and pony show for observers.  How many Heads encourage the same when the inspectorate comes to town?  Most of the daft stuff that goes on is pushed by career-hungry SLT members...there’s little honesty left in the system with all its perverse incentives...which I find really sad for the kids....

Post edited at 11:56
2
 Offwidth 29 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

If you had a 10% A level cohort things were clearly held together by someone.  In the late 70s for my friends in the genuinely chaotic school next door 6th form was for catch-up CSEs that would help with gettting a job.

Growth was rapid back then... A level entries were about 200,000 in 1960, 400,000 in 1970 and 600,000 in 1980. This opening up of opportunity away from the middle classes cost a lot more money... part of the reason the government and unions were battling by the 1980s.

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2019
In reply to 1234None:

You forgot to add all these performance assessment policies were based on no clear research evidence of quality utility. I agree they are probably the major factor holding back schools today, especially the time and energy eaten by the bureaucracy around such idiocy.

Now they are being expanded rapidly in Universities. I've nothing against quality systems based on evidence but as RSS showed, things like NSS results have no evidenced quality correlations at all, apart from a few areas of clear anticorrelation. Yet NSS is one of the key KPIs in TEF.

https://www.rss.org.uk/Images/PDF/influencing-change/2019/RSS_Evidence_to_t...

Post edited at 12:13
 summo 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> If you had a 10% A level cohort things were clearly held together by someone.  In the late 70s for my friends in the genuinely chaotic school next door 6th form was for catch-up CSEs that would help with gettting a job.

Primarily maths, physics, chemistry and computing as it was then called. Just by chance the only topics with decent teachers. English, geography, economics, any language etc.. were a lost cause due to their teachers, not the kids potential. 

> Growth was rapid back then... A level entries were about 200,000 in 1960, 400,000 in 1970 and 600,000 in 1980. This opening up of opportunity away from the middle classes cost a lot more money... part of the reason the government and unions were battling by the 1980s.

I was one of them. Only I travelled and went to a college for my A levels, not that comp school. Kind of life changing as far as outlook goes, tutoring / mentoring and also motivation. They spoke about the next steps in education, vocational training too, rather than the default answer of obtaining average grades and entering the jobs market, which at the time had been killed in many sectors by the arrival of the slave labour scheme (yts). 

 1234None 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> You forgot to add all these performance assessment policies were based on no clear research evidence of quality utility. I agree they are probably the major factor holding back schools today, especially the time and energy eaten by the bureaucracy around such idiocy.

"Tout a fait" as they say here.  Thanks for adding this.  I could not agree more.

 neilh 30 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

I am talking about doing Drama in High school upto the age of 16, not salesman style" hot air".It gives young people confidence in speaking to groups and doing things like making presentations. In this connection its quite normal for students to have to stand up in classes and give talks about their work using power point or what ever.

I am all for this across any  STEM subjects.It is important that our young peole are given this experience.

Anything that helps them with their confidence is excellent.

Both my daughters have done STEM subjects at Uni ( one did computer science - now software developer-and the other is doing Maths- preferred this to engineering). Drama certainly helped their confidence.

 summo 30 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

From the age of 7 ours have always had to do this, simple things like pupil of the day, tell the class the programme, lunch choices, who's names day it is(very Swedish thing). Only takes 5mins but it's on rotation, so about every 3 weeks and it's information they can easily learn so not daunting in that respect. 

Bigger stuff whole classes do music and theatre productions, which they'll tie in with other classes for an evening show for parents. Money raised from donations goes towards school trips so they don't have to ask stretched parents for money. The shy or less confident kids might not sing a solo but they are still expected to be up on stage participating, they'll try and nurture them a bit, rather than put them in a position where they'll die publically! 

I think this kind of confidence building needs to be quite subtle, apart the obvious ability to speak in a large hall, it also gives them confidence to speak out in much smaller informal settings, where it's often easy to hide. The problem is it almost needs to start at primary age, comprehensive school is just too late. 

