The eighteenth century

Were you listening to Today on Monday (which you should be every day save the Sabbath) and you'd kept listening to the end, you'd have heard an extraordinary debate about British history between Chris Skidmore MP and Trevor Fisher. Actually, it was a fairly mediocre debate about a suggestion in a report from an all party parliamentary group that we should teach history in a more narrative fashion (written up here, not easy to actually find the report).

I don't know Mr Skidmore, though I should, we were at the same college at the same time doing the same subject, though I was rescuing my degree when he came up not meeting first years - my mistake perhaps. He seems like a good egg, and although I don't agree entirely with his proposals, the opposition was extraordinarily weak. Specifically, his opponent proceeded to argue that narrative history would be 'boring' as if that's something an effective curriculum and effective teaching couldn't stop, and then - amazingly - that he didn't know anything about the eighteenth century despite having taught for thirty-odd years.* And somehow he didn't see any problem with this. 

I'm not surprised he's never needed to know about it; but I'm surprised he thought it was acceptable not to. Personally, I'm not a massive fan of the eighteenth century, but it's pretty important period. Immediately, and in rough order of importance at the time, I'd go for:

• The French Revolution (1789)
• The American revolution (1775)
• Walpole and the formation of the Prime Ministerial office (1721-42)
• The Act of Settlement (1701) & The Hanoverian Succession (1714) 
• Union between England and Scotland (1707)
• Union between England and Ireland (1800)
• Plassey and the entry of Britain into India (1757)
• The '45 (1745)

It's noteworthy that most of these fall outside the 'short' eighteenth century, 1715-1789, usually dated with reference to France and dominated by the dreary ineffective years of Louis XV, but that wasn't being discussed and if I were doing the continent, I'd mention - amongst others - the War of Spanish Succession, Peter the Great's modernisation of Russia and Frederick the Great of Prussia. Nonetheless, this is pretty strong list, and I've probably missed a few off. I rather think this therefore gives weight to the view that we should teach more eighteenth century history and history teachers (and others) should certainly be ashamed of not knowing much about it.

*Oddly enough, this was lie. Mr Fisher does know about the Eighteenth century, or at least enough to write about it. Curious.

Explain, briefly, why some people are prejudiced against Jews

When I sat GCSEs, a perspective-distorting 17 years ago, I don't remember any questions like this:

Explain, briefly, why some people are prejudiced against Jews (AQA Religious Studies 2012)

And it's got everyone very irate. I'm disappointed in the Secretary of State who has claimed that it shouldn't have been set because it 'suggest[s] that antisemitism can ever be explained, rather than condemned.' I've always had time for Mr Gove's pursuit of academic rigour, if not in agreement of this methods, but I'm now thinking I have overestimated him. There is transparently no tension between explanation and condemnation and that kind of reaction makes me think he is thick. In fact, I think that kind of reaction makes me want to have them set the question. Understanding why hideous things happen helps us stop them. I'll return to whether it belongs in a GCSE below.

For the record, and off the top of my head, I'd suggest the following answer:

1. Let's assume by prejudice we mean irrational hostility, not a response to genuine enemies. For example, I would suggest the Philistines were not 'prejudiced' against the Jews, but rather fighting a war (see 1 Samuel 17)
2. Said prejudice is probably borne out of 'problems at home', perhaps fear or poverty, i.e., they're lashing out at a target (I simplify, but we brevity has been stipulated). As GCSE students won't have studied any history, they'll all talk about the depression and the Holocaust, but they could also point to other examples, perhaps the Great Persecution in an insecure Empire Galerius 
3. At which point you might ask, why the Jews. And there are two ways of tracing this: said prejudice is old, and modern antisemitism draws directly on historical hostility to Jews. There's lots of this, but I think it can squarely be rooted in the Jewish nations resolute non-identification with the establishment in antiquity. The Jews rejected the Emperor-cult in Pagan Rome and obviously the Christian identity that followed. That's bound to make you unpopular. Of course, you could suggest that the modern Islamic antisemitism also owes something to the position of Israel and have a useful discussion over which came first, drawing in the career of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
4. The second point to trace is extraordinary tenaciousness of the non-geographic national identity of the Jews. many groups draw hostility but national hostility tends not to last if they don't. I don't have views on the undesirability of Goths as neighbours (OK, I do, but that's rare - they'd be fine). The Jews don't, and they're exceptional in that respect. Unfortunately this functions as a multiplier effect for prejudice for much of their history, which is unfortunate. 

