If you read only one book on education, read this one: Francis Gilbert’s preface to ‘Learning Matters’

New cover with new typeIt is my firm belief this passionate polemic is one of the most important investigations into education published in the last twenty years. Why? There are two reasons:

First, Roger Titcombe really shows you more clearly than anyone else where things have gone wrong in schools.

Second, he offers genuine, practical solutions to the problems.

This is a book both about the tragedy of millions of lives scarred by educational failure, but it also offers genuine hope: it is both a rigorously researched polemic and a guide.

There are a number of things that make Roger Titcombe’s polemical guide so unique. It is written by a teacher but it is not exclusively for teachers, although, I am sure, many will find it essential reading. It combines gritty, no-nonsense analysis with powerful personal stories that show beyond doubt that a toxic cocktail of factors have poisoned our school system.

There have been many books which have outlined the problems of our system but very few have brought together so many disparate elements into a coherent whole: Titcombe’s scope is huge. He not only analyses our school system, but he shows us how children learn, how we think, how free markets work, how marketised education is linked to social disorder and how successive governments have implemented policies that have stopped learning happening in our schools.

It’s worth here going through Titcombe’s central arguments because once you’ve got the “big picture” of what he’s saying, you’ll better appreciate the masterful way he marshals his arguments and evidence.

Throughout the book Titcombe illustrates with a number of powerful examples why our examination system, school league tables and competition between schools since the late 1980s has caused a catastrophic change in the way our pupils are taught. Put bluntly, our schools are making students stupider. This isn’t primarily our teachers’ fault but the fault of a system which encourages students to learn in a very superficial fashion. Instead of learning deeply, students are drilled to pass exams and pretty much forget everything they’ve learnt after they’ve taken them.

What is exceptional about this book is the evidence Titcombe provides to back up his points. This is no woolly liberal diatribe against exams-per-se because Titcombe argues if used sensibly exams can be a powerful tool for helping students learn in a “deep fashion”. Throughout the book, Titcombe refers to Cognitive Ability Tests or CATs for short (a form of IQ test widely used for school admissions) because they are the most reliable measure we have of students’ current cognitive ability levels. You don’t have to be a fully paid-up believer in IQ tests to agree with Titcombe’s points. Personally, I think IQ tests are not always a reliable test of intelligence in individual cases but the general picture they paint is tremendously powerful: they are a much more reliable indicator of the state of intellectual development of a pupil than most external exams, like the SATs tests administered in the UK at the moment. Most serious educationalists would accept Titcombe’s diagnosis: we have a school system at the moment that is very poor at getting children to master the challenging concepts needed to become more intelligent. Titcombe believes that intelligence is plastic: it can be increased or inhibited by the nature of schooling. Sadly, we have the worst of both worlds. We have students who pass their exams with flying colours and think they’re really clever (when they’re not) and a lot of students who have failed their exams and think they’re really stupid (when they’re not). Read this book, and learn just how inane our current exam system is: it makes for damning, chilling reading.

Many commentators – both on the left and right — have said similar things to this but not many (none I would dare to say) have joined the dots in the way that Titcombe has: Learning Matters is superb at tying together many disparate threads. Titcombe manages to show that the shift from a locally accountable school system to one which is both very centralised and market-driven has meant that many schools have chucked “deep learning” out of the window in favour of “quick fixes” to get good exam results. He points out how all of us have been affected by this change: the way we’re taught has wrought an insidious, hidden change in the way we relate to each other as human beings. We have become a society which not only has a social underclass but a “cognitive” one as well. This has made us more dependent in our lives on consumerism, achieving status through spending our money on things instead of relating to each other in meaningful ways.

This is a very brave book because it will alienate people both on the left and right. Many people on the left may have serious problems with the way Titcombe suggests that poorer communities have become dumber, while those on the right won’t like his eviscerating attack on the way a market-driven school system has eroded educational standards. It is a fearless book: Titcombe goes where no serious educational commentator has dared to tread.

Read it and weep, but also note its message of hope. Titcombe shows that it wouldn’t take that much to change things. He welcomes some of the changes recent government has made to the examination system but says that they need to go further. He points out that every teacher could defy the current predilection for superficial learning and modify their practice to teach “deep learning”. I know I’ve changed the way I teach as a result of reading this book.

By Francis Gilbert

Posted in Blogs, Reviews of 'Learning Matters', Why you must read this book | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When is a skill not a skill?

Answer: when it’s a general cognitive ability.

In the behaviourist ideology of the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) that is increasingly dominating the English school system through the expansion of Academies and Free Schools, the validity of general cognitive ability (intelligence) is denied. What is taught to school pupils is considered to be ‘facts’ and ‘skills’. The assumption is that there is nothing that cannot be learned through the behaviourist methods of instruction and remembering facilitated by disciplined silent listening, lots of practise with similar examples and regular testing, all incentivised through formal regimes of rewards and punishments.

The increasing domination of this ideology can be seen from this recent report in ‘i News’

“Just 3 per cent of teenagers believe problem solving skills and creativity are essential attributes to have on their CVs, according to an in-depth survey into young people’s views of work. Only a fraction more, 4 per cent, believe leadership and social skills are vital for the workplace, while 5 per cent chose self-confidence and the ability to work in a team. The study comes just weeks after the CBI published its annual education and skills report, which revealed that 40 per cent of businesses are not satisfied by the level of problem solving skills among school leavers.”

The ‘i News’ article is illustrated by a picture of a Rubik Cube, implying that solving this classic 3D puzzle is a ‘problem solving skill’. It certainly is a skill, but is it ‘problem solving’ in any general sense? I know it is a skill because my grandson can do it within a minute. There are a number of algorithms (instructions in sequential steps) for achieving this and you can find them from Google. But this is not a general problem solving ability in the sense lamented by the CBI as lacking in our school leavers. A problem solving ability is a characteristic of general intelligence. Unlike solving a Rubik Cube, for which the skill is specific to Rubik Cubes, the cognitive level needed to solve a novel problem is transferable to all problems.

Someone with such an ability will have a high IQ and someone lacking it will have a lower one. What the CBI is really lamenting is that our school system is failing to raise the general intelligence of our school leavers. The truth is worse than that: such general intelligence is in fact in decline – The ‘Anti-Flynn effect’.

The cause of this cognitive decline is the spread of GERM ideology throughout the English education system.

The vector for this contagion is marketisation through the promotion of Academy and Free Schools.

The indicator of the presence of the contagion is denial that conceptualisation is a key feature of deep learning and its replacement by ‘skills training’ on a ‘vocational training’ model.

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has shown that the GERM methods are ineffective and that approaches based on the conscious development of personal concepts (metacognition) and their sharing with peers as well as with the teacher are highly effective.

The difference between concept-based developmental learning and the instruction-based GERM methods are stark. Classrooms where effective developmental learning is taking place will be characterised by lots of enthusiasm and talk. See this example of such an approach that is readily transferable to school-based learning.  See also this description of science teaching that shows how the development of understanding needs much more than the rote learning of facts imparted by the teacher.

The cover illustration of my book, ‘Learning Matters’ shows pupils sitting in rows silently listening to their teacher, who is standing in front of the class. One pupil is passing a note to another, “Do you get it coz I don’t ?”.

‘Getting it’ is the objective of deep, developmental learning and is best achieved as a social process where ‘not getting it’ can be freely disclosed and the barriers to understanding discussed between peers as well as with the teacher.

‘Getting it’, is also a phrase that is applied to the appreciation of jokes. All parents will know that very young children often ‘do not get’ the jokes they still delight in having remembered. I strongly suspect a Piagetian developmental explanation for this. Could it be that children need to have developed their cognition from the ‘pre-operational’ to the ‘concrete operational’ stage before they ‘get’ jokes?

I don’t think this is trivial. Can young children be trained to ‘get’ jokes? Is ‘getting’ jokes a skill or a cognitive developmental issue? I am sure it is the latter. I will conclude with this profound quote from Vygotsky.

As we know from investigations of concept formation, a concept is more than the sum of certain associative bonds formed by memory, more than a mere mental habit; it is a genuine and complex act of thought that cannot be taught by drilling, but can only be accomplished when the child’s mental development has itself reached the requisite level.

Posted in Blogs, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The ‘attainment gap’ still misunderstood

This is the latest example from a BBC report of 3 August.

“The very poorest children in England have fallen even further behind their non-disadvantaged classmates since 2007, research says. The Education Policy Institute study suggests the most disadvantaged pupils are more than two years behind their classmates when they sit their GCSEs. These children were those entitled to free school meals for 80% of their time at secondary school. The Education Secretary has warned of a social mobility emergency. And in a recent speech, Justine Greening highlighted some areas of the country with an “entrenched disadvantage” – where low skills and poor employment were found in a downward spiral alongside underachieving schools.

 The EPI report Closing the Gap? acknowledged the disadvantage gap had been entrenched in the education system for generations and that successive governments had tried to tackle it.”

This last paragraph is true and it is sad that the repeated failure of successive governments to, ‘close the gap’ has not led to a more fundamental examination of the issue, which involves asking deeper questions about the nature of ‘the gap’. I have written about this many times.

There is indeed a gap. It is a cognitive ability (general intelligence) gap. It is not one that be closed because of the fact of natural variation, which is precisely described by the statistical normal distribution (bell curve).

For example, measured on the UK IQ  scale (UK mean = 100), the mean Singapore IQ is 9 points higher (73rd percentile). This means that only 27 per cent of the UK population have an IQ equal to or greater than that of the average Singaporean. However, the IQ population profile of Singapore has the same bell curve pattern as that of the UK. The difference is that while the mean UK IQ is 100, the mean Singapore IQ on the same scale is 109. The whole Singapore bell curve is shifted upwards on the IQ scale while maintaining the same mathematical form.

Is this important? Of course it is. It means that on average Singaporeans are brighter than Brits and explains why Singapore tops the PISA international school pupil performance ratings. It also means that school pupils with attainment at the low levels that concern the Education Policy Institute and Justine Greening are thinner on the ground in Singapore than they are in England. Does this mean that the Singaporean school system is better than that of those in the UK? Not necessarily. When the international PISA test results are adjusted to take account of mean national IQs, then both Singapore and England come out badly. I explain and discuss the implications of this here and here.

