has education funding increased?

[jimbob]

Gordonstoun is not traditional.

Eton is. Gordonstoun certainly paid little attention to exam results

There are a number of public schools designed for the thick offspring of rich people, I think this is one of them.

I believe it develops "character"

And who can argue with the success of its most famous alumnus?

He certainly seems less of an arse than his younger brother

[Allo V Psycho]

How do the stats for private education compare? I don't think uni admissions are a useful metric although uni results might be. Where's Ken, anyway?

If I can have a go in the absence of the estimable Ken: the comments below specifically relate to medicine, but are also generalisable to other topics.

In England, kids from non-selective (largely state) schools perform better than kids from selective schools (largely grammar and private)
ONCE THEY ARE ADMITTED TO UNIVERSITY at all levels of performance by about one to two A Level grades. However, since applicants are admitted to medicine only if they have very high grades, there is an inbuilt, significant, and discriminatory bias in favour of kids getting into medicine if they attend selective or private schools.

If I can touch on the topic of objectivity in University exams, some assessment methods are objective at the point of scoring (e.g. MCQs etc.), but there is an element of subjectivity at the point of assessment setting. Assessment of free-text written work and observation of skills is always subjective, and assessor variance is often the biggest single source of variance (as opposed to candidate variance) but assessments can be combined in such a way that the outcomes are predictive (i.e. they predict to a greater or lesser extent how candidates will perform in the workplace). This might be taken as the equivalent of 'objective', for practical purposes.

[dyqik]

You just said that subjective choice is more important than trying to create objective measures of educational attainment.

People who can afford to educate their children privately get to exercise their subjective assessment of educational quality. How do you propose ordinary people exercise subjective choice in secondary education without such schemes ?

I didn't say that.

Why do you think a measure that claims to be "objective" is better than explicitly subjective measures in determining the performance of something that has no unique and universally agreed aims?

Because we don't have a way for the pupils and parents to apply any kind of subjective measure in the quality of their education unless they're wealthy enough to go private, and letting the providers rate themselves subjectively is problematic for obvious reasons.

Why are you talking about pupils and parents applying the measures?

[sheldrake]

This allows exactly the kind of per-pupil subjective educational choices that Dyqik says he supports

No, it's the kind of choice you said he said he supports. A common theme.

This is what he said.

What subjective assessment of schools does is force you to confront and justify the biases in your "objective" measures in the context of a particular school and environment. And that's a far better and more useful assessment than trying to blindly apply an "objective" measure across schools.

He supports subjective assessment of schools. Subjective assessment by whom?, if not the parents or the pupils?

[sheldrake]

Why are you talking about pupils and parents applying the measures?

Because you object to having an objective measure, so I assumed that the subjective assessment you prefered would be pupil-centric and involve the preferences of the people being educated, or their legal guardians. If not, then do explain what you mean.

[dyqik]

Why are you talking about pupils and parents applying the measures?

Because you object to having an objective measure, so I assumed that the subjective assessment you prefered would be pupil-centric and involve the preferences of the people being educated, or their legal guardians. If not, then do explain what you mean.

A report by a review team is a subjective measure. E.g. an OFSTED report. ETA: and it may include objective measures as elements of the report.

This is how every peer review report is done in science, at all levels.

[sheldrake]

Why are you talking about pupils and parents applying the measures?

Because you object to having an objective measure, so I assumed that the subjective assessment you prefered would be pupil-centric and involve the preferences of the people being educated, or their legal guardians. If not, then do explain what you mean.

A report by a review team is a subjective measure. E.g. an OFSTED report.

This is how every peer review report is done in science, at all levels.

I think the Ofsted system has been failing state school pupils precisely because it lacks rigour.

[dyqik]

Because you object to having an objective measure, so I assumed that the subjective assessment you prefered would be pupil-centric and involve the preferences of the people being educated, or their legal guardians. If not, then do explain what you mean.

A report by a review team is a subjective measure. E.g. an OFSTED report.

This is how every peer review report is done in science, at all levels.

I think the Ofsted system has been failing state school pupils precisely because it lacks rigour.

Yet you haven't proposed anything rigorous to replace it.

[sheldrake]

Yet you haven't proposed anything rigorous to replace it.

