Is our society too obsessed with qualifications?

Henry Stewart's picture
 69
”Each year thousands of young people, who have left school at 16 without English or Maths GCSEs, undertake a child care level 2 qualification at college. But when they achieve this they are not yet qualified to work in childcare. For that, they need the level 3 qualification. If they don’t have the Maths GCSE required for this, then they simply leave and become unemployed.” The speaker was Richard Brooke, former Director of Strategy at Ofsted, speaking at the Fabian conference education debate this month. His point was that our young people are often badly advised on options available to them.

However I was thinking something else: Why do young people need a Maths GCSE to look after young children?

Who decided that to take care of a 5 year old, it is really important to be able to solve a quadratic equation or calculate the angle on a triangle?

It is an absurdity.

We are talking about adults working with children up to the age of 8. Now there is an argument that some basic numeracy is sometimes needed (eg, helping them with basic arithmetic and times tables). But I have never come across a parent who said “what I really need in the carer for my child is a good understanding of algebra and geometry”.

If you discuss this requirement with parents they will say it is bonkers. But question it at events like the Fabian debate and you will be accused (as one questioner was) of "not supporting the Standards agenda". And not supporting the standards agenda makes you an outcast in polite educational society. The fact that you can't see the point of requiring skills that are not needed in a job is interpreted as having too low expectations.

Maths GCSE includes many elements that are crucial for those going on to study Maths, Physics, Engineering, Architecture, Economics, Computer programming and many other courses of study. However of the majority of the population it includes a lot of elements that are never used in later life. When did you last use trigonometry?

In my working life I run a training business. And we never ask for a Maths GCSE when recruiting staff. Never. Our administration staff do need some numeracy, to be able to calculate VAT on prices and understand key metrics in the business. So we test for those skills (or the ability to learn them) but we never ask for the GCSE. As in most jobs, we simply don’t need the skills that are tested in that qualification.

As a governor of a Hackney comprehensive I encourage and challenge the school to get as many young people as possible through Maths and English GCSE. And its not for the league tables. I know that achieving those qualifications will, in our society, make a material difference to their life chances. But what I don't know is why so many careers require not just numeracy and literacy but GCSEs that include skills that are not needed in these jobs.

Sixty years ago far fewer jobs required qualifications, even for the professions. Journalists might have worked their way up through the local newspaper, lawyers through the article route, or even accountants by starting out as a bookkeeper. And one result (because poorer children, then as now, achieved less qualifications at school) was greater social mobility.

Is it really so radical and off-the-wall to suggest that when a job requires a specific qualification, it should cover skills that are actually needed in that job?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Henry Stewart | Chief Executive | Happy Ltd | 07870 682442

 
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Roger Titcombe's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 13:32

Andy - I am in complete agreement. The SAPERE approach is essentially the same in pedagogic principle as that of Shayer and Adey and the other teachers, educationalists and academics that I highlight in Part 5 of my book. Maths and science are rich in opportunities for cognitive development, but so are P4S, history and Engish Literature and many more.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 13:35

The CASE groups improved more than the control groups (which in my reading of the results generally did not improve at all). The control groups were those not exposed to CASE.


Andy V's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 16:29

All subjects are appropriate for the Socratic approach. The teaching of RE, particularly at GCSE in relation to ethical values, has always been a rich source of opportunity for cognitive development.


Trevor Fisher's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 04:34

yes, Andy, you are right, and it is part of my current historical research into Marlowe and Shakespeare to look at what part the grammar school curriculum played in their linguistic development, which is not easy for WS.... indeed the comment by Jonson that he had 'little Latin and Less Greek' has been taken by some in the anti stratfordian argument to say he never went to school.

The people who claim WIll of Shakespeare never went to school so could not have written the plays - it was one of 80 other people - point out that the curriculum was heavily latin and greek. In fact at Westminster which was then and now an elite school attended by Jonson the lessons were GIVEN in latin till at least the days of Pepys.