Of course, it's actually much more complex than that, but I think it's pretty interesting, and important. I'm not sure how useful it is to ask 16-year-olds as they don't have the breadth of knowledge and understanding to say anything meaningful. I don't think they should be taught the Nazis and the Holocaust in history either, so I would be very happy if they objection was that this stuff is hard and complex, so we should delay it. However, it's not. The objection seems to be that the world is unpleasant, so we shouldn't examine it. And that's pathetic.

Down with choice

I'm already starting to get bored of NI - and I can't say much about it anyway, for fear that it will be misinterpreted. So, I've moved on, let's hope lots of the criminals end up in prison. It did allow me to make the first dents in Anna's quite frankly unreasonable position that universal suffrage is acceptable as a model for decision making, but that's about all.

Astonishingly, Parliament is actually doing something else, though you would be forgiven for not noticing, especially as it's by Andy Burnham, a deeply forgettable man. He's having some meeting to note that  the 'English Bacc' is restricting choice. The government's got some slightly feeble response where it says that it doesn't. This is a depressing debate, dragged off course by government mismanagement and misguided principles. Mismanagement first: it's clearly the case that there must be a two year easing in on this change. Pupils shouldn't be switching courses half way though GCSE - it's not fair and it's not helpful. The second issue is more important and more pernicious - it's about choice.

In particular, it's to do with the view that choice is fundamentally good. This is obviously and provably not true. Choice without information is a prison for the poor. And children don't have choice. We have carefully constructed an education system where they don't have choice. They cannot choose not to go to school; they cannot choose to be illiterate (or rather, they shouldn't be able to). And they cannot choose to study any subject. To my knowledge there is no Byzantine History GCSE (for shame!). And we do this for good reason. Children don't know anything. So we give them things to do that are good for them and will serve them well in later life, which sadly probably does not include Byzantine History.

It does however include Maths, English, Science and it should include a language and a humanity, which  should be history. And this is where the English Bacc debate has got silly. Of course it makes options narrower, but that's a good thing. Here are the subjects that are listed as losing interest: Art, RE, Citizenship, Drama and PSHE (Personal, Social and Health education). Some of these are not proper subjects, some are, but the point is that some children have been choosing do these subjects in place of Maths, English, or Science, history or French (or similar language). And there is no justification for that. None at all. Never. Before people protest, gifted artists can still do Art, unless they are only doing five GCSEs. Likewise for actors. The real point is that it is never acceptable to claim to have mastered 'citizenship' if you are unable to tell me anything about your own country's past cannot count.

However, the opposition to these proposals is thoroughly misguided. Here is the shadow minister:

Schools will steer resources and children into these subjects ... More pupils will take these subjects

Good.

This mantra of choice is absurd, and in this debate downright harmful. Resources should be focused on the key aspects of education from which everything else flows. We might have a debate about whether the humanities are essential, but the rest just are. And as the rest of the education system is predicated on compulsory learning so should this be - they're children remember. Choice be damned.

Wouldn't rewarding success help?

More education and access rah rah on the News at the moment. All difficult and complex, but now increasingly feeling like a retread of every debate of the last 15 years and probably more. I wonder if we're missing a trick that we have tried everywhere else. Specifically, I wonder whether we (the state) should reward universities on results, or rather only allow fee uplifts based on results.

This seems to meet everyone's objectives:
1. Academics want the best students they can get, so presumably they'd be for it.
2. State educated pupils do better, on a grade for grade basis, compared to private, so it would encourage universities to take more.
3. And it engages with the levers that universities control, i.e. what students do at the university, not how well the primary and secondary sectors have done.

