For example, how would you answer the question; would you rather be a seedless or "non-seedless" grapefruit? (Medicine, Cambridge). Other questions and possible answers are discussed here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/do-you-have-an-oxbridge-mind-962402.html There have been many stories about students from schools with no tradition of sending candidates to Oxbridge who have been totally thrown by such questions. However, I think this is one of the easier things to fix. All students should be forewarned that they will be tested in this way and there should be some opportunity to practice before the interview (maybe a website?). I would see this as part of a standard preparation for an Oxbridge interview where other good tips and advice should be universally available, not just the secret knowledge of elites. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4925057.ece
Monday, 3 November 2008
1) Do You Have an Oxbridge Mind?
2) ITMA
The Sutton Trust has been at it again, with 2 interesting reports and accompanying press coverage.
The first report http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/28/education-adivce found that at least half the education and careers advice young people receive is in some way inadequate. I’m sure colleagues at The Brightside Trust would agree with this finding, and with the recommendation that sound advice about subject choices is central to raising the aspirations of disadvantaged pupils. The full report entitled Increasing higher education participation amongst disadvantaged young people and schools in poor communities can be found at http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/NCEE_interim_report.pdf I was particularly interested in the finding that disadvantaged pupils who gain A levels are just as likely to go onto higher education as their peers. This would suggest to me that the important educational battleground for the immediate future should be that of increasing the numbers of students from a disadvantaged background studying for qualifications which would then qualify them for higher education. The new diplomas should be central to this, as students could begin studying for a diploma as an end in itself, but then develop an awareness of how it could be a passport into higher education as they engaged in the program. All the more disappointing then that the implementation of the diploma program has been so pedestrian and uninspired http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7668045.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/14/1419education-furthereducation1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/new-diplomas-are-a-complete-flop-960328.html For a group of people who say they are driven by ‘what works’ they seem to be peculiarly unable to learn from the history of vocational education in the UK.
Another report from the Sutton Trust
As you can see, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7663568.stm the emphasis of the press coverage was that Grammar schools take relatively fewer bright, poor pupils than schools that do not select by ability. The report is available at http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/GrammarsReviewSummary.pdf I know the Sutton Trust has a long-term interest in grammar schools but for me it was another discovery, that the vast majority of England's most socially selective state secondary schools are non-grammars, which trumped the findings about the grammars. This should pose some hard questions for the schools adjudicator, as it is congruent with government’s own survey, published in April, which showed a disproportionate number of faith schools broke admissions rules. The poll examined 106 voluntary-aided schools. Some 96 were found in breach of the new admissions code. Of these, 87 were faith schools. Overall, half of all school authorities in England have been said to be in breach of the new admissions code http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/09/schooladmissions.faithschools
3) HEFCE Speaks
A short and relatively clear statement by Kevin Whitston, head of widening participation at HEFCE, identifying what he sees as the three priorities for the coming year http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/14/accesstouniversity-highereducation1
4) Things Can Only Get Better
Government is claiming to have increased social mobility in the UK over the past few years http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7705444.stm and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/03/socialexclusion-gordonbrown-social-mobility-labour This report follows an OECD report which found that ‘The gap between rich and poor in Britain narrowed "remarkably" between 2000 and 2005” However, government has been less keen to quote the second half of the sentence “but the country remained one of the most unequal in the developed world’. I have a copy of the full report that I will put in the London Bridge library. The following article visits the main findings of the report http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/22/equality-wealth-uk-social-mobility In my opinion, the evidence for increased social mobility is thin. For example, much of the evidence is anecdotal http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5063029.ece
There are at least two dimensions to this debate, which are already being confused. There is the dimension of the distribution of wealth across society and there is the dimension of social mobility i.e. the possibility of individuals moving up and down the wealth scale. This is in turn is nuanced by what is understood by class, in particular whether class categorisation is a simple relationship to personal wealth.
I think the evidence produced so far is very thin and when you read the report it is cautious in its language "These findings suggest that family background will have less of an impact…”. However, this is a debate we should welcome and look forward to the government’s White Paper.
5) The Good News Item
The numbers of students studying science and maths at university is increasing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7679744.stm
6) Here’s an Interesting Experiment
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/antiexam-school-to-target-urban-youth-972778.html it has been argued that this type of schooling only works for well disciplined and already motivated middle class children. However, if this school were to prosper, then it would not only challenge such claims but it would also, in my opinion, put in doubt the direction of much of the educational reforms of the past 20 years; especially the national curriculum, OFSTED and standardised pupil testing.
