Zero sum game

Behind all the kerfuffle over the weekend about TeachFirst inviting Toby Young to write a blog and then deleting it because it was "wrong" there are some important issues.
Here is Young's piece, "Are there any limits to what schools can achieve" that caused offence.

The upset came in large part because those taking offence detected a whiff of eugenics. Eugenics is the idea that some people are born stronger, smarter, and easier on the eye and we should aim to have more people like that and fewer weaker, stupider, uglier people. The methods used to achieve this “improvement” of the gene pool in recent history have included economic and political disenfranchisement, forced sterilisation and ethnic cleansing or genocide. This is why the debate got heated.

Eugenics was not limited to the Nazis nor can we glibly claim that it is entirely discredited as some of Francis Galton's hypotheses are now being supported by research evidence. [1]But before we get too hot under the collar, what did Young actually suggest? He pointed to a reasonable amount of research that children's life chances are more likely to be influenced by their social and genetic inheritance than their schooling.

Whilst I may not agree with all of Young's argument or conclusions [3], the idea that a child's parents and their overall social capital (money, level of education, network of connections etc.) have the greatest influence on any child's likelihood of life success is well established and evidenced [2]. Give a moron several hundred million dollars, a sense of entitlement and an address book and he can become leader of the free world... 

Equally established is the construct that schools should do their best to counter the unfair disadvantage of those children who are born without. Less clear is what schools can actually do about it. If money were no object then you could spend significantly more on disadvantaged children and help them catch up. This is the highly creditable idea behind pupil premium funding.

The difficulty is that there is not enough money in the system (and never will be) to give all state educated children a chance to catch up with those whose parents pay to educate them privately. And don't even think about listening to those who say it can be, because the The average fee for top boarding schools now exceeds £30,000 a year whilst the average funding for state primary education is less than £25 a day (or £4,670 per year).

This leads us, painfully, to the realisation that the only way to achieve greater equality is to hold those more fortunate back. And this is not a palatable idea - which in turn is one of the reasons that successive Labour governments have discussed, but ultimately pulled back from, abolishing private education. It is also the only intellectually robust defence of Grammar schools [3], "We don't have enough money to give every child a great education. But we only need 15% or fewer of them to be really well educated to keep the country running. So let's select the best and brightest and spend more on them." The moral difficulty with this position is how do you decide which children get the better education and at which cut-off point(s) do you decide.

The debate becomes even messier once we add in innate differences between children. I think one of the difficulties Young brought upon himself is using the term IQ as the measure of intelligence. Although an IQ score is understood as a measure of intelligence it is as susceptible to coaching as an 11 plus exam. Moreover, IQ is a limited set of attributes that could be explained as 'intelligence'. 

Whether one goes broader and accepts Howard Gardner's model of nine different Multiple Intelligence(s) or narrower to the 'g' model (a measure of general cognitive ability) we are setting ourselves up to fail by drawing the line in the wrong place. And that is before we consider the risks associated with labelling children, in that the children become the labels they are given whether the labels are accurate or not.

I hope that the debate now seems fuzzy, treacherous and probably destined to be unfair.
The discussion should be about how we provide the greatest possible equity of opportunity for all children for the money that society is prepared to pay. But not to pretend that this is excellence and certainly not for all...

....the best we can, given what we have and who we are. We should  aim for transparency about what is and is not possible and that will involve telling some difficult truths both to power and to the people.

 

---

[1] The podcast library of In Our Time and The Infinite Monkey Cage are as good a place to start as any
[2] See the Rowntree Foundation, Hutton Trust and UNESCO research into the educational impact of child deprivation
[3] My personal view is that singling out people for 'special treatment' in education is as sinister as it sounds; whether it is via Grammar Schools, Free Schools or North Korean reeducation camps

Ponzi schemes revisited

I was recently invited to participate in an education round table with Carrie Lam (CEO Hong Kong) and Nick Gibb (Minister for Schools) - this is an approximation of my brief contribution

Ranty McRant Face

Ye Gods this election is driving me nuts! I need to get this out of my system. A quick run through on some of my current annoyances.

The economy… Who fucked it up?

Unfettered greed and unregulated financial institutions but also all of us who thought we could buy things we couldn’t afford indefinitely

Did the Tories fix it?

Fuck no! They made it worse whilst successfully convincing the electorate that Labour broke it. Despite Labour having a marginally better record on balancing the govt. books over the last 50 years. [I know this is slightly biased source but the data seems sound]

Can you trust the Conservatives with the economy?

You can trust them to keeping telling you that they run a better economy whilst simultaneously shrinking the state, taking from the poor to give to the rich and blaming foreigners for everything bad.  

