Chris Woodhead= Cnut

[vimothy]

It's in my blood.

 

[massrock]

Nothing wrong with getting a bit meta.

It seems that the heredity thing is something the Guardian article picked up on and it's surely questionable but it's not the only thing being discussed. Also I do get the impression that this chap Woodhead is not especially popular among public sector teachers

 

[vimothy]

Questions are interesting, and so are discussions. I'm also fascinated by the way organisations function and reproduce themselves, set themselves goals and assess their progress in achieving them. Thinking about it is quite instructive -- I mean, what actually is the purpose of the education system in general and, say, colleges in particular?

 

[nomadthethird]

And the criticisms of one size fits all education would be much better and make more sense if stated in those terms.

Audio here btw. I listened but I didn't hear the comment about genes.

I really don't know enough about British political parties to understand Woodhead's points about Labour's approach to education, but I do know that one thing he said rang true about American education as well: that both Labour's (the more leftwing) and the Conservative Party's (the more rightwing) approaches to education are lacking and suffer from being too similar in the wrong ways.

In the U.S., the Bush administration came swooping in and made a lot of noise about educational reform, overturning the Clinton era emphasis on "outcome-based" education with No Child Left Behind, an attempt to ensure that the educational progress of all students is rigorously watched after by the government and measured according to increasing numbers of standardized tests. The overall effect of this policy has been, however, not to challenge all students to meet a high standard of achievement; what has happened is copious financial resources that could have been much better spent instead were alloted to developing and proctoring tests that in fact lowered the educational bar. With all of the pressure on teachers to get all students up to standardized snuff, the curriculum has lost out tremendously, as has the creativity of individual teachers.

Teaching for the test, and only what is on the test, rather than teaching students how to learn and think critically, is ultimately the failure of any educational system rather than its saving grace.

 

[don_quixote]

but woodhead's premise is that the whole point of teaching is the test! all he seems to analyse is the test.

but, on the other hand, the only immediate output of education that is valued is the test.

in a way it would be preferable to only have functional skills tests in maths, literacy and ict and building up other skills based training around that.

 

[scottdisco]

fucking hell...

Selective LEA's. First number is percentage of free school meals in the whole LEA. Second number is free school meals in their secondary moderns. Third number is percentage of free school meals in the selective grammars.

Bexley 13.2 16.5 3.5
Buckinghamshire 7.1 10.9 1.2
Kent 10.2 14.2 2.2
Lincolnshire 10.1 12.6 1.9
Medway 11.7 15.4 3.1
Slough 17.2 24.2 5.1
Southend 12.2 18.0 2.4
Sutton 7.6 11.1 1.2
Torbay 13.1 18.6 3.8
Trafford 20.3 25.7 4.0
All selective LEAs 12.3 14.3 2.4

oh wow i went to a selective grammar in Trafford.

sorry nowt to add to the thread

 

[nomadthethird]

in a way it would be preferable to only have functional skills tests in maths, literacy and ict and building up other skills based training around that.

I think I agree...my suggestion would be percentage grades for math, spelling, multiple choice questions, and letter grades for the rest. In high school, percentage grades should count for only some of the final grade--in my college, "participation" or engagment with the material counted as 25% of your final letter grade, which helped motivate people without focusing too much on tests.

It's hard to say whether grades should be given up entirely...I know a few people who went to Hampshire and Sarah Lawrence, quite good colleges that don't give formal grades, just lengthy individualized progress evaluations. For some, the lack of accountability made them work harder and self-select high goals, while for others, they did jack shit and knew they'd get away with it. But is this any different than what goes on in formally graded classrooms? I learned quickly (tho I expected my college to be difficult) that I could scrape out an A- GPA if I wrote good papers, even if I rarely showed up for class. So that's what I did, unless a class was particularly thrilling to me, then I'd show up more often.

 

[josef k.]

I mean, what actually is the purpose of the education system in general and, say, colleges in particular?

That is a very good question, which is only partially addressed by noting that certain sectors of society find themselves better equipped "to succeed" in the system that exists...

It seems clear that the reproduction of the middle class, even extending opportunities for all sectors of society to join the middle class, can't be the goal. Even if a genuine meritocracy could be achieved, which is doubtful, it wouldn't be enough to address the issue.

Once upon a time, the great goal of bourgeois education (Kant) was to "educate people for the good of humanity." Tony Blair stated later: the objective is to train the labor force. It strikes me that readjusting the traps in the rat race (so people from less privileged backgrounds receive the same opportunities as people from more privileged backgrounds) while desirable, isn't a comprehensive political solution to the question of the role that education has to play in society. Ranciere wrote some stuff about this, but I haven't read it.

 

[vimothy]

I'm convinced that education is not a panacea, and think that the most important determinant of educational outcome is cultural, not genetic.