I'd say these skills or attributes are far more beneficial than handwriting and probably increases their career chances way more. 

 Coel Hellier 30 Aug 2019
In reply to summo:

> I'd say these skills or attributes are far more beneficial than handwriting and probably increases their career chances way more. 

Agreed, it's important.

It's notable, though, that at university we get an increasing number of students for whom we're not allowed to ask them to speak in front of the class, since it stresses them too much. (These are adults, not kids any longer.) 

It's already the case that we can no longer have vivas for students at degree-class boundaries.  Again, that's too stressful and traumatic. 

(Despite the fact that new graduates will likely have lots of job interviews, and in many professions being able to give presentations is an essential skill, so anyone with any sense would regard a viva as good and necessary practice.)

 Offwidth 04 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I've never heard of a viva for a degree class boundary decision in the last two decades and would regard it as highly open to accusations of bias and hence complaints. Has anyone seen an institution do this recently?

I also don't recognise student class presentations being a big issue. We have around a thousand students annually and I can only remember special arrangements for a handful each year, all based on good evidence. 

The benefit of knowing about genuine presentation problems is that you can tailor interview support for students with those problems. In my experience when such students informed potential employers with evidence those employers were mostly as flexible as we were.

Post edited at 16:22
 MG 04 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It will depend on whether the ability to give a presentation is being assessed, or whether a presentation is being used to assess something else.  If the former,  presentation-phobia, wouldn't be  a reason not to assess.

Vivas for degree boundaries sound like some from the 1930s.  Do you want to serve sherry too?

 Coel Hellier 04 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> It will depend on whether the ability to give a presentation is being assessed, or whether a presentation is being used to assess something else. 

It's usually both (since degrees are not supposed to be narrow, but to be about a broad range of abilities). 

> Vivas for degree boundaries sound like some from the 1930s.

What's your objection to them?

 MG 04 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It's usually both (since degrees are not supposed to be narrow, but to be about a broad range of abilities). 

Assessment would normally be attached to a specific "learning outcome" not an entire degree.

> What's your objection to them?

For degree classification they are obviously open to both bias and luck, given the wide range of possible topics that could form the basis of questions.  Technical questions on a specific piece of work (e.g. a PhD viva) are much more rigorous, although still somewhat dubious I would say.  Examiners with bees in their bonnet about certain things, or simply intimidating, can have a disproportionate effect.

 Coel Hellier 04 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Assessment would normally be attached to a specific "learning outcome" not an entire degree.

But it can still be both (testing knowledge of the subject, and ability to design and give a presentation related to that subject).     To narrow a focus on specific "learning outcomes" is what is wrong with many approaches to education these days.   Being "educated" implies a wide range of things.

> For degree classification they are obviously open to both bias and luck, ...

So are all assessment methods.   I'm not suggesting that it would be good for vivas to be a large part of the assessment, but for a tie-break it's.

> given the wide range of possible topics that could form the basis of questions.  Technical questions on a specific piece of work (e.g. a PhD viva) are much more rigorous, ...

So the viva can focus on a specific bit of work, such as a dissertation or project that the student has recently completed, and on the subject matter underlying it.

 MG 04 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> So the viva can focus on a specific bit of work, such as a dissertation or project that the student has recently completed, and on the subject matter underlying it.

It could, but that wouldn't be particular fair, and is exactly my point.  It may be the student is weak in that subject but strong in others, in which case they would do badly.  Conversely if by luck that is their strongest subject, they do well..  The whole point of classification is that it accounts for performance across a degree, not one element of it.  

Post edited at 19:50
 MG 04 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> So are all assessment methods.  

To a very much lesser extent for the most part.

 Coel Hellier 04 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> The whole point of classification is that it accounts for performance across a degree, not one element of it.  

But any adding up of marks will always produce some right on the borderline. The use of a viva is simply a tiebreaker.  Any other way of breaking the tie would not be any better. 