Lots of definitional questions here: for a start, you'd have to ensure consistency of degree (which we don't have), though you might have a sliding scale to even out the obvious prestige problem (i.e. a First is worth more in a university that has stupider children). And there are doubtless lots of other issues here. I can see the incentives going a bit wrong in terms of the dynamic between independent and directed undergraduate work. However, in essence this feels to me as if it deserves more consideration, especially compared to the complexity of what OFFA is going to have to do now.

I'm just not sure academics (and civil servants) have given it much.

Posh and posher

I was delighted, on Andrew Neil's programme last night on class, to hear the strains of Cowerd's The Stately homes of England (here, I think) at one point. It's a metaphor for the programme - it was all very enjoyable, and there is a proper point, but it was overly simplistic and the argument relied on sleight of hand.

Now, as I agreed with the answer - more selection, more rigour, now - I wondered why I found it so unsatisfying. And it is the shallowness of the debate, mirrored by the shallowness of the debate A and I then had. Having had time to think about it, the essential problem is that it conflated two quite different things. On the one hand, meritocracy and on the other homogeneity, and this permeated the whole debate. Too often, the problems of access to power (education, network etc) being in the hands of a tiny section of the population became mixed up with 'they all went to similar universities.' These are not necessarily linked. For example, were we to ensure that all the best people, regardless of background, went to Oxbridge, would we care that the cabinet was dominated by them? I suspect more people care about the private school thing; more people should care about the latter. But we should recognise the policy issues are distinct.

As an aside, there were also some unconsidered views on elitism (seen as bad, when it's probably good), and a mix up of causal factors: of course a lot of people who became politicians did politics at university. In fact, it's not even surprising they went to Oxford, which is where those kind of people go. Cambridge has a rubbish Prime Ministerial record.

Deserving of more scrutiny is the selection point. I have neither time and inclination to do so, but it is worth making a few points about this debate.

• Firstly, education is complex. There are obvious variations in focus, and importantly it is the main engine of social mobility. Unlike, say health, rank matters as much as attainment. So, within the country, being the longest lived person is less important than living another ten years; within education, coming first is more important than getting a doctorate. This is critical I think to policy development, and often ignored
• Thus, the debate about rigour often seems one sided. Take for example the English Bac debate. We can all agree that Gove should not have done this retrospectively, but it highlights in that wonderful phrase (used by the Economist last week) 'the soft bigotry of low expectations.' Banging on about the unfairness focusing on those 5 GCSEs misses the point. Life demands maths, English, analytical skill in the scientific and human spheres, and an appreciation of other cultures. By not teaching them, children don't just do badly in things that matter later, they don't even place. There is a debate to be had about whether Law is a harder A level than Maths (it isn't), but it misses most of the point.
• Linked to this is the issue of soft selection. Currently, there is extensive selection in the state system. More subtle than an entrance exam, thus only really discernable to the middle class, thus far far worse than hard selection, whereby everyone knows the rules. I find it astonishing that we decry it (absurdly) when Oxford practises an interview system, but allow 'comprehensives' to select on a variety of aptitudes for a proportion of pupils. Selection is good when it's simple and clear. 
• Finally, fairness. A's objection to selection is always that the 11+ is that it is unfair. Andrew Neil seems to agree. So it is - some people do badly out of it. But so is every other system. The test is not 'is it fair?' but is it fairer or better than the alternative. The evidence from social mobility I think is now pretty clear that comprehensive education has failed; attainment is probably better, but also weak. 

Could we design a better system than that of the 1950s? I suspect so, but it would still be highly selective. In an ideal world, a well-resourced streaming comprehensive would be best. And a lot could be done with precision of requirement and focus on objectives even now. However, resources are constrained, and it is easier and cheaper to group and teach accordingly, allowing cohesion and expectation to do the work of individual attention. Without vast resources, sound selection is the best way to do the most good.