---
layout: post
status: publish
published: true
title: ! 'Guest piece in the Guardian: Secondary schools are not adequately preparing
  students for higher education'

wordpress_id: 1698
wordpress_url: https://www.martineve.com/?p=1698
date: !binary |-
  MjAxMS0xMi0yMiAxMjo0MDoyNSArMDEwMA==
date_gmt: !binary |-
  MjAxMS0xMi0yMiAxMjo0MDoyNSArMDEwMA==
categories:
- Politics
- Academia
- Output
- Media
tags:
- academia
- exams
- entrance
comments:
- id: 6584
  author: ''
  author_email: claytonburns@gmail.com
  author_url: ''
  date: !binary |-
    MjAxMS0xMi0yNCAwNTowOTowMCArMDEwMA==
  date_gmt: !binary |-
    MjAxMS0xMi0yNCAwNTowOTowMCArMDEwMA==
  content: ! 'ClaytonBurns1 day ago


    It will not be possible for volunteering to close the gap between education failure
    and the future. It is just impossible: "It means local groups such as (but not
    limited to) the Scouts working with families to provide enriching and exciting
    opportunities outside schools in holidays and weekends."Look, your comment means
    well, but it is not realistic. It is not "uncompromising" enough (to the Lower
    Place with "pragmatism.") The best author read out loud with young students is
    Kipling, in the new Penguin. But that means concentration, beginning with "The
    Jungle Books" and "Just So Stories," and following through with "Kim" and "The
    Man Who Would Be King." Competence means teaching excellent tactile habits with
    the COBUILD Student''s Dictionary at first, then the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
    English later. By the middle of the fourth school year, the student should be
    able to get some traction on the COBUILD Intermediate English Grammar, with the
    target being, ultimately, the COBUILD English Grammar. No bizarre substitutions.Look,
    sir, please pay careful attention: the Scouts do have a strong stated investment
    in Kipling, especially "The Jungle Books," but they cannot design meticulous programs
    around this author. The approach of the Scouts is just too distracted. They are
    paying lip service to Kipling, but they are not doing the job because they cannot
    recognize the cognitive value in absorbing sessions reading  "The Jungle Books"
    out loud, where Scout leaders read a page, then a Scout reads a page. Then on
    to "Kim."The Scouts cannot overcome the limitations of human cognition. There
    is no way we could in education, even if members of the Church of England and
    the Scouts were performing up to the highest standards. If it were limited to
    that, it would mean writing off the schools, where there is an infinity of time,
    and the weakest understanding of how to design graduated curricula and bond them
    to exams. Those who drop off their Comment at The DT do not normally respond to
    readers. Why they do not is a mystery. It seems that they are determined not to
    learn from their informants.Educators, bureaucrats, and politicians in England
    are in a deep cognitive trap, a category mistake: Michael Gove is helplessly willing
    to have his reforms in education parasitized by two years of worthless comparative
    studies of practices worldwide based on worthless PISA-style data. Can''t you
    understand the difference? You do not say a word about it here.Let us say that
    we compare Shanghai, Alberta, and London schools, employing PISA data. (We can''t
    trust the data because PISA does not test graduated curricula.) Is this so incredibly
    difficult to grasp? If I make arrangements with banks so that you can study great
    books such as COBUILD grammars and the best corpus dictionaries, along with texts
    such as "Great Expectations," then my tests will reflect reality.If I just tack
    together a multiple choice test not based on a curriculum, then the opportunity
    costs are killing: I have failed in my duty to encourage good study habits. I
    have just exacerbated the problems in education that I am purporting to ameliorate.
    Shanghai beat PISA with mechanistic programs, telling us PISA is trash. The lesson
    helpless educators in England draw from that is, PISA Good, Shanghai Good, England
    Bad. How crazy can they get? How utterly demented and delusional? There is no
    difference between an Institute of Education and a locked ward. Michael Gove cited
    grammar study in the schools of Alberta, but his statement was delusional. His
    own review noted the extremely modest practices in "grammar" in Alberta. I am
    Canadian. I know our systems. I live right beside Alberta. Gove is talking nonsense. What
    matters instead is the potential of students, which has clearly improved over
    the past 50 years, potential matched to the tools available--where we have seen
    tremendous improvement, especially in the past twenty years--and matched to administrative
    and teaching competence, lagging far behind. More comparative PISA-based statistical
    studies will destroy us. It is all garbage. Go see the Tinker Tailor film and
    note the motif: What they think is gold is shit. If you do not know what "shit"
    is, go down to the Department for Education barnyard and smell some (much) of
    it. Try to get it through your head: trashy "education business" comparative studies
    are meaningless. All you are doing is setting yourself up to follow rigid and
    inept models elsewhere, ones that do not even incorporate corpus tool integration,
    of LDOCE and COBUILD, for example. The cognitive problems and traps are overwhelming.
    If Michael Gove could get up in the morning, give his head  a shake, and suddenly
    realize that his reforms are all a mirage, as proven by my distinction between
    factitious comparisons as opposed to bringing out the potential in 1.students
    2.tools and 3.administration and teaching, that one act of vision would be worth
    $US one trillion to England. The traps are insidious and psychological and linguistic.
    You can''t get traction just with good will. You can by making Mark Ashcraft''s
    "Cognition" your initial focusing text. But you need to read it minutely, as Michael
    Gove must. It is maddening to have these people from the public writing in The
    DT without thinking carefully about what they are saying and without responding
    to comment. You could get the Scouts to stop lip-servicing Kipling and work with
    his texts in an inspired way. Encourage Michael Gove to respond to his informants
    here. Instead of his edu/bureau keepers, who are drowning him in trash. What is
    grammar? Michael must meditate on that. He must have the 2011 COBUILD English
    Grammar in his very hands while doing so.'
- id: 6585
  author: ''
  author_email: claytonburns@gmail.com
  author_url: ''
  date: !binary |-
    MjAxMS0xMi0yNCAwNTozNTowMCArMDEwMA==
  date_gmt: !binary |-
    MjAxMS0xMi0yNCAwNTozNTowMCArMDEwMA==
  content: ! 'Sorry for the lack of paragraphs. The formatting at Telegraph and Guardian
    comments is hard to control, although the opportunities for reader comment are
    excellent.