THis is leading to a spin off where Raleigh and his school of night are concerned, since at least one (Hariot) member was a top class mathematician, yet maths as far as I can see was not taught in English schools of the period. It is clear, and auto didacts are the case in point, that there was informal tuition which is hard to track.

But the logic maths develops logical thinking, therefore as this person thinks logically, therefore they studied maths is invalid.

On rules, Michelle, there are none. There are only conventions, which change all the time. I applied to Leeds to do English Lit in the 1960s where they insisted on studying Saxon texts. It is a different language. I was struggling with Middle English - we did Chaucer at A Level in Coghill's translation - but Old English is impossible. John Dryden was the idiot who tried to write rule books and there have been many more. They fail. The language keeps changing and the referees are constantly off side.

On Records of Achievement, something which should be remembered as one of the initiatives (TVEI being the first) which lumbered state schools with useless activity, let me tell you a true story. 15 odd years ago a friends son went to Oxford for interview with his ROA. It was an A4 document with a cheap plastic cover in maroon like a drinks menu. Most the kids at the interview were from public school, and had no ROA. They had never heard of it, and asked him what he was doing with a wine menu, which he had been told to take - officially Oxford took notice of them. He said it was an ROA, it was passed round and the kids laughed at it.. Swimming certificates. Attendance certificates. ROad safety certificates. HE felt two inches high.

In the interview, nothing was said about ROA, but at the end as he had it he asked the interviewer if he wanted to see his record. The dismissal was cruel and he then felt about one inch high. He did not get into Oxford, and came back boiling with anger.

Please don't burden state schools with rubbish. If the private schools don't do it, forget it. This week two public school actors will contest for the best actor Oscar. Like it or not, they know how the world works, and work the system mercilessly. Its not just at the level Henry is talking about that we ask kids to do useless stuff. Its at the highest level.

The real world does not want the kids to jump through hoops for political correctness.

Henry is right and we need to move on to address why the exam reform of Gove, back to the future, will lead to kids not getting jobs. Its where it is at NOW.

Trevor Fisher.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 10:56

Trevor - I share your reservations about the former RoAs. I only brought up the subject in relation to Janet's suggestion of a 'School Leaving Certificate'. I also note your shocking anecdote about a state school pupil being humiliated when attending an interview at Oxford. That is the reason that many excellent state comprehensives have preferred to recommend other first rate British universities to their most able students.

Hopefully things have changed.

I am puzzled about your obsession with the 'grammar school curriculum' and your work in English Literature. I am not suggesting that Latin should be a core GCSE subject. I am certain that Anglo-Saxon texts are obscure and difficult to understand, but surely that is the point. Their study makes similar general cognitive demands to maths and physics, therefore experts in either field are likely, like Michele's husband, to make useful connections.

I don't see any difficulty in ascribing general cognitive gains to the study of linguistics, nor to learning foreign languages by school pupils or adults. Chomsky and Pinker believe that all humans possess an innate 'language decoding module' in their cognitive software. Presumably this evolved before or during the exodus of Homo Sapiens from the African savannah. I understand that this is pretty much mainstream linguistics theory.

I further understand that this 'universal base grammar' evolved into only a small number of different variants and that these underpin all the languages of the world. While languages are indeed 'foriegn' and initially incomprehensible to non-native speakers, the challenge of mastering them is, in all cases, one of seeking, recognising and applying complex patterns. Given that effective language learning also almost always takes place, 'on the social plane', as Vygotsky puts it, the similarities to maths and science and the CASE and CAME approaches of Shayer and Adey seem clear.

I don't really understand what you are arguing.

That the DfE understands nothing about learning? - agreed.

That grammar school systems are not only bad now, but they also failed large numbers of former grammar school pupils? - agreed.

That teaching for general cognitive gains doesn't work/is a bad thing? - sorry I can't agree.

That children should not be taught anything that is not likely to be of direct utility in their adult life? - sorry I can't agree about that either.

