Education – John Vincent

Ignorance and Knowledge

He’s entertaining. My thought is that maybe he’s trying to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. I have some sympathy with that approach. Why should we all agree? Consensus can be a dreadfully boring state of affairs.

Rory Stewart is heralding the advantages of ignorance. Even saying that sounds mildly provocative. It’s like saying; I want to be a sensible commentator but I’m going to throw a seemingly nonsensical proposition at you.

Who is Mr Stewart? He once was an English politician. He might claim to still be one. He certainly has speaking and writing abilities that make him interesting in that role. Brexit and all the shenanigans in the Conservative Party pushed him to the margins. Outside of that narrow band of madness he’s quite mainstream.

The square jawed expression and Trump-like hands of the publicity shot must have been the photographer’s first concept[1]. The title of the radio series is a good one. From one series of long histories, I’m sure he can make many long histories. History can be as long as anyone would like to make it. For most of it, humans have been profoundly ignorant about the world and its ways.

I get the notion that the starting point for discovery of new knowledge is ignorance. It’s going too far to say that ignorance can sometimes be valuable, and knowledge harmful. Call me old-fashioned but one of our greatest human achievements is education. It’s a social call to arms. Let’s raise the life opportunities for most people by passing on knowledge.

Every succeeding generation passes on knowledge. We stand on the shoulders of giants[2]. The process that forms the words on the screen in front of me only exists because of generations of development and learning. Onward we go. Well, there was that period of the so-called “dark ages” when humanity seemed to go backwards. And with modern youth there’s the fear of the coming zombie apocalypse whereby we return to a miserable ignorance.

What this says to me is that we take for granted a daily situation that is terribly fragile. Remove the underpinning of accumulated knowledge and back we go.

I say; there’s more than one kind of ignorance. I can think of 4-types without much stress.

There’s that which we all have by nature of not being able to answer the big questions. Why are we here? What’s it all for? How did everything come into being?

There’s that which is unknowing ignorance. Where we believe we know but subsequently its discovered that what we know was wrong. On going discovery.

There’s that encapsulated in the saying about choosing not to see. It’s deliberate ignorance. When we pretend or cannot face the implications of reality.

There’s that which is part of deception. Again, it’s deliberate ignorance or to encourage ignorance. This time it’s an intentional strategy to mislead, misrepresent or do malice.

I’ll listen and learn.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00199xy

[2] https://discover.hsp.org/Record/dc-9792/Description#tabnav

Unfair

That’s one way to start a note. “As a member of the post-active population”, I now feel that all the activity I now do is conveniently wrapped up as being somewhat like cosmic dark matter. It’s there in theory but no one knows what it is in fact. It’s activity that’s hidden activity.

There’s a great deal of talk about the large number of those people in their 50s, and above who have left the conventional workforce post-COVID. Unfortunately, much of it is tainted. The general implication being that the protestant work ethic runs deep and those who are not on the traditional 9-5 treadmill are letting society down. As if the only work worth counting is that which statisticians count into that magic number, namely Gross domestic product (GDP). The tyranny of an abbreviation. A great deal of useful productive and valuable activity is excluded from GDP.

Trogging off to Sunshine Deserts[1] every day, electronically or physically, and making or processing stuff and pushing rocks up hill is counted as the gold standard. This way of looking at the society is foolish. It comes from commentators being way behind the curve and politicians living life as if they were stuck in an idyllic childhood.

This way of thinking is especially true in the UK. More so than other European countries, we are dependent up charities and voluntary workers. German visitors are often struck by the number of charity shops in the UK. If you ask how palliative care, emergency services, children’s support, food banks, homeless shelters and crisis support are funded in German the response is simple – taxes.

The amount of unpaid work, like that performed in the home or by volunteers, in a massive range of organisations, is huge in the UK. That’s not wholly a bad thing. Sadly, this reality not recognised in government policy circles, other than being a way of off-loading responsibilities as funding cuts kick in. Of course, there’s politicians who turn-up for photo shoots at election time when there’s smidgen of recognition. If a charity is not in vogue or well known even those opportunities to raise funds and profile are few and far between.

