etc: education blog; technology blog; culture blog

I've Moved!!

2011-02-20T17:56:00.000Z

Please note that I've moved blog sites

No more blogs will be posted here...

Instead, please go to my new site here and amend your bookmarks and bookmarklets.

Thanks for stopping by, and I'll see you at the new place!

@davidpriceobe

6 Reasons Why Online Video Learning Isn't As Good As Face-to-Face.......It's Better

2011-02-19T16:54:00.001Z

There's been a flurry of excitement recently over hedge-fund trader turned educator, Sal Khan. If you're getting money from both Gates and Google, the chances are you're doing something innovative. The Khan Academy (1 principal, 1 faculty) sets out to be the world's free classroom. It does so through a growing collection (currently over 2000) of video tutorials in maths, science, history and economics, plus a cleverly structured series of exercises which the student can work through (in a game-like format) to check comprehension, and score points. Importantly you can do exercises in a non-sequential fashion, if you want to. (Educators regularly use 'sequential' as a marker for rigour, when it's rarely how we ever learn in practice). Take a look at a typical tutorial in my favourite subject, algebra:

Why do I say it's better than having in a teacher in the room giving explanations?

1. It's true just-in-time learning. If you get stuck on a particular maths problem, you can go straight to the relevant video, when you need it, not when the teacher is able to get around to you.

2. You can go at your own speed. Students, listening to a teacher, invariably would rather pretend they understood what was being explained, than hold everyone else up, by asking the teacher to repeat something.

3. It makes learning less stressful. Students, even with the best teacher, can get pretty stressed, worrying if they're going to be asked a question, or why they're not getting it, or because other students are disctracting them. Here, it's just Sal coming out of your headphones, and he's never going to pick you out for questioning.

4. You can go at your own speed. Ever wish that you could rewind (or fast-forward) your classroom teacher? Well, here you can.

5. It's truly personalised learning. 30 kids in a single class can be working on different parts of the syllabus. Their exercise progress can be seen at a glance.

6. You focus on the explanation, not the teacher. You don't see Sal, but you can see the working on 'the board'.(I speak as someone who spent their entire high school career too embarrassed to wear prescription glasses, pretending I could see what was being written on the board (and dutifully copied down by my fellow students). Can you imagine the needless energy you expend, bluffing like that for 5 years?

If you begin to connect the opportunities that such tutorials provide, with a 'flipped' pedagogy, you can start to see what a real 21st century classroom might look like. Kahn certainly presented a powerful argument for this in a recent interview.

Does this mean that online video learning does away with the need for teachers? Give it another 5-10 years, then the answer's probably yes - but only as in the form that we're forever casting them. A teacher as lecturer/expert may be superfluous, but teacher as mentor, guide (to the vast wealth of learning tools which are out there) will be worth their weight in gold. School as a 21st century learning commons, will need teachers who can design, connect and network, so that the social learning which should by now be pervasive (through blogging, YouTube and other forms of social media) but sadly is largely absent, or banned, in our classrooms, can be made purposeful, through students using the knowledge gained to solve real-world problems, in their own communities.

Chris Anderson recently put forward a powerful case for video learning. I'm sure the concept of flipping, or of teachers letting Sal Khan do the explanations, horrifies some teacher unions and many parents. They'd have an argument to mount - but only if they themselves hadn't used online tutorials when they were trying out a new recipe, or struggling to get the back off their iPhone, or looking at any of the millions of 'how-to' vids. And I'm willing to bet they have, so why isn't it good enough for their kids?

And any young teacher coming into the profession who won't embrace these tools - and I'm surprised by the number I meet - preferring instead to 'perform' at the front of their class, should probably think about another career.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Pack Up Your Troubles In Your Old Folks Songs....

2011-02-19T13:16:00.001Z

[[posterous-content:pid___0]]Last week-end I attended a family celebration - a golden wedding anniversary - up in the North-East of England. At these events I usually get hauled on to the nearest piano or guitar, and do the human juke-box thing. Last week, however, I had a throat infection so I was relying on others to carrying the singing. I'm grateful for the fact that, thanks to a childhood piano teacher who positively encouraged me to play by ear, and a father who insisted I accompany him on beery Saturday nights as we trawled through the Great American Musicals, I learned to 'hear' chord patterns from an early age. So, I can usually handle most songs people throw at me - with the exception of Stephen Sondheim's oeuvre, but you don't get many requests for 'I'm Still Here' at Whitley Bay Social Club.

It was an all-age gathering, so we had the usual 70's/80s/90s catalogue. Over the years, I've learned to talk people down from starting songs like 'You'll Never Walk Alone' or 'The Wonder Of You' from their middle register, because it's usually an ambulance job by the time they get to the closing line. So, all was going well. And then someone with the lungs of a blast furnace grabbed the microphone and whispered "Be My Love, in G". Now this is always a dead give-away that you're now in the presence of someone 'who can hold a tune' (it's a delightful phrase, isn't it?) And so it proved to be. Sadly, I didn't do him justice on the ivories because Mario Lanza is just, well, before my time. In the event, it made no difference because he'd wrestled that song into submission well before the end of the first chorus.....

But, as I looked up at him, carotid artery bulging, I suddenly thought "he's only about 10 years older than me, how does he know this stuff?" And then I recalled that, in over 30 years of visiting care homes, the songs which seem popular with residents have more or less remained the same - they're usually war-time songs. But over a 30-40 year span the songs we grew up singing have changed dramatically. So what happens? Why is it that when today's 30-somethings are living out their final years in the Happy Valley Rest Home, they're going to be singing 'Pack Up Your Troubles', as voiced by Gracie Fields, and not Eliza Doolittle?

Maybe there's some mysterious process takes place when you enter old age: you lose your short-term memory, but gain an ability to sing songs made popular 20 years before you were born. Perhaps, it just appears in the post on your 65th birthday: pension book, your free bus-pass, and the collected works of Vera Lynn?

(Oh and by the way, this is NOT me in the following extract - I just include it, because the comments show the song's capacity for triggering early-onset dementia)

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Putting The Moral Purpose Back Into Education

2011-02-15T13:29:00.001Z

I was listening to a great talk today, given by Lawrence Lessig (one of the founders of the Creative Commons). Regular readers will know of my fondness for the metaphor of the 'Global Learning Commons' in trying to explain the changes which are taking place in how we learn: in sanctioned settings (schools, college, university) as well as at work and how we learn socially (where we see the greatest changes). In fact, I'm so fond of it that I'm currently writing a book about it. But that's another story.

So, Lessig is talking about the 'Tragedy of The Commons', as first explained by Garret Hardin. Hardin's argument has been a powerful counter-argument to the benefit of the commons, so it's worth explaining. The 'tragedy' was that if you put a few extra cows on to a commons you might get a short-term gain - a better yield from your cattle - but, if everyone does it, pretty soon the grass will disappear, the pasture fails, and self-interest will have put paid to the common good. (Hardin was a tad more loquacious, but I realise your time is precious, so I'm abbreviating). First appearing in 1968, Hardin's premise has often been credited with foreseeing the collapse of communist ideals.

Lessig's argument, however, was that those who look for the 'Tragedy of The Commons' in modern day contexts (environment, intellectual property, transport, etc) miss an important interpretive distinction. There are finite, and therefore 'rivalrous' properties (if you eat my apple I no longer have an apple), but there are also non-rivalrous properties - like ideas or, education. If I share an idea with you, you may gain from that idea, but I don't lose from the exchange - I still have the idea. These principles helped establish the 'Creative Commons' license which does so much for the spread of contemporary thinking, untethered by overly-restrictive copyright mechanisms.

And this applies particularly to the business of learning. As there is no loss of illumination when a taper takes light from one candle to another, so no-one should lose out when teaching and learning proliferates. Even the teacher learns more about the subject through explaining it to another learner. These are the lofty ideals which attract people into the teaching profession.

But most accountability structures in education are built upon the belief that, when it comes to schooling, rivalry is good. It drives up standards, right?

Well, wrong. By making competition the focus of schools' activities we've enforced a rivalrous framework around something as innately non-rivalrous as learning, and that's the real tragedy. Instead of creating a true learning commons, the obsession with ranking turns something as pure as learning into a competitive 'enclosure', where there have to be losers, so that there can be winners. This affects us all, from the global measurements of PISA International Tables, to county/authority performance data. It distorts one noble vision - making learning the shared, ubiquitous, resource it ought to be – through the prioritisation of another (though still laudable) goal: to support governments and parents in making the right choices for their young people. It may, indeed, seem a laudable aim, but competition contaminates what should be the non-rivalrous environment of learning.

How does this tragedy manifest itself? Well, for a start, schools soon realise that doing the required thing invariably trumps doing the right thing. Schools won't be interested in becoming learning commons – spaces where a wide range of occupants adopt a shared involvement in, and responsibility for, learning - so long as their very existence is threatened by not keeping up with their rivals.

But that's just the start. The testing mechanisms which turn education into a rivalrous property, also de-moral-ise the professionals in whom we place our trust. Once there's a system with such high-stakes, they're almost duty-bound to find a way to 'game' it. We know we can manipulate student options, (as we're currently doing to improve English Baccalaureate performances) or find the easiest exam boards to boost results, but we lose our sense of moral purpose along the way.

This question of whether learning should be a rivalrous or non-rivalrous property is much more than a philosophical exercise. In recent years it's easy to observe almost a global sense of resignation in school senior leaders, here in the UK, through No Child Left Behind in the US, and in other countries. Many have lost any sense of self-determinism, instead questioning why they came into a profession which seems to reward only compliance and conformity.

But not all.

Six years ago, I sat in on a workshop at a Specialist Schools Trust Conference. The school in question, Walker Technology College, had attracted a highly excited crowd by showing them how to garner a cheap, quick, GCSE pass in art & design, from the Students Who Mattered (the borderline literacy and numeracy students), so that time could be freed up to unleash a torrent of literacy/numeracy improvement strategies on them. Sitting in the audience, I could have wept.

Nor did it work. In 2008, Walker was made a 'National Challenge' school: a euphemism which means 'you've got two years to improve, or we close you down'.

And yet, at last week's Whole Education Event in Manchester, I found myself welling up for a very different reason. This time the presentation from Walker school outlined their transformation into a 'Human Scale' school. It was genuinely inspiring. They are turning their school into a learning commons, taking learning outside the classroom, bringing parents into the learning conversations, enabling students to co-construct the lessons and working with anyone who can make learning more engaging for the large proportion of their disengaged kids.

Faced with such rivalrous pressures, the overwhelming temptation upon Walker would have been to do the required thing: circle the wagons, and drill-and-skill the 'bubble' kids to within an inch of their lives - or boredom thresholds. Instead, they did the right thing, by creating a commons and not worrying too much about the exam results. So far, they've seen significant improvements in behaviour, an improvement in literacy levels, 93% hand-in rates for homework (previously around 30%) and much greater parental engagement. Like I said, moving and inspiring stuff.

And at the same event I met Andrew Chubb, the Principal of the Archbishop Sentanu Academy in Hull, who has taken a one-man stand against the imposition of the English Baccalaureate by announcing that he would create his own version. Far from being the attention-seeking self-publicist one might have imagined, Andrew is an unassuming – but determined – school leader who simply thinks things have gone too far. And he's far from alone. In less than a week, a fast-growing coalition of agencies have come together to create a 'Better Bacc', one which is designed from the 'bottom-up', through the input of school leaders themselves, not imposed by dictat from on-high. But more school leaders need to get behind this campaign if it is to gain the momentum it needs.

So, I'd urge any school leaders reading this to contact the Build A Better Bacc coalition , show that positive resistance is far from futile, and begin to create a better alternative by signing up here.

It may be naïve idealism to re-think schooling in terms such as learning commons and non-rivalrous environments. But simply finding ways to do the right thing, not always the required thing, as both Walker Technology College and Archbishop Sentanu Academy have done, helps restore the higher moral purpose of education and lift spirits, at a time when both seem to be in short supply.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Was Monday Such A Great Day For Music?

2011-02-10T16:50:00.001Z

On Monday of this week the UK Secretary of State for Education, in responding to the Henley Review of Music Education , declared it a great day for music and that everyone involved in music in the UK should be pleased with the government's response. Well, perhaps now that the sound of party-poppers and backs being slapped has died down, it might be an appropriate time for a more objective consideration.

My concerns around the Henley report are three-fold:

1. That it was largely discussing the stuff around the edges, and didn't focus enough on the core of music education. What goes on in primary and secondary schools, as part of the 'core' curriculum, is where the bulk of music in this country is made - from kids aged 5 to 14, and, thanks to Musical Futures, there's been a big increase in numbers of students still making music, beyond that stage. I lost count of the number of times that I read in the papers this week that music education receives £82m per year. No, I'm sorry, music education receives a heck of a lot more than that - think of every classroom music teacher's salary, for a start. The whole debate pre and post the publication of Darren Henley's report has placed the extra-curricular work of music services' instrumental tuition services, above the core provision in every primary and secondary. There was more space spent discussing the much-heralded In Harmony projects (which currently run in a handful of schools at an unsustainable cost) than there was on the quality of the core entitlement in the curriculum. Which brings me to...

2. That it was almost entirely uncritical of the quality of current provision and structures - how is it possible to do a comprehensive review of music education, and not refer to the most recent OFSTED review of music provision in school? Could it be because OFSTED assessed music provision in primary and secondary schools as less than 'good' in half of schools inspected, over a 3 year period? When does a review become a piece of advocacy? I suspect it's when the myriad number of representative groups bombard you with pleas to mention their project/provision and you produce a report which, as this one does, praises everyone and therefore upsets no-one. Why did the report, for instance, not mention that the notion of coordinated local provision ('hubs') was first mentioned in the Music Manifesto report six years ago? If it was approved then as a good idea - and it was - and we have had music services charged with creating Local Area Music Partnership Plans for the past four years, why is it still necessary to say we need better local music coordination, and recommend that the same music services be responsible for it? The unpalatable truth is that many music service 'plans' haven't been't worthy of the name, and yet making the same call seems to be the new 'big idea' of the review.

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not having a pop at music services. Some of them do coordinate activities very well indeed, but for most of them it's simply not what they are good at, nor does their lack of external connections make it possible. Their core business is providing small group instrumental tuition, and why shouldn't they be left alone to do that? The report is essentially asking them to do what the school sports trust does for sports in local communities, but with no recommendations as to how to re-structure themselves. Well, here's a radical idea, one I would have liked to have seen in the review: nationalise the music service. A National Music Service with a single, centralised, (and cost effective) back-office function would not only save a ton of money, it would also ensure that priorities are common across regions, best practice shared quickly, and would prevent the patchy quality of provision so frequently referred to in reports.

3. The lasting impression is that our organisations are effective and the quality of provision is excellent. Why, therefore, would anyone feel the need to follow Henley's urging for a single national body speaking for music? Fragmentation alone is not a good enough reason - if it's working in its own slightly chaotic way, why the panic to fix it? The net result of the report, and the government's response to it, is a huge collective sigh of relief, and, frankly, there'll be little sense of urgency on this issue. There was some classic political posturing before the report got published: everyone expected the worst in terms of funding, so that when music service jobs, and a few projects, were financially saved for another year (and it's only another year) we were all meant to be grateful.

If the music community had attended the Whole Education event this week there may have been a new sense of urgency instilled. For they would have heard Mick Waters (former head of curriculum at QCA and a man well used to reading the political runes) strongly suggest that music, and other arts subjects, will be taken out of the compulsory core curriculum when the National Curriculum Review concludes in two years time. We've already seen large numbers of schools taking steps to remove their music options post-14, so as to funnel students into the new English Baccalaureate subjects, and the Guardian carried a report this week of similar fates befalling other arts subjects. So, it's entirely possible that we could lose music at all stages of the curriculum in most of our schools, by 2013. We know that the government is determined to reduce the number of subjects within the core curriculum: cue subject pitted against subject in an unseemly scramble to make it into the pen before the gate closes (which is why having a single voice for music education is so pressing).

I'm not a conspiracist by nature, but I believe there's a very real possibility that the hidden agenda behind the government's support for the review is to get it off the political hook when such a scenario occurs. Having supported all the stuff which goes on outside school hours, it can claim that kids are still getting a 'rich cultural experience' - it's just that second period on a Thursday is reserved for 'real' academic subjects, not mucking about on guitars.

But that's the problem. Fewer than 10% of kids access music instrumental tuition. If you add up all the kids who take part in all the other stuff - projects in the community, playing in their local orchestras, etc - you might get that figure up to 25-30%. Music in the primary and secondary curriculum is the only place where every young person gets exposure to music education - and, please take note, media outlets and politicians: there is much more to music education than learning to play a musical instrument!

So, will we still look back on last Monday as a great day for music if, in a couple of year's time, it's been preserved for the minority, but lost as a universal entitlement for everyone?

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Improve Results - Cut School Hours!

2011-02-07T11:09:00.001Z

If there's one good thing to come out of the so-called 'Age of Austerity' we're entering, it's that it makes us bring some new ideas to the table. Facing significant funding cuts, North Ayrshire council is, apparently, considering switching to a four-day school week, and putting the school starting age back a year, to six (kids start school in England and Scotland aged five). There's been a predictably hostile response in the media, and the leader of North Ayrshire has quickly decribed the plan as a 'worst case scenario', adding "Parents by and large work round about the school week ... and it really wouldn't be practical to move away from that."

It seems like we oraganise our school systems to suit the needs of schools first, parents second, and children third.

But why is cutting back the number of hours a child spends in school such a sacred cow? Consider the Finns (I know, I'm sick to death of considering the Finns, too, but you can't ignore their results): their kids have, for decades, started school not aged six, but at seven. Academically, they seem to catch up, and then overtake, our kids pretty quickly.

There's little historical evidence that our statutory starting age - two years ahead of the Finns - was taken on educational grounds. The early start was introduced in 1870 to guard against neglectful Victorian parenting, and to ensure that industrial employers could access young child workers at an early age, on the basis that the sooner they started school, the sooner they finished. (So, let's change that priority of needs to schools, parents, employers, then children).

Finnish kids also enjoy an 11-week summer break, (compared to our 6) and yet still spank us in PISA tests. So, perhaps Ayrshire should be praised, rather than pilloried, for having the guts to think differenty - our obsession with getting kids to do more, work harder, doesn't seem to be working, does it?

And if they need further encouragement, let me relay a story I heard at a Head Teacher conference I was speaking at, last week. I heard from a parent whose child was in the crucial Year 10, when their school burned down. Senior leaders moved quickly to set up learning opportunities in local libraries, community centres, town halls - even the local race track. Students organised themselves into peer learning groups, and a virtual learning environment was quickly set up for them. Students followed the curriculum in a way which Sugata Mitra would define as minimally invasive and self-organised learning.

See the full gallery on posterous

Whilst local people people were glad to see a community spirit re-establish itself, no-one believed that the temporary arrangements were any substitute for the real thing. Except, that year, the school had their best ever GCSE results.

Rather than working kids so hard, and piling homework on top of them, perhaps we should try letting them work shorter hours, with the opportunity to organise more of their own learning?

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Google Factoid - Mea Culpa

2011-02-04T23:33:00.001Z

Two weeks ago (the original post is here) I detailed what I called a 'game-changing' piece of kit being released by Google. 'Factoid' was designed to bring knowledge and facts to the writer/learner, utilising the powerful search capacities they have developed through ad sense, linked to their huge digital repository of knowledge. The filters you could apply, would bring you relevant economic, geo-political and historical data, without you having to look for it, simply by typing key words into your document.

Lots of people got very excited about the radical implications that such a technological breakthrough would bring to teaching and learning. It's time to confess: I made it up. I'm afraid Factoid was Fictoid. The only thing that was true was that I do own a very small number of Google shares, but that was never going to get me sneak previews of new lab developments, as I claimed.

Now, I apologise to anyone who was taken in by the story, but I hope people will see that the point I was trying to make was worth the deception.

You see, over 3,000 people have viewed that post in the past two weeks, and not a single one (including some social media experts – sorry, Ewan, Sorry Dan) questioned the likelihood of it being true. What does this tell us? That people were half-expecting it, and that it's merely a matter of time before such apps do exist. The real question lies in how we respond to such technological advancements.

I have never agued for skills over knowledge. To my mind, they're equally important. It's just a shame that the fixation we now have with testing, means that what we can test the most easily (what we know) invariably takes precedence over what really matters (what we can do with that knowledge). And, despite there being no proven connection between PISA/TIMMS scores and national prosperity, industrialised countries have judged the quality of their national education systems by PISA performance, and have therefore conned themselves into believing that what can be PISA tested is what we should be teaching. PISA doesn't test skills, so knowledge becomes everything.

Skills are acquired experientially, knowledge isn't. You have to fathom out how to make knowledge work for you, and that, in my experience, is what teachers really want to be doing: helping their kids apply knowledge, not standing in front of them, turgidly chronicling the kings and queens of England.

Witness the surge of interest in 'flipping' the conventional relationship between the classroom lecture and homework. Instead of using valuable class time lecturing 30 kids, and then setting them homework to see if they understood it, growing numbers of forward-thinking teachers are podcasting their lectures – to be viewed as homework – so that they can use class time to support students in putting that knowledge into practice. Flipping's popularity has occurred because it appeals to teachers' intrinsic desire to grow human beings, not fact accumulators.

So, I believe that the English government has misjudged the mood of teachers, by signalling a reversal of pedagogy, away from skills, and back to facts. Or perhaps it's a cunning ruse to make deeper public sector cuts in the future. After all, once something like Factoid really exists, who needs teachers?

I really do hope that teachers will become more vocal in expressing the importance of head and hands, of knowledge and skills. I know that their excitement at the prospect of a powerful technological aid to knowledge acquisition was because they could see they might have more time for knowledge application with their students. And I'm sorry if I raised their hopes prematurely by perpetrating my little hoax. I promise it will be the last time I'll attempt such a stunt.

And I do hope Google cut me in on a royalty when they eventually do create Factoid – remember, Do No Evil – you read it here first!

