Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts

Thursday, October 07, 2021

Satanic Essay Mills

 

The phrase completely unethical is a quote from the skills minister, Alex Burghart. While I have no love for the essay mills, having tangled with them previously on this blog, I also wonder whether the university system should share some responsibility for the emergence of this market.

If academic success depends on delivering certain items of coursework, as evidence that a student has achieved the course objectives, and yet those items of coursework are so standardized that they can be successfully churned out by someone who hasn't participated in the course, then perhaps the course objectives and coursework assignments haven't been thought through properly.

Another contributing factor is the amount of time the university staff will have spent with each student, and the amount of time to mark each essay. If this is insufficient, then the marker will have no way of knowing whether the authorship of a given essay is credible.

In summary, academic standards depend on a number of factors, including well-designed courses and proper engagement with students. If the universities try to cut costs by skimping on these elements of education, maybe it isn't so surprising that some students are tempted to cheat as well.

 

Essay mills: Contract cheating to be made illegal in England (BBC News 6 October 2021) HT @EeHRN

How students turn to essay mills to help them cheat (BBC Worklife, 29 March 2019)

More posts on essay mills

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Spelling Crimez

According to news reports, a ten-year-old child recently got a visit from the police after writing that he lived in a 'terrorist' house. 

Given that the family was Muslim, the Internet jumps to the conclusion that there was some racial stereotyping going on here. A day or so earlier, the Prime Minister had announced a fund (or at least partially reversed previous cuts to such funding) to teach Muslim women to speak English (which would presumably include learning the correct spelling of such words as 'terraced').

If the police were serious about gathering intelligence about potential extremists in the community, and if they believed that this was a genuine lead to an extremist family, you'd have thought they would want to treat the boy as a valuable source of information, rather than immediately alerting the family that they were under suspicion. What purpose does a home visit achieve, apart from shock and awe.

The authorities have responded to the news reports, claiming that the home visit was not prompted solely by a single misspelling, there were a number of issues arising from the child's schoolwork, and that it had not been regarded as a terror incident. The home visit had been done by a social worker, accompanied by a PC.

According to the boy's cousin, the boy is now scared of writing, or using his imagination. Arguably that's not a good use of police time, when a bit of well-timed sarcasm by a schoolteacher can achieve that outcome much more efficiently.


Update. Apparently what the boy actually wrote was this.
"I hate it when my uncle beats me. I live in a terrorist house with my uncle."
So what happened within the family after the social worker (accompanied by the PC) leaves? And what happened within the community when the media sensationalized the story? Can anyone use some imagination?



Rahila Bano, Muslim boy, 10, probed for 'terrorist house' spelling error (BBC News 20 January 2016)

Mario Cacciottolo, How much of a problem is speaking English for some Muslim women? (BBC News 18 January 2016)

Aisha Gani, Lancashire police criticise BBC over 'terrorist house' story (BBC News, 21 January 2016)

Lancashire 'terrorist house' row 'not a spelling mistake' (BBC News 20 January 2016)

Bill Jacobs, 'We've done nothing wrong' - Teachers and police respond to 'terrorist house' 'overreaction' (Lancashire Telegraph, 21 January 2016)


Updated 21 January 2016

Wednesday, December 03, 2014

School Inspections

#Ofsted's @mcladingbowl via @rachelala asks everyone to share a school inspection myth-buster. So here goes.



Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, reporting directly to Parliament. It carries out hundreds of inspections and regulatory visits every week across England; separate bodies handle inspections in the rest of the UK.

According to Ofsted, inspection acts in a number of ways to drive and support school improvement.

  • raises expectations by setting the standards of performance and effectiveness expected of schools
  • provides a sharp challenge and the impetus to act where improvement is needed clearly identifies strengths and weaknesses
  • recommends specific priorities for improvement for the school and, when appropriate, checks on and promotes subsequent progress
  • promotes rigour in the way that schools evaluate their own performance, thereby enhancing their capacity to improve
  • monitors the progress and performance of schools that are not yet good, and challenges and supports senior leaders, staff and those responsible for governance.

Of course, schools wish to perform well in these inspections, and to avoid the inconvenience and shame of being selected for "special measures". So it is not surprising that certain beliefs have grown up around these inspections.

Although I don't have direct experience of school inspections, I can easily imagine how such beliefs might develop. Perhaps the inspector visiting school A casually asks to see a particular document, or comments on its absence. This becomes part of the collective memory of the school. Before the next inspection, every teacher in the school has been instructed to prepare this document in readiness. In time, this knowledge spreads to other schools, and becomes widely accepted as "best practice" for passing an inspection.  

