Categories
Options
Something does not add up – politicalbetting.com
Something does not add up – politicalbetting.com
The great Scottish comedian Hector Nicol used to tell a joke about a signalman in the Highlands who applied for a promotion and had to sit a test. This consisted of ever more outlandish scenarios about what he would do if two trains were running towards each other on the same line of track while a series of disasters befell his signalling equipment. The punchline of the joke, after his signal box had caught fire, the points had been jammed by a lightning strike, and the line side cabinet had been destroyed by a runaway truck, was that the signalman would run down the village and fetch his uncle Alistair. When asked why, the signalmen replied simply ‘because he’s never seen a train crash.’
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You're right that politicians' involvement in education can cause issues, to put it mildly. But their involvement is both justifiable and inevitable given the large amount of public money spent on education. Those of us who try to improve the system from the inside have to try to influence our political leaders, and we don't always have as much impact as we'd like (yes, as exemplified by the GSCE grading system).
You're also right to highlight issues with Ofsted. The high-stakes nature of our current inspection system has many unfortunate consequences, such as discouraging good leaders from applying for Headships, an over-emphasis on Maths and English in Year 6 (which you identify), and undermining disadvantaged communities' faith in education (when it's actually the key to improvement).
But I don't think the current Maths curriculum is that bad. It's not perfect, but it could certainly be worse. One problem you don't highlight is assessment design: GCSE papers (and wider system pressures) still encourage Maths teachers to prioritise teaching methods over understanding, which is why students struggle to apply what they've learnt outside the classroom. The old Key Stage 3 Maths papers assessed understanding much more effectively (though declaration-of-interest: I was involved in their writing).
And I think you miss the critical issue in all of this: we simply don't have enough Maths teachers even now, let alone to implement the latest political pet project. Teacher training recruitment targets have been missed by some distance for a number of years. Austerity real-terms pay cuts have come home to roost. I don't know why a party that believes so strongly in the power of the market has been so slow to grasp this issue, in education or health or the police or...
Finally, though, I'm afraid you're plain wrong about Bangladeshi fielding, which has improved out of all recognition over the last 15 years.
I accept your criticism about not covering the lack of teachers and lack of understanding as not embedded in the new curriculum although I do cover it obliquely. However, I was focusing on the reason why the new curriculum including GCSE isn’t working, and why it won’t be changed for the better. As I said in a different context, if only I had time enough and world enough to cover everything. Thank you for amplifying them for readers.
And I recognise a number of the issues you cite with GCSE Maths at the moment. One of the main ones is that it's trying to do too many things -- a stopping-off point for those who finish the subject at 16, an entrance-discriminator for those who want to continue (I think 7 is sufficient for "A"-level, incidentally, if it's well taught), a measure of accountability for schools...
And of course, high-stakes one-off assessment systems cause as many problems for 16-year-olds as a high-stakes, one-off inspection system causes for schools. Neither system is 100% reliable, but in both cases the system treats the outcomes as unimpeachable.
I share your pessimism about whether the system can be changed for the better. Ultimately, it seems to me, we need to define politicians' roles in the education system (and in other public services) in such a way that short-termism, and pet projects, do not get in the way of any system-wide consensus about what needs to be done in the long-term.
And I accept your criticism about my comments re Bangladeshi fielding! I'm sure you wouldn't be basing your conclusions about one bad day in the office, though; how many sixes do you have to roll on a dice before being confident it's biased?!
Is there any chance (under the current incarnation of the Education department) of its forcing a redesign of the curriculum which improves matters, as opposed to compounding the problems ?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jan/09/third-of-englands-teachers-who-qualified-in-last-decade-have-left-profession
(I’m not convinced that Labour’s plan to impose VAT on private schools is anything more than another distraction which will remove ministerial and departmental attention from more urgent matters, FWIW.)