All the above said, I do support the call for some education organisations that are deemed charities to lose the privileges rightly afforded to much more worthy charities. I know that’s a matter of judgement but not all fish in the sea are the same.

Often, it’s has struck me as strange that tertiary colleges (public funded education)[2] must pay Value Added Tax (VAT), but private colleges deemed to be “charities” do not. An uneven distribution of privileges is another characteristic of a way of doing things in this country.

As I understand, it what’s going on looks like this. Staff at Any Town College, where most local young people get their post-16 educational experience, order reams of paper for a printer. They pay 20% VAT. Staff at an expensive Public School, like the Prime Minister’s ex-college, order reams of paper for a printer. They don’t pay 20% VAT. That’s crazy.

No wonder growth is slow. No wonder social mobility is stifled. No wonder people are desperate for political change.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_and_Rise_of_Reginald_Perrin

[2] https://feweek.co.uk/no-plans-to-exempt-colleges-from-vat-says-treasury-secretary/

Pathway

Conversation drifts across a table. “What do you do?” It’s a classic conversation starter. Maybe “Where are you from?” comes up just as often. It’s those basics about identity that either bond us together or throw us apart. Or at least tigger certain ingrained responses.

In a society, like ours that has a long tail of class-based judgement, these questions have greater implications than elsewhere. In of itself that is a questionable remark. Leave the UK and similar markers create stereotypes that are easily recognisable. US comedy is full of them. For fans of the classic series like MASH[1] or Frasier[2] they are there is spades. Situation comedy often depends on misunderstandings and social tensions.

Anyway, I’m writing this when it comes to mind what a big gulf there is between those of us who had “desk jobs” and people who worked far more with their hands and wits. The labels of administrator or artisan can be stamped out so easily in British society.

A conversation went like this – I was a coach builder. I built lorries. I could never have done a desk job. My response was – I was lucky. Sometimes, I sat at a desk under piles of paper. Or in front of a keyboard. Sometimes, I travelled to, just about anywhere, where they built or flew aircraft and got to deal with real hardware. But however much there was an overlap between us two seniors at a bar, there was still a gulf that was probably born of a dividing line that was drawn when we were teenagers. Streaming people away from academic study was a grading system, certainly in the 1970s.

You might say that these traditional social barriers are a thing of the past. They are not, are they? In fact, in powerful places the line between people with real lived experience in craft or public service type roles is growing. Take a cross section of Members of Parliament. How many can count an experience of working a skilled trade or hands-on time doing something useful?

The Oxbridge mafia is as in control as it ever has been. Although recent examples from that background should be enough to put people off. The leisurely stroll from Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) to the green benches is so much simpler than any other pathway.

I love the revitalisation of apprenticeships[3]. However, that word now means something different from what it once did. There weren’t such notions as intermediate or advanced apprenticeships in my time, although they were implicit. Just a few found a sponsor and a pathway to a degree course on the same level as those who stayed on at school.

As much as providing new pathways the social context still matters. Elevating the status of apprenticeships matters. This is a first-class stream. From it can come future leaders.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068098/

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106004/

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z4n7kmn

Not again!

Why do we have so many inept and poorly qualified Government Ministers

To be a Government Minister you should have some kind of relevant qualification, or at least ability. Surely? Maybe you are competent in public administration or good at media presentation. In this case the man fronting a UK Conservative Government’s new policy looks, and sounds like a big floundering fish out of water.

Asked the simplest of questions. The very simplest of questions. Those that even the most elementary speaker would have practiced before exposing themselves, this Minister, of Education no less, performed like a partisan chump. Announcing a headline grabbing policy to stop ‘Rip-Off’ university degrees[1] this Member of Parliament went on Good Morning Britain totally ill-prepared[2]. The result was extremely embarrassing.

Why do we have so many inept and poorly qualified Government Ministers? What was totally obvious from the start was that this policy is being introduced without any idea of how it’s going to be implemented. No sense of real life.

