Education: wha' happen'?

Gervase Phinn, retired longtime primary schools inspector and author, has admitted (I was there) that teacher lesson ratings are a lottery; Chris Woodhead, former Chief Inspector of Schools, has recently said that OFSTED is a waste of time; primary heads have this year overwhelmingy voted to get rid of SATS.

So I thought I'd revisit the notion of corporal punishment, too. Here in the UK, we had a tiny but influential pressure group called STOPP (Society of Teachers Opposed to Physical Punishment). Its spokesman was a Tom Scott*, who used to teach in London. What do I find in the Guardian online?:

One of the leading figures in the campaign to abolish corporal punishment was Tom Scott, then a teacher in Tower Hamlets, east London, who helped set up Stopp, the Society of Teachers Opposed to Physical Punishment. Scott is believed to have quit teaching since, and retrained as a theatre director.

I've watched it all happen. The replacement of CSEs and O levels by GCSEs; the move towards, then away from continuous assessment; phonics as obligatory, then phonics as career suicide, then phonics as essential again; book-burning by heads of English in secondary schools (literally) to ensure that coursebooks could never again be used, followed by the fay ce que voudras English curriculum; then the "we'll sort the teachers out" National Curriculum; then the exploitation of the need for new textbooks by commercial publishers; then the teaching of sciences coalescing into a general science, the withering of maths, combined with introduction of PC characters in the SATS assessments to mix-in multicultural social issues...

Tosspots.
___________________________________________________

*I don't know whether he's the same Tom Scott who ran the Eye Theatre and/or later joined the BBC's whizzy digital department...

Can we do it?

We live in an era in which every one of us needs massive amounts of technology just to survive, and lots more to stay as comfortable as we are. Yet, paradoxically, there is a great deal of denigration in the UK and US for mathematics, science and engineering and the people who have skills in those areas, which discourages many from those fields of study. It is to the point where there are sometimes two jobs per graduate.

Can we make the cultural shift to nurture and reward those people, or are we doomed to drop backwards?

Yet another conversation with a wealthy parent (she pushes papers, he is a corporate lawyer) does not give me much hope. All the ones that I have talked to assume that we need such specialists, who will be someone else's children, but their own will go to college, graduate in non-technical fields, and then have successful high-paying careers. I cannot make these parents understand that we have run out of the wealth to get the technology from elsewhere, so we have to make it here. Without a manufacturing base, those nice parasitic managerial and service jobs just won't exist.

Or perhaps I'm wrong, and should have gone into accounting, instead of mathematics teaching and engineering research.

Learned fools

Forbes suggests that college education can be financially ruinous. The association of education with wealth only works when both are in limited supply, otherwise the Hedge Schools would have made Irish peasants rich. A silk hat does not make you a Bradford millionaire.

A doctor friend often used to quote some factoid that if the average doctor had left school at 16 and become employed in some capacity suited to his abilities, his hard-studying medical counterpart would never catch up in terms of total lifetime income earned.

I've heard it said that after the Revolution, the French trained thousands more lawyers, in order to devalue the profession.

Man to the plough;
Wife to the cow;
Girl to the yarn;
Boy to the barn;
And your rent will be netted.

Man tally-ho;
Miss piano;
Wife silk and satin;
Boy Greek and Latin;
And you'll all be Gazetted.

Radical chic

(Pic left: Ken Kesey's bus)

QandO has a good go at Bill Ayers, an education prof who once led the violent radical underground Weathermen movement (and is married to a former member). For those who want to know about one strand of the Baby Boomers, Ayers (born 1944) may be a touchstone.

The connection between radicalism and education is a very old one; modern mass communications also come under this category of vectors of revolution. Readers might like to consider how many other Ayerses there are, not actually getting their hands dirty anymore but getting well-paid and respected for influencing the agenda in classrooms, TV and the print media.