I've offered two options to replace it. You've said what you don't like about standardised testing. Perhaps you could explain what you don't like about voucher schemes ?

[dyqik]

Yet you haven't proposed anything rigorous to replace it.

I've offered two options to replace it. You've said what you don't like about standardised testing. Perhaps you could explain what you don't like about voucher schemes ?

They aren't rigorous, are easily gamed, and are hopelessly biased.

[sheldrake]

They aren't rigorous, are easily gamed, and are hopelessly biased.

Gamed in what way? What kind of problems do you see with the Swedish scheme?

[dyqik]

They aren't rigorous, are easily gamed, and are hopelessly biased.

Gamed in what way? What kind of problems do you see with the Swedish scheme?

I don't know anything about it, or care.

But what you've suggested when you suggested objective measures are basically league tables, which have far more problems than OFSTED. You also haven't said what should be measured, and why that is the right and only thing to measure.

Rigorous and objective aren't synonyms and rigorous and subjective aren't antonyms.

[sheldrake]

I don't know anything about it, or care.

Okay, you could've just admitted ignorance.

But what you've suggested when you suggested objective measures are basically league tables, which have far more problems than OFSTED.

No, I didn't suggest league tables. You did.

Rigorous and objective aren't synonyms and rigorous and subjective aren't antonyms.

I'm aware of that, but when something has been failing it's probably not best to rely on the subjective judgement of the hierarchy that's been failing to correct it.

[dyqik]

Anyway, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere until you familiarize yourself properly with the diversity of English schools and the environments they operate in, and until you state what you think the education system is for, and support that position with evidence.

And I'm on flights.

[dyqik]

Okay, you could've just admitted ignorance.

Why would I admit ignorance if something that hasn't come up in my discussion and isn't relevant to it?

But what you've suggested when you suggested objective measures are basically league tables, which have far more problems than OFSTED.

No, I didn't suggest league tables. You did.

Don't be silly. Objective measures are essentially league tables, and have the same fundamental problems. Some versions are better than others, but they all have the same fundamental flaws.

[sheldrake]

Glad to see you concede you dont know anything about voucher schemes (despite insisting you reject them).

Have a good Christmas Dyqik

[plodder]

How do the stats for private education compare? I don't think uni admissions are a useful metric although uni results might be. Where's Ken, anyway?

If I can have a go in the absence of the estimable Ken: the comments below specifically relate to medicine, but are also generalisable to other topics.

In England, kids from non-selective (largely state) schools perform better than kids from selective schools (largely grammar and private)
ONCE THEY ARE ADMITTED TO UNIVERSITY at all levels of performance by about one to two A Level grades. However, since applicants are admitted to medicine only if they have very high grades, there is an inbuilt, significant, and discriminatory bias in favour of kids getting into medicine if they attend selective or private schools.

If I can touch on the topic of objectivity in University exams, some assessment methods are objective at the point of scoring (e.g. MCQs etc.), but there is an element of subjectivity at the point of assessment setting. Assessment of free-text written work and observation of skills is always subjective, and assessor variance is often the biggest single source of variance (as opposed to candidate variance) but assessments can be combined in such a way that the outcomes are predictive (i.e. they predict to a greater or lesser extent how candidates will perform in the workplace). This might be taken as the equivalent of 'objective', for practical purposes.

Thanks for that, Allo. Just to clarify: state school kids appear to be better prepared for uni in some cases? That's a surprise!

[sheldrake]

The effect may not be due to preparation. It may be that private school is getting higher grades for people with less raw ability, so the kids who managed to get 3 As at a bog standard comp have to *really* sharp and motivated

[Allo V Psycho]

The effect may not be due to preparation. It may be that private school is getting higher grades for people with less raw ability, so the kids who managed to get 3 As at a bog standard comp have to *really* sharp and motivated

Numbers tell you what happens, but not why, so it can only be speculation. But I would speculate that it is 'higher grades with less ability' and/or 'higher grades with less motivation'. There is also a bonus for 'being like the interviewer', and the interviewers themselves come from a restricted social strata. My impression (subjective, but based on 40 years experience) is that kids from the state school actually have better social skills than kids from private and selective schools, in terms of their implicit trait policies, but their skill set is different to that of the interviewers.