Trevor Fisher's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 11:48

this is an important debate, but is probably best left till after the election and what transpires on the National curriculum front, but a couple of responses.

The issue of language development and cognitive development is complex, but it cannot be assumed that the one leads to the other. The point about Shakespeare is that as the anti Stratfordian lobby argue obsessively, he had little latin and less greek. Their point is that he could not therefore be a genius, he had not been educated properly. The flaw in the argument is that you have to have had a classical education to be a playwright. Most did - Marlowe for example - Will is the exception that proves the rule.

The wider point about the English Renassiance and the wider European renaissance is that maths does not seem to have been taught anywhere as such in European schools, yet the maths culture is of the highest standard ever achieved. Copernicus through to Galileo, the foundations of modern science are being laid.

If they were not taught in schools.... and I can't be certain, but this seems to be the case... they were autodidacts.

Thus the role of the school and formal maths teaching has to be downgraded for this period of cultural development. I don't argue it is not valuable today, but that it and the whole grammar school curriculum is damaging because prescriptive. There are other ways of doing high level work. Einstein was (initially, being a very late developer) a patents clerk

There is a closely related but unanswered question (by historians that is) why Britain became so bad at engineering innovation in the twentieth century. In the early ind rev people like George Stephenson and Isambard Kingdom Brunel had little engineering education, but were world leaders. The decline of technical skill in the C20th compared to Germany is astonishing. Reading the texts on economic history is very depressing.

TO take it to the Oscar level, my next subject, we now see two public school boys competing for the Best Actor Oscar for films about two public school boys. Hawkins and Turing were geniuses. But while we have brilliant minds making world class scientific geniuses (eg Bletchley Park... not that they all went to Oxbridge) we did not ever develop the machines.

We invented (via Turing) the modern computer. The Yanks made it work. THis pattern repeats itself via the Grammar and Public Schools, brilliant ideas, not economically valuable. We have Concorde, Yanks the 747. Who made the money?

Final point. Chomsky worked at the Massacheusetts institute of Technology. There is also CALTECH in the USA. The only elite institution which is not modeled on Oxbridge in the UK is The London School Of Economics.

And what small area of London generates 25% of the UK wealth?

Weiner's book on the decline of the industrial spirit should be required reading. Yes, the grammar school can get a few people nobel prizes, but as the JCB academy in Rocester has pointed out, ultimately we do have to earn a living - in their case by engineering for the building industry. And we are back to Henry. Great to have high quality discusions, but we have major problems with youth unemployment. There is a link between this and the Gove-Grammar school curriculum ie Ebacc.

trevor fisher.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 13:23

Regarding the decline in technical expertise, I put this down to the failings of the British form of capitalism in terms of its chronic 'short termism'. I was brought up in Birmingham, 'the workshop of the world' at the start of the 1960s but the subsequent failure was exemplified by the abject capitulation of the local motor cycle and car industries. Many of my friends at the time worked at the 'BSA' or other motor cycle companies of which Birmingham was once home to almost all of the famous names.

The motor bikes they produced were appalling in terms of technical investment. The 1968 models were still based on 1930s designs. The extent of their hopelessness was only made evident by the invasion of Hondas and Suzukis. from Japan. Their 50cc models put my 150cc Francis Barnet to shame in terms of performance. The quality of design, manufacture, and materials used were far superior to what the Birmingham factories were turning out.

The same thing happened to the car industry a few years later. The management of these companies was dire in every respect. They put short term profit before long term investment and had stone age labour relations, especially with regard to 'blue collar'/'white collar' demarcations. The lack of ambition in terms of design innovation was endemic and proved to be terminal.

My father was a 'toolmaker' who worked for many Birmingham 'family controlled' firms.

He described the following progression as typical.

Dad (an entrepreneur with Victorian values) founded the business and created its reputation. The son kept it going from the 1930s to the 1960s before handing it on the third generation 'playboy' who blew the profits and assets and bankrupted the company.