    It would have been better if doctoral students at the University of Sussex had
    done the Oates review. They seem to me to be much more alert. 


    The reasoning--argumentation--you see in England is weak. The little baby steps
    in reasoning must reflect the failure of the schools. But the problems are more
    fundamental.


    If someone cannot read, they cannot reason.


    The first thing that needs to be done in the schools is the setting of targets
    for the final three years of education: that would mean penetration of the advanced
    Cambridge "Macbeth" and the new Arden "Hamlet," with casebooks for both, with
    essays exhibiting excellent argumentation. It would mean determined study of Emily
    Dickinson''s poems, "The Turn of the Screw," "The Beast in the Jungle," and the
    new Penguin Freud''s "Dora" (and perhaps the film "A Dangerous Method").


    It would mean deep penetration of the COBUILD English Grammar and the Longman
    Dictionary of Contemporary English. And integration of the two. Where are we going?
    What are our goals? In the schools, they have no idea. They are just wandering
    in circles doing some stuff. That is why it is so easy for parasites to get traction
    in the schools. Pearson, I mean you. 


    There is nobody at home to notice that there has never been an acceptable interpretation
    of "The Turn of the Screw" (the psychoanalytical readings being the worst), nor
    to notice the opportunity for a "T.S."-"Dora" package and casebook. Teachers can''t
    think, and academics are too distracted to think for them.


    The Canadian excuse for incompetence is that teacher training programs are obsolete,
    so there is no point in talking about the COBUILD English Grammar, because teachers
    would have no idea of what to do with it. In England, there should be a turn into
    competence immediately in 2012 in teacher education--without the ritualistic two
    years of confusion recommended by the government. claytonburns@gmail.com'
- id: 6586
  author: ''
  author_email: claytonburns@gmail.com
  author_url: ''
  date: !binary |-
    MjAxMS0xMi0yNCAyMDo1NzowMCArMDEwMA==
  date_gmt: !binary |-
    MjAxMS0xMi0yNCAyMDo1NzowMCArMDEwMA==
  content: ! '[P.S. I’ve just noticed that the version on the Guardian is far more
    businesslike and brusque in tone.]

    Why is the Guardian version superior in tone? How did it end up that way? Conspiracy?
    Or good/bad editing? 


    Your italics are off-putting, Martin Eve. 


    I choose University of Sussex doctoral students for an Aftermath Analysis of the
    Oates (Cambridge, is it?) report for Gove and the DfE.


    Many Sussex doctoral students are alert, and showing strong creativity. 