7) Death Maps
The details of how and when you will die http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/19/uk-mortality-rates-socialtrends-health - well possibly
8) Sporting Chance
Might universities offer more US-style sports bursaries to help widen access? http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/14/universityofworcester-accesstouniversity
9) Confidence Trick
The importance of confidence in overcoming disadvantage, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/15/unemployment In this instance the experience of job seekers, but perhaps by implication the need for a mentor or friend for anyone trying to overcome any disadvantage.
10) The limits of Life
The mental maps of the disadvantaged http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/18/young-people-rowntree and full report at http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/2298.asp I think these mental maps are very important when trying to understand why some groups of people seem unable to take advantage of opportunities that appear to be on their doorstep.
11) A Simple Point
Education maintenance allowances seem to be important for keeping disadvantaged students in the education system http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7675733.stm
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
1) I have seen the future
In a recent speech to Labour Party conference, the Prime Minister argued that the achievement gap between rich and poor can only be closed in the modern world if every school student has access to a computer and high speed internet access. The Department of Children, Schools and Families have now detailed how that aspiration will be achieved http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2008_0208 This plan could have a significant impact on the present and future work of The Brightside Trust. One of the first groups to benefit will be those children in the care of local authorities and hence this policy initiative will be of immediate relevance to the Confident Futures program. I would encourage people to visit the BECTA report associated with this project http://news.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=38386 It has a two page executive summary!
2) End child poverty
Last Saturday, I went on the end child poverty campaign march, which ended with a rally in Trafalgar square http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7651606.stm It was an affable and lively affair. The most obvious contingents were from anti-poverty and children’s charities, such as Barnardos, Action for Children, CPAG etc. Clearly, the aim was to make this a family friendly fun day out rather than a dour demonstration; so the participants included people dressed up as giant lobsters and much other silliness, all of which worked well. The rally was hosted by a famous person who I’m afraid I’d never heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Parker and in another sign of my old age, where I had expected to see a large number of Labour Party branch banners; I did not see a single one. There were some small trade’s union groupings from teachers and public sector unions.
In the square, large screens carried short broadcasts describing the reality of poverty in the UK and these were interspersed with some campaign posters. Some of these made me wonder. In particular, two poster/adverts worried me: the first, simply asserted ‘we spend £10 billion pounds a year on wine and champagne in this country’. The second, that we spend £24 billion (I think it was 24) on foreign holidays. I’m sure the intention of these statements is to plant the thought that if we can collectively spend such large sums of money on obviously gratuitous expenditure then we can easily afford to end child poverty. I think this line of argument is a real mistake: to be blunt, if ordinary folk think they are going to loose their annual holiday in order to pay for someone who has produced children without the proper means to support them then this movement is dead in the water. We must emphasise that we can afford this without ordinary people making sacrifices.
The march organisers were very pleased that the Prime Minister had once again committed the government to meeting the aim of abolishing child poverty by 2020; although the form of his commitment surprised me. The prime-minister announced that there will be "ground-breaking legislation to enshrine in the law of the land Labour's pledge to end child poverty"
This announcement was generally met by words of uncritical welcome http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/26/children.gordonbrown I know that ministers think the electorates’ memory is short but am I the only person in the charity business to remember that the government enshrined in law their commitment not to introduce university top up fees. Indeed, I’m enough of train spotter to still have a copy of the 2001 election manifesto which included the pledge, that the government "will not introduce top-up fees and has legislated against them". They were elected and they changed the law soon after and introduced top-up fees. So, I guess Gordon’s people judge that the collective social memory is around 5 years and as this commitment is 12 years away….
Maybe we all like magical thinking; it’s nice to think that poverty could be abolished. All the main political parties say they agree with the aim, there is no opposition, and yet, I don’t feel there is a hope in hells chance of achieving it. For example, the recent report showing that the number of people in the UK who are in fuel poverty rose by a million in 2006 – what must those numbers be now http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7647997.stm
Equally, I think the campaign organisers are right to try to hold government and other political parties to their public commitment to end poverty. However, in order to avoid disappointment, I’d caution people to remember that in this world the tail never gets to wag the dog.