When I was a child I got taught how to use a slide rule and log tables. I wasn't really taught why but I could do it. I certainly wasn't taught what a logarithm was, which might have been handy and which also might have rather demonstrated the pointlessness of it once these electronic calculator thingmes appeared. At Higher maths I was taught how to "do" calculus. I had no idea what the point of the exercise was (I subsequently found out when studying economics as an optional subject at University) but I could do it. I could also work out quadratic equations but once again I had no real idea why such a thing would ever be necessary or useful.
To me, as a complete amateur in these things, this highlights the problems for Mathematics are very long standing and quite difficult to address. It takes more time than is available to really come to grips with mathematical functions, certainly to go beyond the mechanical process. The idea of using maths to solve problems that have anything to do with the real world wasn't touched upon then and doesn't seem to be now by @ydoethur's description. Is it better to try and skim a lot or go deep on a particular issue? I am not sure what the answer is, to be honest. But the current set up certainly does not engender a love of maths and that is certainly a part of the problem.
My son has his first 'official' swimming session at school today, which apparently is compulsory for year 4. Including the travel to the pool, this will probably take three or four hours out of the day. It is only half a term, but is this the most vital thing for the school to be doing, given many parents pay for private lessons? I can see why it is done, but I do wonder if it is the most important skill for kids to learn (especially as it is only five lessons).
I must admit that "more maths=good thing" is a snappy political slogan.
Though "It would be more useful to make sure they had learned necessary skills properly in the first place" could be distilled into something almost as snappy, and has the benefit of being obviously true and apposite.
Too big? Jury's out.
It is right for there to be a National Curriculum. Whether that should fill 70%, 90% or 100% of the curriculum time available is moot. I'd favour pretty close to 100%.
The interesting question is why so many teachers have left. Workload is a key factor.
As another example: most kids won't be musicians. So why teach music? Perhaps because many won't become professional musicians, but may take a greater appreciation for instruments and types of music.
And yes. We need to know far more.
But what will be dropped because we don't need to know it anymore is never asked.
Am off to teach cursive writing. There is no typing speed requirement.
Is there any chance (under the current incarnation of the Education department) of its forcing a redesign of the curriculum which improves matters, as opposed to compounding the problems ?"
Prospals to extend Maths to 18 (a) need serious thought as to what the post-16 curriculum for non-"A"-levellers would look like (I've not seen any evidence of that yet) and (b) need significant investment in training more Maths teachers.
If £x were announced for (b) there would be howls of derision because of the needs elsewhere in the system. Spending £x on a pet project rather than other priorities will not go down well.
So... I don't think the idea will go anywhere.
Similarly OFSTED, do we really need it, or is it worse than useless?
So 'swimming' lessons might be a very good idea, if only to teach practical water safety. Perhaps.
The danger being parents assume kids are taught to swim in swimming.
So they don't need to learn.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
£35k is a good wage in some parts of the country. Not London, or increasingly, the other growing metropolitan areas (Manchester got mentioned to me as becoming problematic for those on lower wages)
1. Those without a good GCSE. We need something better for most of them than another GCSE, more numeracy than maths.
2. Adults needing numeracy in later life.
3. Giving everyone who wants to the opportunity to do Further Maths. Many schools can't offer this, either because of viability or the lack good enough mathematicians on the staff.
But all of these depend on having enough teachers. And given the value that other employers put on people with good maths qualifications, they won't be cheap.
So dropped as sexist and classist.
In education, class sizes are also important…
People will work very hard for sensible goals - often giving employers free work, against their own interest. As long as it is actually productive. Vast piles of checkbox paperwork bullshit hack people off half way down page one.
Ah, my coat
This is mainly about US Republicans, but from 1min 15sec in it covers us.
'In the G20 only Russia is projected to do worse than Britain'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vZgzVrxj4I
Sunak saying , two more years of maths, job done, and dumping the whole responsibility on fewer and fewer teachers is not going to work,
This is USA: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/22/teachers-are-in-the-midst-of-a-burnout-crisis-it-became-intolerable.html
And Australia: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-26/australian-teachers-are-burnt-out-and-fed-up/101458286
And Europe and Africa: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/11/30/teacher-shortages-worry-countries-across-europe#:~:text=Teacher shortages are concerning countries,has been amplified by COVID.
