O Levels, degrees (and the alleged dumbing down of qualifications)

I wonder sometimes if there is a year planner in some central journalism powerhouse where the first day of sunshine marks the day where politicians, commentators, journalists and random bloggers start  'Students - Open Season'

It has been building for a few weeks now, with Michael Gove and his ever changing school curriculum and his uncanny knack of irritating the experts by pretending to be an expert. Today the first 'dumbed down degrees' shots were fired. 

A Times Higher Education (THE) article suggests that, in some colleges, too many students in some colleges, and not enough students in other colleges, are getting 'good' degrees. A visibly angry*  director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham  seethed* that "the results added “statistical clout to the widely held view that some universities award more firsts and upper seconds than is justified by their intakes"

But do the statistics actually tell us that? Or are they telling us that some colleges manage to get the best out of their students, regardless of the grades that those students bring to college with them. Maybe some colleges see the potential in their students and know how to nurture it. And perhaps some colleges assume that good A levels mean good students and think that the only work that the college needs to do is put information out there and these 'good students' will absorb it by some strange process of osmosis.

Statistical information gives us bare numbers, adjusted for individual characteristics and established norms. They will never tell us much about how human intervention makes or breaks an educational experience. 

I am remembering what O Level results day was like for me (*whispers* 35 years!!) I remember being reasonably impressed with my appalling performance: C in French and C in Irish. As some wit said at the time, I could've joined the French Foreign Legion to teach the Irish men their drill. That was the outcome of  an assumed level of 'intelligence' (I passed the 11+) and 5 years of a Catholic, grammar school education. My fabulous results could never have been predicted at the point of intake.

I did redeem myself a little (much) later. But I assume that my astounding O level grades and individual characteristics (lone parent, out of education for 20 years, woman) would have put me down as 'not very likely to achieve much more than a poor third but hey, we'll give her a shot for diversity's sake'. 

In the event, I graduated second in my class, coming a bit behind the mother of four who had returned to education after 20 odd years too.  The statistics probably couldn't have predicted us. We probably couldn't have managed it without one or two lecturers who were truly inspirational and our class mates who took us seriously. We probably benefited too from a modular system which allowed us to study subjects intensely over  shorter period. The 'traditional' system of end of year exams suit some but not everyone. We certainly gained some advantage from working in small, serious groups where we had the opportunity to discuss every detail of a topic to death. I don't know if this is relevant but we also benefited from being able to smoke our lungs out in the coffee bar, for hours at a time, while we dissected the complete work of David Trimble (perhaps the dullest (maybe only) book on NI housing law that was ever published).

Those students who, by implication, shouldn't have got their firsts because they didn't fit with the statistical characteristics of a 'person with a first' are not aberrations and their colleges are not 'dumbing down'. They are people that work hard, to a high standard and who have found their way of working, with the assistance of good teachers.

Every single child that I have ever met has out done my magnificent achievement at O Level - not because their exams or getting easier but because they work harder and are generally much cleverer. Most of those young people are either at university or have graduated. The vast majority of them have strings of GCSEs and degrees that would boggle a fragile mind.

They learn about things that women of a certain age, such as myself, have never even heard of. They have learned to ask questions, to be critical about things that were accepted as gospel by those of us who had the benefit of a Catholic education. They have learned to challenge assumptions about the world. They know about random stuff that baffles me. They've learned the language of technology which to all intents and purposes is a foreign language. What's more, they can use all the random things they have learned in the world that they inhabit. Learning and education is for them a practical and useful tool, not the abstract collection of information that plagued me.

As child number one starts the build up to her finals and child number two starts into his modular GCSEs, I am astounded that anyone could think that their efforts and achievements are somehow less credible than those of past generations or more exclusive establishments. 'Old' and 'classier' is not the same as 'better'- it is just old and exclusive, in all senses of those words.

Well done to all this years triers and achievers - you're all amazing.

(*ok - I made up the bit about 'visibly angry'. And 'seethed')

(First written 22nd August 2013 and amended 18th April 2014)

No 'Everyman'

I've not seen Noah yet and I doubt if I ever will because it's a high price to pay for a couple of hours sleep in a dark room.