Please left click on the picture to spot the lobsters
3) Brightside and Son
With recession looming, there are bound to be more major business failures in the UK. These companies that cease trading may well have well developed systems of sponsored charity work and consequently it will not only be redundant business assets that will be up for grabs. I think we should be alert for any such charitable assets, as we might be able to give them a new home. This Guardian article discusses the fall-out from the Lehman Brothers collapse and illustrates the kinds of opportunities that we could anticipate arising from similar situations http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/24/banking.crisis.charities
4) Brightside’s bread and butter
How to make maths teaching more interesting http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/3136861/If-maths-is-boring-what-is-the-answer.html I’m not sure I’m convinced.
Physics in good health http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7647166.stm
Science teaching research and good practice http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/signal-failure-how-to-get-science-back-on-track-941087.html
Doctors training, a new approach http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2008/sep/24/nhs.doctors.training
5) It’s not over, even though the fat boy sang
The debate about widening participation and university admissions has flared up on a number fronts over the past few weeks. One spat has been over the extent to which considerations of social disadvantage should influence admissions to the elite universities, especially Oxford http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/oxford-is-not-a-social-security-office-947427.html and http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a17127d6-8c2e-11dd-8a4c-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1 I notice that Cambridge seems to have a more sympathetic attitude and are making much better progress than Oxford, even though I have always thought (it would seem wrongly) of Cambridge as the most reactionary university in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7631070.stm An alternative view of the merits of an elite Oxford education found its way into the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/02/oxforduniversity Elsewhere, debate has been sparked by the news that the government is backing a new system of grading state schools ‘on the proportion of their pupils who attend top universities http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/03/schools.highereducation I think it is interesting that these types of discussions increasingly hinge on the importance of bad subject choices by some students while still at school. The National Council for Educational Excellence has recommended that all primary school children should get a ‘taste’ of university education http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/government-report-give-pupils-early-taste-of-university-949715.html the same report recommended that universities should be free to vary the A-level grades expected from applicants depending on the schools they attend http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7648733.stm which is probably just as well because a report from HEFCE has found that a number of universities are doing this already http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/30/accesstouniversity The government has decided to strengthen this trend by sponsoring increased flexibility and experimental admissions procedures at 9 universities - Birmingham, Bristol, Exeter, King's College London, Leeds, Leicester, Newcastle, Southampton and Warwick. http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=379525&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False The sensitivity of this subject was reflected in this discussion article in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/24/accesstouniversity.highereducation This debate is not over, but I think the detail of these discussions and the different systems of access and admissions that are beginning to emerge could be of great relevance to the work of The Brightside Trust.
6) Important Lesson
The Scottish free school meals experiment http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7646898.stm to be piloted in England http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7632349.stm I think the important point is that universal provision of free school meals not only increases the numbers of students taking up school meals but it also increases the number of disadvantaged pupils taking up the offer of a school dinner. This should not come as a surprise: in matters of social policy it has long been known that if you want people to take something up then make it free and universal.
7) Another UN report criticises UK child care record
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/10/06/109597/un-slams-britains-child-poverty-levels.html This article is from Community Care, which we now get delivered to our office (I have managed to secure a free subscription). I will keep back copies in the library. For those who don’t know it, I would describe it as the house journal for UK social workers. I think we will find it useful as a guide to contemporary community and social work projects.
8) Scandal: David Cameron and the Swedish model
The Swedish model of schooling has suddenly become fashionable with the Conservative Party. The Independent produced a neat little description of the Swedish education system and in particular the place of parent established and run schools http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/the-big-question-what-is-the-swedish-schools-model-and-can-uk-education-learn-from-it-947339.html I would point to the significantly larger sums of money being invested by the Swedes.
Friday, 22 August 2008
1) Reflections on the Olympics
Leo Mckinstry at the Daily Mail noted this fact and fell back on an old technique: when in doubt blame the victims, http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1046615/Is-coincidence-Olympic-champions-privately-educated.html however, even for the Daily Hate this is an extraordinary set of arguments.
Let’s take a look at this Olympics malarkey. First, it strikes me that most of the world’s population hasn’t a chance of competing. Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day. No doubt the Daily Mail would point at the average African dirt farmer and say that he made his choice when he had those children.