Ofsted now wishes to dispel certain myths about the inspection process, and denies that it "requires" or "expects to see" loads of stuff. In its latest clarification, Ofsted officially deprecates a number of specific practices.

But there is a critical ambiguity in the notion of requirement. These practices may not be officially required by Ofsted; but if they happen to be strongly correlated with successful inspections, it may well be rational for school teachers to continue to regard these practices as implicitly encouraged and reinforced by the actions of Ofsted inspectors. It would be a brave head teacher who abandoned those practices that had got the school through past inspections, simply because Ofsted insisted that these practices were not officially required.

Ofsted is also charged with a range of political and social objectives, including promoting British values and tackling extremism, and these implicit objectives are believed to colour its assessments of educational outcomes.

And when Ofsted insists that "it is up to schools themselves to determine their practices and for leadership teams to justify these on their own merits rather than by reference to the inspection handbook", this sounds suspiciously like a classic double bind. Of course you can have as much bureaucracy as you like, as long as you really want to do it for its own sake and not because we told you to. Oh, and please make sure none of it is "unnecessary".



Ofsted, Framework for School Inspection (July 2014)

Ofsted inspections - clarification for schools (October 2014)

Richard Adams, Ofsted tells teachers what not to do in effort to dispel inspection myths (Guardian 17 October 2014)

Graeme Paton, Ofsted being turned into a 'schoolroom security service' (Telegraph 28 November 2014)


Zoe Williams, Swamp or success: your school is being racially profiled (Guardian 23 November 2014)

Saturday, September 06, 2014

School Uniform

#wrongtrousers @HeatonManor, a state school in Newcastle, has attracted opprobrium for putting over fifty children into detention for wearing the "wrong trousers".

It seems that the school had issued new school uniform guidelines, specifying "tailored" trousers, which many parents had misunderstood or ignored. It appears that the school interpreted these guidelines as banning tight or drainpipe trousers, and was zealous in enforcing this interpretation. Clearly there is a question here of language and class: how many parents appreciated the teachers' notion of tailoring?

If you look at the dictionary definition of tailoring, you might imagine that it meant "made-to-measure" rather than "off-the-peg". Many decades ago when I was at school, there were a few boys with wealthy parents, who had their school uniform made to measure. The rest of us had much cheaper off-the-peg clothes, and everyone could see the difference. This of course undermined one of the alleged purposes of uniform, which is to conceal differences of wealth and social background.

What is the real purpose of school uniform? Sometimes it seems that the real purpose is to prevent children from ever wearing anything fashionable. In the early 1970s, school rules prevented boys having long hair, but very short hair was fine. Then in the mid 1970s, school rules were reinterpreted or changed to ban skinheads. Obviously fashions change faster than the schools can reissue the rules.

Another alleged purpose of school uniform in state schools is to ape private schools. Many comments on this incident have accused the school authorities of behaving like dictators: imposing controls on something that is irrelevant to education, and then imposing sanctions that interfere with education. This is a very old debate, and is certainly not unique to Heaton Manor.

Meanwhile, as @MagNews comments, no reference as to affordability! Some families try to get by with one set of clothes, and may have difficulties when these need washing, while others can afford more than one set. Families typically buy new or second-hand uniforms before the start of the school year, and it's not easy to rush out and buy more clothes because the teachers don't like the first lot.

Finally, let's look at the Heaton Manor guiding principles (retrieved 6 September 2014). These include

  • Courtesy, self-discipline and respect for others – good fellowship
  • Trust, honesty and integrity
  • Acceptance of personal responsibility
  • Understanding, care and tolerance
  • Confidence, motivation, self belief and esteem – encouraging independence 

It will be interesting to see how the school explains its interpretation of these principles in this context.


Sources


Newcastle school puts 50 pupils in detention for wearing wrong trousers (Guardian 5 September 2014)

More than 50 children put into detention for wearing the wrong trousers (Independent 5 September 2014)

and before you think this is only a UK thing ...

Strict dress code nets detentions at NY school (Salon 15 September 2014)

Jessica Valenti, How many young women can a school legally punish for dress code violations? (Guardian 17 September 2014)


Updated 17 September 2014

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Who sets the education agenda?

