Saturday 29 December 2018

Mind The Gap 3


This third expose of 'the Gap', comes on the back of a reply I received from the BBC's Education Correspondent, Sean Coughlan, in response to my two previous articles on this subject.
Two comments from Sean Coughlan about the inherent complexity of social mobility are developed in this latest piece. First off, he wrote, "education and university access is a proxy for lots of non-educational forms of advancement, whether social or financial."
This corresponds directly with my own view that the whole notion of education as a proxy for personal advancement has been unconsciously amplified in wider society for so long that it has become the accepted narrative. Sean makes the interesting point that if social mobility was working, as he suggests it was to a great extent in the post-war period, we wouldn't even see it. In periods of austerity or general contraction of the economy, focus on this narrative is heightened because disadvantage becomes more visible and more widespread. During economic downturns and structural adjustments, such as the current spread of AI and automation in industry, the old order is destabilised.
If such events persist over time, in looking for ways out of this socioeconomic slump, it is understandable that policy-makers turn their attention to education. It's the classic no-brainer. When, as we have done in this country, instead of exploring ways by which education can be developed to improve the quality of life for all citizens in this new landscape, instead it is seen as a means of solving the underlying problem of inequality of opportunity. Right now, we are making this very mistake at great cost to a whole generation of young people.
Since the emergence of the education market, developed under Margaret Thatcher, extended by New Labour and expanded, unchecked, to its present incarnation, under successive governments, reform of education has been seen as the primary, I would argue, only means by which socioeconomic inequality of opportunity can be resolved.
The general conclusion, that there is an obvious and inevitable causal link between low educational attainment and equality of opportunity explains the problem of social immobility. This conclusion could not be further from the truth. Social mobility requires far more than the oil of education to get things moving for the underprivileged.
On 14 December a very interesting piece was posted on the Reclaiming Schoolswebsite linking primary school testing and data collection. In it, Dr Terry Wrigley, the website's author, highlighted the problems of taking free school meals as a proxy for disadvantage, already cited in my two previous Gap articles. He agrees that in sticking with this methodology for allocating funding to tackle disadvantage, the system is set up to fail the most needy. He makes the point, "There is no such thing as a standard’ non-FSM child." Actually, the problem is that there is no such a thing as a standard child. Therefore the whole idea, so attractive to the establishment, that children can make expected progress because they comply to some standard model and that if we pull the right leavers this will happen, is nonsense. 
The second observation made by Sean Coughlan in his reply to me is summed up by the following; "we often approach education from a social policy perspective, looking for optimum collective outcomes. But of course for individuals and their families, it’s deeply competitive and about getting ahead and widening the gap, rather than seeking to close it."
The problem of social mobility is seen precisely in this perspective. When we seek 'optimum collective outcomes' in education, to try and 'solve' the Gap problem, we make a fundamental mistake that ultimately keeps us from looking elsewhere.
How might we resolve the Gap issue?
First, we need to re-define the Gap as a social mobility issue. As such, it needs to be tackled predominantly through social policy strategies. Of course, early education and then later training have their part to play in preparing our young people to participate in life as fully as they are able. But, unless we move beyond current thinking about this Gap being something that can be solved through education, it will be even longer than the decades some predict it will take to close it, as if such an outcome is achievable in the first place. Much more has to be done to raise the game with those players beyond the school and college gates.
Commentators across the globe are beginning to recognise that new technologies are likely to have a devastating impact on advanced societies that are currently ill-prepared to meet the challenges that lie ahead. In the scenarios that are being painted, naturally, education has a vital role to play. In future, social mobility and equality of opportunity will not even look as they do now. Unless governments engage with industry, commerce, researchers and educators equally, the future does not look bright, especially for the least able.
