Zombie stats for literacy given new life by Guardian

Janet Downs's picture
 63
Zombie statistics, like the living dead in horror movies, just won’t die no matter how much you shoot them down. And the false statistic for literacy, or rather “functional illiteracy”, keeps on rising.

Deborah Orr, writing in the Guardian, used the fact that the summer rioters didn’t touch a book shop as ammunition to support her assertion, first made in 2006, that if 47% of pupils passed five GCSEs A*-C then it showed that 53% of pupils were “functionally illiterate”.

Ms Orr’s 53% is more than two-and-a-half times the incorrect figure of 20% which was rebuffed on this site last month. But just to make it absolutely clear to those who bandy around ever-larger numbers about illiterate school leavers, here is a short summary:

1 A person who is functionally illiterate is one who hasn’t reached the Level One threshold, defined by the Public Accounts Committee as “the best approximation we have to what counts as functional competence for everyday living…”

2 The threshold for Level One is not GCSE C. GCSE grade C is the threshold for Level Two.

3 The threshold for Level One is GCSE grade G. Only those unable to gain a GCSE grade G, therefore, can be classed as functionally illiterate.

4 In 2011, 98.7% of the 649,553 candidates for GCSE English gained A*-G. Only the ungraded 1.3% could be regarded as functionally illiterate.

1.3% does not equal 53%.

I have tried my best to drive a stake through the heart of the zombie statistic about functional illiteracy and school leavers, but I think even Professor Van Helsing would fail to nail this one.

 
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Category: 

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 01/11/2011 - 16:56

It is the statistics, not I, that present a better picture of English/UK state education system than is promoted by the government and its supporters. I have just presented the statistics which have been produced by nationally and internationally respected bodies. And if these stats are "cherrypicked" then it would be useful to be presented with other stats that contradict the OECD, TIMSS, EEF, GCSE data, and so on. No one has yet done so - all that has been done is to dismiss them by saying they are "cherry picked".

And it doesn't follow that because I highlighted the inaccuracy of the Guardian's figures, that I am defending 18% illiteracy rates (which are, incidentally, not the same as functional illiteracy rates). Someone who is illiterate cannot read or write at all, whereas someone who is functionally illiterate is someone who can read/write but at an insufficient level to be able to function at the most basic level in society. A government select committee defined this at being below Level One (GCSE grade G) and, as I have shown, only about 1.3% of GCSE English candidates did not achieve Grade G in 2011.

Andrew Old's picture
Tue, 01/11/2011 - 17:16

The point is that the government select committee are obviously wrong. You, however, acted as if they are right even though you have a past history of rejecting what politicians say out of hand. It is this inconsistency that you are still failing to explain.

Are you going to address that point? Or are you going to continue to look for points that you think you can defend, and argue about them instead? I have to say I think some of those points you want to discuss would be worth discussing (it does fascinate me that you think TIMMS and PISA can both be right), but I can't see the point of discussing the evidence regarding any new point, when you are still refusing to address or explain the inconsistent ways that you identified and used evidence regarding the points that have already been discussed.

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 01/11/2011 - 17:18

Andrew - please provide the evidence that contradicts the evidence that I have presented. It is insufficient to say it has been cherry picked when you do not give readers the opportunity to study contradictory evidence. And please note that it was a government committee that ruled that someone who passes a Grade G GCSE has reached the threshold of functional literacy - I didn't make it up. You obviously do not agree with the committee - that is your right. But it seems rather illogical to attack me for telling readers what the committee decided (and providing a link so they can check for themselves).


Andrew Old's picture
Tue, 01/11/2011 - 17:33

"Andrew – please provide the evidence that contradicts the evidence that I have presented."

Why should I? You have in the past dismissed the opinions of politicians out of hand. So why in this case do I have to provide evidence that they are wrong? It is this inconsistency that I want you to address.

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 01/11/2011 - 17:45

Well it looks like you don't have the evidence doesn't it? It's a pity you are now reduced to petulant foot stamping in the face of civil disobedience. You've rather lost the argument, as Deborah Orr has. No inconsistency here Andrew, I'm sorry to say, but plenty of bluster and abuse from you.

Any chance of a response from you about your "retinue of abusive posts/systematic deletions/random pre-moderation and bannings"? That's not inconsistent it it? It's just nasty isn't it??

Keith Turvey's picture
Tue, 01/11/2011 - 20:57

Yes but you could deduce virtually anything from that? Are you implying only one cause (poor teaching) for this effect?


Janet Downs's picture
Wed, 02/11/2011 - 08:21

I'm not implying anything, Keith. The causes of illiteracy are complex and would need a whole new thread. This thread is about inaccurate statistics in the media.


Keith Turvey's picture
Wed, 02/11/2011 - 17:21

Janet sorry but my question was to Deborah. I thought I'd replied to her statement on the variation in standards. Might point Deborah is that in and of itself this means nothing other than in relation to other countries there is greater variation. Sorry Janet.


