Very interesting. Lots here I agree with! I think the "Exodus 16" point is underrated. I have had a couple of heads make similar points to me recently. A lot of people think "OK we had to do all this stuff to turn the school around but now we've turned it around can't we stop and do something different?"
I absolutely agree and this is one of the most nuanced takes on the subject I have read. The fact that the current dispensation offers so little to the most able has serious implications for the future of public life, which is going to be even more heavily dominated by alumni of elite public schools. Equally the fact that a third of children - thirty per cent! One in three! Ten in a class of thirty!(but not your children or my children) - fail to reach the base standard needs to be waved in the face of anyone who claims that the Gove reforms are an unqualified success. No educational theory would argue for setting children up to fail - and yet we do this to a third of our children. Is it any surprise that they start throwing chairs or not turning up at all?
Michaela Community School deserves a mention. An experiment was run and the hypothesis was proved - a non-selective school with real management drive can vastly outperform the average. And yet it turns out that some people keep arguing....
Katherine Birbalsingh deserves a helluva lot more than a CBE if you ask me. I'd cut the House of Lords down by two thirds, and fill the remainder with people of her quality and drive. Hell, I'd make her minister of Education from the Lords - show me who else has a comparable track record?
I think part of the problem is that there is so much variability in student outcomes, and most of it isn't school-side, so the improvements aren't immediately obvious. For example, I sat my GCSEs before the reforms, and I did substantially better than my brother almost certainly will, when he sits his this year. If my mum is looking at the data points she has, there isn't any evidence of improvement, and the same will be true for lots of families.
In addition, if you look at PISA scores, the UK's are slightly lower than they were twenty years ago. This is still a success in my opinion, because I think there are strong global headwinds against education, such as smartphones, which have caused most countries' scores to drop, but again, if you are comparing your child's reading ability with yours, or their cousin's fifteen years ago, odds are you aren't going to see a substantial improvement.
I guess a central question here is what we mean by success. If it’s as narrow as “winning” at PISA, then we’re fools to abandon what has worked. If it’s about the economic and social health of the country, then I’d argue that low growth, a huge, intractable NEET problem, and growing unrest/racism says something needs to change. (Whether it’s oracy plus introducing the 4th version of “vocational equivalents” in my lifetime, I doubt.)
I also think lots of this comes down to the fact that there is no universal agreement on what the point of school is, or what the focus of schools should be. Are they for teaching everyone a basic agreed standard of knowledge? Are they to try and close various gaps? Is it more important to push the brightest and have very brilliant students at the top end, or push the weaker end, and try and have them attain a level of competency? Is school for academic learning or job preparation? Are both of these appropriate for all students?
Can/should schools fix various social ills - poverty, racism, etc (I would argue no, but lots of people would disagree).
I think there are a lot of assumptions baked in to most people's priors on schools, and they are not all the same.
Very interesting. Lots here I agree with! I think the "Exodus 16" point is underrated. I have had a couple of heads make similar points to me recently. A lot of people think "OK we had to do all this stuff to turn the school around but now we've turned it around can't we stop and do something different?"
I absolutely agree and this is one of the most nuanced takes on the subject I have read. The fact that the current dispensation offers so little to the most able has serious implications for the future of public life, which is going to be even more heavily dominated by alumni of elite public schools. Equally the fact that a third of children - thirty per cent! One in three! Ten in a class of thirty!(but not your children or my children) - fail to reach the base standard needs to be waved in the face of anyone who claims that the Gove reforms are an unqualified success. No educational theory would argue for setting children up to fail - and yet we do this to a third of our children. Is it any surprise that they start throwing chairs or not turning up at all?
Michaela Community School deserves a mention. An experiment was run and the hypothesis was proved - a non-selective school with real management drive can vastly outperform the average. And yet it turns out that some people keep arguing....
Katherine Birbalsingh deserves a helluva lot more than a CBE if you ask me. I'd cut the House of Lords down by two thirds, and fill the remainder with people of her quality and drive. Hell, I'd make her minister of Education from the Lords - show me who else has a comparable track record?
I think part of the problem is that there is so much variability in student outcomes, and most of it isn't school-side, so the improvements aren't immediately obvious. For example, I sat my GCSEs before the reforms, and I did substantially better than my brother almost certainly will, when he sits his this year. If my mum is looking at the data points she has, there isn't any evidence of improvement, and the same will be true for lots of families.
In addition, if you look at PISA scores, the UK's are slightly lower than they were twenty years ago. This is still a success in my opinion, because I think there are strong global headwinds against education, such as smartphones, which have caused most countries' scores to drop, but again, if you are comparing your child's reading ability with yours, or their cousin's fifteen years ago, odds are you aren't going to see a substantial improvement.
I guess a central question here is what we mean by success. If it’s as narrow as “winning” at PISA, then we’re fools to abandon what has worked. If it’s about the economic and social health of the country, then I’d argue that low growth, a huge, intractable NEET problem, and growing unrest/racism says something needs to change. (Whether it’s oracy plus introducing the 4th version of “vocational equivalents” in my lifetime, I doubt.)
I also think lots of this comes down to the fact that there is no universal agreement on what the point of school is, or what the focus of schools should be. Are they for teaching everyone a basic agreed standard of knowledge? Are they to try and close various gaps? Is it more important to push the brightest and have very brilliant students at the top end, or push the weaker end, and try and have them attain a level of competency? Is school for academic learning or job preparation? Are both of these appropriate for all students?
Can/should schools fix various social ills - poverty, racism, etc (I would argue no, but lots of people would disagree).
I think there are a lot of assumptions baked in to most people's priors on schools, and they are not all the same.