Ah, Faith Restored.

Ah, faith restored (see post below). Hattersley shows that outbreaks of reality in the Groan are rare birds, not products of Mondays.

Unfortunately his Today
defence of the academy system did not display that admirable quality.
There was, he said, a highly successful academy in Hackney. No doubt.
New buildings, superior facilities and extra staff on high salaries
ought to produce that result. Critics of academies have never suggested
that they would all, like Middlesbrough, become failing schools. But
their proponents have argued that, by their nature, they would succeed
where other secondary schools fail. An elementary acquaintance with
logic confirms that the existence of some academies that succeed does
not prove the whole system is a success. The argument is about the
academy system – which we have been assured, is the sovereign remedy to
under achievement. One success does not confirm that claim. But one
failure certainly disproves it.

No My Lord. Not even up to a point. Failure at an academy and success at another actually shows that the system, the basic idea, is working. The aim is that freed of minutely detailed centralised control, schools areable to experiment with different ways of doing things. That some will fail and others succeed is the very point of the matter, for only by such experiments can we actually find out what is a better way of doing things. Without such experimentation (note, not the academies themselves, but experimentation) we would never have found out that phonics is the way to teach reading.

I realise that the Tub O’ Lard doesn’t believe in markets but really, to be so obtuse is near insane.

8 responses

  1. Rob Read Avatar
    Rob Read

    Socialism is the politics of jealousy.
    To a socialist it is better to make everyone fail, than to see a few succeed.

  2. _To a socialist it is better to make everyone fail, than to see a few succeed._
    Rob, I think you need to read up on your socialism…
    Tim: surely the whole point of centralised control of schooling, and the setting of standards (and qualifications), is to minimise the occurences of failure? It would be little comfort to me to find my daughter’s school failing but to be told not to worry, because it was all part of a great marketised march to progress – ‘sorry, sir, we need to fail so the system succeeds’.
    If the sponsors of these academies want to set up private schools under their control, sure, let them go ahead. But with their own money, not mine.
    Tim adds: The whole point of centralised control […] is to minimise the occurences of failure. You could run Lenin on that idea. If you cannot experiment (and therefore run the risk of failure) then you can never get better. Sorry, basic lesson about markets.

  3. So why do we insist that doctors have qualifications? You would, after all, find some brilliant surgeons if just anybody could have a go.
    More sensibly, perhaps because the standardization and regulation of some areas, like education and medical care, is a superior system to allowing the market to rule untrammeled?
    [plus, relatedly, City Academies aren’t operating in a ‘market’ when 90 percent of the cash to build them and all of the cash to run them is provided by the government]
    Tim adds: You are (deliberately?) missing the point. If we already knew what was the perfect way to teach people then central regulation might (might !) work. But we don’t so we need to continue to experiment. The important thing about the academies is that they are free from the central restrictions. As above, how would we everhave found out about phonicsif someone had not tested it?

  4. Rob Read Avatar
    Rob Read

    I just think you don’t realise how little you are told when your surgeon decides to experiment…
    It’s time for the 60 year experiment in stalinist medicine called the NHs to be called a failure, or at least aloow those who don’t like MRSA to opt out of paying for it.
    Jarndyce, I think I have got socialism completely right, perhaps you need to do less reading and more understanding?

  5. _As above, how would we ever have found out about phonics if someone had not tested it?_
    New teaching techniques are tested all the time within the state system. So, the same way we’ve found every other advance in education, I guess. I can’t really comment on phonics, as I haven’t followed the story, but my partner teaches autistic kids with severe learning difficulties, and she’s always learning about new ways of doing things. I’m not against experimentation at all, just don’t think the ‘semi-private’ bit is necessary to do that.
    I’m not even against private setups doing their own thing (Montessori etc), just against it when it’s my money they’re spending without any accountability to me.
    In any case, if you really supported dispersed, marketized education these academies aren’t for you anyway: they are inspected by OFSTED and so their revolutionary tendency is very much restrained by the reins of the sinister state.