It also strikes me that you increase your chances of winning when you opt for the more technically advanced and expensive events, as this will exclude another great chunk of humanity from competing against you. For example, I believe a good show jumping horse is worth around £250,000, add to this all the other costs, such as feeding the beast and you must safely see off the vast majority of the world’s population by choosing this sport. I guess this explains why the UK competitors have a better chance of winning in sports that require expensive equipment and specialist training in a professional environment.
However, that said, why within the UK, with lottery support monies to facilitate the elite, are there not more ex-state school Olympians? According to Leo Mckinstry there are a number of strands to this. First, that state schools don’t encourage high performing students. This is prejudice and nonsense; I know it is nonsense because I know the detail of my niece Kate’s experience. Kate is ranked 2nd for her age group at trampolining in the UK (Scottish independence would see her move to 1st; come on the SNP, I say). She attends a bog standard, middling, state comprehensive school where she has been greatly encouraged and supported by all the teaching staff and is freely given time off for training and competitions. Her successes are praised and publicised at every opportunity among the whole school community. Also, I know that this is the case for her peers, whose schools are equally proud of their pupils’ successes. Schools also recognise that tomorrows elite sports men and women require more than their school can provide and are pleased to work in partnership with others. Ignoring Leo’s usual misogyny, then there was the sneering point about health and safety; this is once again plain prejudice and ignorance: health and safety are very important; these young athletes are pushing themselves to the limit of their abilities. Without careful and precise training, tailored to their individual development, then serious and permanent injury can easily occur. Although Kate attends a middling state comprehensive school, with the possible exception of Kate herself, no-one would call her disadvantaged (no, not even with her choice of uncle). But what of the disadvantaged students; as a social group they especially value sporting success, so why if modern state comprehensives are a supportive and encouraging environment aren’t these students taking advantage of the opportunities?
As with most things in UK social policy, I think it comes down to small marginal differences and small marginal choices over a sequence of events and time that adds up to a big difference of outcome. For example, lets take an area of UK success, rowing.
First you need the idea – I could do that; then the question is how. Obviously, at one end of the scale if you go to a school with a rowing lake then this is a simple matter. But even if you live in a middle class area near some water then your family will probably know of someone who knows someone who messes around in boats. That link will get you started. However, what if you live on an estate in an inner city, all types of sailing are an alien activity, there is no link. If you were to ask around then you would be told that it is something that rich people do and you would probably suffer ridicule for asking. For most people this is where it would end, before it even begins.
The only way they might discover if they have the potential to be a talented rower would be if someone, or some organisation, reaches into their neighbourhood and offers them access. This is stage one, give lots of children the opportunity to try, then some will buy. However, stage one, is the easy bit!
Aiming for sporting excellence is a hard thing to do and its pursuit has to be maintained over many years: this requires a lot of support. My sister reckons to spend around £200 a month on club fees alone. There are transport costs, going to training 6 times a week, also competitions, which are nationwide and to maintain a national ranking must be attended. Its not just money; my brother in law and his whole family get to spend many a weekend in places such as Hull, locations they might otherwise not have chosen as a holiday destination.
Some families may not be able to provide this level of emotional support or the practical support or the financial support. Yet without it, without this backing, in all of its dimensions then the task becomes even harder to achieve; we all have our breaking points. For our potential rower, they may well have to travel alone out of their neighbourhood and mix with people who are different to them. Each of these are only marginal differences but in the long run they add up and at every stage in the process of development the disadvantaged fall away and this is long before the lottery money for potential medal winners kicks in. This is where schemes for mentoring may provide some of the support that is needed.
In short, the problem is not ideological; it is primarily practical, the problem is the variation in the level and type of support available to different groups of people as they try to do something very hard. Specifically, it is exactly what the author of this article said it was not “the urban working class are said to be excluded because they do not have the same access to facilities, coaching, and support”. That is exactly it: something that would be described to him in exquisite detail if he cared to visit any state comprehensive school and speak to the teachers, pupils and parents.
However contrast the ghastly Leo Mckinstry’s reflections on the Olympics with that of the apparently optimistic and enlightened Mayor of London, who in his enthusiasm, seemed to nearly disassociate himself from his party leader and all that chatter of a broken society http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/19/do1901.xml
In this article Boris still recognises that 58% of competitors went to private schools but argues for widening participation. We must talk to this man about how widening participation can be made real, especially with his role in the London Olympics and while there is a widespread interest in what are often seen as elite or upper class sports.