So what is the real reason for the ‘gap’ reported by the EPI? The answer is simple. The ‘gap’ is an attainment gap (GCSE performance). But GCSE attainment is driven by cognitive ability. How do we know that? Firstly, from the common experience of teachers all over the world that some school pupils are brighter than others and that other things being equal (eg quality of schooling), brighter pupils do better in academic attainment tests than less bright pupils.

Secondly, we have the hard statistical evidence. In the 1990s the Cumbria LEA purchased ‘Cognitive Ability Tests’ (CATs) from NfER and all Y7 pupils in its secondary schools took these tests. This included my headship school. The results were used by the LEA to drive extra funding for schools on the basis of the number of pupils in each school whose CATs scores fell below a designated level. This was the ‘non-statutory SEN allowance’ for Cumbria schools. Throughout my headship I sat on the LEA head’s committee that managed the taking of the tests and the Cumbria system of non-statutory SEN funding. Several clear patterns emerged from the Cumbria wide CATs data.

The first was that in general its schools tended to perform at GCSE in accordance with their mean intake CATs scores. Each year the LEA used this information to plot a chart that recorded GCSE performance against mean Y7 CATs score for every school and a regression line was produced. This identified the schools above the regression line (good performers) and those below it (poor performers).

The second pattern was the vast range in the mean intake CATs scores of Cumbria schools. My school had the lowest (score 85, 16th percentile), but despite this we were always well above the regression line. The Cumbria school performance ‘league table’ based on this intake cognitive ability mediated basis was quite different to that of the government’s published School Performance Tables..

The third pattern was that each school’s GCSE performance was inversely related to the school’s Socio-Economic Status (SES) data, of which Free School Meals eligibility  was a good proxy. In other words there was indeed  an ‘attainment gap’ between FSM pupils and the rest, however in general all pupils, FSM and otherwise performed according to the CATs score regardless of parental affluence.

The fundamental reason for the ‘attainment gap’ is that pupils from poorer backgrounds tend to have lower cognitive abilities. This is why the ‘attainment gap’ persists despite all the government initiatives, ‘zero tolerance of failure’, head sackings, school closures and Academisation and Free School promotions. None of these have worked because they are remedies for an incorrect diagnosis of the problem. They are the educational equivalent of ‘blood letting’, where the response of doctors to failure of the patient to respond was to take more blood, ultimately ending in death. The analogy with the education policies of New Labour and Conservative governments is apposite.

Some years ago I wrote an article for the Guardian newspaper that addressed this issue, but the then education editor would not publish it unless I removed any suggestion that poorer pupils were on average less cognitively able than more affluent ones, despite this being a fact readily verifiable by GL Assessment who now market the CATs, and every school and Multi Academy Trust that uses them, usually to drive ‘fair banding’ admissions policies. The London Borough of Hackney, in which all the pupils have been taking CATs in Y6 for many years, also has the data that show this relationship. Part 4 of my book, ‘Learning Matters‘, contains a case study of the implications of Mossbourne Community Academy’s CATs driven banded admissions policy for its curriculum and GCSE results. Mossbourne, The (Hackney) Learning Trust and GL Assessment all assisted in this work, which has been shared with them. None have ever challenged its conclusions.

The relationship between poverty and cognitive ability has been known to heads and governors of secondary schools for decades, which is why after the 1988 Education Reform Act compelled all schools to compete on the basis of the raw aggregated attainment of their pupils, those schools that had powers over their admissions policies (Academies and Religious Schools) were increasingly inclined to find ways of cutting down the numbers of FSM children they had to admit. The most common approach has been to vastly increase the cost of the compulsory school uniform, but many other strategies are in use. LEAs were also well aware of this relationship, which is why most tried to achieve cognitively balanced intakes by imposing catchment areas that contained a mix of affluent and poor postcodes. Academisation destroyed the ability of Local Authorities to impose catchment areas and introduced an admissions free for all. This resulted in those schools located in affluent post codes (therefore admitting fewer less bright children on the basis of proximity) got better exam results, climbed the local league table, had more Y7 applications and were therefore able to deny entry to ever greater numbers of poorer pupils that lived further from the school, so increasing the mean intake cognitive ability, therefore getting better exam results etc. etc. The exact converse happened to schools located in the heart of poor communities. This admission inequality issue was solved by the introduction of CATs driven fair banding, which was not available to LA schools, except in Hackney.

The fact that poorer postcodes tend to produce lower cognitive ability pupils is not controversial. In every society for which we have data, educational achievement is positively correlated with their parents’ level of education or with other indicators of socio-economic status. This topic is central in social science. What remains controversial is the range of speculation as to the reason for this pattern, ranging from genetic inheritance, through qualitatively different parenting, to class and ethnicity based discrimination by teachers and schools.

It is not necessary to get into any of this, because regardless of the mechanisms, the result is that better educated parents, that tend to raise more cognitively able children, are usually more successful in their careers and so can afford to live in more affluent areas. This tendency towards social stratification has grown in recent decades. I write here from my personal experience of the cognitive decline of a South Birmingham council estate.

If the foregoing is not shocking enough, it is not the worst consequence of the misunderstanding of the real nature of the ‘attainment gap’.

This arises from the general failure of the government and the increasingly  ‘business culture’ background of leaders of schools that are immersed in the ‘marketisation’ paradigm to recognise the fact of plastic intelligence and the opportunity that this provides for schools to teach in a way that increases the cognitive ability (general intelligence) of all their pupils including the most cognitively disadvantaged.

I write about the profound potential benefits of Labour’s proposed National Education Service here.

Unfortunately, in the marketised English education system, the response of the government to low attainment is to blame the schools, resulting in the sacking of heads and mass Academisation. This being the case it is no surprise that heads with lots of FSM children may be panicked into ‘quick fix’, behaviourist approaches to improving their school’s exam results. This has a theoretical underpinning from the neo-con economic movement of the US that inspired Margaret Thatcher and her ideological disciple, Tony Blair. I write about this here.

With the privatisation and marketisation of the English GCSE Examination Boards these methods can appear to work, but with the consequence of abusively severe pupil disciplinary systems and shallow ‘training based’ learning that suppresses the development of cognitive ability and fails to equip pupils for transition to cognitively demanding higher education. The consequence is an ‘Anti-Flynn’ effect of declining national IQ.

When it comes to variations in attainment between pupils it is necessary to understand not only that this cannot be reduced, but any attempt so to do makes the ‘gap’ wider (as EPI reports) and degrades the education system as a whole by robbing all pupils of all abilities of their entitlement to a cognitively development education throughout life.

The solution to unacceptably low standards is not to try to ‘close the gap’, or mathematically impossible attempts to bring the poorer achievers up to the average, but to develop the cognitive ability of all pupils at all levels in the bell curve distribution, while simultaneously addressing specific gaps in knowledge and understanding. In other words we must stop trying to deny the bell curve, or attempting to squash the ends into the middle, but lift it as a whole to higher levels for all pupils of all abilities. Slower learners may justify greater investment in aspects of their learning development to help them overcome specific cognitive hurdles, but not for the purpose of reducing the ‘gap’ between the highest and lowest achievers. This is not only doomed to fail, but its pursuit, by raising apparent attainment through the behaviourist approaches of didactic instruction backed by incentives and harsh discipline, risks damaging the cognitive development and deep learning of all pupils.

Posted in Blogs, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Labour’s National Education Service is such a powerful idea

Mellissa Benn wrote about this in a Guardian article of 18 July 2017:

There could not be a more favourable time for the development of a fresh vision for state education, one that is, in the words of one senior leader, “based on ethical service with the re-professionalisation, and trust, of teachers at its heart.” The market-driven policies of the last decade have pretty much run into the ground. Free schools and mass academisation are no longer considered the cure-all for social or educational inequality; parents are beginning to rebel against a narrow curriculum, too much testing and rogue school admissions systems; and there is unease about heads of multi-academy trusts earning two or three times more than the prime minister, while teachers’ pay has crawled up just 1%. More generally, there’s a feeling of a vacuum in authority and policymaking at the heart of government, particularly after the failure of May’s grammar school initiative.

If more support for Melissa’s argument is needed, as I write this article it has emerged that the marketisation of the English education system has brought about a huge increase in the proportion of lessons taught by unqualified teachers in our schools.

This reflects the fundamental change in teaching methods brought about by marketisation spreading to, and so corrupting Local Authority schools, as well as Academy and Free Schools. Business focused Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) are responsible for this ideology, supported by the Department for Education and uncritically condoned by OfSTED, the government’s puppet school regulator.

Academisation is the English implementation of the ‘Global Education Reform Movement‘. It results in the replacement of ‘Headteachers’ by ‘Executive Principals’ and the domination of the ‘behaviourist’ assumptions that flow from the culture of ‘training’ that MATs impose onto their schools. I am not criticising training. I want the people that drive the 125+mph trains that take me to London to be well trained. Such training requires learning the BR drivers’ handbook by heart and lots of practise in simulators.

But training is not education, ‘telling’ is not ‘teaching’ and ‘listening’ is not learning.

This is because while the memorising of facts is an essential part of learning it is not enough to secure deep understanding. The decline of teaching for deep understanding is a serious weakness in the English education system that will be worsened by the universal Academisation that the government is seeking to bring about.  The ‘Slow Education‘ movement provides further comment on this process, but perhaps the clearest exposition comes from Vygotsky.

As we know from investigations of concept formation, a concept is more than the sum of certain associative bonds formed by memory, more than a mere mental habit; it is a genuine and complex act of thought that cannot be taught by drilling, but can only be accomplished when the child’s mental development has itself reached the requisite level.

Unqualified teachers ‘delivering packages’ in the role of ‘instructors’ within the behaviourist business paradigm of ‘training’, rather than cognitively developmental education, can indeed ‘deliver’ this sort of teaching more cheaply and with less risk of ‘insurrection’ than employing university educated teachers backed by their professional associations.