  6. JohnM Avatar
    JohnM

    The idea that phonics is new would be funny if it’s displacement by whole-language theory wasn’t linked to the failure to teach children to read. Ironically, it was the Conservatives who in introducing the National Curriculum did most to enforce the orthodoxy of the whole-language method. Clearly, that wasn’t their intention. In their desire to improve literacy, they foolishly trusted the civil servants to impartially support that end.
    That said phonics is a proven system. In study after study it is shown to be more effective. It ought to be adopted more. Why the reluctance then?
    1. Teacher training colleges do not support the method.
    2. LEA Inspectors discourage its use.
    Many commentators (see Melanie Philips for an example) accuse the left of promoting whole language precisely as a tool to promote a socialist agenda. I won’t get distracted here by that debate.
    The point about failure:
    ‘It would be little comfort to me to find my daughter’s school failing but to be told not to worry, because it was all part of a great marketised march to progress – ‘sorry, sir, we need to fail so the system succeeds’.’
    ..is either naive or foolish.
    We know that about 20-25% of people in Britain are technically illiterate. This is not only a decline since the start of the welfare state, it is a decline compared to before the start of state education in 1908 (or 1911), when only approx 95% of people attended school. The state hasn’t prevented this disaster from happening under any administration.
    Schools attended by illiterate ex-pupils have de facto failed, but schools can and do fail in two real ways: first they exist in areas where demand is present yet parents desperately try to get their children into other schools (Dianne Abbot or in fact most of the Labour front bench); second, inspectors judge the schools to be falling below a minimum threshold resulting in takeover.
    Simplistic comments comparing marketised approaches to a desirable but utopian outcome (the state will magically ensure that all pupils everywhere succeed) are a diversion from the true comparison: letting the market choose where to send their kids to school.
    The fact that parents move to get into the right postcode or attend church services they don’t believe in, or perform all the other deeds required to get their kids into the perceived “decent” school proves that a market system already exists. This suggests that the school inspector that counts is the demand of parents for their children to attend.
    What Major got wrong and every Socialist continues to get wrong is that the dead hand of the state will always eventually thwart the good intentions of the legislators. Central control is the problem, not the solution.
    So Academies are a mixed idea. The positives are that Blair has realised that to make them succeed, they need to be liberated from LEA control and to create their own ethos. Initially, this may succeed – some will prove a success and attract application. However, eventually the government, for good intentions, will seek to control them. As stated OFSTED is already involved.
    The irony of the socialist position is that before state education closed down charitable schools, many working people sent their children to excellent schools, whose ethos they controlled. Look at the education attainment of Aneuran Bevin. No one forced Conservatism or Christianity down their throats. A vast change from the compulsory fair trade lessons that my children are forced to attend.

  7. Interesting, though this from Social Trends on literacy of age cohorts would appear to question your assertion that literacy levels are falling. In fact, since 1945 they appear to have risen, which would kind of scupper your case.

  8. JohnM Avatar
    JohnM

    I don’t think so. This study shows that older people have lower literacy levels. Whilst that might be due to poorer teaching in the past it could equally be due to declining abilities as people age. Besides which the results you quote are hardly an endorsement of state education:
    Percentage with reading level 1-2 (3+ is regarded as minimum)
    39% of Males aged 16-24
    52% of Females aged 16-24
    These are worse results than the 20-25% I quoted.
    Other statistics reinforce my point that literacy levels have declined:
    E G West – Education and the State: –
    “On my calculations for 1880, when national compulsion was enacted, over 95 percent of fifteen-year-olds were literate. This should be compared to the fact that over a century later 40 percent of 21-year-olds in the United Kingdom admit to difficulties with writing and spelling.” http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/9607west.html
    Durham University tested reading and vocabulary attainment levels of eleven year olds over 5 years. Whilst government statistics showed a improvement from 48% to 74% in the same time period, the Durham study showed no change. Given the vast discrepancy and more particularly the totally unprecedented improvement in the government figures, I think this demonstrates a timeless truth about Socialist bureaucracies: it’s much easier to report increased tractor output than to actually do anything about making tractors.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading