Follow Simon Caulkin on Twitter



Article Archive
2019
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2018
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2017
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2016
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2015
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2014
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2013
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2012
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2011
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2010
December
October
September
2009
November
October
June
May
April
March
February
January
2008
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2007
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2006
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2005
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2004
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2003
December
November
1998
January
1997
January
1996
February
1994
May


Bottom of the class

Fri, 2nd Sep 2016

The silly season used to consist of two or three weeks of summer torpor when newspapers used up their stock of daft and inconsequential stories that couldn’t make it into the paper on normal days. This year the silly season started early and shows every sign of becoming permanent – it’s now not the daft but the normal that’s in short supply.

After the mega-daftness of Brexit and the accompanying rounds of governmental musical chairs, the latest sign of soaring unreality is the much-trailed suggestion that Theresa May’s government is about to sanction a return to selective education and grammar schools. If you take the view that part of Brexit was a cry to stop the world and return to the imagined insular certainties of the 1950s, there’s perhaps a certain mad logic in taking steps to try to bring that world about. But in any other sense it’s a policy that would give even the Monster Raving Loony Party (‘Vote for Insanity!’) pause.

It’s quite hard to know where to begin, but let’s give it a try.

In an age of headlong technological advance which eats jobs for breakfast, lunch and tea (more than 40 per cent of all jobs will be automatable by mid-century, according to one much-quoted estimate) one thing that everyone agrees on is that an essential step in easing adjustment and heading off mass long-term unemployment is to equip people (all people) with better qualifications and broader skills.

In a pre-digital era that was the thinking behind the comprehensive movement and then the ambition that 50 per cent of every age cohort should attend university. The application was flawed, and such supply-side measures are, as I keep saying, in any case pathetically insufficient. But that doesn’t make the reasoning wrong.

The second reason why selection at 11 is criminal as well as crazy is that no one these days still believes that intelligence is fixed. Sir John Harvey-Jones always used to say that the root cause of the UK’s disproportionate contingent of unskilled, poorly-paid workers was low expectations. He was right. Countless experiments at school, in the military and at work have shown that those expected to do well perform better than those who aren’t, and conversely that treating people as failures is the surest way of ensuring that that’s what they become. A neglected part of Steve Jobs’ success at Apple (albeit at high personal cost) was his use of impossibly high expectations to force results from people that astonished even themselves. Selecting by ‘intelligence’ at the tender age of 11 is as unacceptable and arbitrary as selecting by class, gender or colour.

The third reason, and one that amplifies all the others by orders of magnitude, is the ‘100-year life’, the prediction that on present trends half of those born today will still be alive in 2116. Increasing longevity makes a nonsense of the straightforward linear progression from education to work to retirement. If the extra years are to be a blessing rather than a grinding burden, multiple mini-careers will have to become the norm interspersed with education that is lifelong, not bunched upfront at the beginning. In this context, a narrow education determined at an early age is a complete disaster, the exact opposite of what is needed. In their book on the new demographics, Andrew Scott and Lynda Gratton emphasize the importance of keeping the widest spread of options open for possible futures. They also warn that it will be up to the individual to do this: neither governments nor corporations (if there are any left in a generation’s time) will do it for you.

This of course widens out into a bigger debate, perhaps the biggest of all, about education seen as a whole, not just schooling. Just as it makes no sense to select academically at 11, in a world where human life is lengthening and technological cycles are shortening loading 20-somethings with huge debts at the start of an uncertain 60-year working life for a one-off, possibly depleting university investment is plainly crackers.

What is really needed is an entirely new look at at what education should mean in the age of big data and the truly smart machine. What are the roles of man and machine? What does it mean to be human? In front of such issues, the ‘why’ questions trump those of ‘what’ and ‘how’; as machine capabilities develop and algorithms drive ever more of our world, the study of history and thought may become the key factor in preventing the sorcerer’s apprentice from taking over entirely. A greater distance from today’s instrumentalist, reductive, teach-to-the-test teaching it is hard to imagine. As Yuval Noah Harari writes in his new book, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, ‘As long as you have greater insight and self-knowledge than the algorithms, your choices will still be superior and you will keep at least some authority in your hands. If the algorithms nevertheless seem posed to take over, it is mainly because most human beings hardly know themselves at all.’

 
 


 

 

 

 

 


<< Back to Index

User comments

Paul Ainsworth :: 2nd Sep 16
Simon, I disagree with your analysis of Grammar Schools. I went to one which wasn't perfect like all schools, but there is a gap in the education system for schools between fee paying public schools which are miles beyond the ambition of professional parents like me and my wife.The question is whether they are freed from the rules imposed by the DoE especially with the national curriculum. Academies appear to focus on related subjects and I presume Grammar Schools would aim for excellence in all.
Paul Ainsworth :: 2nd Sep 16
Simon, I disagree with your analysis of Grammar Schools. I went to one which wasn't perfect like all schools, but there is a gap in the education system for schools between fee paying public schools which are miles beyond the ambition of professional parents like me and my wife.The question is whether they are freed from the rules imposed by the DoE especially with the national curriculum. Academies appear to focus on related subjects and I presume Grammar Schools would aim for excellence in all.
Mike Davidge :: 3rd Sep 16
Acually I agree with Simon and not Paul. If there is a gap between fee paying schools and the rest, the answer is surely not to create another tier. 3 tiers are no better than 2. Birmingham where we used to live has a grammar school system and if your kids are not in the top X% academically you are faced with 2 choices: pay or move. We chose to move and this is not a 'no cost' option by the way so not everyone can do this. Areas with high performing state schools command a house price premium. The answer is to work to make sure all state schools provide a suitable education. That is a long term aim and therefore one that is beyond our short termist governments.
Paul Ainsworth :: 3rd Sep 16
It's not another tier. Grammar schools would operate in parallel with comprehensives. As for the problems with state sector supply and demand, that is an entirely separate issue.
Andy Lippok :: 4th Sep 16
We're fighting an old war here and will take us nowhere. This is not an argument between comprehensive vs grammar. This is one of whether we have schools as we know them now at all. Just look at the way some universities such as MIT are transforming their buildings and offers to students. This needs completely new thinking, not simply moving the deck chairs of which form of school we ought to have.
Paul Ainsworth :: 9th Sep 16
I know 2 examples of grammar schools acting as agents of social change. My mill worker and farm labourer sent Mum and Auntie to a grammar school. Mum went on to UMIST to study pharmacy where she met my Father studying medicine to become a GP. It was like "Educating Rita" as people didn't understand why they were doing it.
Paul Ainsworth :: 9th Sep 16
I know 2 examples of grammar schools acting as agents of social change. My mill worker and farm labourer maternal grandparents sent Mum and Auntie to a grammar school. Mum went on to UMIST to study pharmacy where she met my Father studying medicine to become a GP. It was like "Educating Rita" as people didn't understand why they were doing it.
Name:
Comment:
Check:8+9=