I'm not wrong, everyone else is.

The Secretary of State for Education has reached record-breaking levels of self-delusion this morning with his accusation that headteachers who disagree with him are 'defeatist'.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3769292.ece

I don't like coming over all psychological in the context of politics but I have a feeling that we're dealing with someone who is displaying some classic symptoms. Some people who were over-corrected when young find it so difficult or painful to admit that they're wrong that it is much more comfortable for them to keep repeating that everyone else is wrong instead. 

At one level, this would seem to be a 'personal' way of  looking at something political but then I find that a good deal of what Gove says seems to be informed by a political Calvinism. At the outset, Calvinism was an extremely powerful ideology because it armed its adherents with unswerving certainty that they were 'saved'. This was coupled with strong ideas about what should be the correct conduct for an individual. Duty, sacrifice, responsibility, moderation, industriousness were seen as obligatory processes which would secure salvation - even though the adherents 'knew' that they were already saved. If Calvinism merely directed these ideas to its own members, it's possible I wouldn't be thinking of it now, but Calvinism - in its various forms - has had a massive impact on how we think, particularly when it comes to  young people and their formation or education. 

If you want to see the mark of Calvinism on our education system, you can see it in the relative status of school subjects. That's to say, some are regarded as 'real' or 'more important' than others; knowledge is given priority over investigation; private acquisition and accumulation of knowledge is seen as much more important than co-operation and discussion; learning correct facts from 'the master' is seen as much more important than discovery through talk, play and invention; the 'basics' (stated as being 'basic' without reflection) taught as correct rules are seen as more important than anything else that is not 'basic'. 

There's nothing wrong with zeal and passion in education but when it leads to a leader claiming that no one is as zealous as him, I think we can see how the politico-religion of Calvinism slips into delusion. 

"Raising standards" - not.

The evidence that Gove is 'raising standards' is here in Ofqual's consultation document on why they propose removing Speaking and Listening from GCSE English:

"We estimate that removing speaking and listening from the qualification would mean a drop of between 4 and 10 percentage points in the proportion of students achieving grades A*–C..."

http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/speaking-and-listening/background/impact-on-results/


We are talking here of a massive hoax. By talking of 'raising standards', Gove hopes to enlist the anxiety vote in support of what is a deliberate attempt to downgrade and fail more students. This is a backward move to create a reservoir of the 'failed'.

This is a historic turn away from the decades of rhetoric about 'upskilling' of the masses in order to face the challenges of new technology etc etc. All this talk of commas, grammar and the 'knowledge base' is a screen to hide a) they have put in place an even more secure system of failing the majority of pupils and b) they have given up on the notion that British capitalism can or should compete on the technology front.

The effect of this on human beings (ie school students) is that the government is not pushing for 'parity of esteem' between A-levels and technology qualifications; is doing very little to help non-academic pupils increase their skills and knowledge in the areas of technology, and 'applied' science; is doing a lot to ensure that those who fail 'academic' subjects are indeed all-round failures who are seen to be bringing down the scores and status of their schools ie the consequence of rating schools on English and Maths alone.

This has a double effect, repeating the errors of my time at secondary school in the 1950s/60s: so-called academic pupils like me were discouraged or prevented from getting a good technology education; students in secondary modern schools were regarded as inferior beings and it was only if they moved on to a 'tech' (Technology College) that they got anything like a good technology education. Even so, this was regarded socially and academic as less important and less valid than getting an A-level in Latin!

I suspect that this government has made strategic decisions about all this. In spite of the disasters that the finance sector has created, the government appear to think that a low-skill, low-wage economy linked to an emphasis on the finance sector is the way forward.

Outfits like Ofqual are pathetic servants to this greater objective.

Gove vs Headteachers: fantasy fiction

The clip I saw on BBC News last night of Gove in a Q and A at the NAHT conference, must surely take Gove to new levels of delusion and absurdity.

1. He genuinely seems to think that anyone who opposes anything he does is against 'raising standards'.    An alternative interpretation of his state of mind would be to infer that he believes that the Gove way to 'raising standards' is the only way. As a sidelight on that, the possibility that what he is doing is not raising standards is clearly out of the question. These various possibilities suggest to me that he has battled himself into a corner in which he has cast himself as the venturing hero battling against dark forces. I conclude from this that we are due yet more bizarre outbursts.

2. In the clip I saw, he said that if it wasn't for Ofsted, we wouldn't know about 'outstanding practice' in education. This is either a lie or a delusion. The world of education has always found ways of highlighting good practice. Examples? Her/His Majesty's Inspectors (HMI), the Schools Council, NFER, the professional associations of teachers eg NATE, LATE, the Language in the National Curriculum Project (LINC)... The issue in education is not usually a matter of how to identify good practice but how to share it.  Far from 'raising standards', Gove has secured a structure of education that encourages schools to not share good practice (ie competition between schools, and competition between pupils for exam results (norm-referenced exams)).

3. The clip showed Gove saying that he would have to 'part company' with the Headteachers over the matter of differing views of Ofsted. There is something absurdly tragic about a Secretary of State for Education declaring that he is parting company with a body like the National Association of Head Teachers. I suppose there should be no surprise here, though. He is only stating what we know: he has no inclination to co-operate with teachers, or arrive at any kind of consensus. The only model he has for his role is coercion. The venturing hero must be obeyed.

4. QED: we are being ruled over by someone who thinks he is a fantasy fiction warrior.

PS It's The Govinator vs The Enemies of Promise.