I'm not quite going to take the simplistic guntoting redneck line on them. People like this meant well, but they thought in abstracts, always dangerous with earthbound Man. If there is one thing we must learn from the past 40 years, it's that meaning well isn't enough. But they always wanted to do well for themselves out of doing good to others, and have fun doing it - isn't that human.

Wise choices?

To my mind, having studied history, the equation is simple: a strong economy is dependent on control of the latest technology, which relies on strong basic science, and requires a core of well-educated scientists, engineers and mathematicians.

The British education system of the 60's and 70's that served me so well was very pragmatic: identify the students with obvious ability and work ethic, and pay them to learn. It was a cruel, elitist pressure cooker, but it produced the best university graduates in the world.

It has been replaced by a more inclusive American model. Standards are down, and many students are now under a crushing debt burden.

Why exactly did we change it?

Unfair advantage and reward, and how to get them.

It's not all in the genes.

This is a very intriguing post by Half Sigma, on memory versus active intelligence. There's a rich field to be explore here, about getting and maintaining advantage.

It's also about starting early - as early as pre-pregnancy, according to a doctor friend (and Phil Hammond). For example, the womb needs to be in good condition, not shrivelled by a smoking habit. It''s said that the foetus will steal whatever it needs, so surely there needs to be plenty of the right vitamins and minerals in the mother's body. And after birth, early, plentiful and positive emotional and intellectual stimulation.

Then there's education - being taught principles and strategies. I read somewhere that in Japan, trainee professional Go players aren't allowed to learn through play until their reading has brought them up to 1-Dan level (sort of like Black Belt). That's instead of learning the hard way. In any case, does the hard way actually teach you? Or do you decide to try harder next time? Or tell yourself the other guy was lucky? Or maybe just give up?

And the right social and professional connections. And choosing the right career, and the right place for it to flourish.

Some years ago, I watched a programme about a very senior British civil servant/politician in Hong Kong at the time of the handover to China. He quoted what appears to be an old saw, though I hadn't heard it before: "Eat right, work right, marry right."

Evolution Inaction

Some time ago, on this forum, Sackerson discussed the disdain that the ancient Greek philosophers had for those who actually made things, dismissing them as 'artisans', and noted that this attitude appeared to be alive and well in the UK, where engineers are treated much worse than their counterparts in Germany.

As early as 1959, C.P.Snow noted in 'The Two Cultures' that engineers and scientists were not considered 'real' academics at universities. That attitude is alive and well still, and the ranks of academic administrations are full of professors of education, philosophy and psychology.

The recent bailouts in the US add another data point. Wall Street, which produces nothing, was given over $350 billion with no conditions, yet the auto industry was raked over the coals for asking for $25 billion in loans.

I don't think that it is a coincidence that the amazing US Constitution was written by men who were not only were versed in the classics, but knew the science and mathematics of their day.

It is a fact that most of the ruling elite in China have engineering degrees, as do many of the business leaders in Japan. The CEO's of BMW and Volkswagon have always been doctors of engineering.

I am convinced that one of the reasons for our current problems is that our social and political structures have not adapted to the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. While living in imagination may be more fun than being constrained by reality, we need leaders who can make the hard decisions.

Ed Rates of the Caribbean

Rude, funny, true

A near-the knuckle piece from The Onion, illustrating why education is a challenge. The combination of idiot argot and po-faced journalistic style is almost Wodehousian. (htp: Paddington)

Bide-a-Wii

The West is worrying about indebtedness and global competition, and China is devaluing the renminbi to maintain its trading advantage.

It's time for electronic warfare. Not hacking into the military system - that's so obvious, and it was so uncharacteristically direct of the Chinese to do it. No, I think the counterattack is through computer games.

Fund the provision of PSPs, Xboxes, Wiis and a host of absorbing games (e.g. Morrowind, Gears of War) as pseudo-benevolent gifts to bright young Chinese kids. With any luck, the effect will be the same as here: early, heavy adoption by the ASD/OCD types who might otherwise become the core of the mathematics/engineering/science elite that keep the rest of the population warm, well-fed and protected against disease.