The comments of this screenwriter are interesting though. Ari Handel, speaking to The High Calling, says:

“From the beginning, we were concerned about casting, the issue of race. What we realized is that this story is functioning at the level of myth, and as a mythical story, the race of the individuals doesn’t matter"

So it's strange then to note that the race of individuals didn't matter to the extent that no black people appear in the film. Seems odd to me.

They discussed it, according to his own words, they were 'concerned' about it and then decided that the right way to address the 'everyman' issue was to exclude anyone who isn't white and male and speaking in an 'acceptable' Hollywood accent. Because when you think of 'everyman' you think 'pretty, shiny, straight, white, english speaking manly men'. It's not the world I live in and it doesn't reflect the 'everyman' round me.

His comments reminded me of Geena Davis' words about women in family rated films. She pointed to the quite shocking statistic that there are 3 male speaking parts for every 1 female speaking part and that crowd scenes are, on average, 83% male. She says:

"we are in effect enculturating kids from the very beginning to see women and girls as not taking up half of the space."

Looking a bit objectively at the fantasy world of movie making, women and non white people are not the only ones who are not allowed the luxury of taking up half of the space. Working class people are rarely depicted as being 'normal', gay people are rarely just part of the rich tapestry of life, fat people don't exist unless they are part of a message or the object of humour, apart from a few rare appearances i can think of, transgender people are not central characters in films (and are they played by transgender actors?) Even the very clothes they wear are almost immediately identifiable as 'normal' in the Hollywood sense.

And it's not just in the film world, our political world, work world, pub world, music world, literary world... all skewed away from the world of 'everyman'.Even on radio, where we can't see the faces, there is a 'type'. I get in a right aul' stamping rant about accents and voices on radio 4 - no matter what they are talking about, it's the same old same old providing us with a pretty two dimensional picture of how the world is. I am beginning to pine for the return of Nadine Coyle to give a bit of balance to the proceedings.

I don't know if life reflects art or if art reflects life but there must be some truth in the view that by bombarding people with a particular picture of 'everyman', we're enculturating on a grand scale.

'Inclusion' ain't all it's cracked up to be

There is a wee bit of me that thought about not sharing this article . I thought to myself, if we are really 'inclusive' and we really really believe in equality of opportunity for everyone no matter what the diagnosis, label or disability, then we should never be surprised by another person's success.

And then I gave it some more consideration. Although the policies and the legislation are great, we don't really have inclusion and we don't really really believe in equality of opportunity for all. We do get surprised when people achieve things that they really 'shouldn't'.

And I suppose we should be really really surprised that some people manage to do great things because, as a society, we put a lot of big big hurdles in the way of people that we consider to be a bit 'not quite the same' as the rest of 'us' (whoever 'we' are). Sometimes we even pay people to put the obstacles there in another person's 'best interests'.

So I am sharing, to remind myself as much as anyone else, that some people achieve great things in spite of the civilised world and not because of it. And to celebrate the people who basically tell us to fk off and let them get on with life.

(First written 14th August 2013)

'Care'? We don't give a flying f**k.

Do you remember Winterbourne View? To refresh your memory, staff at a residential establishment routinely abused people with learning disabilities.
Do you remember the story about elderly people being abused at Whipps Cross Hospital? Or Hillcroft in Lancashire?
You've heard about the abuse of children and young people in residential establishments in Ireland North and South?

Do you ever wonder why it goes on for years and years with noone intervening to make it stop? Well, perhaps this story will go some way to explaining. In case you are thinking that this kind of thing doesn't happen, that this individual was perhaps only covering up their own wrong doings, allow me to refer you to a few tiny reminders of the long and illustrious history of whistle blowers in the UK.

If there is any chance that you will be sacked and sanctioned for exposing abuse, maybe you would keep your mouth shut and your eyes closed.

When the doors are closed, all the people who live behind them are at the mercy of the people who work there and not all of those workers are good people. Some of those workers have no wish to be working in the field of care or support. They're sent on 'work programme' schemes and forced to apply for such jobs or lose their entitlement to benefits.

Let me tell you this for nothing... if you do not have the yen to work with / care for people, you should not be allowed through the doors never mind be sent there as a way of getting you off the dole queue.

It is hard work, it is challenging, it is sometimes thankless and it is sometimes desperately sad. It can be physically, emotionally, mentally and intellectually draining. It takes someone with enough chat for two mouths, the hide of a rhino, the strength and balance of a hod carrier, the sense of humour of FB God, the resilience of granite, the integrity of .... (mmm, can't decide who has integrity), the knowledge of a professor and the compassion of a saint.

If you're a good care worker in any field, you don't always have these things all the time but most of the time you have some of them and the rest of the time you rely on your colleagues and a healthy supply of genuine contrition and humility to get you through. By care work, I include cleaners, cooks, care assistants, caretakers and 'handymen' - all of those jobs that are usually filled by people who do it in spite of and not because of the financial rewards and recognition. Good care workers are people who will turn up every day and will love every minute of their day (more or less).

That's because care work is also great craic, satisfying, rewarding and a great learning experience.

But the thing is, care workers are some of the lowest paid workers in the UK and Ireland - probably elsewhere too. The pay and conditions deteriorated when governments decided to 'contract out' care services to the private sector. The private sector is thought to be cheaper and therefore more efficient - because when we are looking for someone to care for the most vulnerable voiceless people in society, the first thing we look for is 'cheap' and 'efficient'.

But generally the private sector is cheaper because it pays less. One of the biggest outgoings for a care service is staffing. The cost of electricity, food, insurance etc is pretty much the same for private or public but the staffing gives room for manoeuvre. Staffing costs can be reduced in a few ways - hourly rates can drop, enhanced rates for weekends, evenings and bank holidays can be cut, staffing levels can be reduced, hours can be decreased and increased to between zero and madness.

If we want people - ie our friends, parents, siblings, kids- to be safe, to have dignity, to be treated with compassion, to be looked after and to be happy when they come to be reliant on the kindness of strangers, we have to make sure that the strangers are people who want to and are able to give it. The strangers should be rewarded for it and they should be valued. Care work should not be the job that people do when there is nothing else in the job centre.

I think it is high time we had a good look at how we value those people who look after the people we love. We must start to acknowledge that, very often, we treat them like shite. If you don't want to be outraged on behalf of someone you love, be outraged on your own behalf - it could be your dinner getting cut up by a stranger sooner than you think.

Lies Statistics and Food Banks

The Trussell Trust is one of the organisations that provide food banks. They have repeatedly asked IDS and his band of Merry Gangsters for a meeting. IDS, his fellow Ministers and the DWP have so far refused to meet them. Trussell Trust want to highlight the impact that welfare reform has had on the numbers of people seeking assistance. IDS and co believe that there is no connection. They believe that it is pretty much the Trussell Trust's fault because the Trust has opened food banks. Presumably, IDS believes that if there were no food banks there would be no poverty.

A bit like the old 'if you build it they will come' only distorted through a tory lens.

The tories are a bit resistant to publishing any evidence that might refute the position of the Trust. Perhaps that's because there is none. Even tory research seems to suggest that food poverty has increased dramatically since the tories started messing about with the welfare state. Food poverty is only one way that poverty shows itself

IDS' response to the Trust has demonstrated once again the general arrogance and ignorance of those who are in charge of the DWP. He condemns the Trust for being 'political'.

"Duncan Smith began his reply by criticising the "political messaging of your organisation", which "despite claiming to be nonpartisan" had "repeatedly sought to link the growth in your network to welfare reform". He said his department's record in processing benefit claims had improved and should do so further with the introduction of universal credit.

He rejected any suggestion that the government was to blame. "I strongly refute this claim and would politely ask you to stop scaremongering in this way. I understand that a feature of your business model must require you to continuously achieve publicity, but I'm concerned that you are now seeking to do this by making your political opposition to welfare reform overtly clear."

Well, here's a newsflash, Mr IDS - food poverty is political. Poverty, in whatever form it manifests itself, is political.