A National Education Service would be about much more than schools. It would build on Harold Wilson’s legacy of the Open University and the parallel tradition of LEA provision of adult education classes in schools and FE Colleges. In the 1980s and 90s I was fortunate to teach in a Leicestershire 14-18 Community College where adult classes and mixed adult/sixth form student classes took place in the daytime as well as evenings. The OU was not the only route to higher education for adults without academic qualifications, nor was it necessarily the best given the inevitable isolation of independent study compared to the peer to peer, seminar type arrangements possible in adult education classes. I personally know of Secondary Modern educated adults that attended daytime classes at a Leicestershire 14-18 Community College, followed by a pre-university course at Charles Keene FE College in the City of Leicester, culminating in an Honours Degree at Leicester University and a professional career.

All such opportunities have been lost with the demise of Local Education Authorities.

In my headship 11-16 inner urban comprehensive school, from which I retired in 2003, we ran a full adult education programme of evening classes supported by Cumbria County Council, which school students could also attend (free of charge). Maths and English classes were popular to support their GCSE studies. We also accepted adults from the local community into our daytime school GCSE Art classes in years 10 & 11, where they worked on drawing, painting and pottery alongside our school students. All of this is now history in our state education system, where the mean, dispiriting and dulling effects of privatisation are extending far beyond the dismal Gradgrindian curriculum imposed on our young people in so many Academies and Free Schools. As for the idea of adults (not police checked) from the local community mixing with 15/16 year-olds in lessons; this would now be seen as a shocking invitation to paedophiles even though such classes were continuously supervised by an experienced teacher, and that the vast majority of our students from the age of 11 walked to and from school through the centre of a town presumably teeming with paedophiles, as thousands of school students did (and many still do) in towns and cities throughout the country.

Of fundamental importance to adult education was the philosophy of developmental education, which is characterised by the inspiring personal challenges of the related social and cognitive nature required by the developmental, rather than behaviourist, approach that I promote in all my articles and in my book ‘Learning Matters‘.

The crucial shared assumption of a National Education Service would be that developmental education is never wasted on anybody, of any age, from the cradle to the grave. This has a powerful parallel with the NHS, which has the same principle of cradle to grave entitlement to healthcare.

It is no co-incidence that our NHS is increasingly threatened by the same privatisation agenda that is wrecking the English school system.

Like Michael Shayer (Professor of Applied Psychology), James Flynn and the mainstream international academic community to which they belong, I accept the general intelligence construct ‘g’ as not only valid and meaningful, but essential in any consideration of developmental learning and the effectiveness of different approaches to bringing it about.

What may be new to both ‘g’ accepters and ‘g’ deniers is the fact that cognitive ability is plastic throughout life, even if its maximum plasticity corresponds with ‘developmental spurts’ before adulthood. Not only is intelligence not fixed at birth through genes (or anything else) neither can it be permanently limited (rather than just damaged) by poverty, poor parenting or bad schooling. This does not mean that all learners are capable of attaining the same level; the Bell Curve of natural variation always applies. The important principle is that all learners at any level can always develop their cognition and that all such development is worthwhile not only to the individuals concerned, but to society as a whole.

That is why Labour’s ‘National Education Service’ is such a powerful idea.

The pedagogy of developmentalism is founded on Piagetian epistemology and Vygotskyian approaches to teaching and learning based on metacogition and social interaction. It is all about the development of cognitive ability on the basis that this is the driver of attainment in all contexts that require understanding rather than just factual recall.

Research by the government funded Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) shows that higher ‘specific attainments in particular subjects’ are achieved as an indirect consequence of teaching for general cognitive development, than through the behaviourist ‘knowledge-based’, discipline-enforced instructional methods that are taking over the English school system through the neo-liberal Global Education Reform Movement led by Academy and Free School MATs, resulting in the destruction of public education through democratically accountable local institutions. I write about this here and here.

The problem for many on the left is that much of the international academic community that has researched cognitive development is still ignorant of the evidence for plastic intelligence and therefore remains obsessed with arguments about heritability issues. The fact that what we are born with, is far less limiting of our developmental potential than was previously thought, changes everything.

A notable example is the case of James Flynn, a ‘superstar’ of the international academic community that studies ‘intelligence’, who defined the ‘Flynn Effect’, which is the tendency for mean national IQs to increase over time in all countries with developed national education systems. The Flynn Effect is itself an obvious clue to the plasticity of intelligence. Significantly, the Flynn effect has gone into reverse in the English marketised education system and so has become an ‘anti-Flynn effect‘.

Flynn reveals his acceptance of plastic intelligence, and of developmental models of cognition in his latest book, which I review here.

Flynn writes powerfully as follows.

“my analysis gives human autonomy a potent role. Here we must distinguish between internal and external environment. You can join the book club but it is more important to fall in love with reading; you can fill your mind with trash or ponder over a chess problem or any other problem that provokes wonder.

How wonderful it is that adults enjoy autonomy throughout their lives! University students come to me and say,” I know I am not as quick as the very best but I want to improve my mind and solve problems that captivate me; is that possible?” To this the answer is “yes”.

 “I did not do well at school; will I be able to handle your introductory course in moral philosophy?” To this the answer is that you may do very well indeed: some of my best students are mature students because they work out of genuine interest. Note my assumption: that current [cognitive] environment is the key and they need not worry too much about the past environments that have handicapped them since school.”

The relevance to Labour’s National Education Service is obvious.

Further evidence for plastic intelligence and its potential for development throughout life comes from the work of David Eagleman that I write about here.

Eagleman produces fascinating evidence for the plasticity of cognition enduring not just through our youth, but into old age. Some of this evidence is from a longitudinal study of Nuns, in terms of how physical deterioration of the brain associated with dementia and confirmed through most-mortem brain analyses does not necessary match cognitive function measured prior to death. It appears to show that continuing mental challenge can result in the maintenance of high function plastic intelligence even as brain tissue is lost to age-related disease.

This suggests that although there are time windows of rapid potential cognitive development in early childhood and adolescence, all is not lost to individuals deprived of optimum cognitive stimulation at those times. I refer to this in Section C5.2 of ‘Learning Matters‘.

If Shayer and Adey are right, and I believe they are, then such developmental potential applies to all children including those born into deprived backgrounds. If a child’s brain is indeed ‘irrevocably shaped’ in the first three years of life then schooling won’t have much impact and spending a lot of taxpayer’s money on it will indeed be in vain.

This relates to my study of Mossbourne Community Academy (Part 4 of ‘Learning Matters‘). If the rejection of plasticity is correct then Mossbourne’s excellent exam results and progression to university of children from severely deprived homes (Section 4.14) shouldn’t be happening, because the ‘impaired synapse connectivity’ of early years deprivation should trump any later pedagogic intervention and limit educational attainment. A comprehensive school like Mossbourne (not run by a MAT at the time) very importantly shows that it doesn’t have to. Eagleman shows that neural plasticity has the potential to compensate for earlier impairment.

The potential for Labour’s National Education Service to dramatically improve the UK quality of life goes beyond the benefits to individuals of enhanced general intelligence, significant though they are.

There are also benefits to individual health that can not only be aggregated to the national level, but also have major implications for our economy, levels of taxation and general well being. Given that the NHS treats every ailment of every person for free out of general taxation, any connection between enhanced national IQ and health have enormous economic implications. The evidence for just such a link is overwhelming. It is not even necessary to discuss intelligence directly for the link between educational attainment and health to be clear. The conclusions of this US study undoubtedly also apply to the UK.

Socioeconomic status (SES) is usually measured by determining education, income, occupation, or a composite of these dimensions. Although education is the most commonly used measure of SES in epidemiological studies, no investigators in the United States have conducted an empirical analysis quantifying the relative impact of each separate dimension of SES on risk factors for disease. Using data on 2380 participants from the Stanford Five-City Project (85% White, non-Hispanic), we examined the independent contribution of education, income, and occupation to a set of cardiovascular disease risk factors (cigarette smoking, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol). The relationship between these SES measures and risk factors was strongest and most consistent for education, showing higher risk associated with lower levels of education. Using a forward selection model that allowed for inclusion of all three SES measures after adjustment for age and time of survey, education was the only measure that was significantly associated with the risk factors.

It is therefore reasonable to expect Labour’s National Education Service to result in a significant improvement in levels of education (and I argue, therefore mean general intelligence), so resulting in profound positive health, economic and other benefits and improvements to the quality of life of UK citizens.

The risks and social costs of dementia in our aging population currently feature at a high level in our national discourse and were a major issue in the 2017 General Election affecting the result. The following is from Alzheimer’s Research UK.

Several studies have suggested a link between mentally-stimulating leisure activities and a lower risk of dementia. Other studies have linked spending more time in education with a lower risk and research is ongoing in these areas.

This supports the conclusions of the nuns study reported by David Eagleman. It appears that while education cannot prevent the physical loss of brain tissue, it can mitigate the effects by remodelling the remaining brain tissue to make it cleverer.

The social implications of general intelligence have been most famously and comprehensively researched in the US by Herrnstein and Murray and published in their book, ‘The Bell Curve‘.

This book remains highly controversial and is dismissed and rejected by many on the left. I can understand this because the authors do not believe in ‘plastic intelligence’. They make this clear in Chapter 17. However, they are not educationalists and in this respect I believe them to be wrong. However they do recognise in the same chapter that, “Raising intelligence significantly, consistently and affordably would circumvent many of the problems [of low IQ] that we have described.

PART II is entitled ‘Cognitive classes and social behaviour’ and addresses issues relating low cognitive ability to poor outcomes in terms of poverty, schooling, unemployment, idleness, injury, family breakdown, welfare dependency, parenting, crime, civility and citizenship.

However uncomfortable the conclusions, the evidence, methodology and statistical soundness of their work is not disputed by serious academics.

Here in the UK these discomforting social patterns are often explained by the left, not in relation to cognitive ability, but in terms of class, ethnic or religious discrimination. Of course such discrimination persists, but I produce evidence to take issue with these explanations in relation to the UK ‘educational attainment gap’ here.

