Whose fault is it if a pupil leaves school unable to properly read or write? And to confuse this matter further what if it is an otherwise able and possibly even high-achieving pupil?
This issue was raised in the Sunday newspapers after a science academic complained that many undergraduate and postgraduate university students he encountered had left school unable to properly spell, punctuate or even construct sentences.
Understandably his first reaction is to blame secondary schools as, prior to university, these were obviously the last educational establishments they had attended. However is it as simple as this? Schools may be an obvious place to look but parents and the government have to take their share of the blame too.
Secondary schools do have some culpability, of that there can be no doubt. Pupils will spend at least four years in secondary, and probably six if they are going on to university.
In that time they will participate in a range of subjects and thus countless homework tasks, class activities and tests. It seems obvious then that there will have been numerous opportunities to identify problems and take steps to fix them.
And to a point this is correct, but there is one major problem; the fact that particularly in younger year groups, pupils have up to fifteen teachers in school (before you even factor in absence cover).
It’s this situation which raises questions about the extent to which secondary schools can easily achieve good literacy skills. If pupils generally only see a teacher three or less times per week then this individual will have limited opportunities to teach their own subject, far less any other things.
Perhaps for this reason there has always been a belief in secondary schools that addressing literacy problems was an issue reserved exclusively for the English department. However particularly under Curriculum for Excellence (of which more later) this is all meant to change.
The reality is surely going to be otherwise. Part of the goal of Curriculum for Excellence is to bring more ‘real life’ activities and actions into the classroom and more departments working together. Doing all this alongside falling staff levels and resources does not make it more likely that people will also find time to improve educational basics, it’s the opposite.
In any case there is a debate if secondary schools, where pupils are meant to be exposed to greater depth in subjects are the places to be doing this; primaries are surely where this basic learning should take place.
In a primary, unlike secondary, pupils will generally have the same teacher in the same classroom for the bulk of the week. This is also generally the first place they will be formally taught reading, writing and counting, beginning almost on their first day in primary one.
The SNP government have placed more of an emphasis on smaller class sizes in primary schools which is probably the most effective place to target resources. However their uniform approach to this (in aiming for reductions across the board in all schools rather than targeting) is perhaps not the most effective way to do it.
There is a case to be made that ultimately all pupils really need to take from primary is the ability to learn to read, write and count. Whilst they might be exposed to subjects like Science or History at an elementary level this should really wait until secondary school.
And it’s at this point that some blame towards the declining ability to read and write begins to edge towards the government’s door. Whilst being able to read, write and count should be the only goals of a primary education this is not in fact the case, because governments insist on a range of other activities, again something which will not improve under Curriculum for Excellence.
Governments and councils of all hues have to recognise that simply saying things are going to change or improve where children are involved will not automatically achieve it. Instead there is a need to prioritise what matters most and allow schools to then focus energies and resources on doing this (even allowing for politicians’ difficulties in understanding ‘priorities’).
And there is one final area that must share the blame here too, whether they would want to accept it or not; that is parents or perhaps even society-at-large.
In terms of parents it’s worth asking how many of them ensure their children ever read a book or even something as simple as a newspaper. As technology takes a greater hold of children’s lives (mobile phones, iPods, consoles and much, much more) it is no great surprise that children then find it difficult to concentrate enough to read.
A teachers’ union recently claimed that a growing discipline problem in classrooms came not from poorer children but those from middle class families who were increasingly distant from their parents because of technology’s role in raising them. Whilst this is obviously a generalisation and not directly linked to this literacy problem, the two are not unrelated.
Schools are also often seen by society as some sort of cure-all-ills organisation; whatever the social problem we face it is apparently the job of schools to fix it. Vandalism, manners, literacy, ill health, obesity and any other range of things which just aren’t that practical to achieve in a few hours each day alongside everything else.
This ultimately leaves us with a classic social dilemma, a situation where so many people are to blame that we could just pass the buck all day rather than actually take steps to rectify the situation. That is obviously a recipe for this conversation continuing for another 50 years and beyond.