This isn't just about resource or conditions or the curriculum. Learning isn't cool. Science and Engineering isn't cool. Why do kids need to study, grinding their way through badly conceived maths courses when they are going to gain fame and fortune on TikTok?
For a while now, the dial has gone up on hours expected, down on the fun in those hours and pay hasn't risen to compensate.
However, it seems to me that the basic focus has been lost in that Primary education should enable someone to succeed at Secondary education which in turn should prepare everyone for the world of work - except those whose intended careers require Tertiary education.
Having been in the 1960s/70s primary system, the idea back then seemed to be that we should be able to read and write and do basic arithmetic. Times Tables were dull, but manageable, and everyone could recite them. The same went for spelling tests. The main teaching skill these required seemed to be a huge amount of patience and any other topics like art, science and PE were fitted in around them.
Looking back, having primary school kids able to read, write and add up seems a no-brainer (no puns intended) and I cannot see that continuous monitoring of every aspect of primary education adds anything except aggravation, anxiety and costs.
In fact, back in the 70s and maybe even the early 80s, there seemed a lot less hassle on fitting an adequate education in to the time available. Perhaps the greatest reform to today's education system could be found by looking back in the history books?
We used to leave that far too late.
What might be more useful is a chart showing average number of years worked. I suspect it would rise steeply in the mid-1990s as the rules changed on pensions, then start dropping sharply again.
https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2019/12/nine-key-findings-from-pisa-2018/
And then of course, there was the whole problem with Scotland’s PISA in the first place:
https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2021/04/pisa-2018-in-scotland-its-all-a-bit-of-a-mess/
Excellent header and worth the long read.
One thing in particular I'd highlight is the dreadful state of lifelong learning. Most people would benefit from the normalisation of post-21 education and (incidentally) the value to the economy would be huge.
I was (a long time ago) pretty good at maths, getting an A at A Level. But I found the teaching of it stultifyingly boring.
But may I also highly recommend @FrequentLurker 's additions below, which add more detail over an even longer timeframe.
But attrition is getting notably worse;
https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/analysis-three-charts-that-explain-the-secondary-teaching-crisis/
The current incarnation of OFSTED is a very long way from ideal. The pre-OFSTED system was superior to what we have now (less 'rigorous' or not), certainly in the opinion of school leaders who experienced it.
What the graph does show is the attrition rate in the early years is higher in the more recent cohorts.
It's almost as if working in education is getting crappier.
It would be interesting to see the curves for the years 1997-2010.
OK, There Was Something Positive in the Speaker-Vote Debacle
Long after midnight, what Hakeem Jeffries said was notable. What Kevin McCarthy didn't say is worth at least noticing as well.
https://fallows.substack.com/p/ok-there-was-something-positive-in
I think @FrequentLurker probably has it more accurately with this line:
"I don't think the current Maths curriculum is that bad. It's not perfect, but it could certainly be worse"
Not as polemical or bite-sized but I'm sure a better description of where we are.
Well Ms Smith, the good news is that your child is not a gibbering idiot, who is incapable of feeding himself. The bad news is that he's no Einstein.
Of course, there's always one person who refuses to engage with the substance rather than the personality - not surprised to see who it was given his, umm, colourful track record and personal loathing of me - and I'm sure others will emerge. In particular I realise I've left poor old Casino Royale with a terrible dilemma which I hope he will be able to resolve.
I have to go to work. Have a good morning. Enjoy.
I also think it's complicated. And that the various bods in the DfE have thought about all the issues brought up in the header and likely have settled on the least worst version.
So I see the header really as a personal vent with, as I say, any valid points lost in the general polemic.