If that doesn't work, only power cuts can save us.

At last, education for life (instead of lifelong education)

In the Sunday Express today, Alain de Botton explains why he's opened a School of Life shop-cum-philosopher's-studio-cum-therapy-room in Marchmont Street, London:

"Before I went to university, I imagined it as an extraordinary place where you'd get a chance to escape from commercial pressures and examine the great questions of life in beautiful surroundings with fascinating people, and so become a better, wiser, more interesting person."

So did I, and mostly what I learned was how naïf I'd been.

Good luck with the new venture.

New: UK private schools fully-funded by the State

A friend has just sent me this article, originally from The Economist (14 June 2008). It's about the private-school revolution in Sweden, which is now coming here (starting in Richmond).

I've often wondered what the education system does with all the money - £6,000 a head times 30 children (if you're an English or maths teacher) = £180,000, but the classroom teacher's standard pay and pension might only use £30k-£40k a year.

Here's the website for the Swedish outfit trying their luck with a couple of academies in Greater London.

Bear market: Steiff comes home

Chasing lower costs, Steiff outsourced around a fifth of its production to China in 2003 but has now decided to come back because of concerns about quality and staff turnover.

Steiff is one of a small number of German firms which are swimming against the tide and leaving China, despite its cheaper workforce and a burgeoning consumer population. With fuel at record highs, some cite mounting transport costs.

Production of Steiff toys, which include a distinctive long-limbed bear with a melancholy growl, will come back to Germany and other countries in Europe by the end of 2009.

(Reuters)

That's sort of heartening, except that as it continues to develop, China will deal with quality issues. Japan listened to W. Edwards Deming in the 1950s and soon "Made in Japan" meant, not cheap, tinny and shoddy, but innovative, reliable and affordable.

In any case, this is clutching at straws. Tiny companies making high-value toys won't sustain Western Europe. We need major changes if we're going to become globally competitive. For example, health and welfare provision will have to be reassessed as the budgets shrink.

And here's a big debate to come: how much education? How much benefits the economy, how much is positional (Swiss finishing school for your daughter, etc), and how much is luxury consumption, like foreign holidays and Lagerfeld dresses?

How much education is simply an illogical, implicit pretence that the government is doing something to give all children relative advantage, particularly yours? How much is to disguise unemployment? How much is to keep potential young criminals penned-in during the daytime on weekdays? How much is to baby-mind children so that women can be driven out of their homes to do low-paid work?

As the money dries up, there will be an education debate, and it will be messy.

Education, literacy and discipline

A thread began at Alice's, originally about the decline in manufacturing industry, but moving on to the expense and alleged uselessness of public services, particularly education - bring back the cane, we're turning out kids who can't read, etc. Here's some news from the front:

When it was available, corporal punishment didn't have to be used often. An unexpected consequence of the ban-the-cane soft-handedness is that children are now assaulted by each other much more frequently, and quite often in the classroom in front of the teacher - whom G*d help if she (and it will usually be a she, these days) tries to get involved.

But as to functional illiteracy, in the absence of old-style discipline (and I agree that schools are not nearly brutal enough), maybe we've got almost as far as we can go, because we're swimming against strong tides. In the past, we had a literate culture and media, and parents who reinforced social rules and had aspirations for their children. The children of today are more likely to have complex and dysfunctional homes, their TVs (I often turn off at 9 to avoid the crapshed) and computers are full of violent fantasy and their neighbourhoods are ruled by postcode-based gangs rather than the police.

With the best will in the world, teachers cannot impose marital fidelity, sobriety, male employment, moral self-restraint in public entertainment, and the free run of the Queen's writ throughout her realm. Quite seriously, we in the education system can hear the creaking and groaning from the pit props in the mine.