On one recent occasion I know of, when there was a slight pause in the interview, the male, privileged, interviewer asked the (male, privileged) candidate which school his tie represented. That candidate had of course worn that tie deliberately as a social signifier.

[sheldrake]

However, since applicants are admitted to medicine only if they have very high grades, there is an inbuilt, significant, and discriminatory bias

Is it really discriminatory that private schools do a better job of teaching A-level chemistry & biology on average?
I'd hate to think that there were people with significant policy influence who thought the right answer here was to try and put handicaps on the private school kids or just accept less knowledge from the state school kids. Surely the only sane response here is to improve state education?

[dyqik]

Glad to see you concede you dont know anything about voucher schemes (despite insisting you reject them).

Remind me, what do voucher schemes and "the swedish scheme" have to do with objective measures of educational efficiency and why they are deeply flawed?

[sheldrake]

Glad to see you concede you dont know anything about voucher schemes (despite insisting you reject them).

Remind me, what do voucher schemes and "the swedish scheme" have to do with objective measures of educational efficiency and why they are deeply flawed?

They are both feedback mechanisms to raise or maintain the quality of education.

[Allo V Psycho]

However, since applicants are admitted to medicine only if they have very high grades, there is an inbuilt, significant, and discriminatory bias

Is it really discriminatory that private schools do a better job of teaching A-level chemistry & biology on average?
I'd hate to think that there were people with significant policy influence who thought the right answer here was to try and put handicaps on the private school kids or just accept less knowledge from the state school kids. Surely the only sane response here is to improve state education?

I could probably reasonably say that I was a person with policy influence, for what it is worth.

Is it really discriminatory that private schools do a better job of teaching A-level chemistry & biology on average?

Yes.
If the goal is to recruit those candidates who are best able to fulfil the needs of the health care professions, and better candidates are selected against, on the basis of extraneous factors, for the benefit of worse candidates, then that is discriminatory.

And yes, in principle, it could arguably be societally just to adapt entrance standards on the basis of backgrounds, so that candidates of equivalent performance capabilities in the future were admitted. Subtracting two A Level grades from private or selective school candidates would work psychometrically.

There are two major reason why I do not favour such different initial entrance tariffs on a population basis. The first is that we do not admit populations, but individuals. And there is no way of determining whether any given individual has been unfairly benefited or discriminated against. The second is that, as discussions on this forum have indicated, assessing 'background' is very difficult.

As far as improving state schools goes, that is beyond my individual power, and beyond the power or remit of medical schools. But medical schools are not therefore absolved from attempting to address the problem.

My solutions have been to identify promising candidates from challenged backgrounds, by a number of metrics. then the task is to give them the opportunity bring out their abilities before selection. Examples are programmes such as those of Pamela Garlick at Kings and the Southampton BM6 programme.

I should emphasise that this is not merely intended for the benefit of the individuals. Health care delivery benefits from the presence of individuals from a diversity of backgrounds, and even medical education is the better for such diversity. The same is true for students with health challenges. For instance, I have admitted a student in a wheelchair, in an old building with limited disabled access. Her classmates formed a cheerful support team to help her, guided by the student herself. I think they will be better doctors for having seen a 'disabled' person first as a friend, colleague and peer, rather than a victim. The same is true for students from different ethnicities and backgrounds. We are not doing such candidates a 'favour': we are benefiting, first the educational programme, and second, health care delivery.

[dyqik]

Glad to see you concede you dont know anything about voucher schemes (despite insisting you reject them).

Remind me, what do voucher schemes and "the swedish scheme" have to do with objective measures of educational efficiency and why they are deeply flawed?

They are both feedback mechanisms to raise or maintain the quality of education.

So nothing directly relevant to measuring educational efficiency then. Got it.

[sheldrake]

Remind me, what do voucher schemes and "the swedish scheme" have to do with objective measures of educational efficiency and why they are deeply flawed?

They are both feedback mechanisms to raise or maintain the quality of education.

So nothing directly relevant to measuring educational efficiency then. Got it.

Yes, very much so. Objective assessment is one way of comparing performance. Voucher schemes allow parents' subjective preferences to be taken into account so that their view of what would be best for their particular child is taken into account (much like a consumer market).