@RSAMatthew provides a summary of last night’s Moral Maze on private education in today's blogpost For goodness sake, just be selfish ! (Feb 2013). He expands upon a point he mentioned briefly on the programme, which is the way in which private schools and their supporters damage society by distorting public perceptions of education.

What wasn't mentioned on the programme was the inflationary effect of private schools. If state schools offer four A-levels as standard, then private schools will push their pupils to take five A-levels, plus Duke of Edinburgh Award, plus Grade 8 bassoon, creating the illusion that their pupils are (a) better qualified than state school pupils and (b) have received a better education. (Meanwhile some middle class comprehensives have reintroduced Latin GCSE, simply in an effort to keep up with parents' demands.) The idea is presumably to trick Oxbridge into accepting these kids, and obviously it sometimes works. Marginal differences in educational outcomes are thus converted into significant differentiators.

In other words, the defacto standards of "good education" are being set by the private sector and the middle classes. I'm not saying that any Government would do it any better. One person on the programme pointed out the undervaluing of creative subjects like dance, and I've heard Sir Ken Robinson talking eloquently about this. Next time the Moral Maze discusses education, I hope they get him to articulate an alternative view of what counts as a "good education".




Boris Johnson, At last, an Oxbridge for those who can’t get into Oxbridge (Telegraph June 2011)

Ken Robinson, Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity (TED Talks 2006)

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Does Religious Education Work?

Does religious education work? asks Professor James Conroy (via Guardian 22 February 2012).
Judith Burns, Teaching of Christianity 'lacks intellectual development' (BBC News 26 Nov 2012)

Andrew Copson, of the British Humanist Association, notes that Christianity is often poorly taught but said the same thing was true of non-religious beliefs such as Humanism.



One answer from systems thinking (for example Stafford Beer's POSIWID principle) is that these systems just do what they do. We may note that there are multiple stakeholders for each of these systems, with overlapping and conflicting purposes.

POSIWID suggests that systems work for themselves. To take another example, @keithlard asks whether prison works.
Obviously prison works just fine for the people who organize prisons. So why would you expect it to work for anyone else?



Coming back to religious education, its possible purposes may include 
  • to indoctrinate schoolchildren into the religious beliefs and practices of a particular religion, and to familiarize them with sacred texts
  • to expose schoolchildren to a broad range of religious beliefs and practices, and to teach them to treat all of them with tolerance and respect
  • to introduce schoolchildren to a range of moral positions and arguments, both religious and secular,

In other words, it could be taught as theology or anthropology or moral philosophy or citizenship.



Updated 22 March 2014

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Studying Economics

@dgwbirch translates an American question "Does Studying Economics Make You More Republican?" into a British assertion "If you study economics, you'll end up a Tory".

Does Studying Economics Make You More Republican? (New York Times, 7 June 2010). See also Studying Economics In College Can Influence Your Political Affiliation, Fed Study Finds (Huffington Post, 7 June 2010). Original paper is by Sam Allgood, William Bosshardt, Wilbert van der Klaauw, and Michael Watts, "Is Economics Coursework, or Majoring in Economics, Associated with Different Civic Behaviors?" (pdf) Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no. 450

The study looked at students from four large public US universities. The authors discuss the possibility that the paradigm presented in most economics courses and textbooks might encourage students to see people as self-centred individualists and to behave that way themselves. However, the authors also discuss alternative explanations for a possible association between education and political affiliation, such as prior tendencies. They also mention previous research indicating that relationships between levels of education and voting behavior observed in the United States are not replicated in the United Kingdom, thus providing a caution against generalizing these results to the UK.

The question that intrigued me most, however, was why the Federal Reserve Bank of New York felt this was a suitable topic of research in the first place. Is there a political agenda involved in understanding the likely political affiliation of US economists? Is there an intellectual gap between the large public universities included in the survey and the elite liberal universities where Nobel prizes in economics are more likely to be won? Is there a need to rebalance the US university curriculum, to provide a better coverage of alternative economic paradigms? What is the purpose of studying studying economics?

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

School League Tables

Is assessment in schools fit for purpose? asks the UK Teaching and Learning Research Programme. (Full report pdf, press release pdf, BBC News)

Obviously the answer depends on what you imagine the purpose to be. The report identifies a wide range of possible (and sometimes conflicting) uses, and politely pours scorn on the view expressed last year by David Bell, who as permanent secretary at the Department for Children, Schools and Families told MPs:

“While I hear the argument that is often put about multiple purposes of testing and assessment, I do not think that it is problematic to expect tests and assessments to do different things.”