I will conclude with what I see as one of the most interesting and profoundly socially relevant sections of the Bell Curve research.

It is that improvements in cognitive ability result in enhanced vocational performance for jobs at all levels of cognitive demand including the most menial. This is very important to our education system where the value of providing cognitively challenging education for students at lower cognitive ability levels is still questioned.

It is the justification for 11 plus selection for grammar schools and for selection within schools into ‘vocational’ and ‘academic streams’ on the false basis that it is only worth developing the intellect of the most cognitively able. The rest are argued to be ‘more suited’ to cognitively undemanding ‘vocational training’ from the age of 14. I reject this in all my published work and am happy to cite this example from ‘The Bell Curve’.

In the following quotation a ‘busboy’ is the lowest level of employee in an American restaurant.

Being a busboy is a straightforward job. The waiter takes the orders, deals with the kitchen, and serves the food while the busboy totes the dirty dishes out to the kitchen, keeps the water glasses filled, and helps the waiter serve or clear as required. But complications arise. A busboy usually works with more than one waiter. The restaurant gets crowded. A dozen things are happening at once. The busboy is suddenly faced with queuing problems; with setting priorities. A really good busboy gets the key station cleared in the nick of time, remembering that a table of new orders near that particular station is going to be coming out of the kitchen; when he goes to the kitchen, he gets a fresh water pitcher and a fresh condiment tray to save an extra trip. He knows which waiters appreciate extra help and when they need it. The really good busboy is engaged in using his cognitive ability when he is solving the problems of his job, and the higher his cognitive ability the more quickly he comes up with the solutions and can call upon them when appropriate.

The point is one that should draw broad agreement from readers that have done menial jobs: intelligence helps.

So Labour’s National Education Service will not only raise educational standards in our schools, but will bring profound benefits to all aspects of our national life.

Posted in Blogs, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is the EEF failing to see the wood for the trees?

For many years the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), which is part funded by the Department for Education, has been evaluating approaches to teaching and learning in English schools.

“The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) is an independent charity dedicated to breaking the link between family income and educational achievement, ensuring that children and young people from all backgrounds can make the most of their talents. We aim to raise the attainment of 3-18 year-olds, particularly those facing disadvantage; develop their essential life skills; and prepare young people for the world of work and further study.

We do this by generating evidence of what works to improve teaching and learning, funding robust trials of high-potential programmes and approaches which have yet to be tested. We then support schools, nurseries and colleges across the country in using evidence so that it has the maximum possible benefit for young people. Founded by the education charity the Sutton Trust, as lead charity in partnership with Impetus Trust, the EEF received a founding grant of £125m from the Department for Education. With investment and fundraising income, the EEF intends to award as much as £200m over the 15-year life of the Foundation.”

I have no reason to doubt the quality of EEF educational research or its potential for raising standards in our schools, but it has a serious problem that is deeply embedded in its founding objective. It is dedicated to “breaking the link between family income and educational achievement.”

This is not surprising given the association with the Sutton Trust, which also bases its work on the same false assumption that such a link exists.

I explained this fallacy in the first article on my website in January 2015. This coincided with the publication of my book, ‘Learning Matters’. This false link continues to be accepted without question by the government, the mainstream education community, the Labour Party, the NUT and the media in general. The truth is that it is cognitive ability (general intelligence) that drives school attainment. For pupils with similar levels of cognitive ability there is no significant link with parental affluence. The illusory causal association is a result of the actual link between cognitive ability and parental affluence.

I discovered this initially through my experience as a Cumbria head from 1989 to 2003, when I was a member of the LEA working group on the use of cognitive ability tests (CATs) for driving additional funding in the Cumbria school funding formula. Many years later, I carried out a case study of Mossbourne Community Academy (and the Hackney Borough Education Service in general)  in relation to the role of  CATs driven banded admissions arrangements in improving GCSE attainment. This is described in detail in Part 4 of my book. If the EEF, Sutton Trust, DfE, the Labour Party, the NUT or anybody else wishes to question this then they should ask ‘The Hackney Learning Trust‘, which is the schools division of Hackney Borough Council.

The Hackney Learning Trust has full and comprehensive CATs, GCSE and FSM data going back many years. It is a fact that, on average, FSM children perform in a similar manner to other children with similar CATs scores. This is true, on average, for all children regardless of parental affluence. The illusion of the ‘affluence attainment gap’ is a result of the well established  pattern of less affluent postcodes having a disproportionate number of lower CATs score children. This too is of course, on average. All schools and admission authorities that have CATs based ‘fair banding’ admission policies have the quantitative data that demonstrates this well established relationship.

This also emerged from my Mossbourne Community Academy study, with the data set out in by book. It can be confirmed by the Hackney Learning Trust. Any experienced comprehensive school head will know that this is true. It is why schools that have the power to set their own admission policies (eg Academies, Free Schools and some religious schools) may seek to deter the children of less affluent parents, which they rightly recognise as less likely to achieve the benchmark DfE and OfSTED aggregated SATs and GCSE results, thus threatening the future of the school and the job of the head.

Before Local Management of schools, Local Education Authorities (LEAs) usually tried to achieve balanced cognitive ability school intakes by manipulating school catchment areas so that all schools admitted their ‘fair share’ of pupils from less affluent postcodes. Some LEAs tried harder than others in this regard, with no clear relationship with the political party that controlled the Education Committee.

To be clear, I am not saying that parental upbringing has no effect on school attainment, just that parental affluence has a minimal effect compared to cognitive ability. Grossly abusive parents clearly disadvantage their children in many ways including school attainment.

As I make clear in all my published work, the importance of cognitive ability/general intelligence does not mean that this is fixed through genes or upbringing. It is plastic and can be substantially developed or inhibited by good or bad schooling, as borne out EEF research.

The problem for the marketised English education system is that ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools can be poor when it comes to developing cognitive and other abilities, while schools ‘requiring improvement’ or even ‘failing’ can be much better in this regard. Sadly school ‘performance data’ now always trumps the judgement of the few experienced (former HMI) school inspectors that remain in the system.

The findings of EEF research for specific initiatives (the ‘trees’) form a coherent pattern (‘the wood’), which EEF only hints at, that supports my argument. I first wrote about this here and here.

This is especially clear from the five reports published by EEF in July 2017.

Dialogic Teaching

“Dialogic Teaching aims to improve pupil engagement and attainment by improving the quality of classroom talk. Teachers are trained in strategies that enable pupils to reason, discuss, argue and explain rather than merely respond, in order to develop higher order thinking and articulacy. The programme uses video review, print materials and in-school mentoring to support teachers’ practice across English, maths and science lessons.

This trial found consistent, positive effects in English, science and maths for all children in Year 5, equivalent to about 2 months additional progress.”

This is consistent with other EEF trials focusing on cognitively challenging talk, such as ‘Philosophy for Children’, and ‘Thinking, Doing, Talking Science’. The consistent results across subjects and the lack of any subject specific content in the training suggest that the approach may improve children’s overall thinking and learning skills rather than their knowledge in a given topic.”

This EEF conclusion is important as it recognises that the approach is not based on the learning of factual content but on stimulating and supporting the development of cognitive ability. Put simply, the pupils made more progress because the teaching and learning methods used made them cleverer. It is important to note that pupil’s confidence and performance improved in all subjects, not just the ones directly relevant to what the ‘classroom talk’ was about. This is the claim of the long-standing ‘cognitive acceleration‘ movement led by Michael Shayer and the late Philip Adey, backed by a huge amount of peer reviewed research.

Thinking, Doing, Talking Science

Thinking, Doing, Talking Science (TDTS) is a programme that aims to make science lessons in primary schools more practical, creative and challenging. Teachers are trained in a repertoire of strategies that aim to encourage pupils to use higher order thinking skills. For example, pupils are posed ‘Big Questions’, such as ‘How do you know that the earth is a sphere?’ that are used to stimulate discussion about scientific topics and the principles of scientific enquiry.”

Thinking, Doing, Talking Science appeared to have a positive impact on the attainment of pupils in science. Overall, Year 5 pupils in schools using the approach made approximately three additional months’ progress.”

This too was an initiative based not on ‘telling by the teacher and listening by the pupils’, but on the development of general cognitive ability through metacognition, pupil to pupil and pupil to teacher debate.

Success for All

Success for All (SfA) is a whole-school approach to improving literacy in primary schools. All teachers and senior leaders are involved, with the school receiving a total of 16 training and support days. Teachers receive pedagogical training – for example on effective phonics teaching – and teaching materials such as structured lesson plans. For the school leadership team there is support in areas such as data management, ability grouping and parental engagement.”

 This was completely different in nature to the previous two initiatives. It is all about the transmission of knowledge and information through learning packages ‘delivered’ in a structured manner to children in ability groups, with the whole process overseen by school management  through testing and ‘data management’. No mention of pupil talk or social interaction of any kind. Most primary teachers would recognise the mainstream current orthodoxy promoted by the DfE and enforced through OfSTED.

This trial found that Reception pupils in SFA schools made a small amount of additional progress compared to pupils in other schools after two years. The effect was slightly larger for pupils eligible for free school meals, but in both cases it was smaller than those found in previous evaluations.

EEF has no plans for a further trial of Success for All.

Challenge the gap

Challenge the Gap (CtG) is a school collaboration programme designed by Challenge Partners that aims to break the link between disadvantage and attainment. The main components of CtG are: after-school workshops drawing on published research and evidenced practice; focused in-school interventions with a selected cohort of disadvantaged pupils; cross-school collaboration and practice development; and practical tools and resources for use in schools and additional online materials.  Each school is assigned to a ‘trio’, comprising one ‘Lead’ school, which has demonstrated effective practices for reducing the attainment gap, and two ‘Accelerator’ schools, for which closing the attainment gap is a major priority. The programme lasts for a year, during which expertise is transferred from Lead to Accelerator schools. Schools initially target programme activity at a small group of disadvantaged students (12–15 in each school), with a view to rolling out the best practice more widely across the school and sharing what they have learned with new partner schools in subsequent years. The different approaches in each Lead school mean that practices vary between each trio.