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Time To Do The Right Thing?

2011-02-04T12:01:00.002Z

Yesterday, I worked with a large group of Head Teachers from Bradford. I shared the Barry Schwartz Ted Talk on 'Practical Wisdom', and we spent some time on the dilemma faced between 'doing the right thing' and 'doing the required thing'. Educators on both sides of the Atlantic seem to face these choices daily. In the US, there have been many states who have chosen not to take part in the 'Race To The Top' because, however powerful the lure of significant additional funding, there were just to many of the 'required' things that they couldn't stomach. Many, however, decided to swallow their pride and suffer the sticks, perhaps because they simply couldn't afford not to go for the carrot.

In the UK, the swift and bungled introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBac) has divided opinions on the lines of class divisions which we haven't seen for a while. The linking of a highly prescribed, and narrow, set of subjects to a national league table, shone a bright light on independent and selective schools, whilst schools who had worked hard under the old criteria to achieve good results, suddenly found themselves plummeted down the league.

We briefly discussed this in Bradford, (Bradford would fare particularly badly under an EBac-based table) and I urged senior

leaders to look at the example of the Sentanu Academy, in Hull, who have not only vehemently opposed the introduction of the EBac, but have even created their own alternative suite of baccalaureates.

I couldn't say that I sensed much appetite for resistance, however.

This morning, Mick Waters, probably the most widely-respected former representative of any education quango, weighed into the debate. Under the previous government, Mick did more than most to bring about curriculum changes which gave teachers some of the freedoms they'd been begging for. (Curiously, the recently announced National Curriculum Review, purports to be pursuing the self-same freedoms, though by an unnecessary and divisive process).

See the full gallery on posterous

Writing about the reduction of success criteria to just five selected subjects, Mick pulls no punches:

“Forty years ago, just 15 per cent of 16-year-olds were entered for an ordinary level qualification. This move returns us to a position where 15 per cent are seen as successful. There seems little attempt to determine whether this counts as success, even by comparison with the so called best in the world. There is a moral duty on the part of governors, heads and teachers to expose the wrong that is being wrought on learners. The trouble is that many will work to ensure that their pupils are not disadvantaged and involuntarily comply with arrogance.”

There was evidence of this compliance last week when a straw poll was taken on school's response to the provision of music as an examination option. More than half of those schools polled said they were already making plans to phase out music options in the curriculum. No doubt other arts subjects are facing the same threats, along with humanities subjects like Religious Education and languages like Mandarin, which 'don't count' for the purposes of this wrap-around of GCSEs, masquerading as a qualification.

I don't believe that the largely silent majority of school governors, leaders ,teachers and parents are happy with these changes. I also agree with Mick, that we all have a 'moral duty' to make clear the damage this will do to a generation of learners.

Simply doing the required thing 'de-moral-ises' everyone that complies – in both senses of the word. We need to do the right now, and demonstrate an organised, and highly vocal, resistance to the corruption of our curriculum which has been set in motion.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Don't Like The EBac? Develop Your Own!

2011-01-30T11:50:00.001Z

p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }a:link { }

Archbishop Sentanu Academy in Hull has demonstrated boldness in its response to the EBac, and also offers an intriguing alternative strategy for schools – make your own.

Having publicly deplored the narrowness of the Ebac, the academy has a proposed set of Baccalaureates – essentially a series of wrap-arounds of existing GCSEs, Btecs and other qualifications - which set out to achieve a breath of opportunities and experiences, no doubt inspired by the International Baccalaureate, but sadly lacking in our national version.

Based upon a core qualification of an Ebac (with the addition of ICT and Enterprise) it can then be tailored to not only the student's strengths and interests, but also to what universities and employers might be looking for: Arts, Business, Classics, Humanities, Sports, Technology, etc.

What if hundreds of schools adopted this strategy? If they developed their own permutations, the result would surely be chaos, and lack of 'currency' for the qualifications. But if more schools adopted this suite of baccalaureates it might gain an irresistible momentum.

Sentanu's curriculum has already received the backing of the Curriculum Foundation, so it offers a glimpse of the self-determination of academies that our Secretary of State for Education so much wanted. It'll be interesting to see his response to the 'Sentanu Suite'.

In the meantime, I'd urge other schools to take a look at the proposed baccalaureates. You can see them here.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

What Really IS Our Learning Future?

2011-01-29T23:48:00.001Z

I spent a thought-provoking, and at times moving, day at Noadswood School, near Southampton this morning. Noadswood is one of our Learning Futures schools, and I came away reflecting on the impact of our project, set against the backdrop of another tumultuous week in UK education policy. We seem to be so much against the grain of current government thinking, but right on the button when it comes to global discussions about future needs for schooling.

More than anything, I came away wishing our Secretary of State for Education could have been with me. I can say this because I was getting regular twitter feeds describing how he was spending his morning - which was introducing a Free Schools Conference. Now, I have no ideological objection to Free Schools. In fact, I think they could be a good thing. But, even if they are successful, they are still going to make up a small minority of schools. The rest, schools like Noadswood, are being battered by a raft of policy changes when they were told, last May, that what schools really needed was a period of stability.

Noadwood are developing a programme of 'coaching for learning', as applied to students, staff and parents. They are adamant that it should not be seen as a 'quick fix' to improve exam results. Instead, it's about understanding the power of motivation in learning, of students setting their own objectives, and how adults (including parents) can support kids to become genuine lifelong learners.

There's nothing revolutionary going on here. This is simply about meta-cognition, children learning how to learn. But Minister Gove seems to think this is all fluff and navel-gazing. That's why the emphasis in the new curriculum review will be about turning kids into 'fact accumulators'.

In a separate announcement, Mr Gove this week said that teachers would, in future, be able to confiscate mobile phones and Flip cameras from students, since they could be misused in school: bullying, happy-slapping, Twittering, etc. But on that basis, he may as well ban pencils on the basis that you could poke someone's eye out with them. Smartphones and Flips are essential tools in how young people communicate these days. Social media connects us to a repository of knowledge which is barely comprehensible in its scale. It's therefore dumb to yearn for an age of Govian scholasticism, when the world our young people are moving into has changed so dramatically. As I've argued elsewhere, information is ubiquitous. Surely we should instead be concentrating our efforts on the skills which help us apply the knowledge that's freely available; develop our learning power: synthesise and connect ideas: develop resilience when we get stuck; know what we need to know next?

I very much doubt that these questions were at the heart of Mr Gove's speech today. But they were uppermost in the minds of the Noadswood parents that I listened to.

One of the real tragedies of the so-called 'accountability framework' is that we've robbed parents of a language which can connect the hopes and dreams they have for their kids to what needs to happen in the classroom, to the vital importance of learning relationships. Having been told for so long that the only way to determine a 'good' school is by its exam results, the language of grades is the only language parents are left with.

Whether testing equates to long-lasting learning is highly contentious – as queried by Alfie Kohn this week. But here's what I heard this morning:

“My child doesn't want to do her maths homework. She asked me 'When am I going to need Algebra?' What could I say? I've never used Algebra since the day I left school”

“My son asked me how long it would take to learn how to play the guitar well enough to play in my band. I said that if he practiced an hour a day, probably a year. He practiced two hours a day, and within 8 months he was on stage playing with me – that showed me the importance of motivation. To be motivated, he had to set his own goals, not the ones I (or school) set for him.”

“My daughter has become so used to taking exams that, when she went for an eye test, she didn't tell me how her vision was, she said “I think I got most of them right”'

The saddest point in the morning was, when asked to say how many of them thought they were creative, about 4 hands (out of 40) went up. Most felt that they were creative when they were kids, but that school had somehow knocked it out of them as they progressed through the system.

But this session was also moving because, as the morning progressed, parents started talking about learning, and what makes powerful learning, without reference to results, or expectations.They left with the advice that 'your role, as a learning coach, is to help your child reflect on what they've learned rather than what they've been taught'. I swear I could see light bulbs switching on above their heads.

And these aren't 'pushy' parents – they're caring parents. They want their kids to be engaged, to love learning and to keep learning throughout their lives. I would love them to start a free school based on such instincts.

And this is where it all seems somewhat confused. The Minister has encouraged free schools, in order to stimulate the freedom to innovate, whilst also threatening a highly prescribed, and narrow, curriculum. He holds up Hong Kong as an exemplar model of education, but derides the focus upon '21^st century skills' that Hong Kong is transforming its system around (according to this week's TES).

The coaching lesson from the morning was clear: if you want to assist learners, you have to put away your own pre-conceptions of how you learned, stop putting your perception of how they should be as learners, and really listen to what they want from their learning, and who they want to be. Then, and only then, can you really support their learning.

And then I got a tweet saying that Mr Gove was talking about education, purely in terms of something which is done to students, not with them.

So, what kind of learning future do we want?

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

The English 'Baccalaureate Leads To A Fresh Outbreak of Curriculum Wars

2011-01-25T00:57:00.001Z

p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }a:link { }

Just as we really should stop talking about 21^st Century Learning now that we are into the second decade of it - it won't be long before someone starts talking about 22^nd Century Learning - can we please stop describing the new English wraparound of existing qualifications as a Baccalaureate?

The Ebac has come under a hail of criticism this week, following its bullet-in-foot launch . Retrospectively assessing schools, based upon last year's school exam results, (when the Ebac had not even been publicly mentioned) was, by any yardstick, a PR disaster. There wasn't a state comprehensive to be seen in the newly-defined league tables. But even quite a few of the independent schools came out of it badly.

Independent schools, and many sixth-form colleges, are left wondering why we have to create a new programme, when the already popular International Baccalaureate works perfectly well for them. The Ibac has built up credibility with universities and employers over a number of years because it is a distinctly different learning experience.

The new Ebac, by contrast, is attempting to gain currency through coercing student, schools and universities alike to narrow the range of subjects that a young person studies. But, even if they succeed in this venture, the learning experience remains the same. Universities and employers like the Ibac because it fosters critical thinking skills (through extended projects) cross-disciplinary skills (through its holistic approaches) and communication skills (through a range of community, environmental, social and health-based contexts). Let's not kid ourselves that a new clustering of existing GCSEs will develop any of these skills, it won't. Where the Ibac encourages 8 subject areas, the Ebac favours only five (and is heavily prescriptive within those: no Religious Education in the humanities, no IT in the sciences). It also, as John White's piece in the TES points out, bears a striking resemblance to the 1868 Taunton report for a curriculum for 'middle class schools'. Personally, I think he's missed the mark by a couple of centuries: the underlying desire seems to be for a return to a form of 15^th century scholasticism, last enjoyed by English monks.

Such is the force of ministerial pronouncement, however, that, despite the cack-handed launch, schools are already gearing themselves up to radically alter course. One school, featured in the TES, claimed that OFSTED had told them that their next inspection would focus entirely on Ebac subjects. So much for schools self-determining their student offer.

The additional tragedy is that the new National Curriculum Review is determined – before any consultations have taken place - to have a slimmed down set of compulsory subjects. So, we will see subject pitted against subject - all competing to be inside the tent - and it's not going to be an edifying spectacle. This morning's Guardian had a selection of letters offering a foretaste of the debate in the coming weeks. The Government's ludicrous attempt to justify the inclusion of Ancient Greek as a modern foreign language, on the basis that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's founder, studied it, was predictably countered by a reader pointing out that a future Zuckerberg would not be allowed to study computing in the UK, as it doesn't count as a science subject within the Ebac. Michael Gove's criticism of the current History curriculum's 'failure' to specify the study of any historical figures, other than slavery abolitionists Olaudah Equiano and William Wilberforce is ill-informed, according to Daniel Whitall, of the Black and Asian Studies Association. He reasonably argues that these names were specified because so few teachers knew how to teach black British history, while the names of past Queens and Kings no longer needed to be named, so institutionalised had their place in the curriculum become. Ministerial criticism of the lack of specificity in the inherited curriculum seems to be completely at odds with their initial desire to respect teacher's professionalism and free them from previous constraints.

This aimless debate, of what subjects should be considered 'core' and what content should be taught, inevitably breaks out when politicians become embroiled in curriculum reviews. The pendulum swings back and forth, between over and under prescription. Ministers yearn for all of us to experience the benefit of the education they were given, without having the first idea of how to impart it. Because the biggest determinant of what students learn isn't curriculum – it's the classroom, stupid. Pedagogy is what will determine whether a young person will remember the Tudors in ten years time, or not. And the absence of a true aims-based curriculum means that politicians are content to drill into our kids the subject facts they deem to be important, for just long enough to get good enough results in the exams that bring about an improvement in PISA rankings, thus justifying their demands for 'more rigour'.

And what about the poor learner in this? Doesn't it matter that they've been turned off the subject in the process, and seen their natural desire to become independent learners quashed through over-prescription, with schools coercing them into subjects they weren't interested in studying in the first place?

Perhaps the most telling comment came in today's Guardian letters page. The Chair of the Better History Group defended the National Curriculum Review in its facts-based approach: 'It is the lack of knowledge that the government wishes to address through its review....what young people do with their knowledge of History is entirely up to them.'

But isn't this the heart of the problem? If we can't see how young people can apply such knowledge, if we're not prepared to guide them in how to put such knowledge to purposeful use, then we're de-skilling the teaching profession, because students in a connected, digital world can find such knowledge within a couple of mouse-clicks - what they need to do is to learn how to apply it, and how to connect it to other disciplines.

But there's worse to come. Through narrowing and over prescribing what is to be taught, and how it is to be examined, we're condemning a whole generation to the drudgery of forced schooling, just when the previous administration had acknowledged that we needed to loosen the reins, in order to get students re-engaged with their learning.

If we thought student disengagement was rising to worryingly high levels in recent years, this is just the start of it.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

The Global Learning Commons in Action

2011-01-22T11:06:00.001Z

Sugata Mitra has done it again, following up the genius of his Hole-In-The-Wall project with the Granny Cloud. We're lucky to have him in the UK. Here's a clip from Ewan MacIntosh:

Amplify’d from edu.blogs.com

He is building on the Hole In The Wall learning experiment, where children autonomously access an 'ATM' computer on the streets of India and South America and, with their peers, learn through the activities and experiences in front of them. Not just that, but given most of the content they are accessing on the web is in English, they're also having to learn English. All this without a teacher, without a school building in sight.

This is a group of grandmothers all over the UK who log on once a week to Skype with youngsters in India, and take on that appraising role that all grannies do so well, to tell stories, to stimulate fresh ideas and new ways of looking at the same old things. Mitra hopes to see a 25% increase in attainment thanks to this coaching/feedback mechanism.

The Hole In The Wall was a product that benefitted those who had access to it. The Granny Cloud, or at least the findings of this experiment in reinforcing self-directed learning from outside the classroom, offer us a set of techniques and approaches that can be used wherever you are in the world. You might need Skype to harness the British Grannies themselves, but adults can change their approach to learning and teaching and have just as profound an impact: again, it's about getting out of the way of learning as much as possible.
Read more at edu.blogs.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bnbgg

Google's Game Changer For Students

2011-01-21T17:16:00.001Z

I've just spent the afternoon trying out Google's latest experiment from their Google Labs: 'Google Factoid' is set to be the best (or worst, depending on your viewpoint) writer's aid ever seen. I should say that not everyone can access it yet - one of the perks of having a grand total of 5 share in the company (hey, they're expensive) is that I get a sneak peak into the hidden corners of the Google Lab - but the Beta version is due to be released imminently.

I guess we should have seen it coming: marry the search capability that have made Google's sidebar ads increasingly targeted and sophisticated, to their process of digitising the world's collection of books, and you have a tool which can, potentially, bring up all the facts you could ever want, as you type. (Currently it only works with Google Docs, so it will no doubt massively increase their user base, until the developer communities ensure its ubiquity.)

Of course, too much information becomes counter-productive, so it works by using a number of filters, which you can switch on or off. I decided to road-test these filters through a blog post I'm writing on the UK National Curriculum Review, announced yesterday by UK Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove and his Schools Minister, Nick Gibb.

Significant Dates searches for historical relevance, so typing in 'UK Curriculum Reforms' brought up, in a discrete sidebar, the information that there have been 12 major reforms to the UK National Curriculum since its introduction in 1988 (together with the parent URL, so I could investigate further)

Connecting Countries looks for geographic relelvance. Writing the phrase 'impact of national curricular reform' brought up the much-vaunted Finnish system, highlighting a phrase from an academic paper recently published, noting Finland's ' shift from implementing national curricula to support for individual learning and locally based ingenuity and implementation based on fundamental social trust has demonstrated exemplary results.' (One might have thought that the current coalition might have wanted to emulate this policy shift, given Gove's belief in allowing teachers more freedoms, but apparently not)

Quotable Quotes searches for quotations related to the topic you're writing about (in all filters you can set it to be word, sentence or paragraph-specific – the latter improves appropriateness significantly). So when I typed the words 'Google', 'Gibbs' 'game changer' and 'invention', it brought up Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg describe it as 'the most important invention since Ptolemy's Triquetrum''. (Nick Gibbs, the UK schools minister, attributes the setting up of Facebook to Zuckerberg's study of Ancient Greek, in this video):

Perhaps there's still some inherent bias in the searches, because immediately below this came a quote from Google's founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin - the one where they both attribute their success, not to their MSc's in Computer Sciences, but to their elementary Montessori experiences. Incidentally, Factoid further threw up another bit of news - that Facebook are under pressure to integrate Factoid into its messaging system to 'enhance the level of debate' among high school students.

There are more filters which I don't have space to describe (most are self-explantatory, like Illustrative Examples and Add It Up) but I'll close with the one that is potentially the most powerful : Analyse It. This scans gazillions of articles, academic papers and books to provide a series of Twitter size views (graded for relevance in For and Against columns) according to the argument you present. Quite how it does this is no doubt a part of Google's alchemy but, writing the concluding paragraph in my post, up popped, first Mike Bakers BBC blog precised as 'Gove brings power for curriculum into DoE, making National Curriculum a Nationalised Curriculum, quickly followed by the Guardian: 'Govt seeks return to facts-based approach, rooted in public school tradition, irrelevant to employer needs'. Of course, there were analyses in the 'For' column too, but lack of space, etc...

I have rarely experienced anything quite so revelatory, because here, for the first time, I no longer had to find facts - they found me. That's why this piece of kit has such huge implications. Some (not least the aformentioned ministers of education) might have to question their insistence on a facts-based curriculum, whilst others (perhaps the teaching unions) may see Factoid as a threat to their professionalism. But, as a parent, I'd want it in every school in the country by Monday morning.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Google's Game Changer For Students

2011-01-21T17:01:00.001Z

I've just spent the afternoon tryingout Google's latest experiment from their Google Labs: 'Google Factoid' is set to be the best (or worst, depending on your viewpoint) writer's aid ever seen. I should say that not everyone can access it yet - one of the perks of having a grand total of 5 share in the company (hey, they're expensive) is that I get a sneak peak into the hidden corners of the Google Lab - but the Beta version is due to be released imminently.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Gove Gets Bacc To Where He Once Belonged

2011-01-15T23:01:00.001Z

It might seem, from my blogposts, that I have a minor obsession with our Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove. I don't, no really, I don't. But you have to admit: he's a fascinating, complex, and often contradictory, character.

But 2011 hasn't started well for the Govemeister. First, he published an article in the Telegraph, calling for a 'cultural revolution' in education following a visit to China. The trigger for his conversion to the thoughts of Chairman Mao, was a visit to a school in Beijing:

In one Beijing school I was handed a thick book with screeds of Chinese characters and the odd paragraph in English. “Is this a textbook,” I asked? No, I was told, it was a compendium of research papers published in academic journals by people at the school. “Gosh,” I replied. “Your teachers must be well qualified if they are regularly publishing new work in university journals.The papers were not, I was told, the professional work of the teachers. They were the homework of the pupils."

Well, the immediate, and obvious, response to this revelation is, how did he know what he was looking at? I mean, it's not like the Chinese authorities like to put on a show, is it? Unless Mr Gove can read screeds of Chinese characters, he could have been handed a vanity press version of 'what I did on my holidays'. But, even if he did stumble upon an extraordinary school, is this sufficient evidence to say we are falling behind the Chinese?

In a recent Wall St Journal article Mr. Jiang Xueqin, Deputy Principal of Peking University High School, was bemoaning the rote-memorisation which dominates Chinese high schools (yets propels them up the PISA rankings) as not developing the sort of independent learners that the future demands:

China has no problem producing mid-level accountants, computer programmers and technocrats. But what about the entrepreneurs and innovators needed to run a 21st century global economy? China's most promising students still must go abroad to develop their managerial drive and creativity, and there they have to unlearn the test-centric approach to knowledge that was drilled into them.

The failings of a rote-memorization system are well-known: lack of social and practical skills, absence of self-discipline and imagination, loss of curiosity and passion for learning. Chinese students burn themselves out testing into university, where many of them spend their time playing World of Warcraft.

But the most personally embarrassing rebuke came to Mr Gove over his invocation of a cultural revolution. As one Chinese blogger wrote:

In the Cultural Revolution, learning was a crime. The crackdown on teachers, professors and intellectuals was particularly nasty. In secondary schools students humiliated and denounced their teachers. In high schools, teachers wore dunce caps and spent the whole day reciting "I am a demon" in front of classrooms filled with mocking students.Is this what Gove is advocating?

Oh dear, let's move on, shall we?

Shortly after, Mr Gove decided that the loose wraparound of existing GCSEs which forms the new English Baccalaureate, would be launched, retrospectively, by publishing a league table of last years results (when schools had no inkling of the Govemeister's plans). Predictably, schools were aghast, and appalled, by the publication of these so-called 'results'.

Before I get on to the rationale behind this decision, let's just quash another myth: the EB is to its big brother, the International Baccalaureate, what the Little Book of Happiness is to Buddhism. The IB is a broad-based curriculum, which seeks to foster intercultural awareness, holistic learning and communication skills through personal projects and learning in eight subject areas, including the arts and physical education. The EBac intentionally seeks to steer schools (through the publication in league tables) towards a prescribed hierarchy of subjects, where - bizarrely - Ancient Greek and Hebrew count as modern foreign languages, but Religious Education isn't a humanity and Information Technology isn't a science.