As the report points out, the reason that this expectation is problematic is that assessments have two different effects: they provide information and they influence what people do. These effects generally conflict: measurement (especially targets) distorts performance.


Using Stafford Beer's POSIWID principle to determine the real (de facto) purpose of assessment, we can identify four real purposes, one internal to the educational establishment, and three external.

For head teachers and bureaucrats, assessment is a way of competing for resources. Assessment results are used to allocate funding to schools, and to cost-justify a wide range of innovations and initiatives, and are therefore subject to strong vested interests from various stakeholders within the education system.

For politicians, assessment provides a way of claiming that education standards have improved monotonically since records began, with especially good progress during the current regime. (I don't actually know anyone outside the "system" who takes these claims very seriously.)

The schools at the top of the league tables can attract the best teachers and the best pupils, and therefore should be able to maintain their position at the top of the table in perpetuity. (A bit like professional football.)

Therefore, for ordinary people, assessment provides a way of selecting the "best" school for your child, and helps to increase and maintain property prices within the desirable catchment areas. (Obviously this effect is viewed differently by those families who can afford these property prices and by those who cannot.)

In summary, despite an official Government agenda for innovation and change, the league table system helps to maintain an unsatisfactory status quo. POSIWID.


As a champion of systems thinking, I find it encouraging that so many ordinary people (almost everyone except politicians and bureaucrats) understand the problems with target-setting. One of the effects (and therefore the POSIWID purpose) of the target-setting regime may be to encourage people to embark on real system thinking. And by "systems thinking", I don't just mean the John Seddon approach to service design but holistic joined-up thinking. I live in hope.


See also

Friday, February 27, 2009

Science and Public Policy

What is the purpose of science in society? Let me start with three data points. 

1. The UK Parliament has asked the British public what science issues it should investigate (via Bad Science). 

2. The media are constantly packed with celebrity scientists, who pontificate on a wide variety of subjects, often way outside their narrow specialism, unconstrained even by the feeble discipline of "peer review". For example, Baroness Professor Susan Greenfield, who appeared on BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, debating the perils of Facebook with Dr Aric Sigman and Dr Ben Goldacre. [The Perils of Facebook, “Facebook causes cancer”, There is a Greenfield far away, Susan Greenfield Profile

3. The UK Prime Minister has set targets to increase the number of pupils in secondary school in England taking science subjects, in particular the "triple science" GCSE exam. [BBC News, 27 February 2009

As it happens, my son is currently doing a triple science course at his high school. I find myself particularly puzzled by the chemistry syllabus, which doesn't seem to have very much to do with the chemistry I did at school. My hunch is that they have taken out much of the real science in an attempt to make the subject more "relevant". Sadly, the more they vainly try to make these subjects "interesting", the fewer students appear able and willing to study these subjects seriously at university. 

What these three data points have in common is the idea that foolish and shallow notions of relevance, and ill-considered pseudo-scientific pronouncements by people who should know better, may create a barriers to the development of a genuine interest and deep understanding of science, as well as to properly informed debate on public policy based on good and authoritative science. 

The Prime Minister obviously thinks that science education is a Good Thing. He has doubtless been briefed by his officials that British Industry needs so many scientists a year, whatever it is that scientists do, contributing (in Harold Wilson's phrase) to the White Heat of Technology. (As it happens, Britain has only had one prime minister with a science degree, and I think I may have read somewhere that she thought being a scientist-PM was an even more unlikely achievement than being a woman-PM.) 

But I question the educational value of undifferentiated science. Are schools supposed to teach children lots of random and incoherent bits of science, so that they may grow up to be white-coated experts on a wide range of policy issues? Or is there some macroeconomic formula that depends on a fixed percentage of science graduates? Surely this isn't what science is about. 

When an expert witness is called in a court case, there is the possibility of challenging not only the expertise itself, but also its relevance to this particular case. Perhaps similar challenges should be institutionalized whenever contributions to public debate rest on some claim of scientific authority.

My suggestion to the Parliament Select Committee will therefore be to investigate the nature and source of scientific authority in a democratic society, and to ask how society should assess and evaluate the available scientific expertise.

Friday, November 02, 2007

Literacy

It was a sad day, in my view, when politicians decided reading and writing were not good enough for our children, and started to pour huge amounts of money into something called "literacy" instead.

We now discover that (at least in the UK) this money has been almost completely wasted. Levels of "literacy" are scarcely better than fifty years ago, and the putative rise in "standards" are an illusion based on faulty methodology. This according to independent researchers at the University of Cambridge.