The industrial/capitalist culture of Germany, not to mention Japan and now China and South Korea was/is entirely different.

agov's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 12:21

I can’t find that bit either agov

Yet you seem to be spending a lot of time arguing against the bit that isn't there and defending schooling against an attack that doesn't seem to have been made.

went to Oxford for interview with his ROA

Horses for courses though. Why suppose road safety was relevant to tertiary education? Seems a bit under-prepared. A good education is one thing; getting a job is something else. Private schools may know what works in the rat race for them. If not some variety of RoI then what?

EBacc

Do you mean this? -

https://www.gov.uk/english-baccalaureate-information-for-schools

Lucan

Raglan

Is it really so radical and off-the-wall to suggest that when a job requires a specific qualification, it should cover skills that are actually needed in that job?

Yes, apparently.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 12:45

Maths isn't a 'special qualification'. It is a general qualification. The Secretary of State has implied that any pupil that leaves school without a C grade is innumerate.

To get back to Henry's post, I think that having studied geometry and algebra (not necessarily to a 'C' grade) is part of a general education that all pupils should be entitled to for all the reasons I have set out in these posts.

I agree that all pupils should be employable in terms of their general education when they leave school. This means having studied a 'broad and balanced curriculum'. In the the 1980s TVEI program this criterion for getting the funding did not require any minimum Grades and certainly not 'Cs'. These were the passport to A level courses in those days, not certificates in 'basics'.

Students need to be 'trained' to ensure that they have the 'special qualifications' needed for specific jobs. That is what post-16 vocational training and apprenticeships are for.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 12:54

I hesitate to stir the pot further, but Herrnstein & Murray's 'The Bell Curve' (1994) produced powerful evidence that the degree of success in any job (in America), however menial or high powered, was more strongly predicted by IQ (the authors had access to various IQ data) than any other variable, including specific academic qualifications.

I don't know if this supports Henry's argument or not!

It certainly supports my argument that I am making here and in my book that the most important thing schooling can do for all pupils in terms of employability is to boost their cognitive ability.

Andy V's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 13:28

And the stirring continues:

IQ is overrated:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/keldjensen/2012/04/12/intelligence-is-overra...


What predicts success?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140717120528-117825785-what-predicts-su...

Surfing the net can and will always produce positions for and against a proposition, in this case IQ. Since 1994 there has been the rise of different quotients to just intelligence e.g. EQ and MQ. Does it mean one is better than another? Almost certainly not. Do they challenge previously held traditional/established viewpoint, hell yes! Is that healthy, yes. Does it indicate that education and making ones way in the world post education is more about a blended/personalised pathway approach? Very probably. Are there subjects that are a better fit for national economy, yes, but even that changes e.g. the massive change from industrialised Britain to a financial and service based Britain. Are there subjects that are a better fit for personal wellbeing, yes. Should curricula be set in stone, no. Should pupils be forced down a curricular pathway straight jacketed by academia alone, no, that is the quickest way to disenfranchise and disengage learners (even if it is only a minority because they can undermine the majority in the classroom).

Roger Titcombe's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 14:11

Andy - You are right, the internet is full of this sort of anecdotal/inspirational stuff. It is like diet books.

"Should curricula be set in stone, no. Should pupils be forced down a curricular pathway straight jacketed by academia alone, no, that is the quickest way to disenfranchise and disengage learners (even if it is only a minority because they can undermine the majority in the classroom)."

Who could argue with that? Certainly not me.

Section 5.7 'The Leicestershire Modular Framework' is all about this.

'Soft' interpersonal skills are also very important. These are best best addressed through school 'cultures' and PSE, although certain forms of tuition like 'assertiveness training' can be very helpful. In my school the School Council (much more ambitious than the government's 'pupil voice', had an important role.