Once the retrospective results were published, we learned that only 15% of students would qualify for this highly dubious qualification, and only 4% of students on free school meals would qualify, thus ensuring that they feel even worse about themselves. The tables, predictably, were swamped with independent and selctive schools - you had to go a long way down the list before finding a 'bog-standard comp' with good EBac results.

Faced with the resultant hailstorm of criticism (check out this irate father laying in to Mr Gove on a BBC phone-in) an ingenious form of reverse snobbery emerges: the liberal progressives are being 'elitist' for thinking that free-school meals kids can't excel at EBac subjects. You see, we've just been giving them a soft-option for years, when their employment prospects would really have been helped by studying Ancient Greek.

Well, no. The elitist position is to denigrate any other form of intelligence, other than logical-deductive reasoning and the ability to remember facts and historical dates. All students (yes, even the posh ones) should be rewarded for being able to excel with their hands, their bodies and their imaginations - for those skills will stand them in good stead long after they've forgotten most of what was drilled into them, in order to gain a qualification which has no currency, but will matter a great deal to schools desperate to keep out of the naming and shaming searchlight.

For a minister who vowed he would not be telling them what to do, Mr Gove now seems to be coercing schools into his own blue-remembered idyllic form of schooling, in the misguided belief that it will re-motivate students, and teachers, who already see school as exam factory.

It won't.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

MIT OpenCourseWare A Significant Step Towards the Global Learning Commons

2011-01-15T20:25:00.001Z

These aren't distance learning classes - there is no instructor, no contact with MIT, no credit. But the courses are meant to be stand-alone offerings, not requiring any additional materials for learning.
Although MIT OpenCourseWare may have become synonymous with the move to online education, it's worth noting that the original expectation of the initiative was that by making the university's course content freely and openly accessible, other educators would use the syllabi, lecture notes, tests and assignments to design their other courses. It's apparent, however, that the most of the people using the site are there as learners, not as teachers.
The OCW Scholar courses are aimed at providing these learners with a more complete set of materials, so that those taking the courses needn't turn elsewhere for other resources - such as journal articles - in order to complete the curriculum. These new OCW courses combine materials from multiple MIT courses, and the OCW team has worked with university faculty and teaching assistants to create new materials specifically designed for this project.
The Physics 1 class, for example, contains a set of video lectures from MIT physics professor Walter Lewin, a set of course notes (replacing the need for a traditional textbook), a set of class slides, homework problems, homework help videos (in which Lewin helps learners through solving the problems), links to related materials, and an online study group at OpenStudy where you can connect with other independent learners.
MIT OCW plans to publish 20 OCW Scholar courses over the next three years, all focused on introductory college-level science, math, engineering and other foundational subjects. This first set of courses that launch today include 8.01SC Physics I, 8.02SC Physics II, 18.01SC Calculus I, 18.02SC Calculus II and 3.091SC Introduction to Solid State Chemistry.
The OCW Scholar courses are a new approach to MIT OpenCourseWare, but as the program notes, this is meant to complement not replace the other OCW publications. "We're still committed to publishing MIT's materials as we always have," says OCW Executive Director Cecilia d'Oliveira, "and our core publication continues to provide tremendous value to educators and students around the world. With OCW Scholar, we are enhancing our support for independent learners and building on what we've accomplished with the rest of the site."
As we recently reported, MIT OpenCourseWare has continued to grow in popularity, with 9.6 million visitors last year and tens of millions of files downloaded from the site, from YouTube and from iTunesU. The expansion of the program is meant to increase the scalability of OCW, making sure that more people can have access to these educational resources.
Tags: e-learning, mit opencourseware, open educational resources, openstudy

Copyright 2011 ReadWriteWeb. All Rights Reserved.

ReadWriteWeb is an independent technology blog. Read More »

via nytimes.com

....check out the Physics 1 course. Walter Lewin is one of THE great teachers. So why aren't more teachers using these materials?

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

MP David Chaytor's Sentence - Neither Radical Nor Efficient

2011-01-08T12:39:00.001Z

The popular press is all in a lather this morning over 'Expenses Fraud' MP David Chaytor beginning his prison sentence. Of course he's not the first MP to go to jail but he's the first (and, I predict, the last) to have gone to jail following the MP's expenses scandal. You see, it's likely that our blood-lust has been sated for now, and if his fellow MPs continue their silence over Chaytor's sentence - aside from St Jonathon of Aitken, who, it is decreed, shall offer sanctimonius advice every time an MP goes to prison - then they may escape a similar fate.

How long ago was Ken Clarke telling us that we needed a radical change in prison reform, arguing that locking people up for the sake of it was a waste of public funds? Locking someone up for 18 months for fiddling £18,350 in expenses seems somewhat disproportionate. There are no doubt captains of industry walking the streets who would have uncovered 'discrepancies' in their accounting systems many times that, and did nothing about it. And it ill behoves press hacks to cry schadenfreude - these are the people who elevated expense claiming into an art-form.

So, not radical, but certainly hypocritical. But is it an efficient use of public funds? Do the maths: Chaytor pleaded guilty to fraud amounting to £18,350, after having already paid back £13,000. As a nation, we're five grand out-of-pocket. Conservative estimates suggest that, if he serves the full 18-month term (admittedly unlikely), it will cost the taxpayer at least £75,000 to keep society safe from this man. Wouldn't it have been more efficient to fine him, or slap a community service punishment on him? After all, the guy's career is over, and his family are devastated.

Will someone please ask Ken Clarke if he thinks this is an appropriate sentence?

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Teaching Without Touching

2011-01-08T09:25:00.003Z

Sometimes I despair of our unions, I really do. The Musician's Union has pulled off a feat many thought impossible: they've managed to make our Secretary of State for Education appear level-headed, caring, liberal and progressive.
In case you missed it, here's Diane Widdison, from the MU, explaining to BBC news why they have advised their members who teach not to touch their students:

Faced with an empty net, Mr Gove calmly slotted the ball home, for the easiest of goals:

'It offends against common sense'. 'Adults in any position of responsible authority now feel that they can't have any physical contact with children without suspicion being aroused'. Mr Gove said the advice played to a culture of fear, and he's quite right. I once sat in on a session where a couple of hundred music teachers were tying themselves in knots trying to work out how they could teach a child fingering without actually touching them. It was one of the most depressing things I'd ever witnessed, and I felt nothing but sympathy for the poor teachers.
This culture of fear has arisen from years of lurid stories in the media, who are only too keen to put the fear of God into parents. The only way to reverse it is for all of us to challenge it, and argue for common sense as much as we do child protection.
It was that same culture of fear that saw a New York mother, Lenore Skenazy, who allowed her 9 year-old son ride the subway alone, become vilified by the media and lunatic fringe alike - she didn't just do it - she blogged about it. Has she no shame?
But, perhaps things are changing, because Skenazy's Free Range Kids organisation now seems to be winning the public debate, and she's a much sought-after speaker. Whenever i work with teacher trainees I urge them to read John Holt and Paolo Friere - two great educators and writers who were not afraid to talk about loving the people you teach. It's almost impossible to imagine teachers using the 'L' word today, such is the moral panic and fear we've created.
Full marks to Mr Gove for putting some common sense back into the discussion and hopefully the Musicians Union and the NSPCC will now revise their advice to their members.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

The Henley Music Review: Make 'em have it, Darren!

2011-01-04T20:13:00.001Z

The arts education community has just been given an object lesson in fighting public sector cuts – from the sports lobby. As I write this, on Christmas Day, no less a personage than the Queen has just thrown her considerable weight behind the importance of sport in our lives, through her Christmas Day speech:

“Apart from developing physical fitness sport and games can also teach vital social skills, none can be enjoyed without biding by the rules and no team can hope to succeed without co-operation between the players, this sort of positive team spirit can benefit communities, companies and enterprises of all kinds.”

Substitute 'arts and music' for 'sport and games' and you can imagine what a boost could have been given to beleaguered cultural learning organisations around the country to have had such a champion speak for you on such a high-profile occasion.

And this comes hot on the heels of the recent U-turn made by the Prime Minister, on the proposed axing of the schools sports partnership. The SSP's future is now safe until after the Olympics, whilst the music education sector waits nervously on the decisions arising from the Henley Music Review, commissioned by Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education. If the Guardian leaks are anything to go by, we can expect more funds, previously ring-fenced to music education providers, to be devolved directly to schools, and let the market decide.

How have we been so comprehensively outmatched by our colleagues in sports? It's not just having the 2012 Olympics coming to London that has bolstered their case, surely?

Those of us who work in music education will look back in years to come and realise that, instead of taking inspiration from the way in which the sports education sector organised themselves, we squandered the many opportunities provided by the Music Manifesto, by seeing it as an endorsement of what we were already doing, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get our collective act together.

The School Sports Partnership has received roughly the same amount as the music education sector over the past 5 years. Yet, because it is a centrally-driven, national framework where priorities and objectives are laid down and worked to, evenly, across the whole country there's a clear sense of a coherent, strategic workforce working to a common aim. One of the many benefits of this is that the moment it was suggested that such a framework was too expensive to maintain, we saw a fierce and well-organised lobby, involving the grass-roots and sporting celebs, hit the streets and the media, leading to David Cameron insisting we find a way to keep it going.

Somehow, I can't see the arts and music sectors mounting such an effective campaign. Indeed we've already had the death sentence pronounced on Creative Partnerships, Find Your Talent and the future of In Harmony, Sing Up and even Wider Opportunities in doubt. The response has been, well, muted, to say the least.

Three conversations in recent years stand out. I was one of those who attended the first meeting called by David Milliband, the then schools minister, to investigate the potential for what became the Music Manifesto. After listening to about 50 different representative organisations around the room, he summarised by saying, 'well, it's a right bloody mess, isn't it?' He was right then and, sadly, he's still right now. One of Marc Jaffrey's arguments, from the outset of the Manifesto campaign, was that we simply had too many music representative groups (estimates vary, but it's believed to be between 100 and 150) to have a credible voice with politicians. And yet, since then, how many groups have come together? We still seem to have just as many. So, we present an external image of a sector that's parochial, territorial, fragmented and unwilling to change. And getting additional hundreds of millions of pounds in extra funding merely served to reinforce the status quo. After all, if we were that disorganised, why were ministers falling over themselves to give us more money? The truth was, of course, that no-one really believed the money would stop flowing, and we fell for the simple headline-grabbing initiatives that had to be seen to be successful.

It's possible that if we'd had a single, national framework for music education we might have even rejected the offer of the In Harmony pilots, on the basis that they were ludicrously over-funded (a single primary school in Liverpool, with fewer than 100 pupils receiving over £1 million pounds?) and unsustainable. We might have even been able to suggest a better, more equitable, way to spend the money. But, no, we jumped through the competitive bidding hoops once again, because that's what you do when you're un-coordinated.

The second conversation was with a civil servant at what was then DCSF. I asked why we couldn't have the musical equivalent of the school sports partnership structure. 'Ah well, we could', came the reply, 'but we can't afford to have that and the music standards fund.'

Shortly after that, my third conversation was with a chief executive of the Federation of Music Services. We were discussing the differences between FMS and SSP. Clearly, the key difference was that the FMS is a membership organisation, with no central direction – the chief executive has to try to represent member organisations, but can't lead on their behalf – at least not without their consent. So, I suggested, why couldn't the members themselves choose to be governed from the centre, agreeing to re-constitute themselves into what, effectively, would be a national music service. I was told it was a nice idea, but unlikely to happen, so long as the music standards fund and the wider opportunities money kept coming in.

Well, we're at a critical point now, in terms of funding and Darren Henley's Review is going to have a considerable influence on funding decisions made for the next 5 years. Since we're as fragmented as we were prior to the Music Manifesto, we're now in grave danger of having initiatives picked off, leaving us to bicker among ourselves over the consequences. There are rumours that the review is likely to resuscitate the idea of 'hubs'. As one who has invested considerable amounts of time and effort trying to advocate the idea of hubs and how they might be made to work, I would urge Darren Henley not to leave the formation of coordination structures to choice, or chance. My belief is that the sector is only going to get through to the other side of austerity - with most of its services intact - if radical structural reformation is tied to funding. Heads will have to be knocked together, organisations told they will have to be restructured, so that a stronger national music framework can emerge, better directed and with a single voice, thus resulting in services to young people which are more evenly provided for, efficient and effective.

Please don't leave it to voluntary efforts to work together in a piecemeal fashion, or through competitive bid-tendering – make 'em have it, Darren!

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

PISA Results Show We've Been On The Wrong Track For A Decade

2010-12-07T15:12:00.001Z

Getting around the UK is currently, to use the word muttered in every train carriage, bus stop and service station, a nightmare. At around the same time as not one, but two venerable BBC presenters were calling Culture Minister Jeremy Hunt by the name many artists have been using for months, I was wondering if getting to yesterday's Whole Education Conference was really going to be worth the pain. Having been stranded on the M1 for 6 hrs last week, I wasn't looking forward to another frustrating day, this time on the East Coast Train Line. By the time our already significantly delayed train reached Peterborough, and we were all ejected, it looked like it might be easier to turn around and head home. Several dead trains were blocking the line to London apparently, and the conference was about to start, so I'd miss all the keynotes anyway.....

Thankfully, another train magically arrived, so I decided to press on. After 10 minutes it too ground to a halt, while everyone seemingly worked out a route which would by-pass the deceased locomotives. Twitter to the rescue. I'm a former sceptic, but yesterday it came into its own. By following the hash-tag 'wasf' I was able to get a pretty good idea of the content of the excellent keynote speeches by Anthony Seldon, Guy Claxton and Caroline Waters. Further, since organisers were also tweeting I thought it would help reassure them that I was going to be there in time for my own presentation.

Now here's where it gets weird. Since I joined the Twitterati last month (@davidpriceobe since you ask), I've had a very slow trickle of people follow me, presumably having read my blog posts. Inside 3 hours yesterday morning, I had more people follow me than in 5 weeks of writing about education - so that's where I've been going wrong: the trick is just to tweet 'Stuck outside St Neots/Hitchin/Stevenage station' (yes we really did follow that route), never mind all this school nonsense.

Anyway, I made it to Holborn just in time to thank all those who'd kept me informed on the 5 hour journey, and talk about Learning Futures and why we need to focus our efforts on a new definition of student engagement. I replayed Mick Waters view that, in trying to lever results through greater accountability, we had 'squeezed all the juice out of the lemon' and had to try something different. The irony is that if we made ourselves accountable to students for maintaining their interests, we'd raise their attainment anyway. There seemed to be a good deal of agreement in the hall that collaboration, motivation and engagement were key - and we have the evidence, from OECD no less, to back it up.

The news today, that we have slipped still further down the PISA national tables in reading, maths and science, only underlines the urgent need to try something different. The recently published White Paper rightly raises the importance of teaching in closing the attainment gap - with other leading countries, and between children from rich and poor backgrounds. But it offers no direction on how we make teaching more effective.

The gathering of so many 'progressive' educators yesterday could not have been more timely. There was so much consensus about what works (enquiry-based learning, a focus on engagement, a commitment to more human, democratic schools, knocking down the exterior walls of schools and creating learning commons) that one delegate suggested we were all preaching to the converted. Maybe so, but collectively we represented thousands of successful schools, and it was affirming to see what we had in common. As Anthony Seldon observed, we face a 'raft of challenges' but an 'ocean-liner of opportunities', in the new political landscape and we owe it to ourselves to go the extra mile (or in my case the extra trains) to tell policy makers what really great learning (and teaching) looks like.

David Price

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

The Continuing Shame of Bullying in School

2010-11-28T21:05:00.001Z

I've just finished watching BBC 3's excellent documentary 'Can't Be Bullied'. It came at the end of 'anti-bullying' week. The kids featured all had horrific stories to tell, and these were echoed regularly last week on radio phone-ins and online forums: a Year 6 student student being repeatedly tied to school railings with a knife held to her neck; teenagers being regularly beaten up on their way home from school. If these incidents were happening to adults, in, or going to, work, there would be headlines every week. School bullying gets a national focus for just one week.

We should be ashamed of our tolerance of school bullying. Consider its endemic proportions, and this despite countless well-intentioned initiatives and campaigns. Half of Welsh year 6 students have been bullied in the past year, and 43% of English 14-year olds surveyed claim to have been bullied recently. We're not unique in the UK - this is a global phenomenon - happening in every town, in every country and on every social media network,

But you have to go beyond the statistics, into the personal tragedies, to get the the shame which lies behind school bullying.

The tragic case of 15 year-old Tom Mullaney, who hanged himself earlier this year after prolonged social network bullying, is, sadly, not an isolated incident. Tom received online death threats the night before he hung himself. According to a study from Yale University, victims of bullying are up to 9 times more likely to consider suicide. it's claimed that, in Britain, half of all suicides among young people are linked to bullying. There's even a new term which seeks to ensure that such tragedies are not without known attribution: Bullycide. The campaign group Beatbullying, with the support of the News of The World, has launched 'Never Again' - a fundraising campaign to provide young people with a peer cyber mentor who can provide support before they reach the verge of contemplating suicide.

I have to confess a personal interest (and shame) here. Both of my sons were bullied at their perfectly respectable high school. Ten years on, one of them still finds it impossible to talk about specific incidents, and both dropped out of formal education as soon as they were legally allowed to (a high proportion of NEETS have been bullied). My shame is that I didn't spot the signs, and resisted their periodic resistance to going in to school. However, even if I had let them stay off, the odds would have been stacked against me - keeping a child at home due to bullying is considered to be an unauthorised absence.

The shame of bullying is widely held. Parents feel shame, as I still do, and the victims invariably feel ashamed. A striking feature of the parents whose testimonies were featured last week, was the number who claimed that they reported it to school leaders, who then failed to act, and for that, they should feel shame - but not without some mitigation.

In researching the apparent reluctance of schools to make bullies legally accountable for their actions, I came across the Crown Prosecution Service advice on school bullying: 'Prosecution may not be necessary because of other available alternatives, but there will be cases in which a prosecution is needed in the public interest (but not, apparently in the interest of the victim) .....If school bullying incidents are regularly referred for prosecution (particularly if they are often appropriate for reprimands or final warning), it may well be necessary for the AYJC/local CPS to contact the local police department and the YOT responsible for youth offender cases with a view to them examining the policies of the local schools and the police.' It's little wonder that, faced with such scrutiny, a school, and its police liaison officer, will try to keep the bullying problems hidden.

The sad truth is that all the school anti-bullying policies, and all the campaigns, projects and resource packs have made no difference to the amount of bullying taking place in schools. A much stronger message needs to be sent to the bullies and the kids who get bullied: it's against the law and will be prosecuted accordingly.

Can't Be Bullied has an uplifting ending showing that, with help, bullying victims can return to mainstream schooling. But, that's not the point: Globally, we're not doing enough to stop bullying from happening in the first place. Encouraging schools to report, and prosecute - free from the fear of being bullied themselves - seems to be the only option we haven't yet tried .

David Price

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

The Education White Paper & The Trouble With 'Evidence'

2010-11-25T23:00:00.001Z

Now that the dust is starting to settle on the 'education shake-up', it's perhaps timely to look at the underlying beliefs informing the legislation.There's much to applaud about the Government's White Paper on Education (published yesterday) - and there has been a good deal of muted applause since Michael Gove's speech. But commentators, bloggers and tweeters have variously branded it radical, pragmatic and Victorian. I know this is inevitable on social media (like those hotel reviews on Trip Advisor) but in this case there is perhaps a simple reason: it's shot full of contradictions. Education commentators have questioned where the big Gove vision was in the months since the election, but we were told that all would be clear once the White Paper was published. Now that it has been, are we any the wiser?

For example, Mr Gove was adamant that we should learn from what has been proven to work (evidence-based policy). Yet the centres of evidence-gathering (universities) have now effectively been taken out of teacher training. To reinforce this conviction, the department today also published its evidence base 'The Case for Change' - yet this is a highly selective slice of data.And it highlights the problem of evidence-based decision-making - you can choose your evidence to suit your ideological standpoint.

There isn't space to look at all of the white paper headlines in detail, but let's take just one, for the purposes of trying to understand the Gove position: recruitment of teachers.

The Case for Change, rightly, argues that there is overwhelming global evidence to show that the biggest impact upon student performance lies in the quality of teaching - specifically, the recruitment, training and support, for teachers. And three cheers for a much needed focus on the importance of teaching. The report, however, says that a whopping 6% of trainee teachers get teaching jobs with a 2:2 degree or below, so the white paper says these people will no longer be able to become teachers. But where's the direct evidence that those 6% have an adverse impact on student performance? And is it really worth bringing in legislation to keep them out?

A Case for Change also borrows the evaluation of Teach First's impact, citing a 'statistically significant improvement in results' in schools which employ Teach First students. Now, I've worked with Teach First teachers, and their US equivalents from Teach For America and they are undoubtedly bright, energetic professionals - just the sort we need in turning around schools. But is the additional investment in supporting Teach First warranted when we consider that 50% of TF graduates have left the teaching profession (and over 80% in TFA) within a few years?

That's the problem with evidence-based policy making. Someone still has to filter the evidence, and it's all too easy to choose the evidence that suits your preference.

The most striking contradiction perhaps lies in the confusing evidence of university trained teachers versus those trained through employment-based routes. Once again, the 'evidence' presented argues convincingly that 80% of trainees coached in training schools felt confident in maintaining classroom discipline, compared with only 66% of those trained in universities. And yet OFSTED recently produced evidence which suggested more teachers, deemed 'outstanding', came from the university sector, than from training schools.

So, the department seems to be on shaky ground in claiming that the white paper isn't based on ideology but on 'what works', since what works is still far from clear, from the evidence available.

And if we really were focussed purely on what works, where's the evidence that ex-servicemen (and women) necessarily make good teachers?