Source: Primary Review via BBC News November 2nd 2007.

There are several possible reactions to this story, depending on your party affiliation.
  • Denial. "There are lots of other studies that demonstrate just how important and valuable these literacy initiatives have been."
  • Escalation. "We obviously haven't done enough. We need more money, more initiatives, more targets, more effective initiatives."
  • Relief. "Given the vast increase in television and other distractions, we should be happy that literacy levels haven't deteriorated over the past fifty years."
Given the vast amounts of money that governments are capable of wasting on other useless or counter-productive initiatives, or bailing out reckless financiers, a mere five hundred million pounds hardly seems worth bothering about. What does that amount to anyway - one cheap paperback per child?

Update: further commentary from Mary Bousted of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, English 'losing out' to literacy (BBC News, 9th April 2009)


See also Michael Rosen, Who Owns Literacy? (Feb 2012)

Thursday, March 29, 2007

School Buildings

The British Educational Suppliers Association and the British Council for School Environments have just issued a joint report, saying that school buildings need to be completely redesigned. (Well they would say that, wouldn't they?) [BBC News, March 29th, 2007]

Scribe sent me a link to the story, suggesting that this might represent a move away from the regimented design of traditional schools, as discussed by Foucault in "Discipline and Punish".

Foucault's analysis of instititions, including schools, demonstrates the possible effect of certain physical and social structures; Foucault suggests that these structures have much broader social and political consequences - such as social control. From a POSIWID perspective, these consequences could be regarded as part of the hidden purpose of these institutions.

I am sure it would be an excellent idea to redesign schools to make them more pleasant and productive places for children and teachers to work, and for parents and other stakeholders to visit. Not just the physical buildings, but also the working relationships and working practices within these buildings. In our modern world, this kind of change inevitably needs to be cost-justified in terms of academic, economic and social outcomes. Following a good redesign, the structures may be more flexible, the effects more subtle, and the control more unobtrusive.

Flexibility and creativity are now valued in the workforce as never before. And if we want children to become flexible and creative adults, then it makes obvious sense (at least to the utilitarian minds that govern such matters) to put them in flexible and creative school environments.

But Foucault still rules, okay?

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Fish Oil

Schoolchildren in the North East of England are to be given fish oil supplements. The purpose of this trial is to improve exam results [source: BBC News].

Some people might think that improving health is more important than improving exam results. I think it says something interesting about our society that this trial is justified (to participants and their parents, as well as to the tax-payers who are presumably funding the scheme) in terms of the education benefit, rather than the health benefit.

Meanwhile, the Food Standards Agency (presumably aligned more to the health lobby than to the education lobby) has already cast doubt on the education benefits of fish oil [source BBC News]. If I didn't believe in the pure motives of public servants, I might think that the FSA objections were based more upon inter-agency rivalry than upon objective science.

There must surely be some degree of statistical correlation between health and exam results, so you might possibly use exam results as a very rough indicator of general health, but this would need careful interpretation by a trained statistician, as there are obviously many other factors involved. In any case there are much better (more direct) measures of general health.

One possible reason for the nature of the scheme is that the education agencies are able to use their budget to produce educational benefits, but not to produce health benefits. So they downplay the health benefits, in order to avoid having to collaborate with other agencies.

I said above that the purpose of the trial is to improve exam results. A scientist might argue that the purpose of any trial is to produce knowledge, and the knowledge can then be used to produce some benefit, such as improved exam results. But this is not how government agencies work. Trials like these are expected to deliver results, not just knowledge. (Note that there is no mention of double-blind testing - the supplements will be offered to all year-11 children in the region.)

So the purpose of a scheme depends on what benefits are seen as politically acceptable, as well as on the division of responsibilities between different agencies. And the visible effects of the scheme will be determined by what is measured. In situations like these, POSIWID must be seen as a political construction.


Update: For Tim Harford's call for proper scientific trials, see Political Ideas Need Proper Testing (Financial Times, 18 March 2010)

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Essay Fraud

What is the purpose of EssayFraud.org? According to the organization website, its members provide freelance research and composition services to students, and it expects students to use these services responsibly.
If a consumer contracts a freelance writer to research and compose an example document from which the consumer intends to glean unique insights/viewpoints on a given topic, the consumer must properly cite that writer and/or that writer's employing Web site when writing his/her own paper.

Yeah, right.