    How many school students are there in the county of Sussex? How many university
    students? 


    Instead of waiting for institutions to lead the Aftermath Education Analysis,
    Sussex doctoral students should go right ahead and start their reanalysis on Monday.
    Or even on Christmas day, when TLS editors, for example, will be whooping it up
    and neglecting their duties. 


    The county of Sussex would provide a tremendous sample for study of school and
    university integration. The Martin Eve-led study should be: "First Year to First
    Year: A Review of Tools and Practices in Sussex Schools and in Sussex First Year
    University."


    I was impressed by the Martin Eve op-ed in the Guardian, even if the reader comments
    there are a bit quiet. The Telegraph is showing better tenacity on this story,
    and better reader involvement. Being "uncompromising" instead of pragmatic.


    Martin, You may get little traction on your reasoning project unless language
    fundamentals are improved. In grammar (Gibb and Gove want skills there), chapters
    7-10 in the 2011 COBUILD English Grammar are essential. This should be the official
    grammar for the final three years of school in Sussex county, and for the first
    year of university in Sussex county. But waiting for over two years to do it would
    be destructive. 


    On January 2, 2012, the University of Sussex should make this grammar official
    for its operations, along with the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 








'
- id: 6587
  author: ''
  author_email: claytonburns@gmail.com
  author_url: ''
  date: !binary |-
    MjAxMS0xMi0yNCAyMToyNTowMCArMDEwMA==
  date_gmt: !binary |-
    MjAxMS0xMi0yNCAyMToyNTowMCArMDEwMA==
  content: ! '[...the ability to think logically and systematically present the case
    for an idea is shared by learning and the commercial sector...].

    The above needs to be corrected. '
- id: 6588
  author: Clayton Burns
  author_email: claytonburns@gmail.com
  author_url: ''
  date: !binary |-
    MjAxMS0xMi0yNiAwMDo1NDowMCArMDEwMA==
  date_gmt: !binary |-
    MjAxMS0xMi0yNiAwMDo1NDowMCArMDEwMA==
  content: ! 'Clayton Burns (Wall Street Journal):

     

    What Google seems to be seeking is plasticity:


    [It depends on the makeup of the list of integers and the constraints of time
    and memory. The applicant is expected to ask about these things. In general, Google
    is not trying to fill a particular job. The way the company morphs and grows,
    they want to find people who can join in one role and end up doing something completely
    different.] Poundstone.


    Does the Poundstone essay reflect current practices fully? This is from a recent
    WSJ article on interns:


    [Meanwhile, Facebook Inc. plans to hire 625 interns for next summer, up from 550
    this year. Google hired 1,000 engineering interns this past summer, up 20% from
    the previous year. Yolanda Mangolini, Google''s director of talent and outreach
    programs, says the company is still figuring out its target for 2012, based on
    its overall staffing plan.


    Google generally extends offers to the majority of its intern class, Ms. Mangolini
    says. "It is one of the primary ways we find full-time hires."]


    Here are some sample questions and scenarios from Poundstone: 


    [You are shrunk to the height of a nickel and thrown into a blender. Your mass
    is reduced so that your density is the same as usual. The blades start moving
    in 60 seconds. What do you do?]


    ["If you could be any superhero, who would it be?"


    "What color best represents your personality?"


    "What animal are you?"]


    [Design an evacuation plan for San Francisco.


    Use a programming language to describe a chicken.


    What is the most beautiful equation you have ever seen? Explain.]


    If we imagine the background skills needed for cognitive plasticity, then memory
    and language would be key. Have all candidates memorize these verb elements of
    the past and elicit the elements with imaginative prompts. [The elements keep
    getting rejected here. Plasticity is somewhat lacking. If you send me an e-mail
    at claytonburns@gmail.com, I''ll send them to you.]


    Just as you can''t assume the language, you can''t assume cognitive plasticity.
    You have to work on it, with interns in college, and far back into the schools.