David Price

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

A Tragic Loss to the Teaching Profession

2010-11-17T11:50:00.001Z

</object>

The world of education is devastated to hear that Katharine Birbalsingh, the poster girl at the recent Tory Conference has left teaching. But, don't despair, folks, she's apparently in two minds whether to move to Sweden, or run her own Free School over here. Perhaps she could use the video piece she did for the Daily Politics show (above) as a promo video, for the new school. It's clearly a vision of 21st century education.

Love those final images, Katharine! 'Children need to be allowed to fail' (whack!)

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Schooling's Existential Crisis in an Age of Austerity

2010-11-17T10:58:00.001Z

The news yesterday, that over 200,000 students have been left without a university place this year, points to an issue which is looming for all secondary schools: what exactly is their core purpose? Many, such as Guy Claxton, have written about this recently, but it seems that the debate is about to be intensified.

During the Blair years, it was clear that the key function of schools was to get at least half of all UK young people into university. But now, all bets are off. The Global Financial Crisis begat the the comprehensive spending review, which begat a reduction in the number of university places available (particularly in humanities subjects) and a rise in tuition fees. Taken together, this will surely lead to significantly fewer young people applying to go to uni in the medium-term .

Thus, for the foreseeable future, we can say goodbye to entry into university being the means to bridging the attainment gap between working class kids and their better-offs. Universities will be required to pick and choose more carefully. Grade escalation and the simple laws of supply and demand imply that fewer students from working class background will have the necessary grades to get in to any university, let alone their chosen one.

Faced with this bleak outcome, how should schools respond?

Well, firstly (and perhaps perversely) there is some consolation to be drawn from the rising number of university graduates who are unemployed. The latest figures show a greater number of unemployed graduates in STEM subjects( the same STEM subjects that the UK government is safeguarding in its teaching grants to universities - go figure). So, fewer places available in less-employable subjects, and all the while the developing countries are offering the same skill-sets at vastly lower costs ($4 an hour gets you a post-grad Indian engineer).

Perhaps our schools will now be emboldened to resist the pressure of league tables, exam results, and look to:
a) recognise that graduation to further education (not necessarily higher) might be a perfectly sensible aspiration for a young person in the 21st century;
b) develop the vital skills (currently not recognised by GCSE examination boards) of creativity, flexibility, adaptive competence, collaboration, independent thinking, and the rest, which will be critical to our economic competitiveness in a borderless employment market-place.

To their credit, it seems that students themselves may be ahead of the curve. There was a rise of 22% in the number of students refusing offers or withdrawing applications. Somewhat superfluously, universities minister, David Willetts, said this week that there were routes other than through university to a successful career, such as apprenticeships or setting up a business. For many of them, David, there's going to be no other option.

One thing is for sure: if we judge the quality of our schools solely by their exam results, or by the number of students getting a place in university, then we'll be oblivious to the life-changing possibilities of secondary education. A 21st century school allows young people to have confidence in their future place in the world, by being able to understand that world, and find an outlet for the unique talents and skills they bring.

As things stand, however, slavishly pursuing a university career as the end-point of schooling, may not only damage the long-term confidence of our students, but it will also sucker us, as a nation, into ignoring the development of skills which give us the competitive, innovative edge over other nations.

David Price

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

21st Century Learning vs Incremental Reform

2010-11-14T00:03:00.001Z

It's been an interesting week for me, in London, with two very different keynote speeches at educational conferences at either end of it.

At the start of the week I took part in the Innovation Unit/Guardian Conference. Yong Zhao kicked it off with a fascinating, if controversial, set of opinions on what we value in schooling and how with prioritise policy initiatives. If I understood him correctly, Professor Zhao's point is that the anxiety in the US (and the UK) stemming from our relatively poor showing in PISA and OECD league tables, is misplaced. He argues that we are shouldn't be trying to 'catchup' with the countries above us and should instead be concentrating on enabling students to develop the skills needed in the 21^st century. His argument – that any form of standardised testing (both national and international) not only leads to homogenisation of national capacities, but also has damaging side effects – would probably be seen by many as counter-intuitive. He cited the Alfie Kohn quote: 'Every test test scores go up we should be worried'. Instead, we should encourage schools to be 'global enterprises' developing skills that will give students an edge in a globally competitive market.

The keynote at the Teach First Conference was given by Sir Michael Barber, former policy adviser to Tony Balir, and now a partner at consultants McKinsey. Sir Michael argued (in an eloquent, humorous, self-effacing way) that it's the likes of PISA that's put the evidence into evidence-based policy development, which has now given us a direction for global school reform. We now have the basic design of schooling right, we just have to improve the details, was one of his assertions. He cited Labour's introduction of the Literacy and Numeracy strategies as an example of how we're using evidence to bring us up to the levels of our competitors.

Personally, I think he might have looked for a better example. There are many who argue that we got a disproportionately disappointing result for the massive investment in literacy/numeracy, with the damaging side effect of a generation of kids being put off books for life. And I don't believe we have got the design for schooling right. No other public services look basically the same as they did in the 19^th century – why should schools? To paraphrase Sir Ken Robinson, Michael Barber seems to be one of those who are 'still trying to design a better steam engine'.

This is my second Teach First conference, and I really enjoy working with these bright and exceptionally committed young teachers. We had an interesting discussion in my workshop on what makes a great school. One young teacher, working in a comprehensive school in a tough area, asked me for advice. How, she asked, does she gain the respect of her students who were viewing her attempt to get them to think independently, and inter-dependently, as a weakness, not a strength? The school's test scores have apparently risen in recent years, but she seemed to be alone in resisting the temptation to simply 'give them the answers' that her students had been demanding.

So, would a school - or indeed a nation - whose exam results had been 'transformed', but whose young people were unable to think for themselves, be preparing a workforce for the 21^st century? Is it not a little like the surgeon who carries out a successful operation, but the patient dies in the process?

David Price

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Is The Schools Accountability Edifice Getting A Make-Over?

2010-11-08T23:13:00.001Z

It seems that talk of accountability is everywhere in the UK currently. Today, the Prime Minister revealed the new plans for Government accountability.In education, the situation is, historically, a little more comlex. Last night Radio 5 featured a report which presented fairly convincing evidence that many schools now 'flip' between examinations boards in order to find the one most likely to improve exam results across subjects, such is the pressure brought upon schools, by national league tables, to be accountable. When ex-QCA curriculum head , Mick Waters, describes head teachers as using sleight of hand to play the system, we need to take notice.

That report looked at secondary schools, but a review announced last week is designed to fully investigate claims that primary schools are 'drilling' students to pass end-of-school exams, rather than teaching them. Michael Gove, the Sec. of State for Education has already registered his concern over 'the risk of perverse incentives, over-rehearsal and reduced focus on productive learning'. He already seems to have pre-empted the findings of the review with the news today (I know, it's hard to keep up) of new 'readiness to progress' measures of student progression for students aged 5 to 11.

Could this be the start of a new, more considered, less brutal, approach to making schools accountable? We should certainly hope so. People who work in schools invariably tell you that the 'accountability framework', imposed upon schools during the past decade, became, some time ago, distorted, inefficient and demoralising.

But what's this? In the very week that the blunt instruments of accountability appear to be headed for the shredder, comes a study suggesting from Wales - who abandoned public league tables in 2001 - that removing the fear of 'naming and shaming' has resulted in a lowering of student attainment, compared with their English peers. It would appear that fear is still an incentive to, well, do whatever it takes.

Two questions arise from the recent tumult of claim and counter-claim on educational accountability: are exam results the best indicator of a school's worth? And, if so, can there ever be a system of accountability which is fair and immune to corruption, such are the pressures of public humiliation?

Well, perhaps a clue comes from yet another announcement this week: following a visit from his US counterpart, Arne Duncan, Mr Gove has established his own 'mini-Race To The Top' fund of £110m for the lowest-performing schools.The Education Endowment Fund is available for 'bold and innovative' proposals which will raise attainment. Let's gloss over the fact that true innovation, by definition, can't guarantee success, and accentuate the positive: if we made schools accountable, not for their exam results, but for creating an innovative, engaging and vibrant learning culture, we'd almost certainly see outcomes improve anyway.That's what we've seen in the Learning Futures project, we've seen it in the RSA's Opening Minds Academy, and I'm sure we'll see it in the new Studio Schools.

But to do so would require a leap of faith on the part of the government, a removal of the blame culture, and a recognition that you might get a small minority of innovations that don't produce improved results (though they may produce happier students). That would be a small price to pay for a revitalised schools sector. Tomorrow, I'm taking part in an Innovation Unit Think Tank to explore the possibility of Innovation Hubs for education. It could mark a turn in the road. There's been so little radical innovation in schools in the past 10 years, because there's been no incentive to try something different, only the threat of punitive action. If we could only shift the focus - away from performance targets to innovation - we might just be able to turn around those schools, and teachers and administrators, that have most needed support, but have failed to get it.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Graduate employment and the imminent attack on the humanities

2010-11-04T16:40:00.001Z

It's been a bad week for young people aspiring to go to university. Not only has the cost of tuition doubled (at least) but the stats on graduate unemployment (up to 9% unemployed 6 months after graduating) are worrying. The twin effects of globalisation and technology now mean that knowledge workers can be outsourced as easily as call centres. Knowledge Process Outsourcing is a rapidly growing phenomenon, and it's only going to get bigger. Some estimate that countries like India, with vast numbers of graduates and very low wages, will generate $17b this year in outsourced knowledge processing.

University VCs would do well to take a look at the attached chart. It shows the industries who are outsourcing knowledge - these are not low-level service sectors. And the number of graduates who get 'graduate level' jobs continues to fall (down, this year, to 62%) with those working in retail and catering rising. The likely withdrawal of teaching grants for Humanities Degree Courses, and the support for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) flies in the face of where the competitiveness of UK plc lies. We can't compete with the globally emerging economies and the vast number of graduates they're producing. Our edge lies in our creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation. And the humanities are particularly good at developing those skills.

According to the report, the graduates most likely to be unemployed are in IT (16%), media studies (14%) and electronics and engineering (13%). No surprise on media studies, perhaps, but IT and engineering? And which graduates are least likely to be unemployed? Those studying Geography and Psychology - both humanities subjects. Go figure.

Removing teaching grants from humanities subjects amounts to taking a bloody big sledgehammer to crack the wrong nut. If the government want to tie places available more closely to jobs available, by all means reduce the numbers of places on media studies courses - but do the same for IT and engineering. And our economic future prosperity, in an age of outsourcing knowledge, lies as much in humanities graduates as it does in science and technology.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Going Beyond Top Tips for Tip-Top Teaching

2010-11-02T21:53:00.001Z

I watched the BBC's Teaching Awards programme last night. I don't know anyone who doesn't find it a joyous and moving event, and the concept of recognising teaching in this way is one of David Puttnam's finest achievements. Seeing some of the winning teachers in operation- like Llew Davies from Ysgol Cae Top School, who won Teacher of the Year - is genuinely heart-warming, but I was struck by the number of senior managers or students who said ' If all our teachers were like him/her.......'

And, of course, therein lies the problem. The winning individuals are often described as 'charismatic' or as having a 'great personality', but they are not exactly transferable skills. So I was left wondering whether what a teacher, one who is perhaps struggling in the classroom, might take=away from seeing the clips. Would they think they needed to dress up like an Avatar character, or perform tricks with coke bottles to get their kids engaged?

I hope not, because we have to find ways to identify and then transfer the pedagogical approaches that define great teaching and learning, not simply hope that we can find more of the 'born teachers' to work in our schools. We can't allow ourselves to believe the 'born-not-made' cliche, because that leaves too many students futures to chance. Nor can we reduce the craft of teaching into a series of 'top tips' for classroom management.

The task we set ourselves in the Learning Futures programme is to seek out successful methods which engage more learners, and then turn them into transferable tools, which don't rely on the personality of the teacher, in order to work. Our next pamphlet 'Engaging Schools' is now available (you can download it here) and we've tried to highlight some approaches which our Learning Futures schools have found effective. This year also see the publication of a number of practitioner tools.

The demands of TV probably wouldn't allow for a follow-up programme to the Teaching Awards show, where inspiring teachers could demonstrate the methodology behind the perceived magic, but they don't get to be that good by personality alone. Let's by all means shine the light on the star pedagogues, but let's also find ways to share pedagogies which we can all use. We all remember a great teacher, but too few of them get to show how they do it.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Australian Educational Policy - Starting to Listen?

2010-10-17T12:23:00.001+01:00

Having now spent 3 weeks working with Australian Principals, teacher trainers, teachers and student, and talking to press and media people, I feel like I'm starting to get a handle on the issues currently at play. The debates around education, for a Brit, are similar to almost all aspects of Aussie life: familiar and yet, unfamiliar, at the same time.

I wrote earlier about the Australian take on the 'accountability framework' - it seemed like publishing student/teacher results on a national website was bound to lead to league performance tables by any other means. A week later - and I'm sure my post had nothing to do with it - state Education Ministers were in Canberra, meeting to discuss 'school performance'. I happened to be in Parliament House at the time they were discussing it, and joked with colleagues that, if they'd let me in, I'd tell them to avoid league tables at all costs. Lo and behold, they seem to have reached that conclusion anyway, according to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The problem was familiar, the solution, unfamiliar - prevent the aggregation of individual school reporting into a national blunt instrument. Minister Gove, please take note.

And then there's the development of the National Curriculum. With the best of intentions, the Federal government had aspired to create a Finnish 'pared-down' curriculum, which would encourage flexibility. The consultation process, however, has spawned too much elaboration leading to criticisms of the draft curriculum as 'overcrowded and incoherent' . Amazingly enough, the government seems to be listening, and the intention is now to scale back in future drafts.

So, from a UK viewpoint, a familiar set of issues. But an unfamiliar response, in that people seem to be listening to school principals, teachers and - as in the event I attended last week in Melbourne, courtesy of Musical Futures school, Trafalgar Primary - listening to learners themselves. We (including our popular press) could learn a lot from the way schooling is publicly discussed in Australia.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Australian education: If It's Friday it must be....

2010-10-09T04:07:00.002+01:00

.... well, take your pick: Adelaide, Sydney, or Melbourne. I've been in all three today and realised the truth in the assertion that Australians use planes the way Brits use planes. I've been talking with people in all three places about both the Musical Futures and Learning Futures projects.
Much enthusiasm from administrators and teachers alike, but the question of pedagogy is in danger of being overshadowed by curriculum issues (isn't it always?). Australia is currently drafting its first national curriculum and it's proving to be a painful process. Perhaps part of the reason lies in confusion over its purpose: is it to ensure parity or to drive up 'standards'? No-one seems clear. From a British perspective, visiting Australia seems like deja vu all over. Despite Australia comfortably out-performing us in PISA and OECD tables, the Aussies seem determined to import our 'accountability' framework. Whilst their determination not to be complacent is admirable, we learned in England some time ago that publishing national standardised test results would only lead to 'teaching to the tests', and not do much to improve student outcomes anyway.
In an article this week in The Age newspaper, it was revealed that more data would be made available on each school's performance via the MySchool website. Despite Education Minister Garrett claiming that publishing data did not lead to teaching to the tests, a survey showed that over two-thirds of Principals were doing just that, since the website's introduction. There seems to be deep-rooted suspicion from teachers I've met that the purpose of the new curriculum is predominantly to ensure that apples are compared with apples, and priced accordingly, from the Northern Territories to Tasmania.
All new governments can't resist defining what should be taught, and they are similarly keen to determine assessment - how it should be tested. What they can't, or won't, get their collective heads around, is that it's attention to pedagogy, how students learn, that will not only lead to long lasting learning, but will improve results anyway.
One can only hope that the plain common sense, and directness of the Australian people resists the temptation to go for short-term fixes. I was in a hardware store this week, south of Adelaide, and asked one of the staff where I'd find the loo.
'Just a minute, mate, I'm just helping this couple out.' Turning to a young couple he said' So, are you re-painting it to live in it, or sell it?'
'Sell it', they replied.
'Just follow me then, I'll show you the cheap shit'.
That's the trouble with our kids' education - they have to live with it for a very long time.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

She'll Be Right....

2010-10-02T15:24:00.000+01:00

.... four days into my tour of Australia. I've so far worked with trainee teachers, academics, and school teachers, and given interviews to the press.

The phrase 'she'll be right' , as frequently uttered by Ken Owen, who is ushering me around the educational delights of Melbourne, sums up the positive attitude prevalent in most people you meet here.

Yes, they're facing worries about public sector cuts, though, due to the strength of the Australian economy, not as bad as the UK. Even so, you do get the feeling of optimism here which isn't just due to spring appearing.

If they have concerns here, it's that the educational policies of 'the mother country' (the UK) will be imported here. And with some justification. Why change what seems to be working pretty well, in favour of a system that's already been proven to have limited leverage, in terms of results?

They're undertaking a National Curriculum Review, which most academics seem to think will result in a British-style system. No one is thrilled about the prospect, because the benefits don't seem to outweigh the downsides.

But you do get the feeling that she'll be right, whatever happens.

I love this country.

Slides from Melbourne keynote

2010-10-01T13:14:00.003+01:00

I gave a speech yesterday morning in Melbourne. I promised to make the slides available. Here's the link.

Many thanks to everyone for the very kind words, and willing participation in the workshops!

BBC's Excluded School Drama In True Portrayal Shock

2010-09-23T15:09:00.001+01:00

We've become so used to TV dramas painting wholly unrealistic versions of life in the classroom that it was oddly disconcerting to watch the BBC 'Excluded' this week. Here was a portrayal of school-life in an urban comprehensive that was right on the money. Documenting the slo-mo train-wreck of the young lad heading for exclusion (with perhaps the inevitable 'broken home' background being the only stereotype), the show set up a series of conflicting tensions: life in the swanky academy, contrasted against the home school just missing out on the Building Schools for The Future programme; the need to 'include' difficult pupils to boost exam results, with the need to exclude overly-disruptive students to boost the exam results of the others. Most impressive, was the conflict in pedagogies - between the teacher who taught maths drills ('they'll have forgotten how to do it by next week') to the newly qualified teacher who adopts a more challenging, but longer-lasting, approach to solving maths equations by employing reasoning and logic.

The former imposed order by shouting, intimidation and lots of copying from the board. The latter had to earn the respect of students, but eventually became the only teacher the young classroom-disruptor would engage with. Some of the older hands seemed resigned to never achieving student engagement, merely settling for getting the borderline Ds, to become Cs (which has insidiously become the Whole Point of Schooling for many English schools under the cosh of exam results). I was reminded how lucky we are, in the Learning Futures programme, to have schools who have the respect of their students because they listen to them and treat them as equals - the kinds of democratic communities I described in the Learning Commons post earlier

Watching it was a poignant experience for me, because in the past two weeks I've visited two schools who sat on either side of the BSF axe: Matthew Moss High School, in Rochdale, signed their contract the day before the closure of the scheme was announced, whereas Villiers School, in Southall, have had to put all of their exciting designs in a box. Both are excellent schools, both in challenging circumstances (high proportion of free school meals kids, and kids who have English as their second language). They perform everyday miracles, but Villiers sadly are now stuck with a Victorian building which prohibits flexible use of teaching spaces, and severely curtails team teaching, cross-curricular work any number of teaching innovations they were working on. It won't stop them from innovating, because they have courageous and inspiring leadership, but they were getting ready to fly, and now they're having to just make the best of it.

I wonder if the people in the Treasury ever thought that closing the schools building programme half-way through would have a direct impact upon the quality of teaching, and therefore the life-chances of half a generation? Presumably not, since the previous administration never get around to asking schools how having a shiny new school would change their curricula, until the scheme was well under way.

The decision, to pull up the drawbridge and leave hundreds of schools like Villiers in wholly inadequate accommodation, will create one of the most vivid examples of 'haves-and-have-nots' in the public sector that you could ever wish to find.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Could a 16th century metaphor point the way to 21st century learning?

2010-09-19T17:02:00.001+01:00

In the Learning Futures programme, we've been doing a lot of thinking, and writing, about the idea of schools as 'Learning Commons'.

By using the metaphor of the commons, we're hoping to encourage people to see the purpose of schooling in a different light. Historically, 'commons' has been used to define land which is a shared resource to which everyone has equal access, balanced by equal responsibility for its sustainability. The 'tragedy of the commons', refers to the detrimental effects of self-interest and over-exploitation of common land, which created a justification for fencing off land into separate 'enclosures'.

The 'tragedy of the learning commons' could be seen as our inability to see beyond the demands of the industrial revolution - sadly, those factory schools are still with us, hence Anthony Seldon's recent call for their end. Schools, during the 20th century, became progressively more 'enclosed': 10 separate subjects, carefully separated classrooms, and a gradual fencing-off of schools from their communities.

The world doesn't work like that anymore - in the real world, we learn in cross-disciplinary teams, we're constantly connected, even though we don't share the same physical space, and we desperately need learning to reconnect with community. It's one reason why students have become disengaged: they can't see how learning will improve where they live, and the people they live with.

We're lucky to have great schools involved in Learning Futures, and they share three cultures which seem to make them engaged, and engaging, places to learn:
1. A culture of co-construction - students have a vested interest in what, and how they learn, because they helped to design it;
2. A culture of collaborative enquiry - students, staff, parents/carers, and community groups are all invited to see learning as a shifting, developing, responsive activity, not as tablets of truth, dispensed by 'the experts'. The process of learning becomes the shared obsession.
3 A culture of democratic community - more than just a nod to 'student voice', the great schools operate on a human scale, fuelled by mutual respect. They are inescapably hierarchical places, but the edifice won't collapse if students offer observations on the quality of the teaching they're getting.

When schools become learning commons, all kinds of benefits follow. School becomes a base-camp for learning, not the destination. Students are able to learn in all kinds of places, setting out from, and coming back to, the classroom, but not held captive there. And all those people who are welcomed into the commons (external experts, mentors and coaches) mean that teachers are no longer the (over-exploited) funnels through which all teaching and learning must pass. Instead they become managers of a diverse set of learning relationships, including the learning which takes place informally - with friends, at home, or online.