 Secondly, in education, we have to accept that we do not yet know how to factor in for IQ. But unless we deal with our reluctance to engage more open-mindedly on this vital area, we will not understand how best to develop education policy and practice. It is not sufficient to simply acknowledge that our genes contribute to our capacity to achieve. We have to research ways in which we can maximise achievement across the full range of human capacities. In light of such progress being made, we will understand that individual differences in outcomes are not solely nor predominantly caused by education. We will know that under optimum conditions, education can make the world of difference and find ways to make this happen. My colleague, Roger Titcombe, has written often and at length about this very development.
Finally, accepting the need to accommodate the fact that there is no standard child, free school meals or otherwise, we have to focus on what we know can improve the lot of young people of ALL abilities to help them maximise their potential. To clear the way for this to happen, we in education will first have to confront the perverse notion that there are set standards we should expect children to achieve uniformly. It is time to acknowledge the richness of human diversity.
At no time in the past did we have the opportunity that new technologies could afford us now to develop, celebrate and encourage individuality. Looking back at what might have worked for a majority of citizens in the past will not make such a vision become a possibility.
Posted by at No comments:

Mind The GAP 2


In my original article on this subject, ‘Mind The GAP 1’, I set out my reasons for believing the current preoccupation with closing the attainment gap cannot succeed. In this follow-up, I want to explore the mechanisms that feed the fallacy and highlight the consequences of persisting in this endeavour.
What is it that drives the Gap myth?
There is a general, mistaken consensus that social mobility can be tackled by closing the attainment gap. For the reasons pointed out in my earlier article, this idea flies in the face of the facts of human diversity. There will always be differences of ability and, whereas we can raise levels of attainment for all abilities through specific teaching strategies, differences in outcomes will always persist. As a consequence, social mobility is likely only to be marginally improved through education alone.  Social immobility is clearly influenced by education. The fact is, however, outside the strict confines of education, social mobility is complex, it goes well beyond the old adage, ‘it’s not what you know, but who you know’. Who you know, or more accurately, who you know through social connections who may already be socially positioned to confer advantage upon you, will often outweigh natural ability and hard work.
Recently, the BBC’s Sean Coughlan commented on what is probably the richest sources of fuel that keeps the gap story blazing. I am referring to access to elite university education. In quoting from the Sutton Trust’s recent report in an article titled, “Oxbridge 'over-recruits from eight schools'” he announces that “pupils from eight schools filled 1,310 Oxbridge places over three years, compared with 1,220 from 2,900 other schools.” Now what could be more socially divisive than that finding? Who would deny gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds access to the best in higher education, simply because they have not attended the ‘right schools’, or come from the right side of town? The reality is, this is the way it’s traditionally been throughout our history. This is why social hierarchies first developed and persist into the present.
In the article, Mr Coughlan reports Damian Hinds, Secretary of State for Education, as saying, "Whilst potential and talent is evenly spread, the opportunities to make the most of it sometimes aren't.” This exposes a key feature of the Gap myth, one which Roger Titcombe has tackled through one of his most influential articles.
Roger reminds his readers of how meaningless the view that potential and talent are evenly spread actually is, “The key, unavoidable conclusion is that we are a diverse nation in all manner of ways that include mean cognitive abilities related to both ethnicity and affluence. The assumption of the ‘social mobility’ establishment, that variations in educational outcomes are the consequence of differential access of a cognitively uniform population to ‘good schools’ is not supported by the evidence.”
There is, unfortunately, widespread rejection of this conclusion from both the political right and left. At the same time, getting the average academic to positively engage on this subject is more challenging than running a marathon!  Similarly, convincing the mass media that this is a burning issue that needs fair exposure seems doomed not to succeed as reporters fail to pick it up and evaluate the evidence, instead preferring to trot out the prevailing orthodoxy unchallenged.
Access to good quality education at all levels is a fundamental human right.