Mr Halfron hadn’t given any thought what-so-ever to how to present his virgin education policy. Media interviewers are entitled to ask for illustrations and examples. The public watching, and listening will certainly what to know – what does this policy really mean? Who will be impacted?

Limiting the number of students that can go to university sounds like a profoundly unconservative policy to me. Surely, it’s for young people to make their own choices past the age of 18. If there are “poor” university courses in Britain, then that is a matter for a rigorous system of quality control. It should not be for dogmatically eliminating course subjects. Yet again, a weak Prime Minister and Education Secretary are pandering to a tabloid media agenda.

15 months after graduation there are likely to be many people who are going to be exceptionally successful in later life. To take an example, creative writing may not land a big job, but the spark of imagination and a deal of luck can produce authors who go on the have phenomenal global success.

The problem, Mr Halfron, in Britain is not what you study but the inequities of our society. What is the objective worth of a Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) degree from a Russel group university[3]? Noting that the mistakes made by so qualified Ministers are rarely accounted. Billion are lost to the national economy every year by poor decisions, incompetence, and ideological nonsense. Dare I mention the saga of the other PPE, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

What a massive contrast to what’s just happened in the US. The Biden administration has announced a multibillion relief scheme for student loans. The US Education Department says their new plan will help more than 800,000 borrowers[4]. What an effective way of helping past students stand on their own two feet in tough economic times.

POST: And again today. Even when good news is posted the Minister sent on the media round performs no better than a rusty Austin Allegro with an empty tank.

[1] https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/rip-off-degrees/

[2] https://youtu.be/vHOwmZQa37s

[3] https://russellgroup.ac.uk/about/our-universities/

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/14/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-income-driven/

What Town?

It’s a confusing film. I enjoyed it in a strange way. This is one of many times fiction has wrestled with the idea of parallel universes. “Everything Everywhere All at Once” gets crazy[1] and has some absurdly funny moments. Embracing all possibilities, however unlikely is a lot of fun. Childlike fun.

Life’s branches – it’s easy enough to grasp if there are a not many to think about. Lifelong “what ifs” are familiar territory. What if, I’d taken a different path? What if, I’d met this person instead of that person? What if that accident had been more, or less severe? It’s so human to play with imagination and different scenarios. What’s difficult to grasp is the notion that there might be an infinite number of different branches in and infinite numbers of universes.

When large numbers of possibilities arise, it can be the source of anxiety. Me being on the stoic side, I shrug my shoulders and carry on. Don’t get me wrong, thinking about lost opportunities or idiotic mistakes stirs-up more than a few feelings. Living in synchronisation with reality means choosing to focus on changing the things that can be changed and choosing not to bash one’s head against a wall. The key words being to choose.

This is the time of year when future students are looking at future possibilities. Walking past the gates of the local college, a group of school leavers could be seen eyeing up the building. That one first major step at 16 years. Up and down the county, universities are hosting potential students. Trying to answer all their questions. That step, at 18-years is one of the biggest those lucky enough to make, get to make. This town, or city, or that out-of-town campus.

I wonder what I’d be doing now if I’d gone to Bath university or Brunell in Uxbridge? How did I make those choices? Well, there was the factor of sponsorship so there was no way that the chance to study art, politics or philosophy would come up. My search was for a sandwich course to be able to mix study and work. My chosen trade was electrical and electronic design. That fascination with how stuff works continues to this day.

At 18 years, I had little grasp of the fact that university, or polytechnic as it was, was far more than technical study and the usual bundle of exams. The 4-years I had going backwards and forwards between the west country and Coventry was a mammoth transformation.

Although, I had no particular leaning towards aviation there was moments when aircraft and aeronautics came into the mix. On my journeys north to the midlands, I’d often stop at a lay-by at the end of the runway of RAF Kemble and watch the Red Arrow practice[2].

Coventry in the early 1980s was the home of GEC. That being the case there was a telecommunications bias in some of what we were taught. That suited me fine. Let’s face it, in that period we lived in an analogue world with a strong technological push to adopt the early generations of digital systems. Although electro-mechanical telephone exchange production had finished[3] much of the installed equipment in the country was still a mass of relays.