Trying to re-imagine schools as learning commons may seem anachronistic, but education is one of the few areas of 21st century life where the commons isn't being talked about, and fought over: think copyright, the environment, politics (as we saw recently with Wikileak's Pentagon papers), and of course, the internet itself.

So why not education? Chris Anderson (TED curator) recently spoke about the incredible power of online video as a tool for learning. But it is just a tool, one mechanism which can help promote a 'global learning commons' (remember you heard it here first, folks).

We'll be publishing more on school as learning commons and school as base-camp in the next Learning Futures pamphlet, due out in a few weeks. In the meantime, help me out. Does the concept of the learning commons work for you? Does it help you see the future of enlightened learning, or is it an anachronistic distraction? Is it confusing, or is it just, well, common sense?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist, it was just sitting there....)

David Price

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Interesting take on coping with student disengagement

2010-09-15T09:52:00.002+01:00

From that venerable source of journalism, The Onion.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

RSA Animate – 21st century enlightenment

2010-09-09T17:45:00.002+01:00

RSA Animate – 21st century enlightenment

The RSA create animated illustrations of some of their talks. Their boss, Matthew Taylor recently unveiled their new strap-line '21st Century Enlightenment' through a fascinating - if somewhat intense - talk. But even if, like me, you're not sure if you got it all first time round, the cartoons are not only helpful, they're a thing of beauty in themselves.

Top marks to the people at Cognitive Media.

Into the Wet (sorry) Woods

2010-09-07T15:09:00.001+01:00

So now we know that summer's over. To the Regent's Park Open-Air Theatre last night to see Sondheim's 'Into The Woods'. This is a show which has great personal significance for me but (as the witch says) that's another story.

Into the Woods in the Woods (or as close as you get in the middle of London) is, potentially, an ideal location. And, up until the point where they called it off due to bad weather – about mid-way through the first act – it was living up to the reviews. But, we'd already had one stoppage while the crew mopped the stage (even though, by British standards, it was a light drizzle), so it didn't look good. However, we were in good spirits, had our waterproofs on, our hoods up, and our reserve down (even the stage moppers got a cheer).

Shortly after we were told that there were Giants In The Sky, the audience were then told to head for the bar (though the bar was closed) while the cast took shelter. Then, came the notification that that the show would be cancelled but, lo, the bar would re-open!

Now it's a moot point whether the whole notion of an Open Air Theatre in London is the zenith of wishful thinking. But if you decide to do it, what kind of idiot builds a multi-level set, upon which the cast are coming and going at speed, out of wooden decking??? Didn't anyone think of non-slip rubber matting?

Admittedly, the Met Office prediction that it wasn't going to let up until next Easter, seemed reasonable enough, as we trudged disconsolately to the tube. But, how come the audience (which included a fair sprinkling of overseas tourists) was more prepared for bad weather than the production?

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

How Not To Capture Learning

2010-08-02T17:08:00.001+01:00

As I write this, I'm listening to yet another of those pointless radio debates on the so-called 'death' of Classical Music. This spur this time appears to be the series currently showing on Channel 4, 'Orchestra United'. Manchester's Halle Orchestra - having failed to get funding to run one of the 3 English 'El Sistema' pilot schemes which were based around Venezuela's groundbreaking education project - decided they were going to go ahead anyway, and create a youth orchestra with a mix of classically- trained and non-trained musicians. So began one of the most misguided music education initiatives for a long, long time. However noble its aspirations (and you can make your own mind up on whether its desire to turn young working-class kids on to classical music is noble or patronising), having cameras following the every move of young adolescents completely corrupts any kind of value the exercise may have had.

Let's deal with the educational aspects first: yesterday's episode put 75 strangers together for a week's residential, at the end of which they were going to perform pieces which were clearly too much of a stretch for them. Why? So their conductor could do lots of shouting at them; so that they would inevitably do the things adolescents do on residentials (cue more shouting) - and of course, because the TV company wanted something to end the hour-long episode with. Several young lads were asked why they were being 'naughty' in rehearsals: 'because when we're playing in brass bands, we're busy all the time, but with this music, we have ages where we're not doing anything' was their perfectly sensible response.

The kids, of course, had no say in what music they would play, nor given any opportunity to express themselves, nor, apparently, given any reason why the pieces had been chosen for them. It's impossible to learn anything when you're terrified, as these kids clearly were for most of the time - the polar opposite of engaged learning .

Discussions like the one I'm currently listening to are always shot-full of myths, and this one is no different:

Myth: a symphony orchestra is a fantastic vehicle for learning. No, it's not - it's one of the most didactic, even dictatorial, modes of learning, where you have lots and lots of nothing to do, but become bored
Myth: young people are 'missing out' on classical music, and classical music will be dead unless we get them to concerts. No, it won't. Concert halls have always been full of older people, it's something that some of us grow to love, like gardening. And they're not missing out on anything - they've heard it, they just don't like it (at the moment).
Myth: if you get your Dad to take you, when you're a kid, you'll be hooked for life - it's just like football. No, it's not. If your Dad takes you to the football, you can pretty much do what you like. If you applaud in between movements at a classical concert, you'll be made to feel like an uneducated oik (trust me, I was that uneducated oik).
Myth: if music education in school introduced kids to classical music early enough, we'd create younger audiences for the future. No, you won't. Orchestras have been doing outreach work for decades, and the demographic mix at concerts remains the same as it always was.

The Sunday Times TV critic, A.A. Gill, went to the heart of the matter, yesterday. Speaking of the fact that most of the kids in the programme who passed the audition were actually quite skilled guitarists, accordionists, beat-boxers and bass players, he wrote:

'"Instead of making of making the leap and saying ' Let's make an orchestra with steel drums and the instruments and sounds that these enthusiastic kids already make' he (James Lowe, conductor) wanted to turn them into a mini-me version of a 19th century orchestra.....there is a continuo of cultural charity about this show , a snobbish sense of handing down high culture to low classes.....I'd rather have heard a cacophony of Manchester kids belting out a noise that was theirs, than some cultural hand-me-down."

Gill probably doesn't know it, but such orchestras already exist. The Guildhall School of Music and Drama have been running their Connect ensembles for years, taking whatever instruments turn up (no auditions here) helping kids compose their own pieces, and working as equals with young people of all social and racial backgrounds, and making a glorious, confident musical noise at the end of it all. Of course, kids behaving maturely, supporting one another, and feeling comfortable and safe as they're learning doesn't make very good TV, does it?

But it makes for great music education. The Halle should pay them a visit.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Disappointing World Cup? Blame Teachers....

2010-07-20T22:40:00.001+01:00

The past few weeks have seen a fresh outbreak of teacher-bashing in the UK. This time it's focussed on those deemed 'incompetent', and the apparently impossible task of trying to fire them. I caught a phone-in discussion recently where there wasn't a single caller who had a good word to say about teachers, following the Panorama documentary.

Thankfully, the new education secretary and his colleagues declined to join the pitch-fork brigade – seeming to be less anxious to ameliorate Melanie Phillips and Daily Mail readers than the previous administration.

Meanwhile, returning England footballers, following their incompetent display in South Africa, are consoled by negotiating weekly salaries four or five times that of a teacher's annual salary. As the school year draws to a close, there's nothing quite so affirming as media vilification.

A couple of weeks ago, I gave a speech to Teach First graduates. Here are young recruits to the profession, who are placed in tough schools in tough neighbourhoods. They'd be forgiven for a degree of disenchantment after a couple of years. But no, I was struck by their enthusiasm, and their desire to be challenged to go the extra mile, for the students whose expectations they are trying to change . It was inspiring just talking to them.

I saw the same kind of youthful commitment and passion while revisiting some of the Learning Futures schools since then. In just one session of staff development, one school was sharing recent innovations: a student radio station; enabling parents to support learning at home; using IT and serious gaming to support learning; developing students as leaders in language learning – the list went on. Just one school among many.

And the Headteachers I've spoken to said they that, whilst they did everything to help those who weren't up to the job, most of those struggling to cope had already realised that teaching wasn't for them, and left voluntarily . The others were let go, without too much difficulty.

As the new football season approaches no doubt we'll hear more bleating about the pressures involved in football, where every pre-season friendlies become 'massive'. At the end of the day, Brian, you're just kicking a ball around. Now teaching – holding future life prospects by the thread of exam results – that's a massive job. Each and every teacher in the country, yes, even the ones who are struggling, deserve their summer break. I wish them a restful few weeks and feel privileged to be working with them.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Where's a good old-fashioned hooligan when you need one?

2010-06-15T21:08:00.002+01:00

News today that the Beeb may start to broadcast 'vuvzela-free' transmission of World Cup matches. Which button is that on? Quick!!
Now that we've stopped all the hooligan's from travelling, there's no one there to give someone a belt on the head with one, thus getting them banned. Before? Fine. Afterwards? Fine.

During? The players can't hear themselves speak, and I'm now watching it with the sound down.

Another one bites the dust.....

2010-06-06T21:36:00.001+01:00

It's been another week of upheaval in schooling. Michael Gove has abolished his third quango - this time the General Teaching Council - in less than three weeks. The reaction to the bonfire of quangos (and the scrapping of national teaching strategies) has been decidedly mixed, which is probably better than Mr Gove would have hoped for. And he must have been encouraged by the absence of weeping and wailing from teachers, especially. The knee-jerk response to change is often protest, but the profession itself has been quiet, which must be a little dispiriting to BECTA, QCDA and GTC.

Offering yet more encouragement to our new Secretary of State have been the initial expressions of interest, from schools judged 'outstanding' by OFSTED, in fast-tracking to academy status. Over 1,100 could be out of local authority control, and OFSTED inspections, by September. Both relaxations potentially carry collateral damage. Local authorities offer valuable coordinating services, and to lose a significant chunk of budget is bound to have an effect on their ability to support all schools. But it looks like some are preparing for the inevitable: I heard from a senior colleague, in a major city council, that they have been advised to expect between 15-25% cut in budget and are strongly encouraging all of their schools to form clusters, whereupon their budgets will be devolved to them.

There has also been some disquiet that releasing schools from inspections risks, not only complacency, but also the prospect of 'two tier' schools - sheep and goats, inspected and approved. Whatever one might think of these changes, whether good or bad, they're not part of the blight of incrementalism of recent years. Some bold experiments are taking place. Risky, for sure, but there does seem to be a good deal of support from schools. Which makes it all the more depressing to hear the NASUWT complain that 'one academy is one too many, and we shall be campaigning to seek to stop schools that have expressed an interest in becoming an academy'.

Come on, academies are going to be with us for the foreseeable future, and what the system desperately needs is some innovation. More academies, more alternative models of schooling (free schools, et al), might give us all some innovation outliers that we can all learn from. The trick will be to ensure that what works in some of the imminent experiments is systematically shared throughout the system, and that ideological opponents don't adopt conservative attitudes, just for the sake of it.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Not Doing What We've Always Done

2010-05-27T11:14:00.004+01:00

Considering education was barely discussed during the recent election campaign, it's been prominently in the news in the wake of the Lib-Con swathe of cuts and legislation. Already BECTA have been told to clear their desks, and there could be many more quangos in their sights. The Centre for Policy Studies produced a report last year suggesting that up to 11 education quangos could be either scrapped, or moved out of state control - including BECTA.

These are feverish times. This week saw the announcement of fast-tracking applications for schools to become academies - by September, the number of academies is set to grow exponentially, and now include primary schools. And we also saw confirmation that the much-discussed 'free schools' initiative will now happen. Tuesday's Education Guardian devoted 3 pages to free schools and seemed to conclude that we are now in a market-driven, privately-run era.

I'm not so sure. But it highlights one remarkable feature when radical changes to education are put forward: most card-carrying liberals agree that we need revolution, not incremental change, in the way we reform schools. But when genuinely radical steps are put forward, we all cry foul. It's not unlike parents who bitterly complain about their child's school, and then mount the barricades when its closure is announced.

On the very day the announcement on free schools was made, Ted.com published Ken Robinson's speech, given in Feb 2010. With his usual wit, he again puts forward the case for a revolution in schooling, arguing that we enthrall ourselves too much to notions of linearity and conformity, building education systems on the model of fast food production. He proposes that every school should be different - an organic model rather than factory farmed. It's hard to argue against, and there are obvious echoes in the recent Lib-Con rhetoric. But it does seem that, if we're going to revolutionise schooling, and get some real innovation into the system, we've got to be willing to consider the transformative effect of market forces. That's effectively what the Obama administration is advancing and I've eventually come to accept that it's worth a shot.

Those who oppose radical change in education usually cite two widely-acknowledged concerns: the equity issue (won't a more permissive approach to new models of schooling inevitably favour middle-class parents?) and the 'guinea-pig' syndrome (your experiments will put my child's education at risk). Both are valid concerns. But we've been actually experimenting on kids for decades (albeit in small steps) and the gains have probably been overshadowed by the casualties. So, shouldn't we at least give this version of radical structural change the benefit of the doubt, until we see what its impact is?

Or has anyone else got a better idea?

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

A Good Day To Bury A SATS Boycott

2010-05-11T06:03:00.003+01:00

We certainly live in changing, and uncertain, times. At the time of writing this, we could, in a day or so, have any one of at least three possible government permutations. More pertinently, the next education secretary could be either a Conservative (Michael Gove), a Lib Dem (David Laws) or the current incumbent, Ed Balls. Actually, Ed Balls is the least likely option, as he will no doubt have leadership matters on his mind.

But it is an unprecedented state of affairs. And therefore a good day to boycott SATS exams for 11-year olds. At least if you want to escape censure, but perhaps less so if you're looking to make a point. After all the talk of schools acting illegally, taking Headteachers to court is not exactly high on any party's agenda right now.

However, once all the current party-political-horse-trading-dressed-up-as-'The Nation's Interest' is over, it would make sense for whoever takes over at DCSF to take a cool, detached view of this week's events in schools. The boycott will have significant implications - this year's primary school league tables will be meaningless, for a start - but will the roof fall in? I doubt it.

Many of the 300,000 kids who have avoided the test, will still be assessed anyway on reaching their secondary school, not least because of the discredit which teaching to the test has brought. Mr Balls might like to pretend that schools don't drill-and-skill their kids, but the evidence was there yesterday in the remarks of Headteachers who went ahead with the SATS: 'We've been preparing our children all year for these exams' went the justification.

So, it's perhaps too much to hope that the next government will find a less manipulative (and manipulated) way to measure primary students' progress. Who knows, it may even be based upon trusting their teacher's honest assessment.

</object>

Clegg, Cameron and Brown fail the test on education

2010-04-17T23:11:00.001+01:00

A couple of months ago I posted on what was likely to be the political points scoring during the election campaign. Having watched the first televised election debate, it was a depressing experience to hear the dearth of ideas in addressing the single question which dealt with education. It came from a young man, Joel Weiner, in his final year at school, and it's worth quoting in full:
I'm in my final year of school. I found that the system is incredibly grades-driven, so much so, that often education for its own sake is at sacrifice. We are over -examined and under-taught. What will the party leaders do to improve education?

A perfectly straight-forward and intelligent question, you might think. Neither Gordon Brown nor David Cameron addressed it, preferring instead to talk about having the highest standards for our schools (as if anyone would want the lowest standards), and the need to improve discipline. Nick Clegg at least referred to the need for learning to be more creative, but he quickly got sidetracked onto the excessive bureaucracy in the system. Is it too much to expect party leaders to question the purpose of education? To acknowledge that what goes on in test-driven classrooms is antithetical to the notion of education for its own sake, and that maybe young Joel had a point? Or indeed point out that one potential cause for ill-discipline might be the chronic boredom which stems from school-as-exam-factory?

The business of how we learn, what we really need to learn, and how we might measure skills and knowledge was probably never going to enter their heads in a gladiatorial sound-bite contest. But you got the distinct impression that it would never enter their heads because they're still stuck in a 19th century mind-set of education.

The day after the debate I watched an interview with Charlie Leadbeater which was chock-full of the kind of new ideas we need about the future of schooling - genuinely inspiring, and if just one of the candidates had cited even one of Charlie's ideas, I would have believed they had at least some grasp of what they were discussing. As it stands there is a political paucity of innovation in each party's proposals.

Without wishing to show favour to any of the parties, one might at least hold out some hope for the Liberal Democrat commitment to an Education Freedom Act, which effectively bans politicians from interfering in the day-to-day running of schools. Now that's a radical idea, and one which is likely to at least do no harm!

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

How To Impress Your Students....

2010-04-09T17:20:00.000+01:00

Normally, I run a mile from examples of teachers and lecturers trying to show how cool they are by entertaining their students. Being engaged is not the same as being entertained. But I'd make an exception for Matthew Weathers, a hitherto unsung Maths Teacher at Biola University, a Christian University in Southern California. Hitherto, because this vid has had 1.3 million hits in the past week.

Who says the devil has all the best visual, laptop-based illusions?

The Backlash Over Student Voice

2010-04-08T18:02:00.006+01:00

It had to happen I guess. You take a sensible idea - giving students some say in how education is done to them - and after many schools have made it work to everyone's satisfaction, it just needs one hyperbolic reaction before everyone starts giving it a good kicking.

In this case, it came in the form of the teacher who (supposedly) failed to get a job because a student taking part in the interview process, allegedly labelled him 'Humpty Dumpty'. Let's set aside the uncorroborated nature of this anecdote (was the student part of the decision making process, or merely an observer?) and focus upon the scorn it provoked.

Step in the ring Melanie Phillips, she of the Daily Mail, and again allegedly, the litmus test for DCSF policy ideas. In a recent article, she manages to castigate everyone involved in Student Voice - the students, for being infantile, and the teachers, for thinking they could possibly have anything to offer.

The problem with Student Voice, according to Ms Phillips is irrefutable:

'Founded upon the truism that we all never stop learning throughout our lives, it destroyed the demarcation between school and adult life. The absurdity of this was illustrated some three years ago when one trendy London primary school head teacher relabelled himself ‘lead learner’. Not surprisingly, this loss of belief in the core function of education meant that many pupils were effectively abandoned to stumble through the world.'

Quite what the 'core function' of education is never disclosed: presumably it's sitting down, shutting up and reciting multiplication tables.

But wait, there's more. After blaming parents who want to be their children's friends, she summarises thus: such confusion

'is based on the desire of adults to relieve themselves of responsibility towards children either as parents or as teachers.
It is a profound infantilisation of the adult world, which has not just deprived a teacher of a job but created an entire Humpty Dumpty society.'

That's it, then - we're all Humpty Dumpties.

As it happens, I have involved students as observers in every teacher hiring I ever chaired - almost 100 posts, in total. There was not a single instance where the student's preferred candidate differed from the panel's. Students take such responsibilities really seriously, and they understand that if they're not trusted to behave like adults when they're younger, they're going to make a lot of numpty humpty decisions when they're doing the job for real. In my experience give them a challenge and they invariably rise to it. Set low expectations - on their judgement, maturity or performance - and they'll prove you right. Or in the words of this (admittedly very bright) young person: "We love challenges, but when expectations are low, trust me, we will sink to them'.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

The First Election Heckler Of The Spring......

2010-04-07T23:44:00.005+01:00

.... two days into the official general election campaign, and the first heckle directed at one of the main party leaders, is about..... education.

Thank God our election campaigns only last a month. There is just so much, well, shite spouted on all sides - hecklers and heckled, alike. And, when it comes to education, there's a lot more heat than light generated (OK, very bad analogy).

Our Prime Minister was asked by one Ben Butterworth (read about his motives on his all-too-inevitable blog) why his son couldn't get into any of the schools of their choice. By blanking the man who challenged him, Gordon Brown did himself no favours with the TV cameras rolling:

Perhaps he was just momentarily thrown, or under orders not to engage with the enemy. Or perhaps it was just too complicated an issue to engage in what would be a 10 second soundbite on tonight's news.

Some possible responses might have:

highlighted the popularity of these schools as being a positive sign that Labour's education policies are working;
questioned how we define a good school - though, since the irate Mr Butterworth could only refer to English, Science and Maths results as being criteria, there would have been some measure of agreement here. A case of Labour's definition of standards coming back to bite them...........
pointed out that no system of school choice can guarantee every child gets the school they want. The only fool-proof system is to offer no choice, and we don't want to go back to those days
thought 'What would John Precott have said?'

Oh, for the days of unguarded cut-and-thrust on the hustings:

Never mind, Gordon, only another 29 days to go.......

No Time To Dismiss Radical Solutions

2010-04-05T21:39:00.000+01:00

I've been having some hospital treatment these past two weeks, so I've been a bit out of the loop. After getting out of hospital, I was eager to catch up on what had been happening in the world of education - I wish I hadn't bothered. The news has been utterly depressing.

The most disturbing story, by a distance, was the revelation of a 6 year-old Welsh girl who was repeatedly sexually abused by 23 school 'mates' aged between 6 and 10. It's hard to grasp how so many young children - who can't be disciplined, since they're under the age of criminal responsibility - can behave in such a way. It's almost as hard to see how adults did nothing to intervene (the child's mother eventually had to move her to another school), and frankly disgraceful that it took the education authority two years to investigate the case.

Almost as depressing comes the news that primary schoolchildren are apparently twice as likely to be violent as secondary students. A survey, commissioned by the Association of teachers and Lecturers, found that 48% of primary teachers reported physical aggression, compared to only 20% of their secondary colleagues, and over 60% of those surveyed feeling that conduct in primary schools had worsened in the past 5 years, compared to only 3% who thought it had improved.

God, I think I'll check myself back into hospital.

Amidst all this, what is the issue which is generating most heat in the media? The conservative proposals to encourage 'free schools', based on the Swedish model, if they win the forthcoming election. Yesterday's Observer leader devoted a half-page to dismissing the idea of 'hybrid' schools (not-for-profits which sub-contract to commercial businesses), not because they are considered effective or not, but because to allow them 'is to resign ourselves to the inevitable failure of our public services'.