 MG 04 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

If you take that approach, tossing a coin would be quicker and as fair.  Or, even quicker, simply have rules that don't have a borderline - marks x and above are grade q; below x grade p.

 Coel Hellier 04 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> If you take that approach, tossing a coin would be quicker and as fair. 

Quicker, yes, but I still don't see a problem with a viva as a tiebreak.

> Or, even quicker, simply have rules that don't have a borderline - marks x and above are grade q; below x grade p.

It's not that easy.  There's always a possibility of being 1 mark below a threshold. 

 MG 04 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It's not that easy.  There's always a possibility of being 1 mark below a threshold. 

Err, yes.  Below!!

Here's an example of how it works

https://www.keele.ac.uk/regulations/regulationd2/

Post edited at 21:00
 bouldery bits 04 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Good at exams and miserable. What a result!

 Coel Hellier 04 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Err, yes.  Below!!

Yes, below. And 1 mark below a threshold is borderline (since one cannot set exams to a 1-mark accuracy, out of 100, and one cannot mark exams to 1-mark accuracy).

So, if someone is 1 mark on one paper below the threshold for getting a 2.1, then one can either just say ok they get a 2.2. Or (in the old system) we could give them a viva with the external examiner and if they did well use that as justification to give them an extra mark and the higher class.    (It was never used to move down a student 1 mark above the threshold.) 

This practice was stopped because (we're told) the viva is too "stressful" for students. So they just get a 2.2.   I don't see why that's an improvement.   (And, again, these students will likely have job interviews in their near future.)

Now, if the reasons for ending the practice were about uniformity, then that's a different argument, but that was not the rationale given.   (And no-one seems to care if one academic sets an exam that is 30 marks easier than another one (so that the same cohort averages 75% on one module and 45% on another.)

 MG 04 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Yes, below. And 1 mark below a threshold is borderline (since one cannot set exams to a 1-mark accuracy, out of 100, and one cannot mark exams to 1-mark accuracy).

Again, classifications aren't based on one exam, that;s the whole point!!  1 mark in an exam would correspond to about 0.02, at most, marks in a classification decision

> So, if someone is 1 mark on one paper below the threshold for getting a 2.1, then one can either just say ok they get a 2.2. Or (in the old system) we could give them a viva with the external examiner and if they did well use that as justification to give them an extra mark and the higher class.    

Which was unfair for all the reasons given above. Aside from all the bias and luck, it would be basically be making a 5 minute (or whatever) conversation worth the same as 10 percent more in multiple exams

> This practice was stopped because (we're told) the viva is too "stressful" for students. 

No it wasn't.  It was stopped, if it was ever common, because it was arbitrary, unfair practice.

>  (And no-one seems to care if one academic sets an exam that is 30 marks easier than another one (so that the same cohort averages 75% on one module and 45% on another.)

That's also cobblers.  There are scaling systems for outlying exams. 

https://www.dur.ac.uk/learningandteaching.handbook/6/3/13/

They have their own problems but it's not ignored. And, again, a degree classification would not be significant;y affected by one outlying exam, even less so when it is statistically likely to be offset by another the other way.

Post edited at 21:24
 Coel Hellier 04 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Again, classifications aren't based on one exam, that;s the whole point!! 

True, but one mark below a threshold on *one* exam can affect the overall classification. 

Just ask, does reducing this mark on one exam by one reduce the overall classification?  If not, reduce another mark by one and repeat. At some point one mark has to make the difference.   There's no getting round that.

> No it wasn't.  It was stopped, if it was ever common, because it was arbitrary, unfair practice.

No, you are wrong.  I was describing what happened in my university, and the rationale quite explicitly stated was as I said.

> And, again, a degree classification would not be significant;y affected by one outlying exam,

If you can design a degree algorithm that never gives any borderline cases then loads of people would love to hear from you.  But it's a logical impossibility.  See just above.

