More tests for 7 yr olds: do standardised tests, targets and league tables really improve learning?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34707629 As Nicky Morgan indicates there could be tougher tests for 7 year olds, I wonder, do standardised tests really improve actual learning?

An interesting article , about the education system in Finland, caught my eye a while ago and got me thinking. Apparently Finland’s education system is the best in the world, although this has not always been the case. Following failure in the 1970’s the whole system was reformed, and the reforms seemed to have worked, and even cost less than when the education system was failing.

So what did they do? Introduce additional tests, targets, performance indicators, outcomes, privatise the system to increase competition and consumer choice to drive up educational standards? Well, no, just the opposite really.

Firstly, there are no league tables in Finland, the main driver of education policy is a vision focused on ensuring all children have access to the same opportunities to learn in a good school, wherever the child lives and regardless of the childs economic background. Cooperation between schools rather than competition underpins this ethos, as does a belief in the ability of individual schools to achieve this without centralised targets from government or regulation. Teachers are valued as professionals and as such are trusted to assess children in their classroom using independent tests they create themselves. If they do not feel it is beneficial to the childs well-being they do not test the child. Inclusion in tests are determined by whether it positively affects the students learning, not whether it increases students scores or meets a performance indicator.

The bit that really caught my imaginaton when reading was when the interviewer asked about the accountability of the teachers and those who run the school.

‘Salberg shrugs. “There’s no word for accountability in Finnish” later on suggesting “Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted”

Whether this is true or not I do not know as I do not speak Finnish, however, it is an interesting notion that by acting responsibly accountability is not an issue. In Finland teaching professionals are afforded prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility, which they evidently fulfil with gusto. So the question of ‘accountability’ seldom arises. If it does it is dealt with by the head locally.

And believe it or not but all of this has been achieved by not privatising education, that’s right not privatising education. There are no private schools in Finland, only a small number of independent schools exist in Finland but even these are publicly funded. None are allowed to charge fees, and there are no private universities either. The focus in public sector provision of education is on equity and shared responsibility, not choice and competition. Hmm can we learn anything from this?

At present public trust and confidence in the public sector must be at an all time low, however, to regain trust we need to see real change, a change in direction that is new and imaginative. One of Finlands key success factors has been a recognition that learning from past experiences can build a better future. Can we do the same?

Social workers to learn how to earn ‘public trust’ from Politicians … Really!

Politicians to lead task force that will guide social workers in earning back public trust …… Really!

Forgive me, I almost choked on my coffee whilst reading a piece entitled ‘Social work needs to earn back public trust‘ on the Guardians Social Care Network.

The government has set up a task force to guide the social work profession on how to earn public trust. A stellar line up of politicians which include Michael Gove, Theresa May and Iain Duncan Smith, those well-known advocates of social work and those they work with. When did Politicians earn the right to pontificate on how a profession might earn public trust I wonder? I must have missed this whilst reading about the numerous promises this government has reneged on since the general election, and which clearly must have enhanced the publics trust in them …..

I am a tad perturbed the government seems to have ditched the comprehensive Munro Review, which provided a very balanced approach to reform that focused not just on social workers and their education but also the political and organisational contexts which also shape social work practice, and arguably go some way to explaining the current problems that bedevil the profession.

The piece suggests the new task force will focus on robust assessment of qualifying social workers involving employers, academics and those who use services …. ummm sorry to mention this, but I do not know of a qualifying social work programme that does not already do this. Social work programmes across the land expect students to pass a number of academic theory assignments and law based exams alongside practice based assessments which involve numerous observations of practice and a plethora of meetings and reports provided by employers, those who use services and academics commenting on the student’s performance and fitness for practice over a 2 or 3 year period.

The article goes onto suggest the social work profession needs to ask itself ‘why the college failed’ and ‘why the public mood’ supports changes in the law where social workers can be prosecuted for wilful neglect. In response to the first question, from my perspective, the reason I did not join the college is that I felt it represented the voice of the government not social workers. To the second comment I would hazard a guess that 30 years of inaccurate reporting in the media, oft-repeated by politicians, and flawed serious case reviews have played a part in the general publics perception of the profession.

Just read the book by Prof Ray Jones which looks at why politicians and the media were so keen to blame and vilify social workers and Sharon Shoesmith, Haringey’s then children’s services in the case of Baby P, to gain some insight into why the profession is held in such low esteem by the public, aided and abetted by the media and government I would suggest.