In the BBC report, a spokesman for the University of Cambridge welcomed the idea that "more support should be made available to students before they choose their A-level subjects and agree there should be more provision of careers advice". In the same interview, Cambridge rejected "lowering grade requirements", saying this would "place unfair pressure on students and that is something the university cannot support". The reason, though not clearly stated, is that the level of cognitive challenge required to succeed in such an environment is not accessible to all students. This is a given. However, the fact that very able students from disadvantaged backgrounds are being overlooked is not acceptable, but that is altogether another story.
The longer we persist with this strategy for improving the lot of the disadvantaged pupils through the failing marketplace of education solutions, the more we risk seeing growing numbers of our young people concluding that education isn’t for them. Social policy is the primary route to tackle social mobility. It will require joined-up thinking from leaders in the business community, politics and education but it must also address key issues such as differentials in earnings, quality of housing, more sensitive and responsive support for those most needy and a willingness to challenge tired old ideas that should have no place in a modern democracy. 
What will it mean if we do not change the narrative?
It is refreshing that the Chief HMI is prepared to highlight the dangers of the excessive testing culture in our schools, especially in the primary phase, where she condemns the narrowing of the curriculum and the coaching/cramming that is threatening the wellbeing of growing numbers of pupils. Parents, too are waking up to the fact that what is happening in our schools is NOT designed to benefit their children. They are beginning to recognise that the present culture of accountability has supplanted quality of provision in education.
By conflating social mobility with creating wider opportunities in a more socially just society, education has been damaged. It has been requisitioned in the wrong cause. Shoehorned to try to resolve that which cannot be resolved, it has been perverted in its true purpose, to broaden the horizons of children and offer them an education that better meets their disparate needs to be prepared for a fast-changing future where resilience and being able to contribute in team enterprises to solve problems will be required by everyone. The Key Stage 2 National Curriculum tests have been proven to fail on every metric. They tell primary schools nothing that they did not already know. The information they pass on to secondary schools for setting attainment and progress targets is inaccurate and unreliable, parents lack confidence in the results and worry about the pressure their children are under and in cost/benefit terms the whole enterprise is unjustifiable. In arguing for cognitive ability tests to replace SATs at the end of primary education, all these challenges can be met.
Having taken up this matter with my MP, I have been informed that the DfE has yet to respond. However, I was interested in what Jacob Rees-Mogg had to say about the proposal. “I was interested to read your latest research. In is not surprising that, if primary schools spend a significant amount of time ‘cramming’ for Key Stage 2 SATs, this may result in pupils achieving results that are not reflective of their true ability, whereas, Cognitive Ability testing, that children are not prepared for, is more likely to produce an accurate result.”
As a result of this switch, primary schools would be able to broaden the curriculum and teaching strategies designed to help children of all abilities could be promoted, thus raising the levels of attainment across the board. This approach also has the added attraction of helping prepare our young people for their role as future national wealthmakers.

Posted by at No comments:

Mind The GAP 1

The Nature of the Beast  
Have you ever thought, is narrowing the attainment gap an objective that can be realised? It's not about whether a gap exists. It certainly does. It's rather about the need to understand its true nature. It is my view that schools, politicians and academics appear unwilling to acknowledge what lies at the heart of this problem because of their profound discomfort in processing an uncomfortable truth. You might ask, why does this matter?
Imagine a physician presented with a patient suffering from hypertension, instead diagnosing it to be a case of chronic heartburn and treating it accordingly. This would be in direct contradiction to the evidence and could result in a serious deterioration in the patient’s wellbeing. It would not be an acceptable course of action. Our handling of the Gap is closely akin to this exact scenario.
In essence, we have got it wrong. I propose the problem relating to the attainment gap is not being properly diagnosed. It is a natural phenomenon, albeit one severely exacerbated by personal, social and economic factors, arising directly out of genetic differences between populations of individuals.
To be absolutely clear from the outset, our genes do not determine education outcomes, any more than they determined that Usain Bolt would turn into the incredible athlete he undoubtedly is. It was a complex combination of natural genetic endowments, environmental influences, personal motivations and among other things, an element of luck, that brought about his remarkable achievements.