Post edited at 21:59
 MG 04 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

>

> If you can design a degree algorithm that never gives any borderline cases then loads of people would love to hear from you.  

As  I pointed out, your university has one! It gives one result or another based on many assesments.. For some reason you want to override that, and put great emphasis on one chat

 Coel Hellier 05 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

>> If you can design a degree algorithm that never gives any borderline cases then loads of people would love to hear from you.  

> As  I pointed out, your university has one!

No it does not.  It continually throws up borderline cases, and every year they tweak the algorithm, owing to it throwing up borderline cases they didn't like, only for the tweak to then produce more borderline cases.

> It gives one result or another based on many assesments..

Why sure.  But now apply the thought experiment:

Remove 1 mark of 1 assessment.  Does it reduce the overall classification?   If yes, then 1 mark of 1 assessment (which is below the accuracy of both assessment setting and marking) changes the degree class, which makes it borderline.

If removing 1 mark of 1 assessment doesn't reduce the degrees class, then remove another 1 mark from 1 assessment, and repeat.   At some point, that 1 mark from 1 assessment must change the degree class.

As I said, this shows that there's no way round borderline cases.    And yes, I do think that, in such cases, a viva is as ok as any other method of resolving it. 

1
 MG 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think you need to define borderline.  You seem to think it means "almost at the next classification level but not quite", in which case of course any system will have them.  However, I don't see that as a problem, it's just acknowledging the system is one of discrete classifications.  If the system for deciding the classification is robust (and Keele's appears to be - it has a double check), there is no need to subvert it with vivas or whatever.

 MG 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Incidentally I think you have a much stronger argument for something like a viva when it is a question of deciding pass/fail of one exam because the error bound of the mark is large, unlike with classification where is it very small.

 Coel Hellier 05 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> I think you need to define borderline. 

I already have; from above:

"And 1 mark below a threshold is borderline (since one cannot set exams to a 1-mark accuracy, out of 100, and one cannot mark exams to 1-mark accuracy)."

> You seem to think it means "almost at the next classification level but not quite", in which case of course any system will have them.

Exactly.

>  However, I don't see that as a problem, ...

It is a problem when unavoidable differences in exam setting and differences in marking are larger than the distance from the threshold. 

Of course one can just shrug and say that any system is imperfect, and so just accept it.

> If the system for deciding the classification is robust ...

As you have just accepted, all such systems will have 1-mark-below-threshold giving the lower class, when the whole process cannot be run to an accuracy of one mark. 

> ... there is no need to subvert it with vivas or whatever.

The viva is not "subverting" the degree algorithm.  If that gives a clear answer then it's accepted.  The viva would only deal with highly marginal borderline cases and highly unusual cases.  

1
 Offwidth 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Time for a story. Back when I first started over 3 decades ago we had vivas for borders until the arrival of a very eminent Prof as a new external. He stated to the whole Board that not only did a particular student not deserve promoting, he though he must be an idiot as he did a wind turbine project at the bottom of a valley.  The supervisor calmly replied that that was the only place he had access to and it was where the farmer ideally wanted it and that the SW facing valley often acted as a wind funnel. He then asked the external if he talked about his other mitigating circumstances as requested  or his other work (he didn't, he only had time to talk about the project). Needless to say the student got his promotion and we changed the rules to remove vivas the following year.

Post edited at 10:55
 Coel Hellier 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> Needless to say the student got his promotion and we changed the rules to remove vivas the following year.

Which is a reaction akin to: "... Professor X marked that exam very harshly, so we re-graded it and abolished exams the following year".

 neilh 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I cannot help commentating that this is a fascinating insight as to how subjectivity and a nicely defined system comes to blows over a defining 1 or 2 marks.God knows wht it is like between a 1st and a 2.1.

You would have thought a position on all this by now would have been worked out.

 Offwidth 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

If the Course Team is unhappy with a particular assement that will show up in moderation and will be dealt with. In contrast you have to be much more careful with problem externals (who seem way too common in my long experience across quite a few STEM subjects). We, already unhappy with vivas, decided removing them quickly was a very good idea given what happened with our eminent external and that we had two more years of him.

