Read on Twitter
The exam results controversy in Scotland is a perfect illustration of the core problems with modern education, one that I've argued with my sister about in the past. I think it's worth a quick review, whether or not you're in Scotland. 1/
The issue goes like this: the Scottish Qualifications Authority couldn't run exams this year, and so they took teacher's recommendations and promised to scale them into final grades in an appropriate way. But they wouldn't tell @ross_greer or others what this would be. 2/
The exam results have come out and it's crystal clear that they've just weighed down results by the school you went to. Did you go to a school from a deprived area? Well, your teacher's recommendation got dragged down. And possibly the reverse if you went to a wealthy school! 3/
The Scottish Government doesn't see a problem with this and is basically trying to ignore the issue. After all, 65% of kids got As last year, and this year's weighting apparently has just under 70% have As, so it means it's all okay, right? 4/
Except it's obviously not. What's with the disconnect between the grades teachers estimate based on in-classroom work and mock exams, and the final result being so much poorer? Especially for deprived areas? 5/
In previous years nobody would bat an eye at this, because the kids from deprived would have sat the exams and could be blamed for the poor result beneath their previous work. But this year, we don't have that fig leaf for an excuse, and so we ask why there's a difference. 6/
Something that came up when I discussed education with my sister is that educational assessment "must have" a discriminant effect. That is, employers don't want pass/fail systems, they want a way to discriminate between the best and the merely very good. 7/
This, together with the fact that our educational system is set up to select for obedience, basically explains the entire problem. But you have to follow the thread through to really piece together how fucked up it is. 8/
Let's start with obedience. How does our educational system select for obedience? Very simply, it's full of arbitrary rules that don't actually have anything to do with education and learning, and an authority structure that has little to do with pedagogy. 9/
Almost everyone who went to school will remember times when arbitrary rules were enforced that felt pointless, and almost everyone will remember teachers who wielded their authority like petty tyrants, demanding compliance even when they were clearly in the wrong. 10/
In addition, the very structure of learning - regimented, classes divided by bell tolls, food and sanitary breaks controlled by authority, rote memorisation and repetition for exam - is more akin to a work environment than a learning environment. 11/
What happens if you buck at any of this? What happens if you're not compliant, docile, and ultimately servile toward the teacher?
You don't get educated. There's no alternative method for learning. To learn, you must also learn to accept the bullshit. 12/
You don't get educated. There's no alternative method for learning. To learn, you must also learn to accept the bullshit. 12/
And so by its very structure our education selects not the most intelligent or the most capable of learning, but those who are most intelligent and capable of learning /under these conditions of compliance/. And it's a hugely important distinction. 13/
So what if you come from an abusive home? What if you have an innate, learned fear or anger toward adult authority figures, because of that abuse? What if you have mental health issues brought on by abuse? What if you /can't/ comply with the arbitrary demands and tyranny? 14/
Then you're a problem child, and the response is to /tighten/ the restrictions on you. Punishment exercises, disciplinary actions, isolation, suspension, ultimately leading to expulsion. Maybe, if you're lucky, the bureaucracy of the "social support" system. 15/
Our schools select for compliance and obedience. And if you're naturally compliant or obedient (I was, for the longest time) you'll not see the problem, you'll not understand why some kids couldn't just settle down and learn. And so, as an adult, you likely won't care. 16/
Now ask yourself which social demographics, on average, tend to have the kind of stressed and desperate lives that are conducive to conditions of abusive homes. And ask yourself which social demographics tend not to have these pressures. 17/
You're right, it's an issue of wealth. If you're poor, you're likely in conditions of struggle, almost certainly intergenerationally. If you're not in those conditions of struggle, and they probably weren't a thing previously. And the stats track with this. 18/
So already we have the structure of education providing a comparative disadvantage to children from poorer backgrounds. But it gets worse when you consider the implications of the discriminant effect that employers want from education. 19/
If the purpose of education is ultimately to spit out educated workers who're neatly graded so employers can figure out who to hire as the best and brightest, logically this only works if there's a curve, if proportionally fewer people attain each better grade. 20/
This means that, to have a better chance at employment, there's massive pressure on you getting a good grade. But it also means that, as each better grade becomes more exclusive, there is competition against your fellow candidates for assessment. 21/
It's not enough to be merely good, you have to be better than anyone else participating.
So what happens if, well, you're not? Let's think about this from two different perspectives. 22/
So what happens if, well, you're not? Let's think about this from two different perspectives. 22/
If you're from a poor background and you're just not that much better in performance than others, well, it sucks to be you. Either you're lucky enough that someone in your family can tutor you, or you're stuck with the resources available publicly, through school. 23/
If you're from a well-off background, however, then your family has resources to hire a tutor, to pay for additional schooling beyond the public schooling. You get handheld more, taken through more mock exams, acclimatised to the challenge better. 24/
The selective advantage again benefits the well-off.
But it's even worse than this, because the well-off also disproportionately occupy positions of power and influence within society, including in positions of power that determine education structure. 25/
But it's even worse than this, because the well-off also disproportionately occupy positions of power and influence within society, including in positions of power that determine education structure. 25/
As a parent, you probably want what's best for your kid, for them to manage the same social and material status as you have. Wouldn't you do everything in your power to help them?