Surely with all the other stories in the news, we've got more to worry about than ideology?

Personally, I'd welcome anything which might bring some innovation into a model of schooling, and the way we manage schools, which is not fit for purpose. The system is clearly not working, so let's not accept that giving it a significant shake-up is such a risky proposition.

I Can't Believe It's Not Buddha...

2010-03-23T08:18:00.001Z

Can you be the Messiah and not know it?

In a bizarre case of life-imitating-art, the Life of Brian was played out again last week in the US. I'm new to this story, but it's simultaneously depressing and funny.

Benjamin Creme, who heads up Share International (no, I hadn't heard of them either) has recently confirmed that the Maitreya (the second coming of Buddha) has emerged on a TV chat show. Why should we believe him? Well, Share International's website states that 'Creme's constant contact with a Master of Wisdom gives him access to up-to-date information on Maitreya's emergence, plus the total conviction needed to present this story'. Oh, that's all right then.

Historically, there have been a whole heap of people claiming to be the Maitreya (including L Ron Hubbard) so you'd have to do something pretty special to show that you're the real deal. How about appearing on the Colbert Report? You've got to admit, it's different. Well, Creme has now confirmed that Maitreya is now outed, though he won't specify who he/she is.

Step forward, Raj Patel, author, food activist and now, apparently, Buddha. In plugging his new book 'The Value of Nothing', Patel appeared on the Colbert Report, and clearly Creme believes he fits the police description: dark-skinned, speaks with a slight stammer (he paused once or twice, so that'll do), and cares passionately about food distribution. So, setting aside the incongruity of coming out on the Colbert Report in January, Creme's indicators have been enough to set off all the kooks on the internet into a frenzy.

Except that Patel himself flatly denies it, saying: “I’m the last person who should be the Messiah. I’ve spent a lot of time arguing that what we need is, you know, not to believe in great leaders and people bringing hope and change, and that we can change the world by actually small acts of rebellion and mutual aid. So, I think the whole idea of being a Messiah is entirely bogus.”

Aha! Proof positive, because Creme declared that the REAL Maitreya would at first deny it. So, he's caught either way - the more he denies it, the more his growing band of 'followers' become more fervent. They're now tracking his public appearances across America, and Patel is now moving from mild amusement at the situation to downright frustration with the whole saga - and I think this story is only just getting legs.... Poor, Raj - he's not even a naughty boy, he seems very nice, in fact.

You can see how Colbert re-presents the story here (unfortunately we in the UK can't get access to Colbert Nation videos, so I've had to find a badly-recorded YouTube version):

Systems, Not Scapegoats

2010-03-17T22:31:00.001Z

One of my favourite edublogs is 'Bridging Differences', the conversation between two formidable US educators, Diane Ravitch and Debbie Meier. This week's post was provoked by a fairly contentious article in Newsweek titled 'Why We Must Fire Bad Teachers'.

You can gauge the quality of the research by this quote:"In Europe, where teachers enjoy more social prestige and higher salaries, schools have no trouble attracting new teachers with strong academic records."

That aside, there are clearly strong divisions of opinion about the power of teaching unions in the US, and they certainly seem to have a stronger voice (and potentially, a resistance to change) than they do in the UK. I couldn't say if that's a good or bad thing, but it does seem that teacher-bashing has, on both sides of the Atlantic, been with us for a very long time, and shows no sign of going away.

I've just spent the past week with a bunch of teachers who are involved in the Learning Futures project. Every one of them is a credit to their profession: incredibly hard-working, constantly looking to improve their practice, and driven by a real vocation to make young lives better. We've spent days discussing areas like project-based learning, mentoring, co-constructing curriculum and pedagogy with young people, and how to make schools more permeable to external experts, communities, parents and businesses. I know that, almost by definition, it could be argued that these pedagogues are not typical, but they couldn't be further from the stereotypical image of teachers presented by Newsweek.

The comments which follow Diane Ravitch's post show the sharp divide of opinion that exists in the US, but those who spend their lives in schools consistently argue that it's the system, not the people in it, that has made reform so difficult. Having spent quite a bit of time with teachers, I have to agree.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

The Growing Calls For Transformation in Our Schools

2010-03-09T23:14:00.001Z

Is it just me, or is the blogosphere currently awash with demands for radical change in our schooling system?

There's been quite a stir over in the US in response to Pres. Obama's Grad Nation speech. He cited research highlighting students' lack of interest and motivation as prime reasons from drop-outs, proposing that we have to make school work more engaging and relevant to kids' lives, if they're all to graduate from school. He even praised Big Picture schools - and they're far from mainstream - for their ability to make learning relevant and engaging.

</object>

And then uber-blogger Scott McLeod highlighted the economic imperative for radical transformation. In an open letter to his school district, entitled 'The Status Quo No Longer Suffices' he highlights something I've blogged about a lot - what he calls the increasing use of 'globalised piece work' breaking down what were formerly full-time service sector-jobs in the west, into outsourced tasks, undertaken (at less than minimum wage levels) by skilled graduates from around the world, all competing online. The implication is that we have to stop aiming for low-level cognitive ability in our students, if we're to remain competitive, and instead aim for 'a much greater degree (of) skills of higher-level thinking and real-world application'.

Even Ted got in on the act: this week, tech journalist Jeff Jarvis posted notes of his deliberately provocative presentation at TEDxNYED, in advance of the video going public. Entitled 'This Is Bullshit', Jarvis likens the one-at-the-front lecture format of TED to classrooms and argues that the role of the teacher in a digital age is to add value to what's already out there on You Tube and freely available, by complementing inspirational presentations with questions, explanations, illustrations. If you've ever seen any of Walter Lewin's inspirational lectures at MIT, you can see his point. Not many teachers can beat that.

</object>

Three different takes on a familiar theme: the failure of schooling to keep up with the changes in society and technology. I guess you could argue that it's just coincidence, but there does seem to be an urgency in the debate now, and a growing realisation - in the US at least - that merely asking schools to do more of the same, but with better results, isn't going to fix things.

It's noticeable, however, that in the same week, the major talking point in the UK has been OFSTED, the national inspections agency, 'raising the bar', leading to a halving of the schools judged 'outstanding', despite doing exactly what they've been asked to do previously. In the months leading up to an election, it seems that we want to settle for quick, non-disruptive, top-down fixes, rather than a sensible debate on the re-invention of schooling.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Going with the grain.....

2010-02-28T02:01:00.003Z

I've been working wood today. Highly satisfying, though I'm nowhere near the level of expertise of Larry Rosenstock. In fact I only just scraped a 'CSE' qualification when I was at secondary school. For the uninitiated, back in the early 70s, if you weren't considered academic enough you padded out your GCSE's with the lower-level vocational courses: like woodwork.
Funnily enough, however, today I remembered some basic stuff from that woodwork course. It's more than I can say for my GCSE Latin or Biology. In fact, my recall from those chalk and talk courses resembles the 5-Minute University clip from Saturday Night Live I've shared previously.... amo, amas, amat, er, and that's about it.
It's undoubtedly something to do with the Confucius thing: I hear and I forget; I see and I remember; I do and I understand. The system we've got (which still denigrates practical learning) encourages us not to understand things twenty, thirty years down the line - just enough to remember them for the exam, and forget thereafter.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Change for the Better

2010-02-28T00:05:00.002Z

I've really let things slide on this blog lately. I'm sorry, I've been getting all my traveling in before I have to go into hospital for some treatment. But in the past few weeks I was in Anaheim, California, and earlier this week, in Toronto - on both occasions I found myself saying more or less the same thing (though in slightly different contexts). I meant to write about it at the time, but this is the first chance I've had.

The Canadian trip was to work with some great people at the Canadian Education Association; the earlier trip was to appear on an advocacy panel, organised by the equally great people at the NAMM Foundation. Both organisations have been around for a long time, have a broad and strong membership to represent, and so have to think very carefully when considering the question of 'advocacy'. Representative groups have to represent. And if you've got members who've been around for decades then the chances are some of them might be a little conservative in nature.

My point though - and I used the example of Musical Futures to illustrate it - was that, especially when times get tough, the best strategy to protect your position, is to advocate for change. That might seem counter intuitive, and it certainly carries risks. But the rearguard action in music education in American schools, where music is in danger of being squeezed out of school programmes, inclines advocates to say the same things to the same people: 'we do good things with your kids, let's stick with what we've got'. The thing is, most people already know that, so you're not going to make any new converts. To say that you're going to change the way things are, either because the child's experience isn't good enough, or simply because there aren't enough of them getting excited about learned is, in my view, more likely to get people on your side, and put their hands in their pockets.

Of course this means getting your hands dirty, by talking about practice, and respectfully challenging educators to change their practice. Many representative groups avoid this - not least because it's often biting the hands that are feeding them. With major public spending cuts looming on both sides of the Atlantic, however, education has to demonstrate radical efficiency - that it can do more for less. Whether that is attracting more than the 10% or so who choose music at school, or through more engaging pedagogy which will enable more kids to progress to college or further training (simply because they enjoy schooling more), the hard thing is to recognise that doing what you've always done, is going to get you what you've always got, and to view changing practice as the best form of advocacy.

So fair play to both organisations for not simply trying to defend the status quo.

(Incidentally, if you want to hear my position at greater length, there's a video of the NAMM panel, featuring the ever-entertaining legend that is Quincy Jones, here)

An Inspiring Example of Project-Based Learning...

2010-02-06T09:19:00.001Z

.... from the ever-inspiring Ted Talks.

Kiran Bir Sethi talks, with understated passion, about the power of taking learning out of the classroom, into the wrold outside. Check out the impact on test scores!

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Our Ridiculous Hierarchy of Education

2010-02-06T08:36:00.001Z

This week, I'm supposed to writing a pamphlet on student engagement and preparing 3 speeches for next week, so this has been a good few days for procrastination. While making my 15^th cup of tea yesterday (not very original I know, but there's only so much desk-tidying you can do) I happened upon a radio interview with a recent graduate and three MPs. The young man had spent a long time looking for the decently-paid job he thought his degree (Business and IT) would ensure. Having failed in his job-hunt, he'd done a succession of low-level jobs and struck me as remarkably sanguine. He felt he'd chosen the wrong course and was considering re-applying to university.

The Labour MP clearly had to take the party line, so we got lots of stuff about ' no such thing as a free lunch', competitive environment, wait for the up-turn, etc. The other two MPs weren't much help either, both expressing surprise that a degree in IT hadn't resulted in a job.

No-one mentioned that universities, in attempting to hit government high education expansion targets, had over-saturated the supply side of IT graduates, and that there simply isn't the demand anymore from employers. No-one talked about what happens when globalisation meets technology. Knowledge Process Outsourcing (which I've blogged about, earlier) has profound ramifications for higher education in the over-developed world: armies of post-graduates from developing countries are working for $4 an hour, as online freelancers, providing legal, management, IT, design and finance tasks for UK and US companies. These developments present real challenges, especially to the middle-class devotion to a university education.

When Tony Blair, in 1997 set a target of 50% of young people going to university, he couldn't have foreseen these kind of seismic changes, but we have to accept that the days of a degree being a passport to a well-paid job are over. There'll be a lag, but in 10 years, the expected salary levels for graduates will have plummeted, compared to their historical advantage over non-graduates. Somewhat surprisingly, this year saw a record number of applications to universities and, predictably, the unis were pressing all the emotional buttons they could find ('300,000 young people denied access). But, it's time we recognised that we're in a different ball-game now, and fewer people going to university might actually be a good thing, especially if, as I suspect, many of the current applicants are simply filling in the forms because: a) they don't know what else to do with their lives or b) we, the parents, have this illogical expectation that they must have a degree, or their lives will suffer.

The UK disease of down-grading vocational training, (and therefore further education colleges), as a second-best alternative to academia, has caused incalculable harm, not only to our economic competitiveness, but also to young people's morale. Organisations like Edge have fought a difficult, and sometimes solitary, battle to restore some sense of balance in the debate over higher vs further education, but it feels like the argument is about to turn in their favour.

The radio piece was concluded by a telling text sent in by a listener. He had three friends – only one didn't go to uni, and he was now employing the other two.

If You're Not Interested In Learning about Learning, Keep Out of School

2010-01-27T10:58:00.002Z

One of the great pleasures of my current work is that I regularly get to talk to Estelle Morris (ex-Secretary of State for Education) about learning. Apart from being the most knowledgeable of education secretaries we've had for years (she was formerly a classroom teacher), Baroness Morris is also a genuine, sincere and likeable person. So when she resigned claiming she 'wasn't quite up to the job', she had it the wrong way round - the job wasn't up to her high standards of honesty and integrity. These days she limits her public opinions on schooling to a regular column in the Guardian. So, when she talked about keeping politicians out of the classroom, in the run-up to the general election this week, it was sure to be thought-provoking (if perhaps futile). Her most telling comment, among a piece reflecting upon our inability to really evaluate what has worked in educational policy is when she says 'I fail to see the political ideology in the pedagogy of reading or the practice of how to support school leaders'.

True. She goes on to argue that there is an increasing tendency to develop education policies to suit party political purposes, rather than through a dispassionate analysis of what might yield the best results.

Over the coming months, the party manifestos will no doubt repeatedly be talking about 'change', and will be prioritising education. School leaders will give a world-weary shrug, since change is all they've known in a profession which desperately needs an absence of change, at least for a while. But when so few politicians see a visit to a school as anything more than a photo op, we're not likely to get any kind of informed discussion about how learning happens, or how it sticks. Instead, we'll get more of the usual bandying around of statistics, and the language of industrial 'instrumentalism' - as if we didn't need to understand the complex nature of how human beings learn best, just crank the lever a little harder, squeeze a bit more juice out of the lemon, and then castigate schools for not achieving 100% success for all our children (the italics are compulsory when you're campaigning).

So, here's my party political broadcast: learning which lasts longer than a revision period is really quite complex, requiring a range of strategies, which start with securing motivation, engagement and desire to learn and don't end with a mark on an exam paper. It needs to integrate the head, hands and heart and has to be done with the young person's consent, and not to them. They should not be forced to recite facts, figures and equations that will be irrelevant to them in their adult daily lives, instead they should acquire skills, competencies and personal attributes which our society desperately needs. Even with the best learning, some kids will fail some exams, yet still lead fulfilling, purposeful and compassionate lives - therefore, if they leave school feeling prepared for life, they will not be branded as 'failures', and schools will be commended for having reduced the cost of the health, social and prison services .

Vote for me!

Postcard from San Diego

2010-01-20T14:55:00.002Z

Today is my final day visiting the High Tech High schools, in San Diego county. Maybe it's because the weather has become so, well, British (hearing San Diegans call a wet and windy day a 'storm' is what passes for spring showers in England) , or maybe it's simply because I'll be back in the UK in a few hours - either way I've been thinking about how what I've seen in a British context.

Yesterday, I spent a lot of time with Ian Eggleston, an expat who now directs High Tech High International.What makes it distinctive from the other schools? Not much, actually. They started off targeting a more cosmopolitan student intake, put all the schools have a pretty diverse student body now. They featured regular student study visits abroad but they pretty much all do that now, too . It's one of the (many) endearing things about this place: they're perfectly comfortable with ambiguity. Anyway, Ian's understandably a little out of touch with the school system in the UK, and he couldn't teach there anyway, since he didn't have a teaching certificate when he first came to High Tech High. But he got hired here during one of HTH's 'hiring bonanzas'. These events are just one example of how they do things differently here. First, they are looking for skilled generalists - staff have to teach more than one subject and work in cross-disciplinary teams. Second, prospective staff are invited to spend time here and then, if they're still interested (and who wouldn't be?) they teach a demo lesson. It's extraordinary that most positions in the UK get filled without seeing someone do what they're being paid to do: teach. Not here. Students play a key role in interviewing and observing, and selecting.

Onnce they're here, they're on rolling one-year contracts, and it's not uncommon for teachers to be 'let go' if it's not working out. Again, why wouldn't the kind of dedicated people we need into teaching not want to be judged on the basis of their ability to retain their passion and rapport with students, instead of the false security of tenure? So, there are already some fundamental differences here, which would be hard (but not impossible) to implement elsewhere.

But the biggest difference is a simple, yet stark, one: when Larry Rosenstock and Rob Riordan set HTH up, they built a school to fit around the needs of the students - most everywhere else, if we're being honest, it's the opposite. We house thousands of students in what Charles Handy calls 'kennels for kids', because it saves on administration costs, and allows us to build subject empires which, let's face it, most staff feel more comfortable with, and it's easier to manage. Here they cap each school at less than 400, and assign teachers to a single grade/year group, so that no student gets lost in the system. it's why their advisory/tutorial system includes homevisits to meet the parents. It's also why internship (work placement) hosts are required to provide degree level tasks (or better yet, assigned projects) to HTH students, while so many other schools seem content to have students making tea for a fortnight - when you have to place several hundred at a time, you can't be too demanding.

Not everything is done differently here.There is still fairly conventional, didactic teaching when the need arises, and perhaps one of the challenges HTH still face is bringing the kind of innovation and integration to this aspect of learning that they bring to project-based learning. But, through their internal Graduate School of Education (initially set up to fast-track accredit their teachers who had no teaching qualification but now a hot-house of ideas and international outreach) they have the mechanism to re-fashion this. The GSE has also honed the intellectual property needed to ensure that rigour is preserved, and curriculum content covered, in project-based learning. They do it through a process of reverse engineering - start with what students need and want to know and do, and build the project backwards from there.
They freely admit here that transferability and scalability, especially within mainstream constraints, isn't easy. Larry and Rob tried to transform an existing school and failed. They've also seen what happens when other schools attempt to become High Tech Highs, without the clean sheet that Larry and Rob had here, and have had to disassociate themselves from them.

Ken Robinson describes most countries approaches to school reform as like 'trying to build a better steam engine'. Perhaps that's why there's a big push for charter schools now in the US, and why existing schools are being offered strong incentives to fire, hire and radically shake things up - it's as close as you can get to ripping it up and starting again, without incurring the wrath of parents. But it's a very expensive, and scatter-gun method to bringing innovation into the system. And there's no indication that the 'turnaround' policies will lead to long term improvement, especially if the underlying structures of large, factory-based, output-driven models of schooling remain.

Most OECD countries are now considering drastic reform of their school systems. For want of a better vision, and a clarity about what schools are actually for, they're using the blunt, and wholly inappropriate weapon, of high stakes accountability. High Tech High schools offer an inspiring alternative vision, and another way to construct schooling: re-build everything to create an environment which puts students' personal, emotional, social, and intellectual needs as the single, determinant priority, and seek deep engagement as your prime output, and quality of student-produced work as your yardstick for judging teaching. All the other stuff - discipline, attendance, retention, achievement - will take care of itself.
It can be done.

Project Based Learning at High Tech High

2010-01-19T01:58:00.003Z

I've written earlier about my unparalleled ability to take the (English) weather with me when venturing abroad. Well, I've done it again, this time in San Diego. So, on a day when the city has had more than half its annual rainfall in one day what better way to spend a torrential day than in High Tech High again? Although a national holiday (this is Martin Luther King day) there were still plenty of staff in.This time, my guide was Jeff Robin, the school's art teacher. Where, in some schools, the position of art teacher might seem peripheral, you only have to be in HTH's CEO, Larry Rosenstock's house to see the centrality and importance of art and the humanities, in Larry's vision, as it is in his schools.
Jeff is one of HTH's longest-serving members of staff and has a terrifically impressive portfolio of the projects he has directed at his website. I'd urge you to spend a long time looking through the projects: not only has Jeff, beautifully curated the student's works, he also gives really clear narratives, of how the projects were Planned, Managed and Exhibited (Jeff's taxonomy of process). See, for example, the Blood Bank Project. It's an exemplar of what we've been calling, in the Learning Futures project the 'Four P's' of deep engagement: It's Placed (it's all about giving blood in San Diego); it's Principled (giving blood is a good thing, but too reliant upon baby-boomers, so more need to donate); it's Purposeful (the work was exhibited in a gallery and the student videos are aimed at raising awareness of hematology issues); and it's Pervasive (students learned at school, at home, in the city and in the community). And there's a real understanding of biology behind the visuals.
But this is just one of many projects that Jeff has directed. By visiting his website, any teacher could get their hands on the resources needed to do similar work - all freely available. Jeff's got strong opinions, and they emerge unfiltered. In describing one of his projects (pictured above) he says, 'In a one week period, 120 students hit every California state standard in visual art. Then we started to really make art. ' He's enormously creative, dedicated, and passionate about getting kids to do work that they can feel proud of, so isn't going to let convention, protocol or standards constraints prevent that from happening.
It's a terrible indictment of the system that he probably wouldn't last five minutes in a conventional mainstream high school.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Getting All Emotional

2010-01-15T15:52:00.001Z

It's a relief to be missing the worst of an unusually brutal English winter. I'm currently in Greater Los Angeles, (and it's predictably sunny) where I've been speaking at the NAMM Trade Show. I gave a talk about Innovating in a Recession, and in particular, about the growing importance of 'Emotional Capital'. The two very differing examples I cited have both been in the news this week: Google, lost quite a bit of their Emotional Capital (though admittedly from a veritable mountain of the stuff) when they allowed the Chinese to censor their search engine, but this week's news that they are considering pulling out of China altogether, may have significant financial implications, but they will certainly replenish the stocks of customer emotional loyalty. The other example is of someone who is well on the way to creating a highly effective business, built almost entirely on the back of emotional capital. Lauren Luke is the so-called YouTube phenomenon who is currently touring the US, promoting her range of cosmetics, with Sephora. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that one eye-liner is pretty much the same as another. Nor would she claim to have particular expertise in applying the stuff. People are buying her range, because of her story, and her endearing appeal, as we see in this clip. It's one of those genuine single mother overcomes adversity stories we all love. In Lauren's case, the state of her wealth is going to be directly related to her ability to retain that well of emotional capital, so let's hope she doesn't let it all go to her head.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Do Believe The Hype (on High Tech High)

2010-01-15T01:56:00.001Z

I'm currently in California, having visited the High Tech High schools in San Diego. I've written about the High Tech High philosophy before, as have my colleagues at the Innovation Unit. But it's easy to be radical in theory, less so in practice.So, to actually see the work at first-hand, and to see the quality of teaching and learning taking place, was a privilege.