Andy V's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 16:54

"the internet is full of this sort of anecdotal/inspirational stuff", if you do a fraction of research you'll find that one of the father's of EQ is Dr Daniel Goleman:

"Daniel Goleman is an internationally known psychologist who lectures frequently to professional groups, business audiences, and on college campuses. As a science journalist Goleman reported on the brain and behavioral sciences for The New York Times for many years. His 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence was on The New York Times bestseller list for a year-and-a-half, with more than 5,000,000 copies in print worldwide in 40 languages, and has been a best seller in many countries ...

The Harvard Business Review called emotional intelligence— which discounts IQ as the sole measure of one’s abilities — “a revolutionary, paradigm-shattering idea” and chose his article “What Makes a Leader” as one of ten “must-read” articles from its pages. Emotional Intelligence was named one of the 25 “Most Influential Business Management Books” by TIME Magazine. The Financial Times, Wall Street Journal and Accenture Insititute for Strategic Change have listed Goleman among the most influential business thinkers.

Goleman is a co-founder of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (www.casel.org), originally at the Yale Child Studies Center and now at the University of Illinois at Chicago. CASEL’s mission centers on bringing evidence-based programs in emotional literacy to schools worldwide.

He currently co-directs the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations (www.eiconsortium.org) at Rutgers University. The consortium fosters research partnerships between academic scholars and practitioners on the role emotional intelligence plays in excellence."

http://www.danielgoleman.info/biography/

Goleman is not someone to dismiss as a lifestyle guru; he has fully accredited qualifications as a psychologist. This may not be the case for Keld Jensen but the diversity his workplace achievements offer a modicum of credibility.

Allow me to quote from research undertaken by Dr Highfield :

"Their landmark study was based on the results of an online intelligence test which was launched by the Daily Telegraph and New Scientist two years ago, and attracted more than 110,000 responses.

Dr Roger Highfield, the Telegraph columnist and one of the authors of the paper, said: "When you come to the most complex known object, the human brain, the idea that there is only one measure of intelligence had to be wrong."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do...

The fact that this information is available via the internet is no reason to glibly dismiss it as "anecdotal/inspirational stuff". Statements such as the latter can and do have a habit of coming back to bite the author.

In relation to "soft skills", this is a hugely misleading phrase as has been evidenced in recent months by the clamour from employers of all types for schools to teach these personal skills. The shame of it was that the last government were moving in that direction through the Personal Learning and Thinking Skills thread that was interwoven into the then new national curriculum in 2008; featuring in every single subject area across KS3 and 4 and easily translated into KS5.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 18:50

Andy - This is from Wikipedia

Cannot be recognized as form of intelligence
Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that EI is a type of intelligence. Eysenck (2000)[44] writes that Goleman's description of EI contains unsubstantiated assumptions about intelligence in general, and that it even runs contrary to what researchers have come to expect when studying types of intelligence:

"[Goleman] exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'... If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand: there is no sound scientific basis."

Similarly, Locke (2005)[45] claims that the concept of EI is in itself a misinterpretation of the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative interpretation: it is not another form or type of intelligence, but intelligence—the ability to grasp abstractions—applied to a particular life domain: emotions. He suggests the concept should be re-labelled and referred to as a skill.

The essence of this criticism is that scientific inquiry depends on valid and consistent construct utilization, and that before the introduction of the term EI, psychologists had established theoretical distinctions between factors such as abilities and achievements, skills and habits, attitudes and values, and personality traits and emotional states.[46] Thus, some scholars believe that the term EI merges and conflates such accepted concepts and definitions.

Confusing skills with moral qualities
Adam Grant warned of the common but mistaken perception of EI as a desirable moral quality rather than a skill, Grant asserting that a well-developed EI is not only an instrumental tool for accomplishing goals, but has a dark side as a weapon for manipulating others by robbing them of their capacity to reason.[47]

Has little predictive value
Landy (2005)[48] claimed that the few incremental validity studies conducted on EI have shown that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction of some common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy suggested that the reason why some studies have found a small increase in predictive validity is a methodological fallacy, namely, that alternative explanations have not been completely considered:

There is loads more expert comprehensive dismissal of EI if you look for it.