Teachers will continue to be moderately well-remunerated as long as our rulers maintain the pretence that schools can do the principal work of child-rearing; when the scales fall from our eyes and we start to take responsibility for our offspring and the example we set them, schools will go back to standardised textbooks and employ humble, low-paid functionaries to steer the children through them. The public purse will benefit, and more importantly so will the next generation, for whom the present one has so little regard.

Ouroboros and the Left

"Ryan" makes reference in a comment on my previous post, to the "Gramscian left". I was too busy in the 70s, trying to get a degree, to look at yawn-inducing Marxist theory, but perhaps I was wrong. For following up this reference I find Wikipedia explaining Gramsci's notion of "cultural hegemony" and how to subvert it:

Gramsci therefore argued for a strategic distinction between a "war of position" and a "war of manoeuvre". The war of position is a culture war in which anti-capitalist elements seek to gain a dominant voice in mass media, mass organizations, and educational institutions to heighten class consciousness, teach revolutionary analysis and theory, and inspire revolutionary organization. Following the success of the war of position, communist leaders would be empowered to begin the war of manoeuvre, the actual insurrection against capitalism, with mass support.

Is it too much to say that in British schools at least, there has been a "war of position"? Hymns in assembly, RE, British history, the cane, the authority of the teacher - all in the bin. And all since, oh, I would say the mid-80s*. Now, the teacher is a kind of Lyons nippy, swiftly and attentively addressing every need of every child, and with no expectation of a tip.

And as the revolution approaches its moment of crisis, the Government (members of which have assisted with the first phase) has sealed itself into its Downing Street compound, like the East German rulers before their fall. Gordon Brown, formerly the student Rector of Edinburgh University, learned early how the power system had loopholes and having exploited them, is closing them. So the surrounding area is legally a protest-free zone and our new Stasi is set on harmless teenage student demonstrators.

Despite these efforts, and like Kronos, the Revolution may eat its children. Yet Zeus survived because Kronos was given a Rock to eat instead...

* after first flutterings with the William Tyndale affair (1974), Chris Searle's "Classrooms of Resistance"(1975) and other inputs.

Second blow

TV ad tonight: Woolworths children's jeans £2. I said, you wouldn't have got a zip for £2 a few years ago. (So many Birmingham kids I used to teach years ago thought school didn't matter, they'd be getting a job at Tucker Fasteners anyway. That or Lucas' - now joining the list of nostalgia subjects.)

Then a thought: when the recession really bites, the price war will be unrestrained. I don't know what is still manufactured in Britain, but in the second phase, when the poor become acutely cost-conscious, I can't see domestic manufacturers staying in business.

Of course, with social benefits still generous, we're not there yet (they're still buying their kids Xboxes and Lacoste trainers, while SoSecurity lay on taxis to take the tearaways to school-for-the-expelled); but wait for the tax and benefit reviews when public finances finally unravel.

And if I ever do get another new car (the Fiat Brava is kept going on a radiator refill every Saturday), maybe it's the Tata Nano for me.

I'm looking at checkmate and trying not to believe it. But that's my problem; the difference between Western waster education and Chinese school is too clear. And we'll be a sort of nationwide museum of once-were-workers. But I don't want to live in the past.

Reversion to mean

Echoing recent comments by Vitaliy Katsenelson (also on Barron's), Jeremy Grantham thinks profit margins will decline towards normal and the Standard & Poor's 500 will head from its current c. 1334 to 1100 in the year 2010 - a drop of about 18%.

Grantham is emphatic that borrowed money is not a stimulant to the economy:

I have an exhibit that shows the 30 years prior to 1982 when the debt-to-gross domestic product ratio was completely flat at 1.2 times. Total debt is defined as government debt, personal debt, corporate debt and financial debt. Then in the 25 years after 1982, the flat line goes up at a 45 degrees angle from 1.2 times to 3.1 times GDP. Massive. In the first 30 years, when debt is flat, annual GDP growth is its usual battleship, growing at 3.5% and hardly twitching. After the massive increase in debt, GDP, far from accelerating, grew at 3%. So debt in the aggregate does not drive the economy. The economy is driven by education, man-hours worked, capital investment and technology.