The project found no evidence that Challenge the Gap (CtG) increased average attainment for either primary or secondary school pupils, overall. The security of the primary school results is low to moderate, and the security for the secondary school results is low.

The findings are different for children eligible for free school meals. FSM eligible children in CtG primary schools made 2 months’ additional progress compared to similar children in other schools, while FSM eligible children in CtG secondary schools made 2 months’ fewer progress compared to similar children in other schools. The smaller number of FSM eligible students in the trial means that these results are less secure than the overall findings

“The overall primary school findings, however, are of low to moderate security, meaning that we have limited confidence that they happened as a result of CtG. FSM findings involve fewer pupils and are likely to be less secure than the overall finding. In secondary schools there was no impact on the cohort overall, and a negative impact (also of two months) on the progress of children eligible for free school meals. This indicates that the gap might be widening in secondary schools. The secondary school results are of low security, meaning that we cannot be confident that they happened as a result of the intervention.”

The EEF findings were generally negative, especially given the relatively high cost per pupil of the intervention.

However, if there is no gap, it is hardly surprising that this initiative struggled to close it.

 Achieve Together

 “Achieve Together is an initiative devised and delivered by Teach First, Teaching Leaders and The Future Leaders Trust, to support leadership development and collaboration within schools in disadvantaged areas. Achieve Together offered subsidised leadership development training for teachers in middle and senior leadership roles, and placed graduates into schools. Beyond the programmes, Achieve Together offered a range of support to facilitate collaboration and alignment across these programmes, with participants working together on a school improvement impact initiative.

“The study provides no evidence that pupils’ GCSE outcomes improved in the participating schools, compared with a group of similar schools. While all of the schools used the individual programmes offered by the charities, approaches to the accompanying school improvement collaboration differed. Some schools were positive and teachers felt it improved their reflective practice. In other schools participants considered it resource-intensive and found it difficult to align the individual programme activities into a single project. Overall, the study provides no evidence that this version of Achieve Together is an effective way to improve GCSE results over and above any impact of the individual charity programmes.”

EEF funded this evaluation to test whether schools in disadvantaged areas would benefit from three leading education charities –Teach First, Teaching Leaders and Future Leaders – working together to improve school outcomes.”

The answer was a clear, ‘No’.

What is the reason for this failure?

Could it be that ‘Teach First’ substitutes ‘on the job training‘ in Academy Schools directed by Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), for traditional ‘teacher education‘ in an academic  university setting that includes the full study of theories of learning? In other words ‘Teach First’ could be lacking in sufficient academic understanding of how children learn. As for the other charities that have since changed their names, see this Schools Week article from which I quote as follows.

School minister Nick Gibb said the report by Ambition School Leadership “underlines the need” to focus the government’s efforts in the ‘opportunity areas’. He added: “Excellent school leadership will be vital so we welcome the work of Ambition School Leadership in training the next generation of school leaders and their focus on areas with historically low levels of social mobility.” Teaching Leaders and The Future Leaders Trust have more than 18 years’ experience of developing aspiring leaders, and between them, have trained more than 3,500 school leaders. Today’s report found that in order to stop the decline in progress, there must be an increase the number of “high-quality” leaders in the ‘opportunity areas’ and better support for those in post. Toop said his newly merged organisation could now address that need by “offering participants end-to-end development pathways covering all levels of leadership”. He added: “Our professional networks have become stronger and more diverse, delivering more peer-to-peer support.”

The jargon is familiar as is the ‘magic money tree‘ that has funded these failures. The false assumptions are not only that an ‘achievement gap’ exists, but that the problem lies with failures of ‘leadership’, implying that teachers are not being ‘effectively led’ and that the solution is a new model army of leaders without either classroom teaching experience or academic qualifications in education or how children learn, but are well versed in the 21st century business models of corporate leadership of organisations, of which schools are just another example of the failure to apply the neo-liberal principles of market capitalism.

I write about this further here.

In conclusion, I have been a bit hard on EEF. I have no reason to doubt the quality of their work. (I do have doubts about the ‘months of additional progress’ success criterion.) The EEF findings are important, as is their tentative speculation that there might be an important general pattern emerging.

“The consistent results across subjects suggest that the approach may improve children’s overall thinking and learning skills rather than subject knowledge alone. This is backed up by evidence summarised in our Teaching and Learning Toolkit that advises metacognition approaches – strategies that encourage pupils to plan, monitor and evaluate their learning – are a particularly effective way of improving results.”

Many more examples of this approach are given in Part 5 of ‘Learning Matters‘.

The EEF conclusions are all very true, and in need of stronger expression,  but no sign whatever of a change of course on the part of our Conservative government or the Trump-led education ‘reforms’ in the US, where the current behaviourist takeover of the school systems on both sides of the Atlantic, that is so damaging, had its origins.

The EEF and the Sutton Trust could have an important role in changing the ruling pedagogy of the English school system for the better, but they first need a rethink about the true nature of the ‘achievement gap’

The same applies to Jeremy Corbyn, Angela Rayner and the NUT.

I welcome comment, challenge and debate about the content and conclusions of this and my other linked articles.

Posted in Blogs, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Democracy, education and plastic intelligence

This is a long article with many links to supporting evidence. It may be better for a first read to ignore the links so as to absorb the gist before a second read that takes in the linked material.

Politics and education are inseparable and always have been. This is clear from the history of education in the UK. The expert is Derek Gillard.

A very good example, with many modern parallels, can be found in the work of the nineteenth century educationalist Richard Dawes, which is described in this article.

Universal state funded education began in the nineteenth century and its advance was vigorously opposed at every stage by conservative politicians. The reason is clear and was summarised by Jeremy Corbyn’s quotation from Shelley during his speech to thousands of young supporters and admirers at the Glastonbury Festival of June 2017.

 Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many – they are few.

 It is mass education, or rather ‘education of the masses’ that has driven the advance of democracy and the relentless extension of the right to vote, but I argue that three events in 2016 and 2017 have now focussed attention onto the nature and purpose of state education and how the subversion of democracy is being facilitated in the US and in the UK through the corruption and degradation of national education systems resulting from the ideology of neo-liberalism and marketisation. The three events in question are the EU Referendum in the UK (June 2016), The US Presidential Election (November 2016) and the UK General Election (June 2017). In all three, the forces of conservatism reduced their election campaigns to popular, repetitive, one dimensional sloganising in an attempt to exploit the lack of higher cognitive function (Kahneman’s System 2 thinking) in a large proportion of the voting population. The evidence for this is clear in the differential voting patterns related to levels of education.

Brexit

A breakdown of the EU referendum data has shown that  those with lower educational levels were much more likely to vote for Brexit. Almost half of the local authorities which counted votes provided demographic information to the BBC. Analysis showed that how people voted was ‘strongly associated’ with how far they went with formal education.

This link was higher than any other measure from the census, including age and ethnicity. I wrote about the educational implications of this pattern here.

I argue in my articles and in my book, ‘Learning Matters’  that school pedagogy should be focussed onto helping the maximum proportion of students to progress through the Piagetian concrete/formal barrier, because then they will not only be able to understand say, Newton’s Laws of Motion, and other hard stuff in other subjects, but crucially the rational arguments and principles that increasingly underpin all aspects of life in an increasingly  complex, technological society. This includes economics, which, like the scientific concepts of weight and inertia, make cognitive demands at the formal operation level.

There were two main ‘dimensions’ in the EU leave/remain election campaign.

The first was ‘immigration’, with less immigration assumed to be good, more immigration assumed to bad. This is not only easy to understand, it resonates with very deep evolutionary fears. For all but our most recent hominid history the greatest threat to survival and that of our children was from the ‘tribe over the hill’ that has a tendency to attack your tribe, kill the men and boys, carry off the women and girls into sexual slavery and plunder your assets. Racists have always played on such primitive fears, often with great success.

The contrary argument; more immigration good, less immigration bad, can also be made, but it is much more complex. It involves Piaget’s formal operational thinking, which can also be characterised as the dominance of the rational (Kahneman System 2) over the instinctive/reactive (Kahneman System 1) mind.

Then there is the second dimension: trade with Europe good, trade barriers with Europe bad. This involves complex economics and is clearly in the formal operational thinking/ Kahneman System 2 category.

Even if this is a sound argument, it has to be balanced in the mind against the immigration dimension. Immigration is like the weight of an object in your hand. It can be directly sensed. It is ‘concrete’. The economic argument is like the inertia of the object. It cannot be sensed without deeper conceptual understanding. Its existence must be reasoned by means of a formal cognitive process by applying Newtonian scientific principles. So for concrete operational thinkers ‘immigration’ will always trump ‘economics’, while for formal operational thinkers the economic arguments are likely to prevail. Hence the higher the level of education, the more likely ‘leave’ was supported over ‘remain’.

The US Presidential Election

In the US presidential election it appears that educational levels were the critical factor in the shift in the vote between 2012 and 2016.

I discuss the educational implications of this result here.

The Canadian, ‘Globe and Mail’ published an analysis of the characteristics of Trump and Clinton Voters.

They conclude as follows.

The vote laid bare a sharp divide on education. Ms. Clinton fared better among the more highly educated, winning among college graduates and holding a substantial lead among those who had done postgraduate study. Those with high school or less, as well as those with only some college, preferred Mr. Trump by large margins.

 According to Pew Research, Mr. Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree, 67 per cent to 28 per cent, is the largest since the presidential election of 1980.

The UK General Election

Before the UK General Election of June 2017, the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, had been systematically undermined by most of his own MPs and misrepresented, ridiculed and demonised by the UK media. This is from a research report by the respected London School of Economics.

The results of this study show that Jeremy Corbyn was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy. Corbyn was often denied his own voice in the reporting on him and sources that were anti-Corbyn tended to outweigh those that support him and his positions. He was also systematically treated with scorn and ridicule in both the broadsheet and tabloid press in a way that no other political leader is or has been. Even more problematic, the British press has repeatedly associated Corbyn with terrorism and positioned him as a friend of the enemies of the UK. The result has been a failure to give the newspaper reading public a fair opportunity to form their own judgements about the leader of the country’s main opposition.