Janet Downs's picture
Wed, 02/11/2011 - 08:30

Imagine a Court of Law. Barrister A lays out the evidence to the Court. Barrister B stands up and tells the Court, “The evidence you have heard is ridiculous. My learned friend has in the past found witnesses to have given misleading information. Now my learned friend is expecting us to believe the evidence of witnesses. Having once dismissed the evidence of witnesses, s/he cannot now call on the Court to believe evidence from witnesses. My learned friend is inconsistent. S/he is also cherry picking evidence.”

Judge: “I would be grateful to hear any contradictory evidence”.

Barrister B, “Why should I present any contradictory evidence? Why in this case do I have to provide evidence that they are wrong? It’s on the internet for anyone who cares to look.”

I wonder what the reaction of the Judge would be.

Andrew Old's picture
Wed, 02/11/2011 - 10:42

Are you now admitting that you see yourself as prosecuting a case, using any means to convince the jury, rather than investigating the truth? That would explain why you seem puzzled that I am spending my time pointing out the flaws in your arguments, rather than introducing new arguments on the points of your choice. It would also explain why you don't care whether you are consistent from one "case" to the next.

The trouble is that this is not a courtroom. I am not a rival barrister. I am not trying to win a case. I don't care to prove you wrong on everything you have ever said. I am simply asking you to refrain from dismissing other points of view on grounds that you would never apply to your own opinions. A barrister who attempted to take on the judge's ability to rule on what evidence is admissible, and would only rule on the basis of personal whim rather than legal principle, can expect criticism from more than just the opposing barrister on one particular case. They can expect to be thrown out of court.

If you are going to cherry-pick evidence in order to "win" a debate, then it is not enough to turn to people who challenge you and say "why aren't you cherry-picking too?" You need to understand that people often won't debate the conclusions of a cherry-picker, because nobody cares to listen to an argument that is transparently dishonest.

Francis Gilbert's picture
Sun, 06/11/2011 - 09:42

Deborah Orr seems to be taking a different tack in her most recent article. It's worth quoting the relevant section in full here:

"Choice is a driver of inequality. This sad fact has been illustrated very clearly in Britain over the last few decades. The more money and education you have, the better the choices you can make and afford, and the more your position of strength and privilege is bolstered. This is seen mostly clearly in education, not just in terms of state v private, but also, since the Conservative reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, in state education.

The Conservative revolution designed to transform schools, the last time around, was built on parental choice. Schools would compete for parental patronage. They'd all get better. People forget just how bad some schools had become at the end of the last Conservative administration. Occasionally, a school would manage to send only a single-figure minority of its children off into the world with any meaningful qualifications at all. In schools, choice meant that, broadly, the most engaged parents favoured certain establishments, leaving the rest to be inhabited by the children of less engaged parents. The gap between the best educated and the worst educated in this country had been increasing ever since.

Labour did make huge efforts to compensate within a system that naturally generated inequality. But they made no effort to change the system itself. League tables stayed. Testing stayed. Teaching to the test stayed, and so did the idea that education was for the achievement of academic results, not for the nurturing of eager enquiring minds."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/04/deborah-orr-choice-n...

I'm not quite sure what she is saying here. Perhaps, like a lot of us, she's a bit confused...

Allan Beavis's picture
Wed, 09/11/2011 - 11:47

Perhaps she is confused, Francis. Or she has a lot of column inches to fill up. Either way, her thinking appears to be so superficial one wonders how she merits the column space she is given, particularly when she is publishing what are not, on the face of it, satirical pieces about social injustice or education.

Her original piece expressed wonderment that the rioters left Waterstones well alone. It did not seem to occur to her that selling on the literary works of Dickens, Rowling or even Will Self would yield not nearly as much cash as a laptop or an ipod pilfered from Comets. Perhaps they didn't see it not because it is a bookshop and they are illiterate, but because the goods it supplies aren't as cash valuable as Nike trainers.

Perhaps she is confused because it is difficult to pronounce fairly on state education when you claim your own experiences were unfortunate and when you continue to send at least one of your own children to private schools. In that sense, Deborah Orr herself is a very good example of even how the liberal spectrum of the media feels itself justified to put the boot into state education and not mind too hoots about sprinkling in a liberal dose of nonsense data and untruths.

Eddie Carron's picture
Wed, 28/12/2011 - 14:01

We are advised that about 20% of children are identified at KS1 as having poor literacy skills. Published data shows that the same percentage of children fail to achieve Level4 in reading at KS 2 and that a similar percentage leave school at age 16 unable to read and write confidently. There is published US materail which shows that children identified in Grage 1 as having poor literacy skills are the same children who fail to become confident in reading and writing. Does any know if there is any similar UK work to deternine if the children identified at KS 1 are same children who leave school less than functionally literate? I cannot imagine that they would be different children but I would like to hear about any longtitudinal published studies.


Pages

Add new comment

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