But what education should do and what it does do are obviously not necessarily the same. Blair might have claimed that training the future workforce is the goal -- perhaps his vision is not so different to Kant's -- and he might have even believed it, but he confuses what he wants with what an organisation actually does, which is to say, one might hope that future workers are well trained by the education system (or not), but what the education system does is produce performance indicators and measures of attainment, which is not quite the same thing, if a lot more straighforward.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Those students are far more likely to be middle class, because educational institutions are middle class and the knowledge they favour is middle class knowledge.

I know this is from aaaages back, but what do you mean by "middle-class knowledge", matt? Do you mean academic knowledge rather than vocational skills, or what? No-one is born with knowledge, are they, so the kind and quantity of knowledge they pick up at school will depend on a) what they're interested in, b) how attentive/motivated they are and c) the make-up of the teacher body at that school (plus also perhaps d) the general culture among the other kids). Obviously there's not much a particular child or his/her parents can do about c) and d)* but a huge factor in determining a) and b) will be the kind of culture they come from at home. A lot of kids grow in houses with hardly any books in them, and where academic learning is regarded with suspicion or indifference, and whatever congenital disposition towards intelligence exists is going to be facing an uphill struggle to manifest itself to anything like the same degree it would in a home where learning is encouraged. And parents that value education are more likely have benefited from it themselves and will probably have above-median incomes. Hence the smaller proportion of kids on free meals attending grammar schools. Note, by the way, that none of this argument depends in the least on genetics.

Anyway, got a bit sidetracked there. So if you're saying that it would be a lot better if pupils were offered more specialised education from an earlier age to fit their aptitudes and interests, then I agree with you entirely. Someone mentioned earlier that clever working-class pupils are more likely to be encouraged to take up vocational training rather than a university degree and this is a problem; at the same time a hell of a lot of kids are going to university to do degrees or 'degrees' that won't really benefit them and are going to end up being largely a waste of time and money.

[wide-eyed naivety]
Ideally, people should be encouraged to find something they like and are can do, with as little prejudice (either for traditional academia or against it) as possible. If a solicitor's daughter shows interest and aptitude as a welder, or a welder's son wants to take a law degree and can pass the exams to get in, then great, go for it.
[/wide-eyed naivety]



*other than move to the catchment area of a school with better exam results, and we all know what that leads to.

 

[don_quixote]

all human beings have an awesome capacity to learn; this isn't based on class. see how girls will learn unbelievably complex dance routines to their favourite pop songs or how boys will adopt swathes of knowledge about football teams or cars.

have there ever been studies done on adopted kids in middle class families?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

right, on grammar schools;

differentiation; are you KIDDING?? and the idea that broad ability comprehensives only cater for those in the middle is utterly crazy. have you ever been into a school?

i admit i have never been into a grammar school or know what they do there which is so amazing, so i'm coming in as blind as you seem to be about the comprehensive system or whatever it's called nowadays. coming from leicestershire there's just schools and that's it.

but to me it just seems to be a system that perpetuates the myth that there's successful people in life and failures, and marks them down into their respective roles at the age of 11. why not ship them off to the factories then? it also seems to disregard the fact that kids can excel in one subject and not in another and further it just causes divides across families and communities.

I've taught in a comprehensive and noticed that the top 5-10% of the top sets were not particularly well-served by the pace of teaching. 5-10% is not really a large enough proportion of the class for teachers to feel obliged to cater to. There are stats to back this up - will dredge up.

My secondary schooling was at a grammar school. My primary schooling was at a state primary, which quite effectively showed how not to cater for the best students - my friend and I had finished all their books a year early and were then dispatched to a shed for almost the entirety of Junior 4, to build a papier mache boat.

Realistically though, being in the 'bottom' 93% (cut-off for grammar schools near here) is not really a 'fail' is it? It's like thinking that failing to get into Oxbridge (top 2%?) is a 'fail'. (Only the middle classes would consider it such!) The truth is that many of the students who fail to get into a grammar would be poorly served by the teaching they would receive there - they would find it too quick, the delivery too abstract.

Would you make universities academically non-selective? The current system, with in-house exams and large inequalities in teaching quality, is surely unjust?

It would be a mistake to reduce the current number of tests still further (ie. get rid of KS2) - they ensure that the curriculum gets taught and that the worst performers are uppermost in the teacher's mind (and this is coming from a maverick teacher, style-wise, who finds the revision that this entails pretty dull). This pertains particularly to Maths, where its essential that each concept is understood thoroughly before introducing the next one.

I'm still interested in finding out how you all would structure your own education system...