It was not just the overwhelmingly Conservative supporting print media. The UK state BBC TV was also guilty as pointed out in this Guardian article.

So when Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May announced a snap General Election for 8 June 2017 it was widely assumed by the entire UK commentariat that Labour would be defeated in a landslide that would massively increase her majority and authority in the House of Commons. In the event Labour gained rather than lost seats from the Conservatives and Theresa May lost her majority in a devastating shock reversal of expectations.

The broadly accepted explanation is that Jeremy Corbyn managed to motivate a high proportion of young voters and especially university students and graduates. The age and social class profiles of the Labour voters are set out in this Guardian article.

Voters crossed party lines, challenging traditional class-party loyalties. Middle-class votes swung to Labour, which increased its share of ABC1 voters by 12 points compared with the previous general election. However more working-class voters came out for the Conservatives and the party increased its share of the C2DE voters by 12 points.

 The educational attainment profile follows the social class groups with the Conservatives attracting most of the lowest social class groups (with the lowest educational attainment).

The only thing that went wrong with the crude, populist Conservative strategy that had worked so well for the Brexiteers and for Donald Trump was that Jeremy Corbyn achieved a much higher turnout of young, better educated voters than has happened in the past.

So what have these elections to do with national education systems? I write about this here.

There are many clichés in ‘edu-speak’. A very common one is that schools should enable students to ‘reach their potential’. It implies the notion of fixed intelligence, whether conferred through genetic inheritance at birth, and/or determined by the quality of early years parenting. It is a ‘let off’ for secondary schools, enabling them to opt out of any responsibility for raising the intelligence of their pupils as they progress through the school, on the basis that this is either ‘not possible’, or not the main business of schools, which is a combination of filling heads with knowledge and providing discipline and training so as to maximise their employability.

This leads to a tacit assumption about the process of teaching and learning in schools, that conforms with that promoted by theGlobal Education Reform Movement’ (GERM) that is increasingly finding its expression in Charter Schools in the US, and in England in the Academies and Free School movement.

The converse of this notion, ‘Plastic Intelligence’, opens a door into a quite different educational paradigm that can and should empower and inspire both students and their teachers. It is increasingly being described as a ‘growth mindset.

‘Plastic Intelligence’ is explained and promoted in my book, ‘Learning Matters’, and its manifestations, in the form of a synthesis from a number of different ‘real world’ learning contexts, are described and explained here.

Plastic Intelligence really is a very big deal in the world of education because it provides the ultimate refutation of GERM.

The underlying evidence for plastic intelligence has long been recognised in the ‘Flynn Effect’, which is the well established and proven tendency for national IQs to increase in response to national education systems and the growth in complexity of modern societies.

Crucially this is no longer happening in England (and probably also in the US) as a result of the degradation of their national education systems as a result of GERM.

The internationally respected IQ specialist James Flynn, from whose work the ‘Flynn Effect’ is named, has recently written a book that discusses ‘Plastic Intelligence’. My review of his book can be found here.

The ‘Anti-Flynn’ effect is the halting, and indeed in England, the reversing of the year on year rise is national cognitive ability levels. Put crudely, the population is getting dimmer and therefore more susceptible to the simplistic  popularism of right wing election campaigns. This is discussed in my review.

Flynn himself writes as follows about the potential of plastic intelligence at all levels of education systems and for people of all ages.

“My analysis gives human autonomy a potent role. Here we must distinguish between internal and external environment. You can join the book club but it is more important to fall in love with reading; you can fill your mind with trash or ponder over a chess problem or any other problem that provokes wonder.

How wonderful it is that adults enjoy autonomy throughout their lives!

 University students come to me and say,” I know I am not as quick as the very best but I want to improve my mind and solve problems that captivate me; is that possible?” To this the answer is “yes”.

I did not do well at school; will I be able to handle your introductory course in moral philosophy?” To this the answer is that you may do very well indeed: some of my best students are mature students because they work out of genuine interest. Note my assumption: that current [cognitive] environment is the key and they need not worry too much about the past environments that have handicapped them since school.”

 Flynn’s book has a very useful summary of current theories of intelligence. In it he admits to being very influenced by Oesterdiekhoff, who he describes as, ‘the most original thinker among the continental Piagetians’.

Oesterdiekhoff links Piagetian stages to anthropology, He notes that the ‘formal operational’ stage develops only in modern societies, usually sometime between the ages of 15 and 20 and is associated with high IQ test scores. Flynn explains the Flynn effect (large gains in population IQ) mainly in terms of individuals having to come to terms with the cognitive demands of modern societies, which have steadily increased throughout industrialisation and ‘taken off’ in the last two decades of the digital revolution. The consequence is that school students and adults still at the ‘concrete operational’ (or pre-operational) level at 16 will increasingly struggle with the cognitive demands of modern life, demands of employers and with recognising rational weaknesses and ‘fake news’ in election campaigns. A ‘cognitive underclass’ is therefore in the making, all too easily taken in by the very carefully designed simplistic, populist messages of the ‘thought manipulators’ that lay behind the successful election campaigns of Brexit and Donald Trump.

The final element of my argument concerns the nature of the marketised model of education that is increasingly being inflicted onto our children by Academisation in the UK and the parallel ideological forces that spawned and exported it from the US.

Good relationships are central to deep learning and cognitive growth

Approaches  to teaching and learning that develop cognition and so improve plastic intelligence require pupils to be confronted with cognitive problems above the level at which they can solve them without assistance using their existing mental models. Teachers are now often taught never to allow children to fail to solve problems because this reinforces failure (the behaviourist model), whereas for cognitive growth children need to learn in a culture that supports and encourages learning from mistakes.

Vygotsky asserts that understanding first appears in the social space that learners share. Only then does it become internalised by individuals. The key point is that in a school the resolution of cognitive conflict in individual learners works best as a social process. The participants assist each other in grappling with the shared cognitive conflict. This is called peer to peer learning. It requires high quality social relationships in the classroom.

I was lucky enough early in my career (in the 1970s/80s) to work in a comprehensive school where such high quality relationships existed and it became a career goal to eventually achieve it in the 1990s in my headship school. Pupils have to trust each other and not fear humiliation by the teacher if they are to risk revealing the true depth of their misunderstandings.

A school culture of behaviourist authoritarianism will not provide sufficient personal psychological security for the teacher or the pupils for the necessary social interactions to ignite. Obviously nothing can be achieved where informality degenerates into anarchy and chaos reigns. Great demands are placed on the teacher, who needs the skills to be able to promote positive self-sustaining, reasoned discussion between pupils. This is very difficult to achieve and the hallmark of a good teacher, supported by like minded professional colleagues working in a school that supports such a culture.

There are regrettably a growing number of schools, led by the Academy and Free School movement, many feted by the Department for Education, where relationships between school managers and teachers, teachers and pupils and pupils with their peers are so limited in depth and quality that this type of high level learning will be impossible. If cramming and repetition, reinforced by rewards and the shame of failure, have any effect at all on individual cognition then it is cognitive depression, leading to rejection of challenging concepts, consequent alienation and the ‘Anti-Flynn’ effect.

Academy schools in England have increasingly moved away from a developmental approach focussed onto improving analytical powers of cognition, to a knowledge-based approach whereby teaching is defined as ‘telling by the teacher’ and learning is ‘listening by the student’.

 Unsurprisingly, many students react badly when, despite listening as hard as they can, they still don’t ‘get’ what the teacher is ‘on about’. See the cover of my bookThey become bored, distracted and eventually rebellious, so a regime of strict discipline backed up by sanctions is needed to maintain order.

 According to an article in the Guardian of 19 November 2013, ‘It’s around noon at a popular and successful Academy School’.

Through the glass walls of the classrooms children can be seen with their heads down over their work. Open a door and they will all jump to attention and stand silently, shirts buttoned to the top, ties neatly pulled up under pinstripe blazers. Tight discipline is something of a feature in many of the sponsored academies of north London.

 Strict dress codes, daily uniform checks and long lists of rules about the different types of detention have won praise from some parents, but others believe it has gone too far.

 At another nearby academy the behaviour policy says students are not allowed to go to the toilet between lessons or visit a local shop on the way home.

 In another London Academy there is a five-stage ‘behaviour improvement path that begins with 20-minute detentions for minor matters such as not filling in a year planner properly, or bringing the wrong equipment, and escalates to exclusion for persistent rule-breaking or more serious offences.”

 A parent is quoted, “They are all Academies around here or are run on similar lines. There’s only one school that isn’t, and it’s hugely oversubscribed. We’re being given no choice about how our children are educated. Why is it only in poor areas that children are being made to do this?”

But worse is on the way from the US in the form of replacing teachers with computers and forcing students to comply with ‘programmed learning’. It is being described euphemistically as ‘Personalised Learning‘. See this article by Matthew Bennett, and the comments to this article by Janet Downs.

These debased and degraded teaching methods are being assessed in England by a similarly debased and degraded GCSE system run by privatised exam boards that have co-evolved to make their exams ‘accessible’ to students taught this way, but lacking deep understanding or development of their general levels of cognition. So the methods may work in the short term for GCSE results for the schools that are forced to compete with each other in the English marketised education system. However, such students are likely to be ill prepared for progression to academic university studies.

The national education systems of England and the US continue to fare badly in the international PISA assessments. My analysis of the results of the latest (2015) PISA round and its update can be found here and here. I use a fresh approach validated by international academics of the highest standing. The articles need to be studied in order to grasp their scope and significance.

There is clearly very little to be positive about that is for sure. Even more depressing is that the frantic pace of ‘reform’ is to be stepped up with more testing, more Academies and Free Schools and with more selective grammar schools in England only belatedly abandoned after the Conservative’s disastrous 2017 General Election result. It would be hard to come up with proposals to make the English national education system worse.