Some people might think that the best clue about the purpose of EssayFraud.org is contained in the name of the organization. See my posts on Cheating 1 and 2.

Essay Fraud is currently engaged in a campaign to encourage students to buy American essays (sorry, I should have said research insights) rather than cheaper services from Pakistan or Ukraine.

The wider effect of the Essay Fraud phenomenon is that essay outsourcing undermines the supposed purposes of the American education system. If Americans are paying Pakistanis and Ukrainians to write their essays, it won't be long before Americans have to pay Pakistanis and Ukrainians to run their companies.

Whoops! According to some software industry leaders, this is already starting to happen. See my post on the Globally Integrated Enterprise.

Who is being clever here, and who is being stupid? (In a later post, Jack van Hoof calls this Paying to Stay Dumb.)



Comments to this post have now been switched off.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Boredom

Does boredom have a purpose? Or is it a social evil, to be eliminated by positive thinking, hard work and clever technology? Mark Cuban (Blogmaverick) ironically prescribes gadgetry as the End of Boredom.

UK Schools Standards Minister David Miliband sees boredom as both cause and effect of educational failure.
Boredom is the bane of education ... the recruiting sergeant for disaffection, truancy and bad behaviour. [BBC News, Feb 2003]
Dr John Eastwood (a psychologist at York University, Toronto and joint author of The Unengaged Mind) argues that although boredom is common, it is neither trivial nor benign. [Ann Robinson, Is boredom bad for your health? Guardian 14 October 2012]

Now here are some voices in favour of boredom.
Dr Richard Ralley from Edge Hill College in Lancashire says there may be "legitimate rest" in boredom. Dr Ralley says parents should leave their children to feel fed up, rather than keeping them occupied, allowing them to recover from last term. And he urged parents not to be too hard on "inactive" children in the holidays. Dr Ralley told the BBC News website that boredom was an emotion and thus had a purpose, such as allowing children to get sufficient rest. [BBC News, April 2006]
The urgency with which we try to avoid boredom has a function, a purpose. It makes animals want to explore and learn what their environment is about. ... For our human society, boredom is the engine behind the creative drive that has given us our arts, our sciences, our literature, our technology. It has enriched us in truly astonishing ways. [Dr Renee Fuller, Boredom, That Powerful Emotion, HomeEducator's Family Times, Nov/Dec 2002]
The gift of boredom lies in its pinch of complacency. It is the gauntlet of challenge, an awakening to change, not a demon to flee but a road map for delving beyond. Says Leo Stein, "Boredom is an emptiness filled with insistence." [Gina Greenlee, Put Your Boredom To Good Use, Hartford Courant, via Greenberg Group]
Being bored can motivate people to 'engage in prosocial tasks and encourage more meaningful behaviour'. [Amelia Hill, Boredom is good for you, Guardian 6 May 2011]
"We can't avoid boredom – it's an inevitable human emotion. We have to accept it as legitimate and find ways it can be harnessed. We all need downtime, away from the constant bombardment of stimulation. There's no need to be in a frenzy of activity at all times." [Dr Esther Priadharshini, quoted by Ann Robinson, Is boredom bad for your health? Guardian 14 October 2012]
The artist Grayson Perry has reportedly spoken of how long periods of boredom in childhood may have enhanced his creativity. [Ann Robinson, Is boredom bad for your health? Guardian 14 October 2012]

But even some of those speaking up for boredom are apparently ambivalent.
But Dr Ralley said it was obviously important to find a balance between conserving energy and doing something rewarding. [BBC ibid] There’s no need for children ever to be bored, no more than there need be adults who resemble zoo animals screaming with rage because nothing exciting is happening. [Dr Fuller, ibid]
I found a sermon by a Baptist pastor, which claimed that Having No Purpose Leads to Boredom. At first reading, this appeared to be just another tract from the positive thinking movement. But when we put this together with the other quotes about boredom, a new systems insight emerges:

Lack of purpose leads to boredom; boredom leads to the discovery of new purpose. Boredom is therefore a mechanism (which, like most mechanisms, doesn't work always but does work sometimes) for turning no-purpose into purpose.


Hollywood-based writer and magazine publisher Alan M Pavlik writes a review of the debate - Boredom, More Useful Than You Thought, quoting an earlier version of this blogpost with apparent incomprehension. He links the fact that much of the debate is sourced from Britain with the fact that many people think Shakespeare is boring. So apparently the whole boredom thing is a British conspiracy, huh?