These same elements combine in inextricably complex ways to make us all who we are. The outcome of the whole endeavour is unknown and unknowable from the start. Predicting the likely future state for even the most simple conscious living organism is fraught with difficulties. How much more irrelevant is such an exercise for humans?
Recently, Rebecca Allen, Professor of Education at UCL Institute of Education, published a series of three blogs entitled ‘The Pupil Premium Is Not Working’. The focus of those articles was to question the universally accepted notion that the attainment gap is closing because of policies put in place, like the Pupil Premium, to address the educational outcomes of specific individuals.
In the first of the articles the professor poses the vitally important question, “Is the idea of closing the gap the same as helping those most likely to fall behind?”
Though she does not directly offer an answer, I believe she argues throughout that these are not the same. It is my contention that the ongoing debate about policy, intended to address disadvantage and social mobility, makes a great deal of ‘closing the gap’ when there is very little evidence that this is even a meaningful endeavour. It is becoming clear, it is time to switch the focus from ‘closing the gap’ to actually helping those most likely to fall behind.
The argument here is not that we cannot address disadvantage. There are ways of improving the lot of many who, through no fault of their own, see themselves on the outside, with fewer opportunities to improve their life chances. There are proven pedagogies that add value to the educational outcomes of pupils of all abilities. In fact, our insistence that the Gap is something for which there is a cure, adds directly to our failure to offer effective support to the most needy because or energy is being dissipated by this false premise. That we persist with this approach, at the expense of focusing on effective, targeted reforms of education, is the reason these individuals feel, indeed are, left behind. 
In developing her theme, Professor Allen regards ‘ability’ as something that determines a child’s sensitivity to methods of instruction; so the question for us should be what classroom instructional approaches help those children most at risk of falling behind, unable to make the most of their talents and abilities?
The professor emphasises the view that "paying more attention to variation in cognitive function within a class has far more value than their pupil premium status. Cognitive functions are top-down processes, initiated from the pre-frontal cortex of the brain, that are required for deliberate thought processes such as forming goals, planning ahead, carrying out a goal-directed plan, and performing effectively.”
As she points out, the greatest "inequalities in our schooling system largely emerge between children who are sitting in the same classroom." This is not to overlook the impact of social disadvantage on development and achievement. It is rather a frank acknowledgement that schools are only able to take direct action to tackle disadvantage if they focus attention on teaching and learning. Repeatedly, she makes the case, now well rehearsed in wider society, that the narrow focus of concentrating on test outcomes has taken attention away from proven ways of raising the attainment of all pupils. Even Ofsted recognises the harm done by this blinkered approach where accountability takes precedence over the quality of education.
Commenting on schools having to account for the effectiveness of the pupil premium funding, Professor Allen states, "it isn’t possible for a school to conduct the impact analysis required by DfE and Ofsted to ‘prove’ that their pupil premium strategy is working for all the usual reasons. Sample sizes in schools are usually far too small to make any meaningful inferences about the impact of expenditure, and no school ever gets to see the counterfactual (what would have happened without the money)." Her concern, and one I share, is that effort and time are devoted to the accountability exercise for very little return for the school and that confers no benefit on pupils.
Professor Allen presents a very compelling case that this way of doing things is doomed to fail. Like her, I believe our energies need to be diverted towards “constructing classrooms that give the greatest chance of success to those most likely to fall behind”. It doesn’t stop with just these pupils. In adopting this strategy, everyone benefits. This is how we can, in part, answer the question she poses. “Is the idea of closing the gap the same as helping those most likely to fall behind?”