What is needed is instead a genuine understanding of what a priority is, with resources and staffing to back this up. If we believe it to be a vital skill for people to have language basics then more time must be spent, particularly at primary, on achieving this. And that may come at the expense of other government goals.
That includes Curriculum for Excellence. Although one of its aims is to ensure that all teachers are responsible for literacy and numeracy rather than simply Maths and English staff this is not going to happen alongside everything else the new plans entail. Something to consider when the Scottish Government insists it is going ahead with this even as teachers’ unions raise serious concerns.
Governments and society as a whole must consider what they really want and need education to achieve, rather than just viewing it as a form of childcare or something which occurs “because that’s what I did when I was young”. And then everyone, from parents to schools to governments, has to do their bit to help achieve these goals
Otherwise, for many pupils achieving basic skills, the writing won’t even be on the wall, because that may prove to be a task too far for some children.
UPDATE: It's perhaps no surprise that pupils may struggle to properly construct sentences given that political parties apparently do likewise. The Conservatives' new campaign poster is a classic example. It's either missing a full stop or just very badly written.
29 Mar 2010
16 Mar 2010
Living like a lord
Anyone wishing to partake in the life of a lord could be running out of time to do so. Plans have been announced to abolish the House of Lords in its current form, should Labour win the coming election.
In a democracy it’s hard to argue for the continuation of a system where people are appointed to make decisions on the future of the country without ever having been elected, or even likely to ever face such a scenario.
That being said, the House of Lords does still play an important role. Having a second chamber to scrutinise and suggest changes to legislation is a valuable one which should be maintained. So bearing all this in mind this blog should presumably be all for a directly elected second chamber. Except this is not the case.
Well possibly not, for the simple reason that full plans for how such elections would work (and how the second chamber itself would operate) have yet to be unveiled. However there are concerns about this, the most obvious being that an elected second chamber may end up becoming simply the Commons Mark 2.
A major complaint often heard is that politicians are too remote from their electorate, allied to the rise in professional politicians that have worked in this field for their entire lives (university to researcher to MP and so on), again alienating them from general public experiences.
If all the creation of an elected second chamber would do is create a new class of professional politician beholden to parties and media opinion then is there genuinely any great value in this?
The likelihood that such a chamber would have term limits (the suggestion being 15 years) would help in part to address this. But it is surely still likely to see a large number of people with a politics-only background being selected, simply because it's only parties which have the resources needed to help elect people.
It’s also likely that proportional representation (PR) would be used to elect such an organisation. In some ways this could help address concerns people currently have about how larger parties benefit from the vagaries of the first-past-the-post system.
It also depends on the method of PR used. A closed party list, such as that used to elect the PR aspect of Scottish Parliament elections or in European elections, hands the bulk of the power to parties rather than voters.
However the biggest concern which exists though takes us back to concerns about a Commons Mark 2: it is much harder for elected politicians to say unpopular things, even if they have large (but minority) support throughout the country.
At various times members of the Lords have been portrayed as fools and out of touch for expressing views that are different from majority public opinion (and those of newspaper editorial writers). In a democracy it is important to hear such views.
The Lords as it stands, without the need for re-election, does not have this burden. Members are instead free to say and vote as they wish. And this of course is always done on the basis that the elected House of Commons rightly has the final say on any decision.
Retaining the right for people to express views many would disagree with is an essential democratic principle, but the Commons shows that this largely does not happen because of the fear of media outrage. To lose such an option hurts us all.
The current system of selecting members of the Lords is undesirable and gives too much power to parties. But an elected system would not necessarily greatly improve this situation, simply change the specific people that wield power.
A revising chamber should be a diverse mix of people from right across the range of experiences to be found in the country. It should feature great thinkers and experienced men and women from business. And it should feature people from more humble backgrounds too.
A system of elections will not achieve this, or at least is very unlikely to. Instead might there not be ways to select representatives from key sectors (health, education, science, business and so on)? Indeed a genuinely radical notion would be a return to the origins of democracy.
In ancient Greece ordinary citizens were selected by lots to sit in the Senate and decide on the country’s laws. A modern version of this could allow for anyone who wished to enter their name onto a register and be selected at random to sit in the new organisation for a fixed period.
Of course this would likely include politicians but it could include those that feel they would never otherwise be elected. This is not without its problems, not least who exactly would be elected, but it’s hardly the case that all politicians currently in the Commons are without their ills.
And in all of this, the House of Commons should retain its current right to overrule the Lords (or whatever its new name would be). In this regard the crucial democratic principle is upheld, whilst also allowing us to have a vibrant and valid second chamber.
There is certainly a need to reform the House of Lords, not least given recent controversies over just who sits in it. But to imagine that creating a new class of professionally elected politicians will automatically correct the ills associated with it is surely wrong.
In a democracy it’s hard to argue for the continuation of a system where people are appointed to make decisions on the future of the country without ever having been elected, or even likely to ever face such a scenario.
That being said, the House of Lords does still play an important role. Having a second chamber to scrutinise and suggest changes to legislation is a valuable one which should be maintained. So bearing all this in mind this blog should presumably be all for a directly elected second chamber. Except this is not the case.
Well possibly not, for the simple reason that full plans for how such elections would work (and how the second chamber itself would operate) have yet to be unveiled. However there are concerns about this, the most obvious being that an elected second chamber may end up becoming simply the Commons Mark 2.
A major complaint often heard is that politicians are too remote from their electorate, allied to the rise in professional politicians that have worked in this field for their entire lives (university to researcher to MP and so on), again alienating them from general public experiences.
If all the creation of an elected second chamber would do is create a new class of professional politician beholden to parties and media opinion then is there genuinely any great value in this?
The likelihood that such a chamber would have term limits (the suggestion being 15 years) would help in part to address this. But it is surely still likely to see a large number of people with a politics-only background being selected, simply because it's only parties which have the resources needed to help elect people.
It’s also likely that proportional representation (PR) would be used to elect such an organisation. In some ways this could help address concerns people currently have about how larger parties benefit from the vagaries of the first-past-the-post system.
It also depends on the method of PR used. A closed party list, such as that used to elect the PR aspect of Scottish Parliament elections or in European elections, hands the bulk of the power to parties rather than voters.
However the biggest concern which exists though takes us back to concerns about a Commons Mark 2: it is much harder for elected politicians to say unpopular things, even if they have large (but minority) support throughout the country.
At various times members of the Lords have been portrayed as fools and out of touch for expressing views that are different from majority public opinion (and those of newspaper editorial writers). In a democracy it is important to hear such views.
The Lords as it stands, without the need for re-election, does not have this burden. Members are instead free to say and vote as they wish. And this of course is always done on the basis that the elected House of Commons rightly has the final say on any decision.
Retaining the right for people to express views many would disagree with is an essential democratic principle, but the Commons shows that this largely does not happen because of the fear of media outrage. To lose such an option hurts us all.
The current system of selecting members of the Lords is undesirable and gives too much power to parties. But an elected system would not necessarily greatly improve this situation, simply change the specific people that wield power.
A revising chamber should be a diverse mix of people from right across the range of experiences to be found in the country. It should feature great thinkers and experienced men and women from business. And it should feature people from more humble backgrounds too.
A system of elections will not achieve this, or at least is very unlikely to. Instead might there not be ways to select representatives from key sectors (health, education, science, business and so on)? Indeed a genuinely radical notion would be a return to the origins of democracy.
In ancient Greece ordinary citizens were selected by lots to sit in the Senate and decide on the country’s laws. A modern version of this could allow for anyone who wished to enter their name onto a register and be selected at random to sit in the new organisation for a fixed period.
Of course this would likely include politicians but it could include those that feel they would never otherwise be elected. This is not without its problems, not least who exactly would be elected, but it’s hardly the case that all politicians currently in the Commons are without their ills.
And in all of this, the House of Commons should retain its current right to overrule the Lords (or whatever its new name would be). In this regard the crucial democratic principle is upheld, whilst also allowing us to have a vibrant and valid second chamber.
There is certainly a need to reform the House of Lords, not least given recent controversies over just who sits in it. But to imagine that creating a new class of professionally elected politicians will automatically correct the ills associated with it is surely wrong.
13 Mar 2010
The difference between rules and reality
According to this morning's newspapers the rules governing how fire-fighters operate in difficult situations could be relaxed to take account of 'common sense'.
The potential move follows an inquiry into the death of Ayrshire women who died after falling down a mine shaft. Fire-fighters were told to wait more than six hours before attempting to rescue her because of the need to follow certain safety rules and regulations.
On the face of it this seems a sensible and worthy approach. However is it as simple as this and are there are other aspects of public life which could benefit from this approach?
It’s worth considering in the first place why we have rules and regulations at all. In simple terms it is to ensure a uniform and consistent approach wherever people live. Thus if you have to rely on a public service from Shetland to Selkirk, you should be sure of a relatively consistent approach.
However it is more than this too. There is a value to people in any walk of life knowing the parameters within which they should carry out their responsibilities. However in an age of ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers and so on it is also about having a framework which can prevent litigation.
Thus whilst it may appear desirable to have a flexible approach to workplace rules it does raise questions about how this could operate in practice and the ultimate consequences of this e.g. if two Fire Brigade Commanders take a different view of similar incidents, can one of them possibly then be sued because of this?
It’s also worth asking whether such an approach could work elsewhere in the public sector, where there are a huge number of laws and rules about what services are meant to be provided, who should be responsible and so on. Education and health are good examples of this.
Again there is one simple reason for this: the belief that every member of the public should be able to access equal services. It also helps avoids the cries of ‘postcode lottery’ which emanate from the media every time a difference in service provision is identified.
All this ultimately does is create a centralised service in which people have little flexibility to decide what is most relevant for their area, instead being subject to the whims and opinions of people some distance away who have to try and chart a middle course for a diverse country, rather than what is best for a specific community.
This also brings in an additional reason for all these centralised regulations that people are either forced to or feel the need to follow: political expediency. Let’s take the example of class sizes.
The SNP were elected with a pledge to reduce class sizes in primaries 1-3 (just like the previous Labour-Liberal Executive that wanted smaller classes in Maths and English at secondary school). As such they put effort and money into achieving this.
However what if this is not appropriate across the entire country? In a country the size of Scotland we have places as diverse as rich and poor areas of Greater Glasgow through to small community schools in the upper Highlands.
Thus whether it is appropriate to just say across the board that we will reduce classes (something which in any case is not actually being achieved) doesn’t make sense. But again it is driven by a need for conformity which politicians and centralised civil servants need in order to justify their own employment.
This ultimately brings us back to the notion of using ‘common sense’ when deciding anything; it should be for local people to decide what’s best in their area (or those workers in the immediate firing line) rather than people many miles away sitting in comfortable offices.
Or so the logic goes for as long as it suits us. However what then happens when something goes wrong (a failed fire rescue for example with public and brigade casualties) or one area of the country gets a particular service rejected elsewhere?
At that point it’s obvious what would happen, you might even say it’s ‘common sense’; we would have public protests, media outrage, possible legal action, and political intervention amongst a raft of other responses.
So where does that ultimately leave us. Well, pretty much where we are. Whilst the notion of a common sense approach may seem and perhaps even be desirable, such a consensus is very flimsy and would surely fall in the face of the slightest opposition. And that opposition would eventually come.
Unless as a society we can change the culture of litigation, media excitement and concomitant political activity we can’t ever properly have a ‘common sense’ culture. And whilst it may be convenient to blame the above vested interests, they really ultimately all come from what the public (and in fact various publics) would demand.
There is certainly a difference between rules and reality. But until as a society we demand the end to the need for uniformity – and accept the consequences of that – that rules/reality gap simply cannot be breached. Even if doing so appears to be ‘common sense’.
The potential move follows an inquiry into the death of Ayrshire women who died after falling down a mine shaft. Fire-fighters were told to wait more than six hours before attempting to rescue her because of the need to follow certain safety rules and regulations.
On the face of it this seems a sensible and worthy approach. However is it as simple as this and are there are other aspects of public life which could benefit from this approach?