That last sentence is really pregnant. I'm not sure about the man-hours (the closer we approach peasanthood, the harder we'll work), but I think that on both sides of the Atlantic, we've been falling down on the other three.

In Britain, our government has failed to distinguish between investing in education, and managing it - and where it has tried to do the latter, has pursued a Romantic-heritage political agenda. Capital investment? Going abroad. Technology? Ditto - and eagerly taken up (if not positively filched) by our Eastern trading partners.

I live in what used to be Car City; now, the vast Longbridge site is being redeveloped for housing and shops - in other words, open prison for the new ex-industrial underclass.

But Rome, too, kept control of its plebs with bread and circuses for a couple more centuries, before it fell.

New Growth Theory and Friedman's "Flat Earth"

Here's an interview with Thomas Friedman in Yale Global Online (18 April 2005). Some quotes, with the issues I see in them italicised:

Lean thinking:

Wal-Mart doesn't make anything. But what they do is draw products from all over the world and get them into stores at incredibly low prices. How do they do that? Through a global supply chain that has been designed down to the last atom of efficiency. So as you take an item off the shelf in New Haven, Connecticut, another of that item will immediately be made of that item in Xianjin, China. So there's perfect knowledge and transparency throughout that supply chain.

International trade vs local social costs:

The consumer in me loves Wal-Mart... And not just me... Some lower-income people are stretching their dollars further because of Wal-Mart...The shareholder in me... loves Wal-Mart... The citizen in me... hates Wal-Mart, because they only cover some 40 percent of their employees with health care... [For the rest,] we tax-payers pay their health care. And the neighbor in me... is very disturbed about Wal-Mart. Disturbed about stories about how they've discriminated against women, disturbed about stories that they've locked employees into their stores overnight, disturbed about how they pay some of their employees. So... I've got multiple identity disorder, because the shareholder and the consumer in me feels one thing, and the citizen and the neighbor in me feel something quite different.

New Growth Theory issues:

What is the mix of assets you need to thrive in a flat world? Money, jobs, and opportunity in the flat world will go to the countries with the best infrastructure, the best education system that produces the most educated work force, the most investor-friendly laws, and the best environment. You put those four things together: quality of environment that attracts knowledgeable people, investment laws that encourage entrepreneurship, education, and infrastructure. So that's really where, in a flat world, the money is going to go.

And I don't really believe much in foreign aid because I think, at the end of the day, that's not how countries grow and get rich. But to the extent that you are going to give foreign aid, it should be to inspire, encourage, and help develop one of those four pillars for whatever developing country you're dealing with. But I do believe in trade, not aid. I think that axiom still applies, even more so in a flat world.

Security:

The flat world is a friend of Infosys and of Al-Qaeda. It's a friend of IBM and of Islamic jihad. Because these networks go both ways. And one thing we know about the bad guys: They're early adopters...

Trade, nationalism and peace:

...what I call the "Dell Theory" – you know, Dell Computers. The Dell Theory says that no two countries that are part of the same global supply chain will ever fight a war as long as they're each still part of that supply chain... here's what I predict: If you do go to war and you're part of one these supply-chains, whatever price you think you're going to pay, you're going to pay ten times more. Once you lose your spot in the supply chain because you've gone to war, the supply chain doesn't come back real soon. They're not going to. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. That's why you really risk a lot. And that's why these supply chains now really mean a lot. They're the new restraints.

Anti-globalization:

The anti-globalization movement ... is basically dead today – because China and India have embraced this process and this project... The anti-globalization movement... [are] all still talking about the IMF and the World Bank and conditionality – as if globalization is all about what the IMF and World Bank impose and force on the developing world. Well when the world is flat, there's a lot more globalization that's about pull. This is people in the developing world – in China, Russia, India, Brazil – wanting to pull down these opportunities.