What if you have power over education? 26/
What if you have power over education? 26/
The concept of "class interest" goes like this: if you're in a given socio-economic class, you generally see the world in a similar way, because you're occupying the same general niche in structure. Thus the interests of everyone within a class tend to converge. 27/
No one has to say "Let's have a massive conspiracy to push education in a direction that advantages our children," it's just that every time a choice comes up, everyone in that class tends to pick the option that advantages their children. 28/
And so the powerful who have influence over education tend to, as a class, favour it having a form that advantages children like their children. Even unconsciously: it often takes the form of liking what you went through, and refusing to accept the premise behind change. 29/
So now we come to the issue at hand: why exams? What is it about the exam format that consistently causes children from disadvantaged backgrounds to underperform compared to the rest of their work? 30/
It is my contention that, in modern education, the examination system is functionally intended to be as stressful as possible in order to silently weed out the disadvantaged for the benefit of the advantaged and future employers. 31/
We can immediately see why this is the case by considering the specific features of the examination system and then assessing alternatives. 32/
Why do we pile everything on one opportunity to demonstrate ability? We accept people have off days. Even the system accepts it, because there are also resits... where the grade is capped at a lower level (more on this in a moment). 33/
How does this stress in any way or form provide a good indication of regular, consistent ability? How many times in your life do you really have to do-or-die deliver on something in a way that shapes the rest of your lifetime earning potential? 34/
What about people who handle this stress poorly?
What about people who thrive under this stress, but generally are inconsistent the rest of the time? 35/
What about people who thrive under this stress, but generally are inconsistent the rest of the time? 35/
The answer is "It doesn't." And we acknowledge this, and allow resists. In most cases, the grades are capped at a lower grade, unless you can demonstrate (which is a challenge) that there was something really wrong in a socially-sanctioned way. Stress, tiredness don't count. 36/
But if we acknowledge this by allowing resits, why are the grades of the resit capped?
"It's in fairness to the people who only needed one shot," is a common reply. Which admits that, yeah, it's about the discrimination, rather than the learning. 37/
"It's in fairness to the people who only needed one shot," is a common reply. Which admits that, yeah, it's about the discrimination, rather than the learning. 37/
Exams assess students not just on learning, but on their stress response. Which means we effectively assess their mental health and social support at the same time. Kind of fucked up when you put it like that, isn't it? 38/
Okay, so what are the alternatives? Rather than summative, all-or-nothing assessment, what other options are available?
Well, continuous assessment, where there is no final exam, but students are just graded by the work they do over the year. Why not that? 39/
Well, continuous assessment, where there is no final exam, but students are just graded by the work they do over the year. Why not that? 39/
The answer that comes back is usually something like this:
"Teachers can't be trusted to fairly and objectively grade their students. They have to be kept honest with an independent examination of the students." 40/
"Teachers can't be trusted to fairly and objectively grade their students. They have to be kept honest with an independent examination of the students." 40/
So here's an obvious rejoinder: if the problem is the teachers' objectivity being assessed, why isn't the teacher being the one independently assessed? And if the way to do that is to assess the student, why does that have to be the same event that sets their grade? 41/
Surely you'd get a better measure with "Okay, you're going to have to undergo this assessment. It doesn't count toward your personal grade, it's to check that your teacher has actually been teaching you to the level claimed. We're looking at the results of the whole class." 42/
There are also other ways we could achieve the same effect structurally (for example, you can figure out a lot through statistical analysis before even doing assessments: if a teacher consistently over-grades, it'll show compared to other teachers). 43/
There aren't really good arguments against continuous assessment that don't boil down to "But we want to see how they do under stress," and the follow on implications about poor students versus well-off students. 44/
But here's another, deeper one: why don't we use pass/fail assessment? I mean, okay, I've told you why, but let's really think about it for a moment to understand how deeply messed up things are. 45/
Let's take the view that you know something or you don't, that you have attained a certain knowledge or skill level or you haven't. Isn't that the true measure of learning? Either you remember or you don't, either you can do something or you can't. 46/
Why don't we assess people like that? Why don't we say "To earn this qualification you have to be able to demonstrate you've learned and applied these skills and this body of knowledge"? That is, coincidentally, what many upper professional bodies do rather than use exams. 47/
Why not combine this with continuous assessment, so that students are both learning and demonstrating that learning as they go? Their passing becomes a checklist of "Skills mastered and demonstrated," which gives you a simple way to show someone can do certain things? 48/
Because, socially, it's not about that. It's about discriminating between people. It's about creating conditions where some /must/ fail or do worse than others, so that you can have some at the top who you can say are the better ones. 49/
If everyone had either a pass or a fail grade, or if everyone had unlimited attempts to master the skills, then there'd be no hierarchy of merit on which /our entire society is supposedly based/. 50/
And so understanding the intersection of these two elements, we understand why education is set up as it is. It's not really about employers specifically, it's about the broader ordering of society. 51/
The meritorious people get to be on top, and we must manufacture the conditions of demonstrating merit, which is to say we must set and manage the criteria for merit, which is to say we must make merit if no merit exists.
And the meritorious people, on top, decide. 52/
And the meritorious people, on top, decide. 52/
In conclusion, the current Scottish exam results fiasco is just a demonstration of how our education system isn't actually about educating people, it's about creating and enforcing hierarchy. Wee Radge from the scheme is set up to fail, young master Alistair is carried. 53/
I love education, I love learning, I love knowing things and sharing that knowledge (reading this thread: no shit). But our education system isn't about this. It's not actually centred on learning. And in a million little ways, teachers and students all feel it. /End
If you want to witness the application of this theory, read the thread here: https://twitter.com/BarryBlackNE/status/1290572479392620545
Not only did they adjust teacher's predictions based on the history of grades at the school, they explicitly asked teachers to rank students against each other, and avoid ties. https://twitter.com/BarryBlackNE/status/1290577539853844481
What was the outcome? https://twitter.com/BarryBlackNE/status/1290597187186024448
Hard statistics: https://twitter.com/BarryBlackNE/status/1290596594589601792