I was surprised the piece did not mention the problems with inadequate IT systems, how social work now operates in a call centre environment where workers hot desk and have limited contact with their peers, or how workers work in their cars, making phone calls in lay-bys on their mobiles because they cannot access secure office space. Nor does it mention the failing court system, or the outmoded model of fostering and adoption which is no longer fit for purpose and in many cases just adds to the trauma of already traumatised children’s lives, it fails to mention the knock on effect of welfare reform, the lack of affordable good quality housing or the deterioration in mental health support services to both adults and children, it does not dig deep into the effect on frontline service provision of high levels of stress related sickness and social work vacancies, or the impact of temporary agency workers in providing important continuity when working with children and families.

I have worked with hundreds of hard-working social work students, many of whom are accruing debts of up to £40,000 to become a social worker in children and family services. Despite public and government distrust, and potential imprisonment, they are committed to being the best social workers they can possibly be …. because of this I believe in social work. Time for another coffee I think …..

Kids Company:Is government creating a narrative that diverts attention from the real issues?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/03/camila-batmanghelidjh-to-leave-kids-company

On the way into work this morning i listened to Camila Batmanghelidjh give her version of events leading up to the recent headline, she was rather magnificent …. whom to believe?

You decide

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02w69ng

Can this government ever be transparent and demonstrate integrity ….?

Compassion is the real loser in this election……

Our newly re-elected government will continue to ensure the nation turns inward on its self, with one group blaming another for all manner of ills …….

The re-election of a more mediocre government is hard to imagine. The Tories must be laughing all the way to their banker mates tonight as voters have fallen for their well worn mantra around  welfare reform again, when really the issue goes to the very heart of society. This election result tells us much about  what we believe in and who we value.

Our newly re-elected government will continue to ensure the nation turns inward on its self, with one group blaming another for all manner of ills, as it did with the failure of an under-regulated financial sector by transforming its failure into a ‘witch hunt’ against anyone in receipt of ‘welfare’.

The re-elected government will continue to develop policy based on stereotypes of those most marginalised to address the problems caused by those most powerful, and voters seemingly appear all to ready to believe government rhetoric of a world where everyone is either a’ skiver or a striver’.

Compassion is the real loser in this election.

Go on diet or lose your benefits. Is tackling obesity really that easy?

The Times recently reported Mr Cameron suggests obese people in receipt of benefits will lose them if they do not go on a diet.  Is this really the best way to tackle the issue of obesity?

That obesity is a world wide issue suggests to me threatening to take away someone’s benefits might be an over simplification of this issue and is actually an ideological tactic to attract voters.

Lets not get distracted from the primary issue here,  the role of an active state in society.  By narrowing the focus on obesity and healthy eating we risk reducing the debate to stigmatizing those who are obese and focus too much on individual responsibility. For once could the debate also include corporate responsibility.

Just look at the food labelling debacle, which has been dragging on for over two decades The coalition government announced in October 2012 that a consistent system of food labelling is set to be launched this year, however, it is not quite a done deal with food producers still holding back. Cadbury, amongst others, have spurned the ‘traffic light’ system suggesting it focuses too much on the negative ingredients in their food. Really!

But it is not just about food labelling, more importantly it is also about the food production process. For example research suggests high salt intake is associated with significantly increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease, so to reduce risk just reduce salt in take, easy. However, the same research also suggests high levels of salt intake is related to food production processes, rather than individuals adding salt to their diet, and the biggest barrier to reducing significant salt intake for individuals is the historical reluctance of the food industry to reduce the levels of salt used in food production. The seriousness of this issue must not get lost in tabloid headlines about ‘obese’ people.

Health campaigners suggest clearer food labelling could save lives, and have been campaigning for 20 years on this issue against a food industry which has spent over 1 billion in Europe to resist the introduction of understandable food labelling. Why would any one resist implementing something that could save lives? Profit of course. How could successive governments in the UK stand by and allow this to continue for so long?

Any talk of government taking an interventionist approach is met with cries of ‘nanny state’ from the Tory right who use this as a pejorative term to describe excessive state action. Those who support free markets object to the use of state power in this way perceiving such an approach as restricting individual choice. However, real choice can only be effective if we have all the relevant information to make those choices, this is where a consistent and understandable food labelling system would support real choice for consumers.  Arguably Cameron is facilitating a discourse of individual solutions to what is essentially a structural issue.  The negative consequence of a system reliant on promoting individualism, and the privatisation of responsibility, is that it falls most heavily on those already occupying positions of structural disadvantage.