But there is a big difference between permitting boredom and imposing boredom. We are not talking about force-feeding children with Shakespeare (it might make them bored, but it's good for them) but about NOT force-feeding children with constant activity and stimulation (as if boredom had to be avoided at all costs).


@giles_fraser thinks we now live in a culture that is pathologically fearful of being bored, and sounds a warning about entertainment as an antidote for boredom. He concludes that our fear of boredom is simply a fear of coming face to face with ourselves (Guardian 28 June 2013)


(updated 29 June 2013)

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Studying Philosophy

The effect (and therefore presumably the purpose) of the financial arrangements currently imposed on most UK university students seems to be to encourage vocational or "employable" courses, and discourage abstract courses such as philosophy.

Does UK Government minister Bill Rammell approve of this effect? He is quoted as saying "I don't see that as necessarily being a bad thing". [source: BBC News, Feb 16th 2006] However, in a letter to the Independent Newspaper (Feb 18th 2006), he denies having said that it was "no bad thing". Notwithstanding the subtle logical difference between these two statement, it would be reasonable to assume that he does approve.

Philosopher A.C. Grayling replies in the Independent (Feb 17th 2006), and is echoed by a number of Independent readers (Feb 18th 2006), including one who quotes Bertrand Russell's maxim: "Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed". The Independent also reminds us that some of our leading subversive comics (Matt Groening, Ricky Gervais) have degrees in philosophy.

If the effect of philosophy is to enable critical thought, it is not surprising that the Establishment should prefer kids to study nursing and social work. Meanwhile, the abstract subjects will continue to be studied by people with a fortunate combination of intellect, temperament and financial support. This looks suspiciously like a 2-tier education system reemerging.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

Technorati Tag:

Saturday, April 30, 2005

Target-Setting

WYMIWYG - What You Measure Is What You Get

This is another very important system principle. Systems are distorted by the presence of targets, which increasingly fail to measure what they were supposed to measure. 

Here is a well-known example. If you test, measure and analyse the ability of school-children, this may tell you all sorts of useful things about the socio-geographic distribution of ability, about the success of different teaching methods, and so on. But if you set targets for the scores achieved on these tests, this will motivate some changes in behaviour among teachers, parents and children. Teachers will "teach to the test", while many middle-class parents will send their children for special coaching. (Indeed, for many schools, the excellent results achieved in the school league tables are in large part due to the huge amounts of extra tuition received by children outside school, and bears little relationship to the amount of added-value provided by the school itself.) While this may indeed improve the scores, it seriously undermines your ability to learn anything useful about the ability of school-children, or to make any systematic changes. 

Another interesting example came up in the UK election. Given a reasonable-sounding goal that health clinics should try to see patients within 48 hours, the government had imposed a target. It emerged (on live television, to the surprise and embarassment of the Prime Minister) that in order to reliably achieve this target, some clinics had changed their appointment policy and were now refusing to book appointments more than 48 hours in advance.

Jenni Russell When you can't see a GP (Guardian, April 30th, 2005)

The present Labour government is often criticized for its obsession with targets, but it should be remembered that this obsession was shared by the Conservative government under John Major. The desire to set measurable targets often comes from quite sincere motives, but these targets have dysfunctional effects. This is especially true when targets are set by politicians under political pressure without proper systems analysis.

  • Setting isolated targets for improving the things you are unhappy about, while failing to set targets for maintaining the things you are happy about.
  • Setting sample targets as illustrations of the things you could improve, which then receive disproportionate amounts of attention and resource. ("We will cut waiting times for breast cancer" ... hang on, what about other forms of cancer such as prostate?)

And of course target-setting is not just a disease of politicians. It is also an occupational hazard of managers within organizations. We cannot reasonably demand an end to targets, but we need to work on developing wiser targets. 

 

POSIWID - Purpose of System Is What It Does

At one level, POSIWID shows us how complex systems resist simplistic attempts to change them, or sometimes even to monitor them. The education system contains a testing subsystem whose purpose is to achieve high scores. Tracing how the testing subsystem actually achieves high scores reveals some important dependencies: the test results are dependent on the coaching subsystem, which in turn is dependent on the social system of the parents. 

If we want to make meaningful changes in the education system, it is very useful to carry out this kind of dependency analysis, because it helps us to predict several things:

  1. How successful a given initiative will be.
  2. How quickly this success will become visible.
  3. How unequally this success may be distributed in different areas.
  4. How quickly this success may be eroded or undermined by other system effects.