It’s worth considering in the first place why we have rules and regulations at all. In simple terms it is to ensure a uniform and consistent approach wherever people live. Thus if you have to rely on a public service from Shetland to Selkirk, you should be sure of a relatively consistent approach.
However it is more than this too. There is a value to people in any walk of life knowing the parameters within which they should carry out their responsibilities. However in an age of ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers and so on it is also about having a framework which can prevent litigation.
Thus whilst it may appear desirable to have a flexible approach to workplace rules it does raise questions about how this could operate in practice and the ultimate consequences of this e.g. if two Fire Brigade Commanders take a different view of similar incidents, can one of them possibly then be sued because of this?
It’s also worth asking whether such an approach could work elsewhere in the public sector, where there are a huge number of laws and rules about what services are meant to be provided, who should be responsible and so on. Education and health are good examples of this.
Again there is one simple reason for this: the belief that every member of the public should be able to access equal services. It also helps avoids the cries of ‘postcode lottery’ which emanate from the media every time a difference in service provision is identified.
All this ultimately does is create a centralised service in which people have little flexibility to decide what is most relevant for their area, instead being subject to the whims and opinions of people some distance away who have to try and chart a middle course for a diverse country, rather than what is best for a specific community.
This also brings in an additional reason for all these centralised regulations that people are either forced to or feel the need to follow: political expediency. Let’s take the example of class sizes.
The SNP were elected with a pledge to reduce class sizes in primaries 1-3 (just like the previous Labour-Liberal Executive that wanted smaller classes in Maths and English at secondary school). As such they put effort and money into achieving this.
However what if this is not appropriate across the entire country? In a country the size of Scotland we have places as diverse as rich and poor areas of Greater Glasgow through to small community schools in the upper Highlands.
Thus whether it is appropriate to just say across the board that we will reduce classes (something which in any case is not actually being achieved) doesn’t make sense. But again it is driven by a need for conformity which politicians and centralised civil servants need in order to justify their own employment.
This ultimately brings us back to the notion of using ‘common sense’ when deciding anything; it should be for local people to decide what’s best in their area (or those workers in the immediate firing line) rather than people many miles away sitting in comfortable offices.
Or so the logic goes for as long as it suits us. However what then happens when something goes wrong (a failed fire rescue for example with public and brigade casualties) or one area of the country gets a particular service rejected elsewhere?
At that point it’s obvious what would happen, you might even say it’s ‘common sense’; we would have public protests, media outrage, possible legal action, and political intervention amongst a raft of other responses.
So where does that ultimately leave us. Well, pretty much where we are. Whilst the notion of a common sense approach may seem and perhaps even be desirable, such a consensus is very flimsy and would surely fall in the face of the slightest opposition. And that opposition would eventually come.
Unless as a society we can change the culture of litigation, media excitement and concomitant political activity we can’t ever properly have a ‘common sense’ culture. And whilst it may be convenient to blame the above vested interests, they really ultimately all come from what the public (and in fact various publics) would demand.
There is certainly a difference between rules and reality. But until as a society we demand the end to the need for uniformity – and accept the consequences of that – that rules/reality gap simply cannot be breached. Even if doing so appears to be ‘common sense’.
3 Mar 2010
Why the need for hyperbole?
'Speak your truth quietly and clearly', so says a line from the famous Desiderata.
In other words, if you are correct then you can - and should - let the facts speak for themselves. Anything stronger than this is wasted effort, or possibly sign of a worry that your argument isn't as strong as it could be.
This is always a concern when politicians open their mouths; rather than expressing a view and allowing the public to make up their mind instead they often feel the need to lace their words with a fervour which they must feel will surely tip the balance of public opinion in their favour.
This thought occurred earlier when reading a copy of The Sun, specifically a story about a Celtic supporter waving an Argentinian strip at Sunday's Old Firm game, a reference to the presence of Simon Weston, the British soldier that was famously and horrifically injured in the Falklands War.
As part of the story The Sun asked Mike Rumbles MSP, a former soldier for his view, and he understandably spoke against those actions. Given Weston's place in British society and his character (for instance becoming friends with the Argentine that dropped the bomb that injured him) public opinion would surely be with Rumbles on this.
But then comes the comment that is simply not needed to back up the story, yet somehow offered. As part of his quote he described the action (waving the strip) as a "new low" in relations between Celtic and Rangers fans. Is that really the case?
Over the years there have been numerous documented instances of unacceptable and deplorable events involving the Old Firm, not least the unprovoked murder of an innocent teenager on the his way home from a game.
So as unacceptable as the strip incident may be, surely Rumbles calling it a "new low" seems an exaggeration at best. Why then does he feel the need to say it?
There are a couple of possibilities and none of them bode well for our democracy. Firstly it's because he really doesn't know any better and just wants his name in the 'papers. Or secondly it's simply that he feels he has to say what a newspaper wants, rather than reflect any reality.
That is quite worrying. If politicians feel they have to follow a newspaper's demands and use hyperbole on every occasion - even those where they surely have public opinion with them - then it simply creates a cycle of exaggeration which potentially alienates voters.
In spite of what politicians or even the media may think at times, the public are not stupid. Thus regardless of the description Mike Rumbles or any other politician uses people will form their own view about incidents such as the one involving the strip.
However if people realise that a certain person, individual or media outlet regularly uses exaggeration and over-dramatisation then they will just stop listening. And that is another worry for democracy.
Political discourse would be considerably better if politicians - and also the media - could simply set out the facts, rather than attempting to ensure the public interpret them a particular way. Indeed it would perhaps even engage people in the process more if they felt they were to make up their own minds and not be told what to think.
If your argument's strong enough you shouldn't need over-the-top statements. And if you feel you must include those exaggerated sentiments, maybe you have to consider the strength of your point in the first place.
In other words, if you are correct then you can - and should - let the facts speak for themselves. Anything stronger than this is wasted effort, or possibly sign of a worry that your argument isn't as strong as it could be.
This is always a concern when politicians open their mouths; rather than expressing a view and allowing the public to make up their mind instead they often feel the need to lace their words with a fervour which they must feel will surely tip the balance of public opinion in their favour.
This thought occurred earlier when reading a copy of The Sun, specifically a story about a Celtic supporter waving an Argentinian strip at Sunday's Old Firm game, a reference to the presence of Simon Weston, the British soldier that was famously and horrifically injured in the Falklands War.
As part of the story The Sun asked Mike Rumbles MSP, a former soldier for his view, and he understandably spoke against those actions. Given Weston's place in British society and his character (for instance becoming friends with the Argentine that dropped the bomb that injured him) public opinion would surely be with Rumbles on this.
But then comes the comment that is simply not needed to back up the story, yet somehow offered. As part of his quote he described the action (waving the strip) as a "new low" in relations between Celtic and Rangers fans. Is that really the case?
Over the years there have been numerous documented instances of unacceptable and deplorable events involving the Old Firm, not least the unprovoked murder of an innocent teenager on the his way home from a game.
So as unacceptable as the strip incident may be, surely Rumbles calling it a "new low" seems an exaggeration at best. Why then does he feel the need to say it?
There are a couple of possibilities and none of them bode well for our democracy. Firstly it's because he really doesn't know any better and just wants his name in the 'papers. Or secondly it's simply that he feels he has to say what a newspaper wants, rather than reflect any reality.
That is quite worrying. If politicians feel they have to follow a newspaper's demands and use hyperbole on every occasion - even those where they surely have public opinion with them - then it simply creates a cycle of exaggeration which potentially alienates voters.
In spite of what politicians or even the media may think at times, the public are not stupid. Thus regardless of the description Mike Rumbles or any other politician uses people will form their own view about incidents such as the one involving the strip.
However if people realise that a certain person, individual or media outlet regularly uses exaggeration and over-dramatisation then they will just stop listening. And that is another worry for democracy.
Political discourse would be considerably better if politicians - and also the media - could simply set out the facts, rather than attempting to ensure the public interpret them a particular way. Indeed it would perhaps even engage people in the process more if they felt they were to make up their own minds and not be told what to think.
If your argument's strong enough you shouldn't need over-the-top statements. And if you feel you must include those exaggerated sentiments, maybe you have to consider the strength of your point in the first place.