    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/screenshot20110918at714.png/

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/585/screenshot20110918at714.png/

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/screenshot20110918at714.png/

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/200/screenshot20110918at715.png/

'
---
<p>A guest piece over at the Guardian Higher Education section:</p>
<blockquote><p>I remain critical of academia's kowtowing to the job market but, in this case, the two coincidentally align; the ability to think logically and systematically present the case for an idea is shared by learning and the commercial sector. Higher education must intervene before it slips further.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2011/dec/22/humanities-in-secondary-schools">Secondary schools are not adequately preparing students for higher education</a></p>
<p><i>Featured image by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrism70/">ChrisM70</a> under a CC-BY-NC-ND license.</i></p>
<p>P.S. I've just noticed that the version on the Guardian is far more businesslike and brusque in tone. I'm therefore posting the version with connective adverbs below:</p>
<blockquote><p>Nobody, particularly Higher Education, is served by the direction of humanities examination in schools</p>
<p>In the past few years there has been extensive debate on "dumbing down" in British secondary-school education. By this it is meant that standards are falling, examinations are universally easier and all students achieve better results. The main point at which Higher Education encounters this phenomenon is at the entrance stage. We ask: how are we to distinguish between applicants at university admission? As Mary Beard <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15888124">put it recently</a>, "A few weeks later, when we've made our decisions, there'll be the inevitable sequel - a front-page story about some impeccably qualified candidate (usually female and photogenic) who has been turned down thanks to utter incompetence on our part or outright discrimination." That said, students in my English Literature seminars are as bright and engaged as one could wish. Instead, where they usually fall down is in the struggle to write a structured piece of argumentative work. This is not of their doing. Instead, blame should squarely be pointed at the examination system, from GCSE to A-Level, in service of which these students have been mercilessly drilled. This strange deviation from traditional teaching has led to additional problems for Higher Education, be that in the cost of running additional seminars to bring them up to speed, or in additional strain on student support services; being suddenly thrust into such a radical set of new expectations is incredibly stressful for students.</p>
<p>For those unfamiliar with these changes in secondary school humanities examination, they can be easily summarised: point, quotation, point made. An exemplar piece of persuasive writing in History or Literature will no longer take the form of a strong thesis and then a consistent marshalling of evidence to support such a statement. Rather, the student is asked to make a series of observations pertaining to the question, with a single quotation for each, followed by a concluding statement to the effect that the quotation supports its respective remark. "George Orwell believes that war can solve problems. As he says in Nineteen Eighty-Four: "WAR IS PEACE". Saying war is peace shows that peace can come from war."</p>
<p>You may think that's a joke, but unfortunately the reality is not far from this. On paper, the Literature GCSE specification pays lip service and admiration to work that includes a "sophisticated awareness of the social and historical context". However, in a recent conversation with a principle examiner from one of the major examination bodies, the true nature of this was revealed. In her view, what was meant by "social and historical context" was "quotation from the text". So not social or historical context, then. This statement was made in reference to a paper on Orwell's Animal Farm. Devoid of historical and social context, I'm guessing that this is a charming tale of life on a farm that goes wrong thanks entirely to a bunch of dastardly pigs.</p>
<p>The other truly unfunny aspect here is that structure of argument is irrelevant. Allow me to give another quotation from this examiner: "of course it's nice if they write an introduction, but they won't get any marks for it". Which candidates are best served by this approach? It's certainly not those at the top; they'll be writing vast portions of work for which they'll receive no marks. I'd argue that it is also not beneficial to those at the bottom. Will they have a better appreciation of history or literature as a result of an examination structure that awards them a better mark for being able to list off pre-learnt snippets, with no structure and hence achieve a better grade? Those who gain the most from this situation are the middling types who are full of ideas, but are never taught to structure their thoughts; after all, what would be the point? There's no incentive. One of the key reasons for this change must, surely, be the ease of marking (and therefore lower rates of pay for non-specialist markers) that is afforded by a quantifying approach; make no mistake, this is a mathesis of assessment in the humanities disciplines.</p>
<p>As I began, we usually worry about this system at the time of admission. It's becoming painfully clear, though, that students are not suffering the most at this point, other than having been given a sense of false hope, but rather once they enter university itself. We expect them to develop these critical argumentative skills over the course of a month or so at the beginning of their degree and have to run additional classes to cover this lapse. These skills should have been fostered over the previous 5 years. Furthermore, this adds a huge degree of pressure to already overburdened students; I have seen a marked rise in students signed off for stress and illness. As we enter a new era of uncertainty and, no doubt, focus upon employability statistics, we should carefully note that this system serves neither education nor business. I remain critical of academia's kowtowing to the job market but, in this case, the two coincidentally align; the ability to think logically and systematically present the case for an idea is shared by learning and the commercial sector. Higher Education must intervene before it slips further.</p></blockquote>