Coventry between 1978 and 1982 was the place to be. It was rough and ready. It was suffering the onslaught of Thatcher’s march to destroy the past and transplant the new. The pace of change left oceans of people behind. Culturally the pressure of that grim social revolution liberated a generation of music and rebellion that we look back on as magic.

As if by magic, and I didn’t plan this, BBC Radio 4 is playing “Ghost Town” by The Specials[4]. Yes, that was a defining soundtrack to influential moments in my life.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6710474/

[2] https://the-buccaneer-aviation-group.com/history-of-cotswold-airport/

[3] http://www.telephoneworks.co.uk/history/gec_telecomms.htm

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001n1h5

Why become an engineer?

At times in our lives there are choices to be made. That is if you are lucky enough to be able to make those choices. What courses to study at different stages of youth, is a big question. My story has more pragmatism that idealism. I was a great deal better at maths, physics, and geography than history or english langauage. Underlying that was as much interest as natural ability. It wasn’t so much a typical divide between the arts and humanities and science and technology. I enjoyed art. I’d say it’s having more of a graphical mind than a one that’s tunned to langauage and words.

I had a fascination with machinery. Growing-up on a farm I had plenty of opportunities to work with machinery. Taking engines apart and fixing anything and everything that needed fixing. What I found frustrating was the make-do-and-mend approach. It’s the classic agricultural attempt to fixing everything with 6-inch nails or baler twine. When money is tight, it’s a question of keeping machinery going for as long as possible before having a big bill or to chuck it away.

It was evident that small family livestock farming wasn’t for me. That feeling gave me more incentive to study. I left school at 16 yrs. with a moderate number of exams under my belt. What to do wasn’t clear but it wasn’t an open book either. I applied for apprenticeships within commuting distance of home. Local engineering employers of the time, Westland helicopter in Yeovil, Racal in Wells and Plessey Marine in Templecombe were targeted with letters from me. That’s the businesses of aircraft, radar, or sonar.

I’m a great believer in serendipity. Events come together by chance and an outcome can be better than might have been imagined. In 1976, I got a positive response from Plessey Marine Research Unit (PMRU). That year, the company sponsored two apprentices. Me being one of them.

Westland helicopter had a large long-established apprentice training school. A couple of my school mates ended up in Yeovil. Then, so did I but at Yeovil college. It ran an Engineering Industry Training Board (EITB)[1] training programme. This gave a bunch of 16-year-olds their first exposure to machine tools. The 48-week programme was much more. Some skills are life skills, that like riding a bike, are not forgotten. Today, I can still make a reasonable decent weld.

Training within PMRU was a series of placements moving from department to department. Although I was employed as a drawing office trainee there were other possibilities opened. The mix included a day-release to continuing studying.

Back to the original question. Why be an engineer?

There were professional engineers I worked with, and who mentored me, who did much more than put up with a curious local youth. They were inspiring. I wanted to do what they did. I wanted to understand design. I wanted to know the theory behind Sonar systems. Those steppingstones in the years between 16 and 18 are of immense importance. My opportunity to cultivate fascination drove my motivation to study. It worked. It set me on a path.

It’s one thing to put STEM[2] in schools. It’s another to give students real experience, of real work in real workplaces. Both are needed.

[1] https://mrc-catalogue.warwick.ac.uk/records/WDP/3

[2] Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) the umbrella term used to group together the distinct technical disciplines.

Lables

Performance based regulatory systems are all the rage. That’s when regulatory action is taken based on the measurement of a key indicator or a series of indicators. Sounds like a good idea. It is for the most part. Set a target of reducing or eliminating something that is damaging or undesirable and track progress towards achieving that goal.

Wouldn’t it have been to the benefit of all if a performance-based approach had been applied in the 1989 Water Act which privatised water in England and Wales? A great deal of sewage flooding into rivers could have been avoided.