In extremis where assessments in moderation are found to have complex problems all work should always get remarked. If moderation indicates the order looks OK but the averages are way out of norms (by generosity or harshness), it's pretty standard practice to normalise and 'go easy' on students who say just never got started as, a paper was way harder than expected (and they panicked), or originally passed but now were moved to a fail. 

Maybe your Board practice is out of date or too 'mechanised' (a modern problem with being too algorthimic, that academcs should oppose, as the Board awards the classification, not an equation, as borderline cases can be very complicated indeed). The main Physics Board at my place is as 'good as gold' in terms of efforts applied to fairness, whilst maintaining good standards.

Sure the border considerations are always an issue but in most modern regluations there are rules for considering those just below the formal aggregate level, so that, for example, what would normally be the very top 2:1 aggregate students can be considerd for a 1st, subject to those rules; as can students a bit lower down but with major exceptional circumstances mitigation, or special study circumstances like disabilities. Anyone 'unlucky' at a border is nearly always technically on an aggregate below the normal level for the grade they were being considered for anyway.

 Coel Hellier 05 Sep 2019
In reply to the thread:

By the way, we also used to have vivas that were purely about the external examiner monitoring the course.  So they would viva some students, who were selected for being in the middle of their classes.  There was no possibility at all of this affecting that student's degree class.  The only thing it might affect was the external's report and advice to the dept, which could only affect future students. 

This practice was also stopped on the grounds that it was too stressful for the students.    Again, these are the same students who would benefit from any practice relevant to job interviews.

 Offwidth 05 Sep 2019
In reply to neilh:

It's very well worked out in systems terms but it's still always subjective to an extent. Nearly every student has some unexpected problems and a significant minority have mitigation or a disability of some sort. The role of the Awarding Board is to be as fair as possible given all that. Most Assessment Regulations are accessible on University websites these days and a lot of effort has gone into making them fair.

 Offwidth 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It was also stopped at my place but because the conclusions the externals made from them in their reports were too often challenged logically by the course teams and because it was difficult to maintain fairness in selection due to student availability (our Boards were always after the end of term). I know as I sat on central quality committees that discussed and advised regulation changes.. I'd be highly impressed if you did...very few big STEM researchers have the time and experience (most only work on the odd module and projects when teaching).

 MG 05 Sep 2019
In reply to neilh:

There's are various related points

1) Its all about dealing with humans, who are complex, and a rigid system of rules will, while superficially fair, will always fail to deal fully with all possible permutations of what is possible.

2) The idea that graduates can be divided in to classes (1st, 2:1) etc. in a really meaningful way is a bit absurd.  There is are continuous variations in ability, motivation, luck etc etc., so any systems will be somewhat arbitrary.

3) There is still an element of  harking back to a time when there was no anonymity in marking and "Jones is a good chap, bump him up" carried some weight.  Mostly rules don't allow this now, while trying to acknowledge and deal with 1.

 elsewhere 05 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> 3) There is still an element of  harking back to a time when there was no anonymity in marking and "Jones is a good chap, bump him up" carried some weight.  Mostly rules don't allow this now, while trying to acknowledge and deal with 1.

It was subjective, but it was always to the benefit of the student and a serious discussion* informed by personal knowledge rather than "he's a good chap". It was never a downgrade.

*degree classification meetings

It could still be done after anonymous marking but it could never be documented as objective. Nor can coursework seen in development,  lab work, presentation or project marking be anonymous if you can see or recognise who did what.

Anonymity is partial and objectivity claims partially spurious unless there is no direct interaction and no formative feedback during teaching.

Post edited at 12:34
cb294 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

This was general practise for the large, multi-million Euro collaborative research and infrastructure grant that paid my previous position: Some PhD students picked at random and grilled about their project by the external reviewers. Same precedure then for postdcs. We always worried that they would pick someone who hated their supervisor and would play dumb to screw him over.