The most important implication for the UK and US education systems is the key role of cognitive ability in driving higher attainment. This needs more of the well-proven developmental pedagogy that the ideology of marketisation is replacing with knowledge-focussed rote learning and behaviourism implemented by computer-based instruction and testing, all enforced by ever more draconian and abusive systems of harsh discipline.

 More importantly in the context of this article we are increasingly not equipping our school leavers and future adults with the cognitive abilities needed to resist the efforts of populist conservative politicians to manipulate our democracy. The Labour Party is proposing a new, ‘National Education Service’. This needs to support the potential of ‘plastic intelligence’ throughout life and will require the recognition and abandonment of the ‘Educational Lysenkoism’ that has afflicted the UK since the 1988 Education Reform Act and New Labour’s creation of independent Academy schools.

Posted in Blogs, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The failure of science education in English Schools

I was prompted to write this article by a recent telephone conversation with the complaints section of my Electricity Supply company. I won’t bore readers with the details, but if I indicate that it concerned estimated meter readings and the unilateral raising of my monthly direct debit on the basis of flawed projections of annual energy use, then it may strike a chord with many.

The issue concerned the relative significance of my actual meter readings compared with the company’s estimated ones. I finally lost all confidence when the person on the other end of the phone started referring to our electrical energy use in ‘kilowatts per hour’. When I tried to correct her it was clear she did not have a clue about the difference between ‘kilowatts’ and ‘kilowatt-hours’ (the proper unit), let alone that ‘kilowatts per hour’ is just nonsense.

This ignorance of basic science in relation to electrical energy is now widespread throughout all sections of society including in broadsheet newspapers and on the BBC. It emerges whenever electrical power generation is being discussed. For example, it is common for the ‘power’ of a new wind turbine installation to be described in ‘kilowatts per year’ in the same paragraph as a statement of the number of households whose energy needs were being met. The correct unit in each case is ‘kilowatts’ (or more likely megawatts). The error is like stating the speed of a ship in ‘knots per hour’ (1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour).

The distinction is between ‘energy’ (what the householder pays for) and ‘power’ (the rate of production of the energy). The latter rises with the number of customers and the power demands of their households/businesses.

I will return to this later, but not before registering my horror at the same misunderstanding being perpetuated and transmitted to millions of school student watchers of the 2016 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures when the presenter compared the electrical power needs of the TV studio with the number of AA batteries needed to provide it. Despite a short statement that ‘energy’ and ‘power’ were different quantities, the programme went on to seriously confuse the two in a series of further comments and energy transfer demonstrations.

Does this matter except to science ‘nerds’ like me? Of course it does. We would not tolerate being lectured on literature by an illiterate who could not string together a grammatically coherent sentence and who misspelled common words like ‘there’, their’, ‘to’, ‘too’, ‘your’, ‘you’re’ etc.

Science and maths differ from many other subjects in that they get very complicated, very quickly. Despite the assertions of popularisers like ‘Carol Vorderman’, none of it is ‘common sense’. Unlike other science popularisers,  Brian Cox to his credit gets this.

That is probably why it has fallen to science teachers like Michael Shayer and the late ‘Philip’ Adey to assert the validity of the work of Piaget and so lead the way in establishing the essential pedagogic distinction between knowledge and understanding.  Despite the necessity of the former, no amount of it guarantees the latter. As with most of my articles we are back in the territory of both Piaget and Vygotsky, whose pithy statement of the distinction between knowledge and understanding cannot be improved upon.

As we know from investigations of concept formation, a concept is more than the sum of certain associative bonds formed by memory, more than a mere mental habit; it is a genuine and complex act of thought that cannot be taught by drilling, but can only be accomplished when the child’s mental development has itself reached the requisite level.

The English education system is been consumed and corrupted by the marketisation paradigm. This has allowed the ‘behaviourist’ philosophy of the business world to infect and corrupt the ruling pedagogy of our school system.

Nothing can better illustrate the dangers than this article on Local Schools Network, together with my reply to it.

But has our education system got worse in these regards? Ask any science teacher with experience from before the marketisation-enabling 1988 Education Reform Act and they will agree with me that it has. This is what I wrote in this article.

On 21 November 2013 OfSTED published a report entitled, Maintaining curiosity: a survey into science education in schools. They found that dull teaching – accompanied by a lack of practical work in the subject – was putting pupils off the science subjects. In some schools, not enough time had been set aside in the timetable for pupils to do practical work. Girls, in particular, were likely to ditch physics – with only 11,390 going on to do it in the sixth-form in 2011 despite 159,745 getting two good GCSE passes in science. In addition, a minority of secondary schools were ‘pre-occupied with tests and examination results as ends in themselves’ rather than aiming to improve pupils’ deeper knowledge of the subject. The report points out that getting good grades in science is not necessarily the same as “getting” science.

All this is true but the principles are general and relate to all learning. Practical work is not just necessary for developing ‘practical skills’ but for promoting cognitive development that spills over into all subjects and all learning.

Have things improved since 2013? I maintain that they have not. Not only has the decline in practical work continued, but crucially the exam system has been further degraded to make higher grades ‘more accessible’ to students that lack the cognitive development necessary for deep learning and understanding.

There are also increasing problems in recruiting qualified science teachers trained/experienced in devising, planning and managing practical activities and experiments in science, along with doubts that schools may not still possess the extensive range of cleverly designed  equipment that was provided by LEAs to all schools in the 1970s following the widespread adoption of ‘Nuffield Science’, along with the ‘lab technician’ posts needed to maintain it. The consequent science education crisis is being exacerbated by allowing Academy chains to accredit qualified teacher status, when they may have little interest in encouraging science practical work. This is a serious concern given the lack of effective regulation of Academies and Academy Chains. 

This is not an argument  for special pedagogic treatment on the part of science and maths. Didactic ‘instruction’ and ‘knowledge’ dissemination on the Hirsch model, backed by the harsh discipline needed to keep students ‘on task’ while being literally bored stupid, have elbowed out interactive enquiry and peer with peer debate across the curriculum. I comment here on how Education Endowment Foundation research into effective approaches to teaching and learning is ignored by the DfE that funds the research and by the Academy and Free School Chains that the DfE promote for ideological reasons.

I started my teaching career in 1971. In 1975 I was running a science department at The Bosworth College in Leicestershire. This was then a 14-18 comprehensive Community College whose ‘progressive’ teaching methods would today be widely scorned. Students were on first name terms with teachers including the headteacher and there was no school uniform. A surge of blue denim was disgorged every day from the large number of busses that converged on the village of Desford from its huge, mainly rural catchment area. The boys’ fashion was denim jeans and denim jackets and the girls similar, but sometimes with the substitution of denim skirts. Is the scornful dismissal of the ‘progressiveness’ of the time justified? ‘Discovery’ and ‘project-based’ learning were indeed frequently shallow and insufficiently challenging. And while there were many excellent and inspirational teachers, some were undoubtedly lazy and overly politicised.

But none of this was true of the Bosworth Science Department where we ran a ‘General Science’ CSE Mode 3 course (syllabus and schemes of work designed and assessed by teachers) based on ‘Nuffield Secondary Science’. This was a practically-based course that had nothing in common with the shallow GNVQ ‘vocational scam’ introduced by the Blair government in the late 1990s that was rightly seen off by Michael Gove.

Like the other Nuffield GCE and A Level Science courses taught in the school, Bosworth College General Science adopted a scientifically rigorous approach designed to establish sound foundations and bring about the cognitive development needed to secure deep understanding of the most significant principles of science. There was no setting in the science department, but with year groups of 400+, it was mainly lower ability students that chose General Science rather than GCE courses in Biology, Chemistry and Physics. General Science was not intended as a preparation for further studies in science, but to equip students with sound levels of basic understanding and scientific literacy. The CSE was graded on a scale of 1 to 5. Grade 1 corresponded to a C grade or above at GCE and grade 5 to a GCE grade G. The CSE system defined grade 4 (GCE F) as that ‘to be expected from a student of average ability following a competently taught course of study’.

I analyse the devastating history of the inflation of GCSE grades, largely for political reasons, and in response to ‘market pressure’ in Section 1.10 of my book, ‘Learning Matters

When Bosworth College was subject to a full HMI Inspection in the late 1970s, the General Science course was described by the lead inspector as, ‘The best he had ever seen’.

In conclusion, I had better rehearse how electrical energy and power are measured.

All energy is measured in joules.

1 joule is the energy needed to lift a weight of 1 newton (eg a 100g apple) a height of 1 metre.

Power is the rate of expending/providing energy. It is measured in watts.

A power of 1 watt is when energy is expended/provided at a rate of 1 joule per second.

So watts (power) = joules/seconds and so joules(energy) = watts x seconds

These units are too small to be practical in terms of household electrical energy needs, so kilowatts are used in homes (and megawatts in power stations).

1 kilowatt = 1 kilojoule per second

So the practical unit of electrical energy that you are billed for by your energy supply company is the kilowatt-hour (kWh). This is equivalent to a 1 kW electrical appliance switched on for one hour.

Therefore 1 kilowatt hour = 3,600,000 joules (1000 watts x 3,600 seconds)

So the power of a wind turbine installation is expressed in kilowatts (or more likely megawatts).

The units of energy that your energy company bills you for are in kilowatt-hours (kWhs).

The cost of using an electrical appliances in your home can thus be worked out.

Electricity cost = (power of appliance in kW) x (hours used) x (the unit cost per kWh).

This was just a small part of our students’ comprehensive study of the principles and safe use of electrical energy in the home. Students also learned how to read the electricity meters of the time, with their small counter-rotating dials, calculate the energy use and running costs of various appliances,  wire 3-pin mains plugs (new appliances never came with plugs attached in those days) and calculate the fuse ratings needed for appliances of different power and much else besides.

If the lower ability students of a comprehensive school in the 1970s could learn all this, and delight in the practical and experimental aspects of their studies, then why are so many current school leavers and adults, not to mention the public agents of the energy supply companies, along with journalists at all levels of their profession, so woefully ignorant?