However, it wouldn’t have helped to have nothing more than a simple “good” or “bad” indicator. In a performance-based system there’s a need for reasonably accurate measurement and graduated bans of performance achieved. The measurements taken need to be done in a timely manner too. Publishing measures that are a year or more out-of-date isn’t a good way of confidently plotting a way forward to hit a goal.

Listening to the News about Ofsted’s grading scheme, I can’t help but think that having a four-category grid is wholly inadequate for their purpose. Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. The Education inspection framework (EIF)[1] in England is primitive in this respect. Shoe-horning every school in England into Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate is brutal.

What’s the betting that at any one day many of the schools graded Outstanding are not, and many of the schools graded Inadequate are not either. The problem with these indicators is the crudity of the labels. We’ve all seen huge banners erected outside schools if there’s favourable news to communicate. What passers-by and parents see is the headline and not the reality of the performance of a particular school.

The sub-division of the lowest category into schools with serious weaknesses and in need of significant improvement doesn’t help much. Negative words get merged into a negative judgement.

Experience with risk management is that categorisation schemes face challenges when performance sits on the borderline between categories. That’s one reason why anything less than five categories is not often used.

The aim of a performance based regulatory systems is to improve performance. If the tools used become those that blame and shame, then that system is not working. Nothing, I’m saying here isn’t already written-up in the annals of quality management. People have been wrestling over different methods for 60 years, at least.

The current Ofsted’s grading scheme is poor and unimaginative.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-inspection-framework/education-inspection-framework

Schooling

Grammar schools. Don’t talk to me about grammar schools. I hear one of the Tory leadership contenders is touting the return of grammar schools[1]. Ironically, he’s also talking as if he believes in meritocracy. Apparently, he didn’t mean a universal return of selection in education but only expansion in areas where selection already exists. Maybe his double-take was because there remains evidence that selective education entrenches the divisions in our society. There’s a vestige of community snobbery that is served by dividing school children at age 11 years. This has always been popular amongst committed Tory voters.

The false narrative that grammar schools create social mobility is for the birds. Much of the entrenched views on this subject are the result of stereotypes that portray images of comprehensive schools and grammar schools as being like a comparison between Grange Hill[2] and Hogwarts[3].

Now, I will not get trapped in the myth that all grammar schools are bad, and all comprehensive schools are good on some higher ethical level. In most situations parents are going to seek the best state school opportunities, in their area, for their children. Those children will thrive in well-funded and well-run schools of either kind.

The circular argument that the grammar school experience “worked for me” is often a way society’s divisions are perpetuated through the generations. It’s self-fulfilling. We must ask – Should the children of doctors be more likely to become doctors? Should the children of teachers be more likely to become teachers? Should the children of politicians be more likely to become politicians?

My plea is that we don’t run headlong back to the pigeonholes of the 1970s. We need to give the best education we can to all pupils. Wherever they are from, and whatever the situation of their parents. The talent the country needs will not come solely from selective or private schools.

Yes, not everyone has been gifted with academic ability or for that matter craft or creative ability. Degrees of specialisation do make sense but not by selective partition at age 11 years. Remember that partition was conceived when children left formal education at an age less than 15 years.

One Tory leadership contender has hooked onto the campaigning value of virtue-signalling of having been to an ordinary school. She tells of seeing: “children who failed and were let down by low expectations”[4]. Thus, highlighting a perception of early disadvantage to heighten her projection of later accomplishments.

Debates on education never stray far from recounts of personal experience. Each of us are so impacted by our school years that it’s impossible to remain entirely objective. My father went to the local grammar school, but I did not. Although this fact never seemed to matter much at home, in the background, maybe in my own mind, there was an implication of failure.

What I value, on reflection, is the board range of experiences that an “ordinary” secondary modern schools afforded me. We had a wonderful cross section small town and rural life. A generation of school staff that ranged from young student teachers making their first idealist mark on the world, to grumpy escapees from the cities who treated everyone as backward laggards, to hardened eccentrics who regaled us with their collection of war stories.

Variety is the spice of life.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62340247

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grange_Hill_episodes

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogwarts

[4] https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/liz-truss-school-tory-leadership-candidates-row-rishi-sunak-1760697