Much more stressful than standing in front of the review panel yourself!

CB

 MG 05 Sep 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> It was subjective, but it was always to the benefit of the student and a serious discussion* informed by personal knowledge rather than "he's a good chap"

Sorry, that's simply not true, and you almost contradict yourself anyway.  Allowing personal knowledge to benefit an exam result is essentially viewing someone positively and therefore advantaging them - i.e. the "good chap" approach.  It's also not true to say it only benefited students.  There would always be students who didn't gain from the "personal knowledge" academics might have of them (naturally disproportionately those of different backgrounds/sex/race etc.), who would therefore be less likely to be pushed up.

 Coel Hellier 05 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Allowing personal knowledge to benefit an exam result is essentially viewing someone positively ...

The comment wasn't about allowing personal knowledge to benefit an *exam* result, but a *module* result or overall class result.  There's a difference: modules are generally more rounded and general than an exam alone.

> ... and therefore advantaging them - i.e. the "good chap" approach.

Taking into account other information about their performance, not just the raw marks, is not necessarily a "good chap approach". 

> ...   It's also not true to say it only benefited students. 

By which was meant that students were never given a lower mark or class by such means.  (They either went up or stayed the same.)

 elsewhere 05 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

The personal knowledge might be this student did great work and independently for honours project but lost marks due to bad report or suffered due to an equipment failure. That is not captured in an objective marking scheme.

Alternatively it might be elderly care, child care, illness, pregnancy, bereavement, divorce, misscariage, mental health, victim of crime, stalking - sometimes stuff one staff member knew about but only vaguely specified in the meeting and definitely not something we wanted in the records.

It wasn't objective and it would have been biased as you suggest but we tried to reflect the bigger and occasionally very non-academic picture  for degree class in borderline cases.

It was a pity see those students get lower grades after that discretion was removed.

Module/exam results might change but that would be for whole class if something went wrong and very rare.

Post edited at 16:59
 MG 05 Sep 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

Sure, those should (and are) all accounted for but not via informal systems of personal knowldege but rather mitigating circumstances processes and similar so they are equally available to everyone.

 elsewhere 05 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Sure, those should (and are) all accounted for but not via informal systems of personal knowldege but rather mitigating circumstances processes and similar so they are equally available to everyone.

Sometimes students were reluctant to trust personal circumstances to formal processes and unknown staff. Also able to do it with no permanent records of highly personal information. I hated the idea of documenting some of it, my records didn't have the protection of medical professions.

Post edited at 17:51
 Richard J 05 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

Neither of the two universities that I've taught at used vivas, but I was external for another Russell Group university that did.  I got the impression that their major purpose was to make the exam board feel a bit more comfortable about the inevitably arbitrary distinctions that have to be made when binning a continuous distribution into discrete categories.

On the subject of dealing with different modules producing very different mark distributions, that department had a head of teaching who was a brilliant, but slightly unworldly theoretical physicist.  Dissatisfied with existing, rather ad-hoc, methods for scaling the marks, he came up with his own scheme which involved numerically solving the Euler-Lagrange equations that resulted from maximising a "fairness functional" of his own devising.  In the exit interview I had with the DVC at the end of my term, I couldn't resist commending this method, and recommending that it was taken up by the whole university, including its arts and social sciences departments.  I'm sorry to say that my suggestion was not taken up.

 Offwidth 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Richard J:

How did he deal with the 'bachtrian' distribution that not uncommonly crops up in technical modules as a matter of interest (the two hump distribution with a peak around 2:1 and another around the pass mark)?

 MG 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Richard J:

Nice! 

 Richard J 05 Sep 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

I think it should work fine for that, as IIRC the method didn't make any assumptions about the shapes of the distributions the marks are taken from (e.g. assuming they are Gaussian).  Not that I'm recommending it, it really was insanely complex.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...