Can you trust Labour with the economy?

Not this version... Gordon Brown was probably one of the better post-war chancellors and in 2008 as PM probably helped save the world from a much worse fate following the banking crisis? But John McDonnell is dangerous and should never be allowed near the levers of control.

What is the biggest threat to the economy?

The biggest negative impact on the economy is and will continue to be Brexit. If you are in any doubt and still believe the Boris and other bombastic buffoons read the Japanese foreign ministry's note concerning BREXIT.

Oh but BREXIT will be fine the UK is the fourth largest economy in the world the EU has to deal with us...

No it bloody isn’t and not they bloody don’t. Using the PPP model of GDP comparison the UK is the 9th largest economy and falling while the EU is the 2nd largest. The UK isn’t even 4th when you measure GDP in £GBP because the pound has collapsed on the foreign exchange markets so we are now smaller than France. BREXIT has to hurt the UK more than the EU for the simple reason that the EU is built on a collective sacrifice model. If we benefit others may leave. So it has to hurt us because they are much much bigger than us.

Whose fault is that?

Spineless Tories (David and George) who couldn’t think beyond the increase of their own bank balances and next bottle of Chassagne Montrachet but also almost everyone involved in Westminster politics over the last 40 years who contributed to the alienation of the electorate.

Does anyone else have a credible alternative plan?

No

But Immigration, isn’t it a major problem?

This won’t play well in the post industrial North and deprived coastal and rural areas but immigration is not a problem. Without immigration we would have had almost no economic growth over the last 30 years. And refugees...? Well we helped create them so we have a moral obligation to help them. Full stop.

If this is true, why have the above mentioned areas got poorer? 

Because the rich have got richer unrestrained by any political party and Labour are as guilty as the Tories on this one. 

Why is it so important then?

Because areas of the country that have become utterly disenfranchised have been sold the lie that immigration is the problem? 

The NHS?

Can anyone seriously say that they trust the Tories with the NHS? Unfortunately the same applies to a government run by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

Taxation

Higher earners like myself should pay marginally more in taxation to provide education, health and welfare to those less fortunate. That doesn’t hurt the economy. 

Jeremy Corbyn?

Yes Tony Blair turned out to be a God-bothering warmonger. But at least he governed. Yes Nick Clegg got stuffed on tuition fees and other dirty compromises of coalition and destroyed the liberal voice in the this country but at least he almost governed. I doubt Corbyn could arrange a fancy dress party in a fancy dress shop.

Theresa May?

But however much I despair at Corbyn’s ineptitude and naivety I don’t doubt he is a decent person. I do not believe for one second that Theresa May gives a flying fuck for the JAMs (Just About Managing) and the poor. The current Tory party appears to me small minded, insular, xenophobic, greedy and devoid of any social purpose.  Bring back John Major, Michael Hessletine and Ken Clarke...

Tim Farron?

A boy sent to do a man’s job

UKIP?

No longer relevant as have effectively infected the tory party like a parasite and taken over the host

The others?

None worth mentioning

I might as well stab myself in the eye now and get it over with!!!!

Fighting the endarkenment

We are sliding towards a new dark ages.  The end of civilisation is not guaranteed. The Dutch did after all reject the xenophobe Geert Wilders. But its decline should by now be evident to anyone who thinks about these things....

And that, perhaps, is the problem.

Thinking about other people, about civility and the civic is increasingly rare. Even those whose very identities require them to think about other people because they were created with the express purpose of protecting other people (e.g. the Labour party and the Unions) seem to have become so self-obsessed that they ought to wind themselves up now in moral disgrace.

There is no point whingeing about a narcissist in the White House when there are many more closer to home that we cannot or do not see.

I don't blame the disenfranchised in America for voting for Trump or those in the UK for voting for Brexit or those in Scotland who will soon vote for independence at the second attempt. It is a direct result of knowing that nobody really cares for them.

I don't even blame the Brexit Tories or UKIP. They have always been upfront about their greed and self-interest. Those who voted for them must live with the consequences.

At work I have a simple goal that I can easily explain. I am trying to raise the age at which our society gives up on children. I can see the problem. I can articulate the problem and I can try to do something about it.

In life however, I am currently stumped. The problem seems to be so large and complex that it is impossible to define.  And without a problem statement, we can't really get started on the solution.

Three amazing things have happened in my lifetime: Apartheid ended peacefully, the Berlin Wall came down and Northern Ireland found and fought for an enduring peace [NB I consider all to be more amazing as in unlikely and unlooked for than the moon landing or the Higgs Boson both of which were easily predicted]. All these happened because of our ability to think of others. As Lord Eames said,

'There is no difference in a mother's tears. There can be no hierarchy of grief."

I mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore

I spent today visiting primary schools in Birmingham and a conversation with one of the amazing headteachers I am fortunate enough to employ reminded me of a spoof British values piece I had written over two years ago which I dug out to share with her.

Re-reading something I had written before I had begun to entertain the possibility of Brexit or a Trump candidacy, let alone presidency, scared the hell out of me as to how we had managed to slip so far and so fast.

The piece was written in response to a challenge that I should write a statement of British values for the website of the charity that I run and it went like this,

"17th October 2014

The Elliot Foundation is committed to promoting the core values of Britishness which are clearly demonstrated by our current government

• Arrogance - everything good has happened because we made it happen and everything bad was someone else's fault (either foreigners or Marxists, who are everywhere)
• Narcissism - we are brilliant and the best and if only everyone else was more like us the world would be a better place
• Xenophobia - there is no problem big or small that cannot be blamed upon bloody foreigners (see above arrogance)
• Self interest - we will pontificate about others not following our example whilst shamelessly filling our pockets when we think no one is looking
• Laziness - never do anything positive or productive when you could spend the time moaning and blaming someone else for the problem"

It doesn't read like a tongue in cheek satire of needless bureaucracy.  It reads like a playbook for global politics over the last two years. On reflection, I think that it is the triumph of individualism.  Margaret Thatcher famously said, "There is no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families".  Well if that's what you think, today's society is what you get.  

If only we could invert the values above as an aspiration for our leaders.  Simply taking the opposites of the words above would be a good start.

Humility
Selflessness
Openness
Compassion
Hard work

But aside from Canada, can you think of a single country that is heading in this direction.

In the words of Peter Finch in the Sidney Lumet masterpiece, Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

A blog of two halves about grammar schools

The half with the evidence
Over the last month many of my friends and acquaintances have asked me, "Just what is the deal with grammar schools?" The fascinating thing is that it really isn't complicated. There is loads of evidence. And it basically comes down to three key points.

The first, most people already know, is that disadvantaged children in areas with grammar schools do worse than their counterparts in areas that don't select at eleven.

The second, some people know, is that when comparing other education systems around the world the ones that do best don't select.

And finally the bit that not so many people know is that those lucky enough to pass the eleven plus and go to grammar school do no better than their counterparts in areas without selection. The educational advantage is secured before they even start.

To summarise the best education systems in the world don't do selection by ability. Where selection happens the disadvantaged do worse and the lucky do no better.

So why the hell does the idea persist?

The half with the opinion
My first hypothesis is a cognitive bias called the endowment effect which basically states that humans tend to value things they have bought or selected. We like to think that we are clever and make wise choices.

People who went to grammar school tend to be positive about the experience. It made them feel special and valued. It gave them a leg up...

Well it didn't actually give them a leg up as we have seen above. Others less fortunate were hobbled and held back but the end result was the same. Those that went to grammars tended to get better jobs.

So they viewed grammars as good things. They feel preferable to private schools where any idiot can buy a better future if their parents have money. Those who went to grammar school did so as a result of their own merit and hard work. It plays nicely to those with an ethic to get on and better themselves.

But effectively the selection at 11 massively favours those with money and the ability to tutor their children through the exam so it is the perfect tool of an oligarchy.

You concentrate power in the hands of a select few but give the impression that you believe in a meritocracy. So your hold on power is never challenged. It is the educational equivalent of the 'Hunger Games' or a lottery. Although a lottery would actually be a fairer model of allocating places.

But why this government's interest?

My second hypothesis is that they want to distinguish themselves from the absurdly overpriveleged rule of Cameron and the Etonians.

Thirdly and perhaps more sinisterly is that it is a policy that sounds good but which can't be measured for a really long time. It would take a minimum of ten years and possibly more to actually be able to measure whether grammar schools had improved outcomes for all. All of which time you can report to the electorate that you are making progress towards an entirely invented number of new grammars (say 500) without actually being held to account for it being a stupid idea in the first place.

It's almost perfect politics. Something you can say with conviction and passion is the thing you are doing to improve education for everyone but which no one can challenge with inconvenient facts or reality.

Other than all that data that we already have.

And you thought that Donald Trump was post-factual.

Note: let me be absolutely clear that I don't have anything against grammar schools. I have a problem with the idea that only 1 in 5 children or thereabouts get the chance to go to one and that this selection is made at the age of eleven. If the challenge was to make all schools make children feel as special and successful as those that went to grammar schools then I would be all over it.

More evidence:
Full fact's summary
Huffington post's summary which leaves the door open if the admission criteria are changed
The RSA's letter to the debate