Where do you think the (say) 2015 cohort will level off? 20%? 40%? 60%
I share your pessimism about whether the system can be changed for the better. Ultimately, it seems to me, we need to define politicians' roles in the education system (and in other public services) in such a way that short-termism, and pet projects, do not get in the way of any system-wide consensus about what needs to be done in the long-term.
I've said before that this really ought not to be too complicated. Maths is really just problem solving until you get to A Level (maybe not even then). When I was at school in the 90s/2000s, the curriculum seemed to flow okay. I guess people feel the need to tinker when it's not needed.
Basic arithmetic is in decline.
But that doesn't happen anymore. I paid for a 99p chocolate bar the other day with contactless. I often never have any cash in my pockets at all, and I can't remember seeing anyone pay with cash at the checkout of a supermarket.
So I think that you might be slightly out of date. Not to say that a lot I'm sure can't be done to improve (in your example) arithmetic in schools.
However certainly improving the standards of numeracy and literacy and IT and foreign language skills of school leavers at 18 would be a good thing in today's workplace
Mr. Sandpit, reporters trying to get politicians to guarantee rates of infection wouldn't rise or suchlike was absolutely ridiculous.
As an aside, it seems every one of my La Liga bets failed, each being one goal from green. I blame the Royal Family for their lack of support in my endeavours. In a very real, emotional sense, my back has been lacerated by the dog bowl of misfortune.
I was once charged £1,200 for a dinner for six people which was the most epic arithmetic fail I can recall. The final bill was just under £150. What amazed me was that the person in question had no feel for numbers, they never entertained the notion that £200 per person was off the scale in a country pub in rural Wales. Whatever the till (or computer or calculator, etc, etc) spits out is "correct". People have lost the internal arithmetic alarm bell that goes "Err.. What???"
It would be good to have more recent data as well, though you would quickly run into Covid effects.
1. We underperform in Education compared to our competitors.
2. The main weaknesses of our education system have been recognised for many decades - poor provision for technical education, that it primarily exists to sort kids into winners and losers and abandons the losers - but little progress on fixing these issues appears to have been achieved.
3. What has happened over the last few decades is that the relationship between teachers and politicians has become increasingly toxic, as the reforms attempted appear to worsen the working conditions of teachers for no discernible benefit, and politicians use teachers as a scapegoat to avoid taking the blame themselves.
That said, I'm a bit surprised that a modest proposal like teaching Maths to age 18 would receive such widespread criticism, both here and in the media generally. What's so special about Britain that we can stop teaching Maths at 16 while so many other countries continue to 18?
I guess it's a sign that the government has completely lost all credibility with the media and more generally. Any policy, regardless of its merits, will now be ripped to shreds as a result. It's one reason a polling/electoral recovery for the government is so difficult. Too many people have stopped listening.
The Shadow Education Secretary is therefore likely to have the first opportunity to remedy the situation. That's Bridget Phillipson.
On extending Maths education to 18, it is obvious that it is not the *starting point* of a policy, but what can be done *once a whole pile of other, deeper challenges are met*. You can't just say "and everyone will be 'taught maths' to 18" without understanding what that means for the whole system.
Without that deeper thinking, it just gives a couple of years more failure for pupils who are unreceptive to the maths teaching we already do. And that is a bad experience a huge proportion of the population "enjoyed" in their youth; so the message landed like a bucket of lumpy pink custard and spotted dick.
I think we would all like to know more about the state of maths education. This header was all shade and no light. It was a polemic. Which is fine, there is a place for polemics but first, they can be called out as such, and secondly it is not telling us what is happening in education right now.
So the only interesting question is what is envisaged for those aged 16-18 who already have a good GCSE maths grade but do not have the aptitude for A level and do not want to do any more maths.
Something similar happened to May, which why Johnson (terrible as he was) was able to improve matters. His style commands attention and makes it jolly hard to work out where the weak points are. That's part of the hankering for Big Dog to return, even if Big Dog blew it by being so morally compomised.