For years Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences was very popular especially with left inclined teachers. It is comprehensively debunked by Philip Adey in Chapter 12 of 'Bad Education', Edited by Philip Adey and Justin Dillon (2012) and I summarise some of this criticism in Section 1.2 of Learning Matters.

However, I think our readers will be tiring of this Andy and perhaps we should move on.

Andy V's picture
Fri, 13/02/2015 - 20:44

I wouldn't dare flatter myself with the thought of having readers following my every word.

The essence of my position is that:

1. All subjects have the potential to contribute to cognitive development
2. There is no single T&L strategy that is the silver bullet for deepening cognitive development
3. No matter which 'expert/experts' are cited there are critics as well as supporters

It is however noticeable that the 'experts' upon which you rely are placed on a pedestal and treated as is they are beyond reproach. This must create a near security blanket whereas I prefer the reality of knowing there is no one-size fits all T&L strategy for encouraging cognitive development and hence am open to all strategies and use those that best suit the group I am teaching.

Like you I decide on what topics I engage with and to what extent - neither of us has a liking for being told whether to continue or stop.

agov's picture
Sun, 15/02/2015 - 13:17

"Maths isn’t a ‘special qualification’. It is a general qualification."

But presumably Henry's point was that employers, for no particular reason, often treat such things as specifically required. Interesting as these discussions about education are they do not address the mismatch between what school leavers might offer and what employers say they want.

"I think that having studied geometry and algebra (not necessarily to a ‘C’ grade) is part of a general education that all pupils should be entitled to"

An excellent approach though it is unclear who disagrees with it.

"all pupils should be employable in terms of their general education when they leave school. This means having studied a ‘broad and balanced curriculum’"

But some seem less than impressed by the universal success of this general education -

http://www.learningobservatory.com/uploads/publications/2664.pdf

"Students need to be ‘trained’ to ensure that they have the ‘special qualifications’ needed for specific jobs. That is what post-16 vocational training and apprenticeships are for."

How special does 'special' have to be? -

http://www.tescoplc.com/mobile/index.asp?pageid=4&blogid=239

It's not just that employers make ridiculous demands but also that schools are not necessarily even managing to produce leavers with very basic skills. It is not enough just to blame the employers for everything. Schools should be for more than the intellectual, emotional and general wellbeing of the staff.

"The Yanks made it work."

Some would say ICL made it work much better but didn't seem much concerned with marketing as it had a captive public sector sales base. Until Thatcher sold it to the Japanese at which point it seemed to lose interest.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 16/02/2015 - 12:38

I don't think I am disagreeing with you agov.

I think that Stuart Rose may have a point. I argue that all schools should provide all pupils with a broad and balanced curriculum and teach it in such a way that cognitive and other abilities are enhanced as much as possible.

In Part 3 of my book I set out lots of reasons and evidence that high stakes pressure for 'school improvement' results in perverse incentives to degrade both curriculum opportunities and teaching methods. This has been going on for a long time now and has produced the opposite result to that which the free marketeers expected.

I am sure that Henry is right that many employers use the exam system as a sieving process without being very clear what they are doing or why they are doing it. My point of departure is the suggestion that learning stuff you never 'use' in employment is undesirable.

agov's picture
Tue, 17/02/2015 - 13:15

Henry can speak for himself but I didn't take him to mean that it is undesirable for schools to teach things that may never be used by students but rather that the students don't necessarily have to be adept at those subjects for jobs that don't need it but for which qualifications are nevertheless demanded.

Reading your book is next on my list when I finish my current one. I read slow. Especially in winter. I'm sure you're right about the high stakes perversion.

Possibly interesting news for chess fans -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/chess/11415450/Spain-says-yes-to-ches...

Roger Titcombe's picture
Tue, 17/02/2015 - 13:29

Perhaps you are right agov - if so, sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick Henry.

I think that school chess is very good developmentally - but some kids hate it so compulsion seems a bit ott.

Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.