In point of fact, when you see how it all works, it doesn't seem radical at all. Just common sense, and how all schools should perhaps be. There's a dismissal of all the usual protocols often seen in schools which are deemed essential in order to maintain 'respect' (no one demanding to be called 'sir' or 'Mr', kids chewing gum, no school uniforms, no obvious formalities at all). Students were treated like responsible adults, and so behaved accordingly. I was told just to wander around and ask any student what they were doing. Actually, I didn't need to – students were openly, and happily sharing their work with me, despite the fact that they get around 2,000 visitors per year. I saw no indications of the usual barging and bumping which you see in every other school, and was told that bullying is almost unheard of.

High Tech High doesn't feel like a school at all. There are no classrooms, just work-spaces where projects get done. I saw lots of small groups of students working without any supervision and didn't see a single one who wasn't 'on task'. Engagement was everywhere. Work was everywhere – on the walls, in the halls, hanging from the ceiling. And it's work of the highest quality. Very high expectations are placed on these students, and there's a presentation/performance aspect to most things they do. Even higher expectations are placed on staff however: everyone works to a rolling, 12-month contract and 'letting go' of staff is not uncommon if the school directors feel the students work is not as expected. Because the quality of the teaching is directly connected to the quality of the output. Coming from running a performing arts school background, I can entirely see the connection – a poor pefrormance was usually because the students hadn't been directed well, or they'd been placed in roles which were either unsuited to, or beyond their current capabilities.

The biggest reservation most people have about project and enquiry-based learning, is how the requisite knowledge can be sure to be covered. At High Tech High, this appears to the result of careful planning, expert coaching and an attention to detail which is apparent in this project that I've chosen at random from their website. Take a good look inside the project's construction, and make sure you click on 'pool hall challenge'.

High Tech High have an 'open source' approach- pretty much all their IP is on the website. It's an incredible resource, yet it still doesn't tell the full story of how they've done it there. Someone needs tell the full story of HTH, because I really believe it's a replicable model. I'm going back there next week, so I'll post further on it.

Happy Christmas, One and All!

2009-12-23T16:28:00.000Z

I'm now closing down for the holiday. By this time tomorrow we'll be sipping sherry in Portugal (assuming the airport and motorway is open). I hope you have a peaceful, relaxing Christmas, and I'll be back in the New Year. In the meantime I leave you with the continually gob-smacking PS22 choir delivering a seasonal tearjerker.

When Your All Isn't Enough

2009-12-23T16:12:00.000Z

The newly-appointed coach of Scotland's football team, Craig Levein, told the assembled media yesterday that he couldn't want the job 'any more than 100%'. Craig, Craig, have you not been watching X-Factor then? Any fool listening to Cole & Cowell knows that real commitment starts at about 150%, occasionally rising to a whopping I'd-kill-me-granny 1000% .

Come on, Craig, admit it: if you're only on 100% desire, you can't really be arsed, can you?

A Virtuous Circle of High Expectation

2009-12-19T11:34:00.002Z

As internet sensations go, I'm ashamed to say I caught up with the PS22 choir rather late in the day. Having spent a lot more time than I should have looking at their videos on YouTube. I'm reminded of something Larry Rosenstock (CEO of High Tech High school) said recently - that you can judge the effectiveness of a teacher by the work their students put out. These elementary school kids from New York defy what is considered possible with a junior choir. I've seen so many school choirs in England where the kids just sing in unison because the teacher has determined that part-singing (i.e. using harmonies) is beyond them.

This fantastic teacher, Gregg Breinberg, doesn't allow anything to compromise his expectations - not the 75%+ free school-meals, or having students with special educational needs, or English as a second language. He's not only got them to sing with quality tone and precision, but with such emotion. I could have picked any clip, they're all great, but this one is remarkable, because Gregg claims, on their YouTube channel, that they learned it in one sitting. Oh yeah, that's the other thing that works - he doesn't do the usual stock choral repertoire, he picks songs that are current and relevant to his kids. This one's by Bjork:

11.5m hits, performing for Obama, Beyonce and all over US television stations - these kids deserve every bit of attention they're getting. But their teacher deserves even more, because every year he loses half of them, and has to do it all over again. However, the kids coming through can't wait to get in to the chorus, because it's a virtuous circle of high expectation.

'Managing' Innovation

2009-12-16T16:26:00.003Z

I was in a meeting this week and found myself invoking Google's approach to innovation – or at least my take on it, and wondering if this approach could work in the public sector, in this instance schools involved in the Learning Futures programme, but I think it's pertinent in a far wider context.

The challenge for programmes like Learning Futures – which is supporting and observing a wide range of innovations, which are themselves made up of 'sub' innovations – is 'how do you know what's going to work, and therefore target support and scrutiny toward it? Of course, the difficult answer is that you rarely can be sure what's going to work, and even less rarely can you be sure of which of the 'sub' innovations is making the difference.

Clay Shirky has identified the inverse dynamic – from 'edit then publish', to 'publish then edit' – which the internet has fostered. So we increasingly see companies putting stuff out there, watch what gains traction, and then focus energies, and revisions, on those. I was was in a band whose record company invoked a slight variation on this: they called it, rather blatantly, the 'Shit Against The Wall Principle' (i.e. if you throw enough shit , a.k.a. artists, against the wall some of it will stick). But when development costs rise, that tactic begins to look a little foolhardy, as many ex-labels can now testify.

When you're trying to innovate in the public sector, development costs can be significantly higher than in internet start-ups, so caution is needed, but I still think that editing-then-publishing isn't the way to foster an innovative culture. Which is where Google come in. They've created a culture whereby 'everything is in beta': ideas, projects, and products are never 'finished'. Instead they're reviewed, critiqued, amended and improved. Continuously. Publicly. The point at which their ideas embark on a very public quality improvement cycle gets earlier and earlier. They do so because they believe that the more eyes, and hands, are involved, the quicker it gets to the point of acceptance by the public. People engaged in the process accept that mistakes will happen, bugs, crashes are inevitable, but it's actually quite empowering to be a part of that improvement. (though only a mug thinks Windows 7 was their idea....).

When these two strategies are adopted in the public sector the whole dynamic can change: far from being thought of as 'guinea pigs' students get what you're trying to do. The thing they tried in science wasn't quite what they wanted, but they're willing to work with teachers to show them how it can be improved. Those that are managing this process, have therefore to consider some of the Google ethics too (as found in this book):

make mistakes well
be honest
be transparent
collaborate
remember life is a beta

and, of course,

don't be evil

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

The Future (of Schooling) is Already Here

2009-12-12T10:51:00.002Z

....but as William Gibson famously said 'it's just not evenly distributed well. This is one of those weeks when I realise how lucky I am to do what I do (actually I realise this most weeks). I have spent the week traveling across England, visiting schools, talking to students, teachers and researchers about how we can change the 20th century version of schooling.

Take today: I was at an event at the Institute of Education, led by Prof. Michael Fielding (who I love to bits, because of his strong sense of the moral purpose of schooling). Michael has recently co-authored a report 'Developing Student-Led Reviews' which looks at innovative practice in primary secondary and special schools in promoting a widespread, inclusive form of 'student voice'. We had a great presentation from Wroxham Primary School, where governance decisions are made with primary schoolkids, not on their behalf (via circle group meetings); where students work in mixed ability groups and choose the 'degree of difficulty' of given tasks (they soon realise there's no point in choosing the easiest level); where kids lead their own yearly review of their learning, based upon their own report of how well they've done, and what they need to work on. Remember this is a primary school. Really inspiring stuff.

Or earlier this week: I saw newly graduated students from Noadswood School mentoring students about to take their history GCSEs. The teacher who has set this up rewards the student mentors with vouchers to be spent in local shops, but you can see that helping younger students is its own reward. And the response from the younger students is quantifiably different to the common teacher-student interaction. Much less formal, and generally more open.

I've visited three schools across a range of social contexts: from really challenging inner-city, to more affluent rural. All three are making all kinds of changes to how they teach and learn, and who does the teaching and learning - they're confident their student's exam results will improve as a result, but I don't think that's the driving force.

If there were any common messages coming from the schools I've visited this week they would be:
1. Most innovations taking place in education today are about inching schools toward becoming more democratic learning communities
2. If you listen to, and trust your students, they won't let you down.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

It's That Time of The Decade......

2009-12-08T23:40:00.001Z

There's a very interesting retrospective in today's Education Guardian. entitled 'The Noughties in Education'. It presents two very different perspectives. Polly Curtis provides an admirably succinct summary of 10 years of government education policy, whilst Fiona Millar looks at whether we've a fairer system than we had in 2000. The header for the pieces begs a somewhat irrelevant question: 'do we end the decade with a better, fairer education system than when it began?' I may be wrong, but there's not much point in the system being fairer, if it's no better. Curtis suggests that Alistair Campbell's pronouncement that 'the day of the bog-standard comp is over' is now being picked up in Conservative plans for wider choice and greater variety of school governance. She also points out that though we've already seen some diversification, 'rather than radical new teaching styles, a trend towards a more traditional education has emerged: rigorous approaches to behaviour, the rise of the uniform, increasing setting in schools and thorough testing'.

In other words, more choice but less innovation. Why has this happened?

Well, league tables, and the significant distortion in pedagogy that occurs for those on the wrong end of the accountability framework, doesn't help. I was visiting a school today under such pressures. They've bravely decided to resist the temptation to drill and skill and teach to the test, and are genuinely trying to make learning more engaging for their students, but feel they need three years to see the effects in exam results. That's about 18 months too long in today's climate. Much the same pressure is being seen in US schools, where 'turnaround' is urgent.

'Turning schools around' can be done to a formula, (including stricter behaviour codes and new uniforms) and exam results will improve, but after that, what next? Are students going to be self-sufficient, adaptable, learners? Are they going to see learning as a thing of joy, or a chore?

And this goes to the heart of Fiona Millar's piece. As she says. 'the process of judging success is still bedevilled by the lack of clarity....about what our education system is for.' Currently, it would seem that our system places universal literacy and numeracy at the top of the list of policy priorities. Rightly so, in my opinion, though we're having to go about it in a way which is likely to drive a love of words and numbers out of those becoming literate and numerate. But, after that, we seem to value, as the number two goal of schooling , our students knowing just enough to pass enough exams, to get into higher education. In a week where the so-called lifetime 'earnings gap', between those who have had a university education and those who have not, is now estimated to be only £100,000 (a quarter of what was previously believed - that's about three grand a year spread across a working life) shouldn't we be thinking a little more progressively than this?

The path we've been on for the past decade has brought about improved exam results, but it hasn't done much for levelling out the disparity in social mobility, nor has it kept pace with most of our international competitors. Countries like Finland and Sweden have shown that you can achieve high performance with a different set of priorities. For these countries, the Es matter: enjoyment, empowerment, equality and engagement. That's what they mean by 'better'.

Can we really talk about 'fairer' whilst we disagree about 'better'?

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

My Vision of School

2009-12-05T15:49:00.001Z

I came across these extracts from an assignment set to students at the Science Leadership Academy (SLA). SLA is a High School in Philadelphia which opened in 2006. Students were asked to present their vision of school, following the high-profile education speech given by President Obama in October. The thoughtful responses to this challenge does these kids great credit. Where one might have expected knee-jerk responses, their views are considered, balanced and sensible. In many ways, they are covering similar territory - and reaching very similar conclusions - to the students from the Harris Academies, taking part in the Learning Futures programme.

Why are we so afraid to ask kids to design their preferred learning environment? Why do we always assume that they won't take such a task seriously, or that they'll come up with unrealistic plans?

Perhaps, it's just the company I keep, but these days I increasingly get the sense that we already know what the core ingredients of great schooling should look like: small sizes (300-400); inquiry/project based learning, which is relevant, responsive to students interests and the world they're inheriting; assessment which recognises skills as much as knowledge; opportunities to learn in local communities and businesses; collaborative, mentored, constructivist learning approaches and democratically run governance. Spectacularly successful examples of schools based on these principles exist in the UK and all over the world. Yet it seems like policy makers and the media aren't even willing to consider their own visions of schooling, beyond the parameters of the literacy/numeracy/testing clamps. Any sense of urgency in radically redesigning schooling gets swamped by a fear of straying too far from the experiences we all had (and most of us hated, by the way) when we were at school.

So it's heartening to see SLA's young principal, Chris Lehman in full, passionate, flow in this video clip!

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Getting Engaged

2009-11-29T16:42:00.001Z

I've been doing a lot of work (and writing) lately on engagement. Student Engagement is seen by most educators as the holy grail to improving student achievement - learning can't really happen without it.

Whilst the past decade has seen an overall improvement in standards, more recently the upwards performance trend has stalled. And it's widely felt that the tough accountability framework, which has been at the centre of all UK policy initiatives, has largely served to exacerbate disengagement. Whilst the current 'template' approach to teaching and learning (3-stage lesson plans et al) works well for some students, for others it has made lessons predictable and boring. Increasing numbers are voting with their feet, becoming truants and NEETs (not in Employment, Education or Training). Today's student is also acutely aware of the contrast between the learning environment of the classroom (where copying from the board is still the most regularly reported task, according to students^¹) and their media-rich, socially-networked learning lives outside school.

I'm currently writing a pamphlet on Engagement for the Learning Futures programme - it should be out early in the New Year. You can get hold of it by going to the Learning Futures website and signing up for the newsletter.

1Ipsos MORI Survey of Secondary School Pupils, 2007

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

We Are The People.....

2009-11-24T21:16:00.002Z

Here's a good reason for buying the Guardian this Saturday 28th November (as if you needed one). Given away free with the paper will be a DVD of probably the first serious feature-length movie about education in decades. It's the product of a collaboration between Lord David Puttnam (ex-film producer and now one of the most knowledgeable men in education since his change of career) and Sir Michael Barber.
I haven't personally seen it yet, of course, but the trailer promises a serious 'inconvenient truth' applied to education. And David Puttnam is integrity personified. The PR company promoting the film state: Lord Puttnam) : ' "We need to provide all of our young people with an education that motivates them to learn, and enables them to discover what they are good at. ‘We Are The People We’ve Been Waiting For’ is intended to act as nothing less than a wake-up call.”

By exploring some of the more innovative approaches to education around the world, the film offers a glimpse of the future. It shows how much more flexible, exciting and engaging learning could be for young people - and how our education system could support them in identifying and making the most of their individual talents.'

So, expect a no-punches-pulled, but highly informed, and passionate advocacy of radical reform in education. And if you're not living in the UK, you can see the movie, from next week, at its website.

--

'We Seek Engagement': Larry Rosenstock on What Makes Great Learning

2009-11-24T19:54:00.001Z

'Why does parental anxiety about Maths peak around 8th or 9th grade?' 'Do you really need to know how to subtract polynomials?' 'Who's responsible for 2,000 kids in a High School? Somewhere between everybody and nobody'

How many great ideas about schooling can you fit into 10 minutes?

Click the video and find out for yourself.

Larry Rosnestock, CEO of the High Tech High Charter Schools in San Diego County, was special guest at the 2nd National Event for Learning Futures schools and their Headteachers. He talks, at great speed (it really is worth playing this a couple of times), about his own background, the founding philosophies and some of the challenges facing the education system in trying to remain relevant in the 21st century. This is a 10 minute edit of a 90 minute session - more clips will be posted up on the Learning Futures website in due course.

</object>

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Never Trust A Futurologist....

2009-11-23T14:33:00.001Z

The Huffington Post recently linked to Karl Fisch's though-provoking 'Did You Know?' presentation. I first saw this a couple of years ago, but it's now been updated to try to keep up with exponentiality (Is that a contradiction in terms? Is it even a word?

Whatever, once you've seen it, the inevitable (if somewhat cynical) conclusion could be: if someone tells you how it's going to look in the future, they don't know what they're talking about.....

</object>

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Has The Time Come For Experimental Models of Schooling?

2009-11-23T12:24:00.001Z

There was a typically thoughtful/outspoken feature by Matthew Taylor in the Times Education Supplement last week. The piece was trailing the launch of 'Whole Education' the new (and somewhat obtuse) name for the Education Alliance formed by some UK charitable trusts and foundations. The piece claims that 'new battle lines are being drawn in anticipation of the election of a Conservative government, with a campaign planned to defend “progressive” education in the face of a predicted “back to basics” onslaught'. It feels as though Matthew has been mounting a one-man campaign warning of the dangers of an in-coming Conservative schools strategy for some time now. I've referred earlier to some of the more 'traditional' pronouncements by Tory Shadow Education leader, Michael Gove, so it seems as though there is a clear 'battle' to be fought.

But what's this? It doesn't look to be as clear-cut as progressives v traditionalists: An unnamed Tory spokesperson repllying, said: “We’ve said for three years that people like Matthew Taylor who want to set up new schools with experimental curricula should be campaigning for a Conservative victory because, unlike Ed Balls, we would not just let him do it but fund him to do it under our ‘Swedish schools’ policy.” (There's a thought - why not borrow someone else's education policies?) Is there a shift taking place in Conservative thinking which might present their direction as innovative rather than primitive?

It's becoming terribly confusing - education was one of the few areas where there seemed to be some clear blue water between to the two major parties. All of a sudden, experimental schooling models and innovation are de rigeur (it's not that long ago that they were outlawed on the 'guinea pig' principle).

Elsewhere in the TES, it's rumoured that Ed Balls is inching his way towards scrapping high-stakes national testing at the end of primary schooling. So, could it be that both sides are acknowledging that the 'progressives' could soon be pushing at an open door? And if so, could we learn from what seems to be working elsewhere, and find a way of bringing parents into the conversation?

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

What Does It Profit A Man?

2009-11-19T10:36:00.002Z

It was written all over his face at the final whistle. Thierry Henry knew that he'd done a bad thing. For me, it was a bit like finding out there was no Father Christmas. I've always been a great admirer of Henry. For my money, he's been the most talented player in the world for much of the past 10 years. And he's always struck me as a man of integrity. But I suspect that, not only will fans all around Europe turn against him, but even his own countrymen might find it hard to revere him in quite the same way. The French people have always had a strong sense of fair play, and they can't be happy this morning.

Henry, according to this morning's L'Equipe is passing the responsibility to the officials, admitting that the ball hit his hand (it looked more like he was juggling with it from where I was sitting...) but that he's not the referee. Well, perhaps.

But we not only remember the great acts of sportsmanship (think Paulo di Canio, Jack Nicklaus), we measure a man by the company he keeps. Thierry Henry - should he do a quick Google this morning - will see that he's in bed with Maradona. Not a pleasant thought.
Give me the moral victory of the Irish any day.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Tunis Symposium on Advocacy in Music Education

2009-11-18T13:28:00.001Z

This photograph was taken shortly before the fight broke out at the World Music Forum, held in Tunis recently. And for once I was the peacemaker. Academics are not known for getting fiery, but this was a particularly lively session, kicked off by a provocation by Wayne Bowman challenging the blurring between education advocacy and education philosophy. It sounds a bit esoteric, but I think it's not. Here's an extract from the presentation Wayne made - I believe you could substitute almost any 'subject' in place of music:

"The advocate generally assumes and argues that things like music and music education are unconditionally good. But philosophical inquiry shows pretty unequivocally that musical engagements are not unconditionally good: they may harm as well as heal, subvert as well as advance the goals of education. Involvement in music does not automatically lead to desirable educational outcomes, and indeed, I would argue that the need for advocacy often arises precisely because of failure to deliver the discernible, functional benefits for which the music education profession exists. It becomes necessary to advocate when people cannot discern the tangible benefits of music making and music study; when they cannot see clearly how education makes students’ current and future lives clearly better; when they do not experience music as a vital cultural force. Both the validity and the persuasiveness of advocacy arguments depend upon particular musical and instructional practices—and ultimately upon the actions of specific individuals working in very diverse situations. I believe, therefore, that advocacy for music education should be undertaken judiciously, and locally, by the people responsible for delivering the goods. Far too often, advocacy claims are remote from what educators are actually attempting to do, “on the ground.” And all too often advocacy claims sound like last gasp efforts to defend instructional practices that have simply failed to keep pace with social and musical change."

There's a great deal of advocacy that takes place in arts education in North America - largely because they're always the first things to go when the curriculum or budgets get squeezed. But rarely do people advocate for changing the education on offer. As Wayne says some pedagogic practices are just not valued by kids - but there's an inherent conservatism comes over those who are seen as the flagbearers: teachers and parents. This gets writ large when an entire school is threatened with closure. Parents - who detested their own experience at the threatened school - will mobilise en masse to 'save our school'. Not change it, just save it.

But I'd argue that advocacy that's about arguing for change can be the most effective of all - that's what I think we were able to do with Musical Futures. We still defended kid's rights to access music education, but it had to be a better, and more relevant experience.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

Status Quo Dressed Up As Radical Innovation

2009-11-17T17:02:00.001Z

Does anyone have a clue what this woman is blathering on about?

Western Classical Orchestras 'reinventing' themselves is always an interesting proposition. Bless.

Posted via email from etc : education, technology and culture

An aspiration and an inspiration

2009-11-15T19:05:00.001Z

The Learning Futures project held its second National Event this week, in London. Each of our partner schools attended, together with their Head Teacher, and we shared stories, data and experiences after 8 weeks of implementing their learning innovations, as part of the programme.

Two months in can quite often be a wobbly time, when you're trying to do something out of the norm, in teaching and learning. It's often entirely natural to question oneself, and wonder whether you're doing the right thing. So, it was immensely reassuring this week to hear from the man who is CEO of possibly the best schools in the world. Larry Rosenstock talks fast. We gave him two hours - what he packed into that time was equivalent to a week-end masterclass. Most importantly, without knowing too much about our common project themes he highlighted all of them as being cornerstones of High Tech High's success: Enquiry/Project Based Learning forms almost the entirety of their curriculum; Mentoring & Coaching is fundamental to student support; Expanding the Locations and Partners for Learning enables all of the learning to be authentic, and students and staff Co-Construct the learning throughout the place.