Governments role on this issue is ideological. Whilst for some intervention from government represents the worst excesses of the ‘nanny state’, to others it represents an ‘active state’ coordinating an approach to promote public health for its citizens, rather than protecting big industry from taking responsibility for its actions. Strategies that might be developed include easily understood food labelling, then the consumer can make an informed choice and if we choose to abandon food rich in fat and high in sugar producers can provide what we do want to eat. Even better remove excessive sugar and salt from food production, that would provide the greatest benefit to public health. We need intervention because we can not trust the food industry, the average consumer can not fight against such unethical practices on their own. A rise in the cost of food is an interesting argument presented by the food industry as an argument against healthier food production. Presumably the real cost of poor quality food should include the cost to the NHS in diet related illness, but of course the food companies do not pay for this, this is displaced onto the individual consumer via the taxes we pay to fund our health care system.

Regulating the food industry is about changing a business culture from one of making a profit, at any price, to one of honesty and accountability. The regulation of the food industry must not be overshadowed by obesity and the healthy eating debate because there are much bigger issues at stake here, not least the accountability of the food industry and the role government should have, if any, in regulating the food industry to protect the health of the nation.

All most of us want is honesty and transparency, and maybe even an ethical approach in business where our health is put before profit, is that too much to ask?

Rotherham: We need structural and culture change to improve professional practice ………

Di Galpin

Not only were the children of Rotherham sexually exploited, they were abused by the system that was meant to protect them. Structural abuse is defined as ‘the process by which an individual is dealt with unfairly by a system of harm in ways that the person cannot protect themselves against, cannot deal with, cannot break out of, cannot mobilise against, cannot seek justice for, cannot redress, cannot avoid, cannot reverse and cannot change’ I think this adequately sums up the experience of those children who were systematically sexually exploited by their abusers and those same children who were systematically emotionally abused by the individuals and system that was meant to protect them.

The independent inquiry by Alexis Jay should give us all food for thought. Those who had the power to step in and protect those most vulnerable will have to consider engaging in some serious, and brutally honest, professional…

View original post 714 more words

Food poverty is the price we pay to maintain inequality ………..

“Food poverty, indeed all poverty, is the price some pay to maintain an economic approach that widens the divide between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in society”.

As Justin Welby expresses his shock at food poverty in the UK, ministers seek to shift the focus away from government failure.

Many of those who govern this country are woefully out of touch and too quick to blame individuals for their descent into impoverishment, rather than look at their own role in the rising tide of inequality which threatens us all.

It is easy for ministers to imply the growth in food bank usage is due to individual moral defect even when their own research, conducted by DEFRA, suggests turning to a food bank is the strategy of last resort once all other possible strategies have been exhausted by those unable to feed their families.

The response from some in government is not new. We have had Ian Duncan Smith’s tall tale of ‘feckless layabouts’,  characterture villains of the ‘B’ movie variety designed to simplify issues which require significant structural change in approach to education, housing, employment, income and taxation.

Then there are Mr Cameron’s ‘troubled families’. Another stereotype beloved of successive governments to blame the woes of their world upon. Sadly, for government, locating problems with individuals is a doomed simplistic approach, as the trouble families programme is discovering. Troubled families are actually people whose lives are out of control due to multiple inter-related problems none of us could cope with easily i.e. poor mental and physical health, poor education, low incomes, rent arrears and poor housing. However, if we look beyond the labels of troubled families and feckless layabouts research suggests many others in society today are also struggling to attain a basic level of control over their lives. Concerns over how to feed the family and heat the home this winter will be the focus of many parents’ efforts. Add to this that many of those homes are damp and in poor condition with families experiencing increased financial insecurity, related to zero hours contracts, and it is apparent that our elected political elite are failing us as a nation when they resort to simplistically blaming individuals.

Food poverty, indeed all poverty, is the price some pay to maintain an economic approach that widens the divide between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in society.

That inequality thrives within a free market economic system is not really debatable if we accept Thomas Piketty’s analysis in ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’. However, whether inequality matters is debatable, and this is a debate we are yet to have openly in this country.

Economist Friedrich Hayek (beloved of Mrs Thatcher) compared the free market to a game in which there is no point in calling an outcome just or unjust. In this context the Food Bank co-exists on the high street with the designer shop without shame. The problem is whether we play the game or not, it is being played with us. Whatever we do or abstain from doing, our withdrawal will change nothing. In essences many in society today are engaged in a game made up of make believe free players where the appearance of freedom masks the dynamic and unpredictable process by which sudden economic change, and ultimately disadvantage, may visit upon a citizen at anytime.

With a general election looming it is time to raise the level of debate and decide are we happy to live in an unequal society and are we happy to continue to blame individuals for their own misfortune? If we are happy with ‘B’ movie villains and solutions we had better hope no such misfortune ever befalls us, lest we become those characterture villains so beloved of tabloid headlines and government ministers.