Intellectual property rights:

Look at what happened in [India] with intellectual property law... there's no question that we did want India to have intellectual property protection to protect our products... But what it turned out was that a lot of Indians wanted it as well because they become innovators themselves. They are now plug-and-playing in this world and they want the intellectual property protections for their innovations.

Failure of Western technical education:

There is a crisis. We're not producing in this country, in America, enough young people going into science and technology and engineering – the fields that are going to be essential for entrepreneurship and innovation in the 21st Century. So we're at a crisis – it's a quiet crisis, as Shirley Ann Jackson from the Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute says. If we don't do something about it, then in 10 to 15 years from now this quiet crisis will be a very big crisis. And that's why my friend Paul Romer at Stanford says – and I totally agree with him – is a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. And right now we're wasting this crisis.

New Growth Theory: should we pay handsomely to make ideas free?

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, his slogan was "education, education, education". We thought he was merely reflecting our discontent with schools, but now I'm not so sure.

In 1994, Gordon Brown was quoting a new economic theory by - google him up - PAUL ROMER. Here is a 2001 interview in Reason Online with Romer. It turns out this may be to New Labour what Sir Keith Joseph’s espousal of monetarism was to Margaret Thatcher’s premiership. “New growth theory” is by Paul Romer, and bears on:

• education (a key slogan in Tony Blair's election campaign)
• skills training for workforces (a UK government initiative currently advertised on TV)
• intellectual property rights (relevant to design and patent theft by foreign manufacturers)
• free trade/globalisation

It has some intriguing aspects, but could also be a gift to the anti-big-business Left.

A core debate in this theory is the ownership of knowledge. Romer says that price is both an incentive to the producer, and a means of deciding who gets the product (or what product they choose). An example he gives in his interview is the life-saving treatment for children with diarrhea in poor countries:

...the efficient thing for society is to offer really big rewards for some scientist who discovers an oral rehydration therapy. But then as soon as we discover it, we give the idea away for free to everybody throughout the world and explain "Just use this little mixture of basically sugar and salt, put it in water, and feed that to a kid who's got diarrhea because if you give them pure water you'll kill them."

So with ideas, you have this tension: You want high prices to motivate discovery, but you want low prices to achieve efficient widespread use. You can't with a single price achieve both, so if you push things into the market, you try to compromise between those two, and it's often an unhappy compromise.

Ideas can be duplicated easily and cheaply, but they often cost a lot of money to come up with. For example, pharmaceutical firms do hugely expensive R&D - could they recoup the cost of successful solutions, and all the unsuccessful ones, via a prize competition? What happens if they go bust a yard before the finishing line?

What about areas where the humanitarian argument may be weaker? What if some Far Eastern car factory comes up with a tweak on, say, the Wankel engine design and goes into very successful (and low-labour-cost) production, paying nothing to the people who came up with 99% of the ideas? Sir Tim Berners-Lee (may we never forget his name) gave away the Internet, but should all hard-won knowledge be free?

And what exactly are the implications of a "knowledge economy"? Does State-organised education, with its top-down management, encourage the development of the creativity we need? Do we need 50% of our young people to go to college? Should they choose their subjects, or be told what to learn? Should they be given incentives to study in areas that are thought to be important? How far should we be prepared to fund research that has no immediately foreseeable practical application?

Romer is certainly right in saying that a smart workforce is an asset (and a smart management - we could do with some de-Dilbertising), and that there's lots of potential in continuous, incremental improvement. "Lean thinking" may buy us time in the destabilizing conditions of a globalized market - if we use our brains to improve what's in front of us at work every day, we may not go bust quite as fast as the doomsters fear.

But as the economist himself admits, it's a can of worms.