An interesting debate
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:48 pm
I've spent a very interesting morning at an education conference. By sheer coincidence, and not my purpose for attending, the first session was a Higher Education Policy Institute debate:
"This house believes that academic selection is wrong at 11, and still wrong at 18."
The two panellists arguing for the motion (Chief Executive of the RSA and the former editor of Schools Week) were well-prepared, drawing on research findings and statistical data. The two arguing against the motion (a retired grammar school head and a LA cabinet member for education), were less impressive. In fact, after their opening five minute speeches were over, the first audience question was "Is this meant to be a debate because I don't think we've heard a solid pro-selection argument yet?"
The retired HT's central arguments were anecdotal, drawing on stories of student mobility among his former students in Birmingham, some of which were impressive. He conceded that whilst ideologically in favour of selection, he could not defend the current systems in place around the country.
The LA cabinet member's speech was in all honesty, an absolute car-crash. He went last and tried to address some of the points made by the previous speakers among his prepared points but all he could revert to was anecdotal stories - chiefly his own - to back up his view. Even as someone opposed to his views, I felt there was an opportunity lost to properly debate the points because he and the retired HT offered so little in the way of anything to grasp and run with. In fact, my favourite quote from the member was, and I am quoting him directly here, "Children need to be taught in different ways, from nurturing to hothousing." There was murmuring and genuine disbelief among all sides that he actually said that!
The show of hands among the audience at the end was in favour of the motion, with noticeably more abstentions than there were at the start, including, notably, the retired HT employed to contest the motion! What was unanimous among the panellists and seemingly much of the audience was that the current methods of selection are broken. In fact, it seemed to me to reflect the prevailing views on here, where anecdotes and gut feelings are pitted against research and data, but that most posters seem to have common ground in their criticism of selection methods.
"This house believes that academic selection is wrong at 11, and still wrong at 18."
The two panellists arguing for the motion (Chief Executive of the RSA and the former editor of Schools Week) were well-prepared, drawing on research findings and statistical data. The two arguing against the motion (a retired grammar school head and a LA cabinet member for education), were less impressive. In fact, after their opening five minute speeches were over, the first audience question was "Is this meant to be a debate because I don't think we've heard a solid pro-selection argument yet?"
The retired HT's central arguments were anecdotal, drawing on stories of student mobility among his former students in Birmingham, some of which were impressive. He conceded that whilst ideologically in favour of selection, he could not defend the current systems in place around the country.
The LA cabinet member's speech was in all honesty, an absolute car-crash. He went last and tried to address some of the points made by the previous speakers among his prepared points but all he could revert to was anecdotal stories - chiefly his own - to back up his view. Even as someone opposed to his views, I felt there was an opportunity lost to properly debate the points because he and the retired HT offered so little in the way of anything to grasp and run with. In fact, my favourite quote from the member was, and I am quoting him directly here, "Children need to be taught in different ways, from nurturing to hothousing." There was murmuring and genuine disbelief among all sides that he actually said that!
The show of hands among the audience at the end was in favour of the motion, with noticeably more abstentions than there were at the start, including, notably, the retired HT employed to contest the motion! What was unanimous among the panellists and seemingly much of the audience was that the current methods of selection are broken. In fact, it seemed to me to reflect the prevailing views on here, where anecdotes and gut feelings are pitted against research and data, but that most posters seem to have common ground in their criticism of selection methods.