May 23 Under the Cranes at Birkbeck, Institute of the Moving Image

Film screening: Under the Cranes (2011, UK)

"If you let it, a street will grow."

Mixing rarely seen archive footage with new cinematography, Under the Cranesoffers a lyrical, painterly evocation of Hackney over several hundred years. Based on Hackney Streets, Michael Rosen's poetic play for voices, the film moves across time and space as we hear from Shakespeare in Shoreditch, a Jamaican builder, a Turkish barber and the 43 Group taking on Oswald Mosley in Dalston. This is a film which poses questions about the nature of regeneration in the recent period. It also explores the theme of migration, showing some of the struggles that people go through to secure a place for themselves (fighting racists if necessary), but also how migration brings diversity and the seeds of renewal.

The screening will be followed by a Q&A with writer Michael Rosen and film-maker and Birkbeck alumni Emma-Louise Williams.
When? 19:40-21:00


Where? Birkbeck Cinema, 43 Gordon Square


Booking: This event is free but booking is essential - see http://underthecranes.eventbrite.com/

"Confusion about 'whole language' and phonics" from Krashen

Confusion about whole language and phonics

Published in the Columbia Missourian, May 16, 2013

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/162044/letter-to-the-editor-confusion-about-reading-wars-is-about-terminology/

Much of the confusion about the “reading wars” (“Reading wars pit literacy instruction methods against each other,” May 14) is a confusion of terminology.

What the article calls “phonics-based instruction” is actually “intensive systematic phonics instruction,” a view of phonics that insists we teach all children all the major rules of phonics in a strict order.

 

Whole language is NOT look-see (or look-say). It is firmly based on the hypothesis that we learn to read when we understand what is written, when we understand the text.  Some knowledge of phonics can be helpful in making print more comprehensible, but there are severe limits on how much phonics can be directly taught and consciously learned: many of the rules are very complex with numerous exceptions. They cannot be taught but are gradually acquired, or absorbed, through reading.

 

Research supports whole language: Published scientific studies show that intensive systematic phonics is effective only for performance on tests in which children pronounce lists of words presented in isolation. It has only a microscopic influence on tests in which children have to understand what they read -- tests of reading comprehension given after first grade. Prof. Elaine Garan concluded that this was the case in The National Reading Panel Report and other studies show this as well.

 

Study after study has shown that performance on tests of reading comprehension is heavily influenced by the amount of self-selected free voluntary reading that children do, strong evidence for whole language.

 

The whole language position described here is very similar to the position of authors of Becoming a Nation of Readers, a book widely considered to provide strong support for phonics instruction:  “...phonics instruction should aim to teach only the most important and regular of letter-to-sound relationships ... once the basic relationships have been taught, the best way to get children to refine and extend their knowledge of letter-sound correspondences is through repeated opportunities to read. If this position is correct, then much phonics instruction is overly subtle and probably unproductive.”

 

Stephen Krashen

 

Original article: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/161650/reading-wars-pit-literacy-instruction-methods-against-each-other/

Where does knowledge of grammar come from?

Grammar and Spelling: What the Research Says

Published in the Guardian (UK) 

The real reading problem in England is that policymakers in education have not read the research on literacy development (Report, 14 May). Results are very consistent: 1) Direct instruction in grammar and spelling produces very limited results. 2) Nearly all of our knowledge of grammar and spelling is acquired and absorbed through extensive reading. These studies have been appearing in scientific journals regularly for over the last 100 years. Policymakers are free to disagree with the research, but not free to ignore it.
Stephen Krashen
Professor emeritus, University of Southern California

Original article:  Eleven-year-olds wake up to compulsory spelling and grammar test (May 14)

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/may/14/spelling-tests-english-sats-england

 

 

Some sources:

 

Cook, W. (1912) Should we teach spelling by rule? Journal of Educational Psychology 3, 316-325.

Cornman, O. (1902) Spelling in the Elementary School. Boston: Ginn.

Elley, W., I. Barham, H. Lamb, and M. Wyllie. (1976) The role of grammar in a secondary school curriculum. Research in the Teaching of English 10, 5-21.

Hammill, D., S. Larson, and G. McNutt. (1977). The effect of spelling instruction: A preliminary study. Elementary School Journal 78, 67-72.

For more sources, please see:

Krashen, S. (2004) The Power of Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, and Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Bad grammar awards

I put this up on facebook earlier. Just a quick few thoughts in relation to the 'Bad Grammar Awards' that are getting publicity today. The audio link is at the bottom:




One of the more absurd displays of ignorance masked as bullying appeared on BBC radio 4 Today programme this morning when Tom Hodgkinson talked about 'bad grammar awards' that he and his pals are handing out. 
1. He showed that he thinks a word has grammar when it's out of context and stands alone. So he said 'young' is an adjective. No it's not. It is what it is, when it has a function to play in context, where it might be all sorts of things.
2. He found that he couldn't identify what was wrong with a phrase when he couldn't find his grammatical notes. So how useful is the knowledge that he prizes so much?
3. He finds it hard to express himself, and keeps repeating 'sort of' and 'kind of'. No harm in that for a moment, other than that he's set himself up as a judge. Particularly daft when he says 'a kind of grammatical slip'. Is it a slip or is it not a slip?
4. He seems to think that grammar is a set of rules. It's not. It's the means by which we make sense. So there are many variants which enable us to make sense. When he speaks he finds it difficult to make sense. The examples he gave as 'wrong grammar' were very easy to make sense of.

http://audioboo.fm/boos/1366037-just-how-bad-is-bad-grammar