We have to assume that this criticism does not also apply to Secretaries of State for Education.

I welcome comments to my articles especially from those that disagree with me.

Posted in Blogs, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Poorer pupils less likely to get into grammars than richer classmates

This Guardian article reports research arguing for the existence of a class-based conspiracy to prevent the children of poor families getting into grammar schools. There are many very good reasons for opposing the re-introduction and expansion of grammar schools, but this is not one of them.

“High-achieving children from disadvantaged backgrounds who perform well at primary school have less chance of getting into a grammar school than their more affluent classmates who perform less well, according to new research. The study, by a team from Bristol University, Warwick University and University College London, says access to grammar schools is “highly skewed” by a child’s socio-economic background.”

The ‘Socio-Economic Status’ (SES) analysis is very thorough, but the conclusions of the study are flawed because of the assumption that KS2 SATs data provide a valid measurement of academic ability.

“Let’s look at two children – one from the poorest SES quintile and one from the least deprived SES quintile – both performing at the 80th percentile of the Key Stage 2 distribution. Despite the same level of academic attainment, our analysis shows that the most deprived pupil has only a 25% chance of attending a grammar compared to a 70% chance for the least deprived pupil.”

But children are not admitted to grammar schools on the basis of ‘academic attainment’ measured by KS2 SATs. The 11+ is an IQ test. It is designed to be a snapshot of general intelligence, which is a far better predictor of ultimate academic attainment than curriculum-specific attainment tests, of which SATs are an example.  Grammar schools have always done this because within the educationally flawed ‘fixed intelligence at birth’ paradigm, it works for them.

The 11 plus is not the only IQ test widely used in the English education system. There are also Cognitive Ability Tests (CATs). These are currently provided by GL Assessment, a commercial company that doesn’t like the CAT being described as an intelligence test. CATs are used on a large scale by many Academies and Multi-Academy Trusts as the basis of ‘Fair Banding’ admissions systems, which successfully ensure that comprehensive schools really are comprehensive in that they contain a balanced mix of pupil abilities. CATs test data produce the same social pattern as the 11 plus results, in that the lower bands are dominated by pupils from poor SES families inviting the same false conclusion that the schools that use the tests are somehow discriminating against children from ‘disadvantaged’ backgrounds.

The fact is that poor SES postcodes are characterised by a significant excess of children with lower average IQ test scores. The 11 plus and Y6 CATs are simply the evidence that this is the case.

Despite the objective truth of this relationship and its profound implications for the national education system, rarely is it admitted, let alone taken into account, even in research carried out by prestigious university institutions like Bristol, Warwick and UCL.

It is why ‘competition’ for pupils in our marketised education system has morphed under commercial institutional pressures to become competition for the most intelligent pupils, in which schools located in posh areas with higher concentrations of more intelligent pupils have an inherent league table advantage over schools in the middle of poor SES council estates, even though the quality of teaching and learning in the ‘posher’ schools may well be poorer.

These facts and their implications are discussed in Part 4 of my book, ‘Learning Matters’, which is about the success of Mossbourne Academy and the Hackney Borough secondary education system and in this article.

There are three types of relationships that secondary schools have with IQ-based admission tests.

Grammar schools – Where the tests are used to ensure that the pupils they admit are intelligent enough to succeed despite often mediocre standards of teaching and learning. There is an important secondary advantage of ‘keeping the riff-raff out’ and so re-assuring snobby parents that their children will not suffer from too close contact with lower class children. This is the real reason for expensive uniforms and rituals that have little beneficial effect on learning.

Fair-banded comprehensive schools – Where the tests are used for the opposite and educationally desirable purpose of achieving mixed ability, diverse social class/ethnicity intakes.

Neighbourhood comprehensive and secondary modern schools – Where there are no admission tests, resulting in the well established pattern that the schools in ‘posh’ areas become successfully established at the top of local school league tables and the schools in poorer areas become labelled as ‘failing’ and drift towards the bottom, in constant fear of OfSTED and academisation. If they have already been academised and fail to ‘improve’, as is likely if they fail to address the low mean cognitive ability of their pupils, they face being ‘transferred’ to whichever MAT can be persuaded and/or bribed by the DfE to take them on. Curiously in our marketised education system ideologically designed to support parental choice of schools, parents have no say in this process whatever.

It is the middle group; comprehensive schools with all ability, mixed social class/ethnicity intakes, that are best placed to successfully confront the flawed ‘fixed intelligence at birth’ paradigm and so transform the life chances of all of their pupils including those from poor communities with low intake IQ scores. This is something that the former Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, well understood even if he was wrong about so much else, including his obsessions with academisation, school uniforms and obsessive discipline.

Grammar schools recruit pupils of IQ 115+ (more than 1 SD above the mean) so there is little need for them to further develop the intelligence of their pupils in order to retain their league table superiority and social class differentiation compared to neighbouring non-selective schools. While some of the best grammar schools may be challenging their already able pupils to further develop their general cognitive levels, the popularity of selection with the parents of 11 plus successes provides no incentive to change traditions of complacently poor practice in many of these schools.

Comprehensive schools/secondary moderns in poor areas are always fighting against the market pressure of league tables and the ever present threat from OfSTED regimes driven by ‘floor targets’ and dodgy performance measures.

What is the educational solution for schools located within low SES communities?

Urban schools can move into the second category by adopting the Hackney solution of CATs driven banded admissions systems. This does not prevent the operation of the market competition, but it does place limits on the numbers of pupils that can be admitted to each ability band. For example Mossbourne Academy has four admission bands based the quartile-defining CATs scores: Band A 110+, Band B, 100 – 109, Band C 90 – 99 and Band D 89 and below. At Mossbourne there are 50 places in each band in each new Y7 intake.

The poor SES Mossbourne local community results in a large excess of applicants for Band D, while Band A can be ‘topped up’ with pupils from more affluent areas further from the school or in neighbouring Boroughs. The unsuccessful Band D applicants will find places in nearby schools operating the same LA managed system. In the absence of banded admissions Mossbourne would fill up with low SES Band D pupils that live closest to the school, with no spaces left for the more able pupils that live further away. This is what sunk Mossbourne’s predecessor, Hackney Downs School.

Under the Hackney banded admissions system all of the schools are protected from becoming low ability sink schools. Within the Borough the more popular schools can still attract a higher mean IQ admission cohort and so, other things being equal, secure ‘better’ GCSE results, but not by much, which is probably the best that that can be achieved in a marketised system.

The result has been the huge improvement in outcomes for all pupils in the Hackney secondary system. It is only possible because the Hackney Academies are far sighted enough to recognise the advantages to all of the schools of ceding their Academy-based admissions powers to the Local Authority. This is regrettably, so far a unique development.

More rural areas have schools with large natural catchments that are inherently reasonably mixed in terms of the ability/social class profile. Banded admissions would bring few advantages to such schools with the major disadvantage of unsuccessful applicants being faced with having to attend schools many miles from their homes.

Inner urban comprehensives still have to work hard to combat cultural challenges to the establishment of a mutually supportive and vibrant learning community of co-operatively assertive pupils. This article explains how this was achieved in my inner-urban headship school from 1989 until my retirement in 2003.

What is the explanation for the Bristol/Warwick/UCL study conflating KS2 SATs driven ‘academic attainment’ with IQ/cognitive ability?

Poor SES communities characterised by low average IQ children are served by primary schools that are permanently threatened with closure (and the sacking of the head) for failing to meet floor targets. Such schools can fall victim to educational snake oil salespersons that promote behaviourist, knowledge-based, abusive discipline approaches, that the Conservative Party, the DfE and Donald Trump all love.

These methods do not develop cognitive ability or much else besides Gradgrindian conformity and obedience. They may actually make children dimmer and therefore less likely to do well on IQ tests used for secondary school admissions including grammar schools. Their methods work with SATs but not CATs or other IQ tests. Hence the illusion of ‘high academic attainment’ that does not translate into passing the 11 plus. Worse still, there are now secondary Academy Chains and individual schools that use these behaviourist methods to cram pupils for GCSE, with the same claims for success. See this article and my comments to it.

In our primary and secondary schools the DfE seems determined to make the quality of teaching and learning worse and the experience of our children and their teachers even more dismal.

In summary, grammar schools do not discriminate against children from poor backgrounds. They just insist on an IQ test threshold for admissions. It has long been established that the children of well-educated parents do better at school. The CATs data show that, whether by nature, nurture or both, such parents tend to produce higher IQ children. The higher the level of parental education, the less likely are the families to live in areas characterised by poor SES. They can afford to move ‘up the housing ladder’, so they do. Therefore high IQ children will be scarcer on the ground in low SES areas resulting in the pattern observed in the research.

It was not the case in the 1960s where I grew up.

It is worth pointing out that this pattern was hugely intensified by Margaret Thatcher’s disastrous policy of selling council houses at a huge discount to tenants. Fifty years later a high proportion of these well built and roomy homes with front and rear gardens are now owned by private landlords resulting in a historically low level of home ownership. Increasingly poor and aging children are still living with their parents. We children of the 60s were launched into a high degree of independence in our late teens/early 20s to enjoy swinging Britain, free university education supported by maintenance grants (not loans) and full employment in proper pensionable jobs.

There is therefore no class-based discrimination in admissions to grammar schools, just ongoing market based corruption and degradation of the primary school curriculum combined with costly, ideologically driven fragmentation of the secondary school system that damages the opportunities of all pupils to attend inspirational schools  that prioritise the development of individual cognitive and other abilities through co-operative endeavour.

Academisation, Free Schools and now this proposed reintroduction of grammar school selection to those parts of England that are well rid of it, will just waste £millions when per-pupil funding of established and successful comprehensive schools is being drastically cut for the first time in many decades.

I set out a step by step plan to really raise both educational attainment and the mean IQ of our school leavers here. The latter is the essential prerequisite for the former and is essential if our democracy is to reject the wave of economic and political populism that is threatening all of our precious public services.

I welcome comments to all my articles including from those that disagree with me.

Posted in Blogs, Uncategorized | 2 Comments