PS - You can still get into grammar school on failing the 11+: your school must make an appeal and attest to your suitability. We've done it this year for someone; it's a reasonably common occurence.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Performance on intelligence tests is known to be associated with class mobility, with
high scorers tending to move up the socio-economic hierarchy, and low scorers tending
to move down. However, much remains unknown about the association. It is possible
that the importance of intelligence varies across different occupational areas, or that
there is friction acting against mobility, such that a person from an underprivileged
background would have to be more intelligent in order to reach a given position than
someone who had had greater social advantage. Data from a longitudinal study of a
broad, socially representative cohort of the British population (the NCDS) are used to
investigate these questions. The results show that intelligence test scores in childhood
are associated with class mobility in adulthood uniformly across all social classes. There
is no evidence that those from underprivileged backgrounds have to be disproportionately
able in order to reach the professional classes. The study reveals an apparently
high level of social mobility and meritocracy in contemporary Britain.

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/britishjournalpsychology.pdf

So maybe the wannabe class warriors can put this in their pipe, put their feet up and smoke it?

 

[matt b]

I know this is from aaaages back, but what do you mean by "middle-class knowledge", matt? Do you mean academic knowledge rather than vocational skills, or what?

I'd go with Bourdieu's conception of culture capital, that is-
forms of knowledge, values, ways of interacting and communicating ideas.

[copies/pastes from student resource book]

Unscramble the following anagrams:

VIVA DUE, LENGTHEN BOW =_____________________________________________

DANGEROUS WALTZ AMMO FAG =_________________________________________

JEAN HATH CANNABIS, SOB = ____________________________________________


Suggest two reasons why it may be easier for middle class children to successfully complete this task

 

[droid]

Disturbing finding from LSE study - social mobility in Britain lower than other advanced countries and declining

• In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility
• Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable
• Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity

Researchers from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) have compared the life chances of British children with those in other advanced countries for a study sponsored by the Sutton Trust, and the results are disturbing.

Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Steve Machin found that social mobility in Britain - the way in which someone's adult outcomes are related to their circumstances as a child - is lower than in Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. And while the gap in opportunities between the rich and poor is similar in Britain and the US, in the US it is at least static, while in Britain it is getting wider.

A careful comparison reveals that the USA and Britain are at the bottom with the lowest social mobility. Norway has the greatest social mobility, followed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Germany is around the middle of the two extremes, and Canada was found to be much more mobile than the UK.

Comparing surveys of children born in the 1950s and the 1970s, the researchers went on to examine the reason for Britain's low, and declining, mobility. They found that it is in part due to the strong and increasing relationship between family income and educational attainment.

For these children, additional opportunities to stay in education at age 16 and age 18 disproportionately benefited those from better off backgrounds. For a more recent cohort born in the early 1980s the gap between those staying on in education at age 16 narrowed, but inequality of access to higher education has widened further: while the proportion of people from the poorest fifth of families obtaining a degree has increased from 6 per cent to 9 per cent, the graduation rates for the richest fifth have risen from 20 per cent to 47 per cent.

The researchers concluded: 'The strength of the relationship between educational attainment and family income, especially for access to higher education, is at the heart of Britain's low mobility culture and what sets us apart from other European and North American countries.'

Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, said: 'These findings are truly shocking. The results show that social mobility in Britain is much lower than in other advanced countries and is declining - those from less privileged backgrounds are more likely to continue facing disadvantage into adulthood, and the affluent continue to benefit disproportionately from educational opportunities. I established the Sutton Trust to help address the issue, and to ensure that all young people, regardless of their background, have access to the most appropriate educational opportunities, right from early years care through to university.'

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndI...nts/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.aspx

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Your abstract's bigger than my abstract.

Biscuit's Law states that an academic paper can be found to support any point of view.*

It might be more helpful either to find academic rebuttals directed at the exact paper that I posted or make a fine-grained comparison of the methodologies and findings of both of our papers.

But then again, this is an internet forum and can anyone really be arsed to do either?

Am disappointed that no-one's willing to provide a personal, big-picture vision for educational reform. I may just rustle one up if no-one else is game...

* Not that our papers' conclusions are contradictory, as mine discusses social mobility with relation to intelligence whilst yours looks at social mobility in relation to social class.

 

[droid]

* Not that our papers' conclusions are contradictory.

Yes, no contradiciton there at all.

The study reveals an apparently high level of social mobility and meritocracy in contemporary Britain.

Vs

Social mobility in Britain lower than other advanced countries and declining

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Yes, no contradiction there at all.

Exactly: mine discusses social mobility with relation to intelligence whilst yours looks at social mobility in relation to social class.

These can be squared!

...

Apparent deficits in social mobility can be explained by differences in the potential for social mobility = intelligence. ;-)

Comparisons with other countries need not be especially illustrative of anything...

 

[droid]

Someone please shoot me now.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Someone please shoot me now.

I've got a better idea: find an academic rebuttal of my paper.