At another level, we can ask about the POSIWID of the target-setting system itself. The avowed purpose of target-setting is usually something to do with accountability or performance or both. The actual effect is often to make things more complicated and more bureaucratic, achieving local accountability or performance only at the expense of accountability and performance elsewhere in the larger system.

It is possible to intervene into this system too, but it needs an intervention at the right logical level. Perhaps incredibly, the quality standard ISO 9000 (dismissed by many people as hopelessly bureaucratic) contains a defined point where you can plug in a control loop that will limit or even reverse the growth of bureaucracy. I really enjoy that kind of intervention - it's like one of those martial arts where you simply redirect the energy of your opponent. 

 

See also On the performativity of data (August 2021). More posts on target-setting.

Saturday, January 15, 2005

POSIWID quotes

Some applications of the POSIWID principle:

Low educational testing results are ... a product of some system, whose purpose (by virtue of the way it's assembled and the interactions between its components) includes such results. It's hard for us to grasp this because we bristle at the use of the word "purpose" with unpalatable conditions. After all, it seems a harsh accusation of the hard working teachers, parents and administrators in the education system. But it is no such thing. It's not an accusation at all. It's an invitation to discover how the system generates the result that seems so undesirable. An invitation for understanding. If we cannot discern how the result is created, we shall never hope to support the evolution of the system into a different channel, and our interventions may cause more harm than good or perpetuate a system that ought not to be supported.
MG Taylor


The current system produces luxury at the top, anxious comfort in the middle, and misery at the bottom. ... If ruling elites flaunt their wealth while the majority of people live in poverty, discontent is inevitable.
Allenna Leonard


In a hundred years or so, everyone now alive in the whole earth will be dead - is this not so? It would therefore be possible for the human race to run its affairs quite differently, in a wise and benevolent fashion, in a relatively short time. The purpose of education is to make sure this doesn't happen.

Sunday, January 04, 2004

Educational Ideals

Aidan expresses some good educational aspirations, which are not well achieved by the prevailing educational system. 

This raises the question - is there a system anywhere that achieves anything remotely similar to these aspirations? It is possible that we might find a system whose official purpose was something entirely different. 

In the past, educators (both in schools and in management training) have discovered that some aspects of personality and character can be developed in activities outside the classroom - perhaps the sports field or some outward bound adventure. The education system has then tried to incorporate some of these activities in the curriculum. 

But what happens to these activities when they are given a new context, and an explicit educational purpose? Do they remain as effective at the development of character? 

At the same time, activities that were central to my own experience of university life (such as political debate) have nowadays been pushed aside as non-essential, a waste of time and a distraction to study. However, activities such as these undoubtedly helped many people to develop some critical intellectual and communication skills, skills from which many of today's students would benefit. 

 

Related posts: Richard, Purpose of Education (December 2003), Aidan, Educational Ideals (December 2003)


Friday, December 12, 2003

Purpose of Education

For professional educators (and perhaps some politicians), the purpose of education may be to create people like themselves. In economic terms, the purpose of university education is to enable the recipient to earn enough (extra) to repay the student loan. 

But according to the slogan of this blog, the purpose of education is what it does. And what university education actually achieves, much of the time, is widespread dissatisfaction and bad feeling. Not to mention superiority, envy, self-doubt, guilt, arrogance, pride. (For evidence of this proposition, look at some of the politicians who went to university themselves.) 

 

Related posts: Aidan, Educational Ideals (December 2003), Richard, Educational Ideals (January 2004)

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

University Top-Up Fees

There is considerable debate in the UK around so-called top-up fees for university tuition.

On the POSIWID principle, one purpose of top-off fees is to split the Labour Party.

Some Labour politicians argue that top-up fees promote social justice, because the better-off students will have to pay more to attend the posher universities. This is therefore a redistributive policy.

Other Labour politicians argue that top-up fees simply make it more difficult for poorer students to attend the better universities, and so this is socially divisive.

As well as indicating internal contradictions in the rhetorical system of "Social Justice", this also reveals an ambiguity or ambivalence in the underlying purpose of the universities themselves, .

1 To provide a mechanism for kids from poorer backgrounds to engage in a little social climbing.

2 To provide a mechanism for better-off families to maintain their social position.

Of course, universities do both of these – but perhaps they used to achieve BOTH of these purposes more effectively than they do now. Lots of Labour politicians benefited personally from this form of social climbing themselves, and feel uncomfortable about kicking the ladder away and preventing others following them. POSIWID is not a simplistic analysis here.