If we adjust our understanding, as I argue here, we accept that the attainment gap cannot be closed. On the other hand we can and should do more to help those most likely to fall behind. How are we to be confident that we can identify these students? Do we stick with the idea that FSM (free school meals) selects them for us
The professor argues, like other commentators, including the Education Endowment Foundation that FSM does not identify all the most disadvantaged pupils. Using any of the national tests or assessments carried out at primary school, likewise, is not a reliable indicator. As the Chief HMI, Amanda Spielman, says in her latest announcements, the importance of league tables to schools has encouraged gaming of the system.
Replacing the Key Stage 2 SATs with cognitive ability tests for all Yr 6 pupils would release schools from the tyranny of testing at 11 and offer secondary schools a more reliable base from which to set targets for progress and attainment, if this is to remain a key objective.
Professor Allen plainly sees a role for cognitive ability testing. In discussing children from disadvantaged backgrounds she writes, "The child’s cognitive function might lead them to struggle" and they may need support at school because of this. In her advice to school managers and teachers she writes,"What matters is that they use instructional methods that give students in their class the best possible chances of success, given the variation in cognitive function they will possess." This is where the focus on cognitively developmental teaching has so much to offer.
On a related issue, recent research into the role of cognitive ability supports the general premise of this present article.
“In education research and education policy, much attention is paid to schools, curricula, and teachers, but little attention is paid to the characteristics of students. Differences in general cognitive ability (g) are often overlooked as a source of important variance among schools and in outcomes among students within schools.”
‘Using Standardised Test Scores to Include General Cognitivve Ability Intelligence in Education Research and Policy’ Jonathan Wai, Matt I. Brown and Christopher F. Chabris

More recently, Professor Allen hosted a Radio 4 Analysis programme exploring the Pupil Premium, interviewing a number of guests.
Apart from revisiting the issues raised in her three blogs, she makes an interesting observation about a comment made by Sir Kevan Collins, Chief Executive of the Education Endowment Foundation. In line with the government’s position, Sir Kevan made the case for the gap gradually closing. Clearly anticipating that eventually it will close more significantly and maybe even cease to be a problem. In sharp contrast, Professor Allen explains that our inability to measure the gap reliably is more than a passing phenomenon. There is simply no way around the issue of needing to compare like with like. Not only do the individuals qualifying for the pupil premium change over time, as do the tests and examinations administered, there is also the counterfactual to consider. How do we know that pupils would not have made more or less progress under different circumstances?  
There is another question that will not simply go away, just because it is an inconvenience for those dedicated to closing the gap through policy choices and additional funding. Professor Allen asks, “Is it possible to teach in a way that disproportionally benefits those in the classroom from disadvantaged backgrounds?” This, after all, is precisely what the creation of the pupil premium was designed to achieve and this is why the EEF was set up.
The ‘gap’ is real. However, it is not what some purport it to be. It is the product of the natural distribution of differences between individuals in a population. It is unrealistic to expect there not to be these differences. It may be inevitable that these differences exist, as they always have, but this does not translate into a situation where we simply have to accept what is. Strategies presently employed by society to narrow the gap are not effective and there is little to indicate this will change. However if we are daring enough to change the story we can drastically change the outcome.
There are alternatives to the present relentless testing and the growing excessive reliance on data. When teachers apply pedagogic practices that promote cognitive development, pupils of all abilities benefit. There are these other routes to take and there are other ways to spend the pupil premium and all school funding.
As Professor Allen points out, “When we teach children from households that are educationally disengaged there is a lot we can do to help by way of pastoral and cultural support. This costs money and monitoring test scores isn’t the right way to check this provision is appropriate." The fact is that much of the evidence from these sorts of ‘soft’ interventions is difficult to identify and therefore to quantify. That said, it should not deter schools from making such spending choices if it is in the interests of their pupils. Freedom to pursue this course should not be an issue.
What we know is that in certain carefully considered circumstances, if we are bold enough,  schools will have more time and freedom to respond to their own community of learners, free from the fear of retribution from outside agencies and free to apply solutions that are known to work. Even if they don’t result in removing the Gap, they will improve the quality of lives and educational opportunities for generations to come.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)