Their results are spectacular: almost every student graduates and enters college, even though their intake is mixed across all social classes and abilities. Such results have attracted some pretty big hitters too. Bill Gates has been a regular visitor in recent years and, for him, High-Tech-High proves that 'you can work hard and have fun at the same time'.

The philosophy of the school is neatly summed up in this interview with Larry:

It's clear that H-T-H encourage students to have the highest aspiriations, and Larry is unrepentant in judging the quality of the teacher by the quality of the work student's produce. So no 'laissez-faire' attitudes tolerated here. But, like, the schools taking part in Learning Futures, the pedagogy starts from an acknowledgment that nothing can be taught to students, only they can learn. And they do that best when they're engaged. Finding, in High Tech High, an exemplar of what we are describing as the 'four P's' of engagement (hands-on learning which is placed, principled, purposeful and prolonged) has reaffirmed the faith our schools have in their students.

I'd urge you to visit the digital commons on the High Tech High website - I'm confident you'll find it as inspiring an experience as listening to Larry Rosenstock was this week.

A Bleaker Outlook for Graduates

2009-11-04T23:02:00.001Z

Yesterday's Guardian newspaper reports a 44% increase in graduate unemployment during the past 12 months. This is, perhaps, to be expected in an economic downturn, but it's nevertheless worrying, especially for those students who have applied, in record numbers, to go to university this year.

Why would more young people opt for a course of action which seems to be increasingly likely to result in disappointment? My own guess is that, at a time of great uncertainty, they simply don't know what else to do - and that's never a good reason to choose a course of study.

As I've said in an earlier post, with the exponential growth in Knowledge Process Outsourcing, we're likely to see a fall in demand for highly skilled 'knowledge workers', since it's now cheaper and easier to outsource the kinds of tasks graduates used to do, to doctorates in India, Brazil or China. So, the position is likely to get more gloomy. Some of the biggest falls are in the hitherto 'safe' financial and business sectors. We still delude ourselves into thinking that expanding the number of university graduates is the only way to make us competitive in the global 'knowledge economy'. Wouldn't it be better to equally value alternatives to higher education, which might foster the kinds of skills and creative talent which the rest of the world continues to envy?

The Blame Game

2009-11-04T22:25:00.002Z

I've had a cutting hanging around in my jeans for weeks. I was just about to wash them, but decided to share it with you, just before it goes in the wash, metaphorically and literally. I do so because, to me, it symbolises the mood of the nation at the moment: we just want someone to blame for all the crap we're having to endure. Personally, as someone who has great cause to thank the NHS for its response to my sudden, and serious, health problems, I don't feel anything like as recriminatory, but maybe I'm just a middle-class softie.

Anyway, the said cutting is the lead letter to the Independent newspaper, from early September. It's cheerfully headed 'It's not just the NHS - nothing works in this country'. Its author tells the saga of a house move gone wrong (though in the scheme of things, I don't think it warrants 'lead letter' status).

Insurance company Saga apparently messed up insuring the new house and car (significant senior moments, I guess); then the electricity company denied the existence of their house. Don't get him/her started on the Post Office - they couldn't cope, apparently, with redirecting mail (though we've just had a seamless re-direction to our new house) and then the final straw: inaccurate water bills!

But it's the final para which ties all of these apparent frustrations together in one succinct analysis:
'In my humble opinion the problems arise from too much reliance on computers and the fact that the majority of people are not interested in doing their job properly. What does that tell us about our educational (sic) system?'

Who'd be a teacher, eh?

Don't Ask The Questions...

2009-10-31T18:44:00.003Z

.... if you don't want to know the answers.

Yesterday saw the UK government dismiss their chief adviser on drug policy, for having the temerity to offer his considered advice that a welter of evidence suggests that ecstacy and cannabis are less harmful than alcohol. It seems like nothing more than a case of shooting the messenger. Professor David Nutt and his committee have been undertaking independent academic research for years. Why? Because this government have always argued the case for 'evidence-based' policy formulation.

The ensuing row, currently taking place, is full of opinions about which drug causes the more harm, and therefore which should be re-classified. This misses the point.

You don't hire your own experts and then fire them for giving you advice you don't like. Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith states 'experts advise and governments make decisions'. Quite so. But at least, be honest enough to say that, on this occasion, you're going to put other prio
rities ahead of evidence-based policy making (like not scaring off the tabloids).

Gordon Brown comes out of this particularly badly. Prof Nutt is quoted as saying, "until Gordon Brown took office there has never been a recommendation about drug classification from the council that has been rejected by government. Gordon Brown comes into office and soon after that he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal... it has to be a Class B drug. He has made his mind up."

We've seen much the same happening in recent years in education. The Rose Primary review was free to investigate any aspect of the elementary school provision - with the exception of standardised tests (which, as Jim Rose, pointed out, was the ever-present elephant in the room).

There is much talk about other academics, currently advising government departments, resigning in protest at the decision, and you can hardly blame them - most of them do this work for no remuneration. When New Labour first came to power, Tony Blair said the had no time for ideology - he was only interested in what worked. That desire, to let evidence drive policy, has long since been crowded out by an increasingly desperate desire to cling on to power.

A 'Need To Know' Basis?

2009-10-29T23:04:00.004Z

I'm taking part, in a couple of weeks, in a conference organised by the Innovation Unit and Guardian Innovation in Education'. The Innovation Unit are key partners in the Learning Futures project that I'm leading, so I'm confident it'll be a good'un. There's a great list of speakers that I'm looking forward to hearing, none more than David (Lord) Puttnam who, in my book, epitomises integrity. And he's always challenging. This time he'll be talking about 'the opportunities in a future that is knowledge based and the skills required to remain competitive in the 21st century.'

I've written elsewhere on the challenge our economy faces from the outsourcing of knowledge, and there's no getting away from the fact that we're probably never going to be able to compete with the emerging powerhouses of knowledge workers in India and China. This might be one good reason why we should place a little less emphasis upon knowing dates of famous battles, or quadratic equations - we're never going to get to use that stuff in our working lives, besides, knowledge workers from the East are considerably cheaper to employ than having our own.

But there’s a further, more radical, position which challenges the conventional view of knowledge acquisition in the 21st century. It goes to the heart of how we construct curricula, how we teach, and it goes like this: in 10 years time we won’t have to go and find knowledge – it’ll come and find us. The kind of powerful sophisticated search patterns that makes Google ads so effective can, potentially at least, be turned to what we need to know, when we need to know it. Roger Schank, from the Institute of Learning has some interesting - and provocative - things to say on this:

“The computers we have today are capable of understanding your needs and finding just the right (previously archived and indexed) wise man (or woman) to tell you a story, just when you need it, that will help you think something out. Some work needs to be done to make this happen of course.”

Roger Schank, Institute for Learning Studies, 2009

But not too much work, I'd suggest. Google are well on the way to digitising most of the best of what has been thought and written, and they'll find a way to bring it to our attention.Which begs the question, what's most important in both what we teach and the way we teach it? Acquiring 'knowledge' (facts, figures and theoretical constructs) or developing skills (how to turn what is 'known' into useful services, products and new ideas)?

And what happens to all that knowledge we acquire in our school careers anyway? Fr Guido Sarducci has spoken eloquently about this, so I'll leave the last word to his holiness:

IMC Music Awards, October 18th 2009

2009-10-21T18:00:00.000+01:00

As I said in an earlier blog, it's invariably the people that you meet at events such as the World Forum on Music, that make the trip worthwhile, rather than the often too-formal presentations. Two such people were among a number of project leaders who received an inaugural award from the International Music Council for outstanding work. In both cases they show that music education occasionally operates in highly political contexts, requiring dogged persistence, absolute belief in the cause and not a little courage.

FREEMUSE is an independent international organisation which advocates freedom of expression for musicians and composers worldwide. It produces excellent reports on music censorship around the world, and campaigns on behalf of musicians who have been affected by the imposition of censorship - many facing jail or even death. Ole Reitov collected the award, and in his speech pointed out that censorship is far more widespread than we imagine. As a timely for instance, I tried to download some YouTube videos for my presentation while here and realised that the Tunisian government has blocked YouTube. However most of Freemuse's campaigns are more personal and urgent than that - go to their website and sign the petition to support singer Lapiro de Mbanga who was jailed for three years and handed a massive fine by the Cameroon government.

I met Dr Ahmad Sarmast on my first night here, and was immediately impressed by his modesty and wisdom. Ahmad has, almost singlehandedly, established Afghanistan's first National Institute of Music (ANIM), against all kinds of odds most of us couldn't imagine. He told me that the BBC had quite erroneously stated that he'd received death threats from the Taliban in a feature they ran making him, in Dr Sarmast's words, 'not previously a target, but now I am'. The institute is committed to providing a dynamic, challenging and safe learning environment for all students regardless of gender, ethnicity or social circumstances. They reserve a considerable number of places for orphans and street working kids so that, as their website puts it, they can 'help them attain a vocation that will allow them to reach their full potential, while contributing to their emotional healing'.

If nothing else, meeting people like Ahmad and Ole reminds you that we don't know we're born, in the UK music education scene. We're not exactly putting our lives at risk for the sake of wider access, are we?

The Elephants and the Fleas

2009-10-19T14:35:00.004+01:00

I'm writing this from Tunis, where I'm speaking tomorrow as part of the World Music Forum of the International Music Council. As ever with these things, it's the people you meet, rather than the quality of the presentations, that provides the incentive to attend. Nevertheless, there have been some really interesting presentations. This morning's discussion was around the ongoing dismantling of the music industry, thanks to digitisation.

Though not overly stated, it seems to me that the underlying driver behind this issue (and many others on the agenda) is the need to democratise the way music is produced, distributed, promoted, sold and taught. I chaired the session on the changes in the music industry two years ago, in China, and it struck me again today who quickly the picture is changing. Only two years ago, the notion of a business model based upon subscription was seen by some as futurist pie-in-the-sky. But since then we've had Spotify, and a host of subscription services appearing. What was clear, listening to the experts, is that no-one really knows where the industry's structure, and sustainable business models will end up. When the dust settles, however, the inexorable rise in digital sales (60% of all music sold is now downloaded in South Korea) will inevitably lead to an increasing number of routes from artist to audience. It seems obvious that the small independent organisations are the Fleas in this scenario - the 'majors' (Sony, Universal BMG and the like) are the Elephants, and they're facing a very difficult future. The Fleas are nimble and clearly leading the way on innovation, while the Elephants lumber on, futilely trying to control a market which has long since got away. The Fleas are often driven by a sense of fairness in a business which has traditional been characterised as distinctly unfair.

Manfred Lippe used to cajole the Elephant, as Managing Director of Warner Music in Germany and Austria. He came out of retirement to be a partner in Rebeat.com. In his talk, he described Rebeat as a one-stop shop service for the unsigned artist or band. By downloading their software - and signing a one-year, per track agreement - Rebeat will get the artist's songs into over 300 online outlets, including iTunes, Napster and AOL, and handle the remuneration which the artists receive, taking 15% for themselves, with the remaining 85% going to the artist. It's not that long ago that major artists like Paul McCartney were hailed for signing with companies on double figure royalty percentages. My own band, in the dark ages of the 1970's received 8%! What's amazing is that the software reduces the whole process of getting your music to market, which used to require a phalanx of lawyers and Artist and Repertoire staff, to filling out a few forms, and hitting the enter button.

Rebeat seems to offer a DIY solution to bands that don't want the hassle of setting up their direct sales websites with a convenient, and above all, equitable, solution. They're growing fast too, with 100,000 tracks on their site. Of course, the majors would say that just getting your stuff out there is not going to create revenue; that their job is about promoting your music to the right audience.

But with so many artists benefiting from social media marketing, and the more direct link with potential audiences it implies, that function too is becoming redundant for the many bands and artists who may not want to be the next Coldplay, but just want a fair and decent reward for their work.

During one of the breaks I spoke with an Australian indie, who believed that the majors have been quietly buying up equity in on-line distribution services (like Spotify, apparently, and for a pittance). They know that they're not going to be able to survive much longer by selling the product (there's only so much downsizing you can do) but by owning the 'pipes'down which it's sent.

They do say that Elephants are the only animals that can forsee their own death.

What about the parents?

2009-10-10T00:25:00.001+01:00

I was leading a couple of seminars a week or so ago at the excellent CAPE UK conference and the issue arose - as it inevitably does at these affairs - of how to get parents more engaged in the process of their child's learning. There's usually an uncomfortable silence at this point, in my experience, and we make a few platitudinous comments, before moving on.

I got to thinking afterwards that what we need at this point in the education debate, is some Starbucks input. Let me explain.

Whenever people are asked what makes a perfect cup of coffee, they always list the same qualities: robust aroma, strong taste, with a long finish. But when they're at home in their kitchens, the coffee they make for themselves is invariably weak and milky. Starbuck's genius lay in making it socially acceptable to ask for a weak, milky coffee - the ubiquitous latte.

It seems like the language parents use when talk turns to the kind of schooling they want for their kids is similar to those coffee surveys. They talk about good inspection results, league table placings and firm discipline. But I can't believe that they don't also want to see their kids happy, and excited about their learning, feeling safe and optimistic about their futures.

The problem is that this is the equivalent of weak, milky coffee - parents simply don't yet have the vocabulary to talk about these aspirations in a public forum, so they resort to the language of 'accountability' and 'standards'.

So, every time we sit in these conferences and look at our shoes when the question of parental voice comes up, we should ask ourselves why we're still conducting our discussions in the language of administrators, and not creating a language of learning which could engage the people who matter most - the parents of the children we teach.

Wave of the Future?

2009-10-01T20:52:00.002+01:00

Actually, forget the question mark. If you haven't yet picked up on Google's latest innovation, Google Wave, you're missing out on what I believe is a truly ground-breaking moment. Communicating will never be the same again, and, for once, the internet frenzy is probably justified.

It's really hard to describe what Wave can do, partly because it's going to be the release of the protocol to open-source developers which makes it so unpredictable. But imagine all your work and social functions (emailing, sharing and editing files, fixing meetings, video conferencing, and lots more) brought together in one place, where real time communications happens, regardless of language barriers (check out the Rosy translation robot) in a multi-user format, then you've got a tiny glimpse of what Wave will be about. But you have to view it through the iPhone Apps lens too, since the connectivity, and simplicity of that technology, is being brought into Wave. What we've seen is impressive enough, but once crowdsourcing and collaboration kicks in, the results will be amazing.

Last night, Google issued 100,000 invitations to people to preview Wave, and they were gone in minutes. People are selling them on Ebay, but it will spread virally, so you should be able to get your hands on it soon enough.

But the really mind-blowing thing is when you start to think how educators could use this stuff. Imagine a student in Sheffield being paired with a student in Bangladesh. They can complete their joint homework assignment, and not have to worry about spelling corrections (sorry, traditionalists, Wave fixes your spelling as you go), language barriers, or speed of communication. They can video conference each other, bring in experts into their collaboration, and publish through any number of social networking formats - all at no cost, and in real time.

If you wanted to know what web 3.0 is going to look like, and education 3.0, this is it.

In Safe Hands

2009-09-26T22:35:00.001+01:00

I gave a speech last night at the Harris Academies Conference for their newly qualified teachers (NQTs).There are now 9 Harris Academies (all sponsored by Lord Harris) based in the generally deprived parts of South London, and their impressive exam results have grabbed the attentions of both main political parties in the UK.

It would have been easy to do the big motivational number, but there's no pretending that entering the teaching profession is a cushy gig, in the current climate. So, I spoke about the roles that we might expect teachers to fulfill in the future - Imparter of Knowledge, Guide and Personal Search Engine - all in the context of the the shifting skill demands our economic futures will provoke. It wasn't quite as heavy as it sounds!

The conversation we had afterward gives you nothing but hope for the future of the teaching profession. These are young people who, despite the excessive constraints that have dogged innovators in education for the past 10 years, are passionate about changing life-chances, and full of ideas about how to make teaching and learning more relevant.

I suggested that the latest research argues that the biggest factor in transforming life-chances - especially for kids in socially deprived areas - might not be academic achievement, but rather the development of emotional intelligence and non-cognitive skills. This is perhaps not in line with the prevailing wisdom, but we often forget that we're there to help the person develop and grow - not just improve their SAT scores.

Judging by the quality of the questions and comments after the speech, it's clear that we've got some great new blood coming into teaching.

Consitutional Maxims

2009-09-24T23:02:00.005+01:00

One of my educational failures was a year long day release class which I attended many years ago, in 'Constitutional Administration'. This was designed to stop me from becoming, officially, The-UK's-Most-Inept-Civil-Servant. Ever.

Whilst generally interested in politics, I managed to fail the exam comfortably and retain my title. In fact the ONLY thing I remember from that period were a couple of maxims that our lecturer insisted were as perpetually unchangeable as time itself. One of them was 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts, absolutely'.

I remembered this one when the British MPs 'expenses scandal' was at it's vitriolic height.

But I couldn't for the life of me remember the other one, until I read about an attempt at people power in Harrow. Harrow's 200,000 residents were asked to decide whether their current executive structure should remain, or that it should be replaced by a directly elected mayor, plus executive, to govern.

They received one response.

Oh yeah, that was it: 'The people get the government they deserve'.

Unbelievable.

Are We Engaged Yet?

2009-09-20T00:50:00.001+01:00

Through the Learning Futures programme, we've been looking at the concept of student engagement. This is a pretty hot topic right now, as governments in the over-developed world increasingly acknowledge that a standards-driven agenda appears to have run out of steam. The only way to further improve achievement (it would appear) is to stop doing education to kids, and start getting them to be fully engaged in how the curriculum is designed and how the teaching and learning happens.

Better late than never, I guess.

Anyway, after two decades of a relentless focus on achievement, to the abandonment of interest, has created a 'done to' model of engagement. This brief powerpoint presentation attempts to outline a different way of defining engagement.

These are very much ideas in progress so PLEASE leave comments!

Welcome to Teaching........

2009-09-16T17:33:00.001+01:00

I'm currently preparing for a talk I'm giving next week to an audience of newly-qualified teachers, who will by now be 3-4 weeks into their new vocation. What does one say to a bunch of souls entering one of the toughest, but noblest, of professions?

The easy thing is to be cynical - successive governments have consistently denigrated teachers, whilst at the same time giving them more and more to do beyond the national curriculum. Obesity epidemic? Give it to the schools to sort out. Anti-social behaviour? Blame the schools.

No, cynicism does nothing for morale. But it's pointless being all 'Mr Chips' about it, either. Few trainees have any illusions about life in the classrooms they're about to enter full-time.

I left my local grammar school when I was 16. I hated almost all of it, and swore, as I walked away, that I would never set foot in a school again. Even though I worked in adult, community and higher education for many years, I kept my promise. In fact, it was many years later that I eventually stepped back into a school - at my first parent's evening for my eldest son. It was clear to me that he was as miserable as I'd been all those years ago.

Seeing how little had changed made me want to do something about it, and so (admittedly some years later) I ended up working with secondary schools for most of my consultancy work. I used to think I was unusual in having this motivation. It turns out, however, that most of the outstanding teachers I meet are in their jobs for the same personal reasons: they didn't have happy school experiences themselves, and now want to try to make it better for today's kids.

In spite of the pressures and the low regard, this is a good time, I think, to be a teacher with passion and purpose. There's more freedom in how to do the job than we've seen for many years, and our schools are being physically transformed, making them much nicer environments to work in.

The NQTs I meet next week will have my highest admiration - if, as a nation, we're to compete against the burgeoning Asian empires, we need to have people with passion and purpose to get teaching and learning out of the 19th century, and into the 21st.

Pick On Someone Your Own Size.......

2009-09-14T23:39:00.001+01:00

Another interesting article from the excellent Charlie Brooker in today's Guardian newspaper, highlighting the connection between the Damien Hirst - Cartrain spat, which, I confess, I hadn't come across, and the recent government threat to take away internet access to illegal downloaders.

Cartrain - a teenage graffiti artist of no apparent wealth - had used an image from Hirst's ludicrously expensive diamond-crusted skull (titled for the Love of Money, sorry, God), and incorporated it into a work which he then sold online. Hirst insisted that the Copyright agency should confiscate Cartrain's works. So, Cartrain wandered into the Tate where Hirst's Pharmacy installation (pictured above) was showing and 'borrowed' a box of pencils from the piece, which he offered to return, once he got his works back. The worth of the box of pencils is, according to Hirst's lawyers, half-a-million quid. I could have sworn I saw the same box for about £3 in Ryman's. Apparently, police arrested Cartrain's dad on suspicion of 'harbouring pencils'.........

Brooker's point is that getting heavy with teenagers who might be on the fringes of legality - whether you're a famous artist, or a government minister acting as the music industry's paid thug, is not only guaranteed to make you look stupid, but it's also counter-productive. Goliath = big bully; David = folk-hero.

Labour's Lord Mandleson's threat to 'cut-off' persistent illegal downloaders is also pointless and unworkable. As Brooker observes:
"I guess the powers that be could pressurise local service providers, but if they start cutting off broadband connections willy-nilly, neighbourhood Wi-Fi "theft" will skyrocket. And how do you stop people using iPhones and other mobile internet devices? Smash their fingers with rocks? Position snipers on rooftops?"

David always gets more support than Goliath. This government could do with all the support they can muster, and though Hirst might not be bothered about popular opinion while he's awash with money, there'll come a time when he may well be. Well done, Charlie, for deflating their shared, ridiculous arrogance.

Those Crazy Scientists......

2009-09-08T23:41:00.000+01:00

More from the World's Science Festival. After today's Guardian article about the 'geeky stereotype' of scientists, look at this lot boogie-ing down with a dancing parrot....

I have absolutely no idea what any of this has to do with science, but I know I've played with drummers who had less rhythm than that bird.