Whatever Rishi's talents (he's clearly bright, for all that he has backed some really dumb stuff), commanding attention isn't one of them.
If a new phone costs £900 in cash, or £40/month for three years, should you save up for it or get it on the contract?
If a £50k student loan, at 5% pa interest, for a liberal arts degree, leads to you earning £3k more per year than without the degree, is it worth spending most of your life in debt to pay for three years on the piss?
Regarding the policy itself, I think that probably maths education from primary onward needs a complete rethink. What would be useful for the UK? A numerate population that understands (as Josias says) compound interest, can add, multiply, and subtract easily without pencil, paper or calculator, has good budgeting skills/basic accountancy skills, and (probably least importantly) has a foundation of more advanced maths skills.
I have already said that personally I feel daft not knowing my times tables off by heart - that is a very good basic foundation I feel.
Language teaching is the same - the curriculum doesn't meet the basic need; for students to converse well in the second language. Secondary importance, to write well in the second language. I got an 'A*' (German) and an 'A' (French) at GCSE, but would still struggle to have a basic conversation in either. Only now, with post school learning, I have elementary French, understand a lot of the language, and can 'manage' a basic conversation although not always find the word. I've been helped a lot by the techniques of Michel Thomas, who was an amazing man who developed a great teaching method relying on making connections between English and French (which are obviously many). In my opinion the first two years of secondary should be spent almost entirely on developing verbal confidence in the chosen language, writing and grammar should come into it later at GCSE level.
Should we cut taxes now, or spend the money ensuring that public buildings are better maintained?
Should we aim to pass an unpolluted environment onto future generations, even if it increases prices for us now?
It's been an official aspiration of the government for a decade (and was supported by Labour at the time).
The annoyance is that an effectively meaningless pledge was inserted into Sunak's recent speech, which does nothing to further that decade old aspiration.
As such he is unwilling to lay the blame for the current issues (actually issues that have existed for decades and long before Gove came along) anywhere but at the feet of the politicians. And yet the reality is that we have long had a failing education system and no one - neither teachers, academics nor politicians - have been able to come up with a way to reform it to benefit the students and the country. Given that in all his other positions - notably at Justice and DEFRA - Gove has won plaudits from all sides for his willingness to listen to the experts and make informed decisions, one wonders why it is that Education, uniquely has been a problem.
When I was doing my A levels I had to do one lesson a week of English. I hated English and as far as I was concerned it was no use to me whatsoever. Just a wasted hour. In my 20s I was sent on a report writing course. It was fantastic. A real eye opener, although you guys may not think so reading my posts. That course was genuinely fun and would have been really useful to me earlier.
The converse is almost certainly true for humanities with regard to the lack of understanding of science and maths. As I said I am gob smacked by the lack of curiosity in science and it should be fun.
So how about stuff that is really interesting post 16 on subjects that they are not doing that is fun and opens their mind.
Since yesterday I have been thinking more about stuff that I am shocked that people without a science background just accept that they really shouldn't. I mentioned yesterday the odd properties of water eg why do ice cubes float, why when you are wet do you feel cold, etc and it reminded me of others. Here are a couple that crop up all the time for me:
a) Relative velocity. The number of times you hear statements like the spacecrafts in orbit docked at 17,500 mph or it landed on the asteroid at a speed of 25,000 mph. If it did it would be one hell of an insurance claim.
b) Never questioning why there appears to be no gravity in a space station orbiting the earth. Why do they think that happens. Do they think there is no gravity just a short distance from the earths surface?
As I said yesterday the list is near infinite and I would have thought these were interesting questions.
Finally I was shocked to find that a relative of mine who was head of geography at a school and obviously with a geography degree and who obviously knew about the effects of water on climate had not a clue about the specific heat properties of water. Why had he never asked 'Why?'
There will be much more of a price to be paid for failing to balance the books, and the unrestrained spending of recent years will constrain government freedoms to spend today or to cut taxes.