Monday, 3 August 2015

Don't buy the Blairites

The media are rewriting what happened at the last election, in support of the Blairite campaign against Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader.
Don't buy it, guys.
Under the supposedly unelectable Ed Miliband Labour votes in England rose by 3.6%.
Labour got hammered because a) Libdems switched to Tory, and b) Scottish Labour had a right-wing Blairite as leader.
So the unrelenting newspaper and BBC narrative that a left-wing Labour Party is unelectable is unsupported by anything remotely resembling a fact.

Friday, 28 March 2014

Missing curriculum

 Message Received: Mar 24 2014, 02:18 PM
 From: "Iain Houston" 
 To: SPUTNIK@NETWORKS.IOP.ORG
 Cc:
 Subject: [SPUTNIK] Search for new curriculum continues

 Still no news...

 ​


 Teachers are still searching for the new Scottish curriculum which was due to arrive some time ago. The search is now in its umpteenth
year, and the search area has been widened to include two vast swathes of office space in Glasgow.



 Teachers gathered around Scotland waiting for news are becoming increasingly impatient about the lack of information regarding the new
curriculum. "Many of my colleagues got on board many years ago. Since they entered the Olympia building I haven't heard anything from
them. I'm sitting here thinking that it could so easily have been me. If I had just been a little bit more interested in my career above
all else and a little bit less interested in the students I could have been in that building talking about learning journeys." Teachers
have reported that on phoning their ex-colleagues their phones still ring but go unanswered. This has given some hope that they may still
be in a meeting somewhere or talking to someone more important.



 Initial reports that sections of the curriculum had been sighted scattered around some websites have turned out to be mistaken. One
teacher said, "It now appears what was sighted was some fragments of some guidance. After further investigation it appears the pieces do
not fit together and so are unlikely to have come from a complete curricular structure. Also, the spelling mistakes and duff diagrams
would suggest that this wreckage may have come from someone who neither knew nor cared how to construct a meaningful curriculum and so
this material has been largely discounted." Despite this the teacher said, "This curriculum must be out there somewhere. Tens of millions
of pounds can't just disappear into thin air. The concern at the moment is that the curriculum may be being held hostage somewhere by a
fanatical group who are out to do serious damage to Scottish Education."



 Although it was thought that the curriculum had disappeared some time ago it has now emerged, following detailed analysis of bank
records, that large sums of money were being received by employee's bank accounts at the SQA and Education Scotland up until very
recently. This has led some to speculate that the curriculum may still exist somewhere or may have until very recently. However, experts
caution that just because people were being paid this does not necessarily indicate that work was being done or decisions were being made.
The curriculum may have crashed some time ago and money may have continued to be transmitted automatically.



 This has all brought back memories of an incident some years ago when Learning Teaching Scotland, after drifting out of control for
several years, collided with HMI, resulting in many highly paid survivors. As a result of this many involved were told that they would
never have to work again. A teacher said of this, "We received a few garbled attempts at communication from LTS a few years ago, then
nothing. We later found out what had happened. It was very difficult for us, as taxpayers, to deal with."



 The wreckage from this collision has never been brought under control and, although rarely encountered, currently still poses a danger to
Scottish Education. Some of the survivors have, tragically, struggled to come to terms with these events and still insist that they work
for HMI, an organisation that was completely destroyed some years ago.



 One teacher searching for the curriculum said, "People have to appreciate the extreme difficulties we are facing searching in this
environment. This is an area of extremely low interest and very high wages which makes this a slow process. In addition conditions are
very difficult. We have found that the necks of many of the people we are dealing with are composed almost entirely of brass. In addition,
the area we will be searching contains many, many plush offices so this will take some time. It is possible that some of the curriculum
may be in Glow. This is a barren, almost unexplored area seldom visited by anyone."



 Many teachers have pointed out that the search will be complicated by the relatively primitive IT systems used in education, "Although it
seems incredible to the average man in the street it is true that in the 21st century Scottish education relies upon relatively primitive
forms of communication. We use an intranet which looks like Windows 3.1 but apparently this is all they could get for £60 million and the
next one will be slightly better so that's alright then." Teachers caution that the search could take some time, "We would like to point
out that this is not like searching a school containing a few dozen highly stressed and hard working teachers. Education Scotland alone
appears to employ over 470,000 people. It will take some time even to determine what on Earth these people do all day. The scale of the
search will be vast. For example, in modern Scotland S1 alone is thought to contain over 85,000 powerpoints on solar power."



 One teacher commented, "The scale of this is just unbelievable, every time we open a door we find another conference room full of people
in suits who insist they are a vital part of the curriculum but can't answer any questions about it. We are currently trying to determine
exactly what the aims of the secretive and shadowy organisation known as the SQA is. Our best guess at the moment is that it evolved from
an organisation which once produced high quality exams into some form of charitable institution set up to prevent people having to enter
classrooms and teach children. Instead the SQA provides them with a safe, welcoming environment where they can mix with other people just
like themselves. The organisation also appears to run day trips where their service users are taken out into the community to insult
teachers."



 Members of the search team refused to comment on rumours that car parks full of expensive German cars had been found near to the last
known position of the curriculum. A representative would only say, "These are very early days and obviously there are a lot of rumours
around. I must stress that we have not yet found anything at all that we can link to a coherent curriculum."



 Unnamed sources within the Scottish Government are now suggesting that Scotland's teachers are likely responsible for the disappearance
of the curriculum. Verifiers have raided several schools and discovered huge stockpiles of assessment material. One commented, "The
teachers invariably claim it is for personal use and they need this amount of material to assess their students. However, when we are
faced with several cupboards of paperwork for something as simple as a Nat 4 and Nat 5 qualification alarm bells start to ring. Let's
remember that last month a teacher was injured when a box file stuffed overly full of UASP resits exploded in his face. This has led us to
conduct detailed interviews with teachers who are known to have links to Education Scotland and the SQA but even following intense
interrogation none of them appear to know anything about the new National or Higher courses. Despite this I would caution the public that
these are extremely determined and committed individuals. Many of them repeatedly told interrogators of their fanatical belief that the
new curriculum would be delivered in time by the SQA. Others with links to Education Scotland believe there is a 'National Agreement'
which means they are guaranteed to be left in peace if they produce a few random worksheets. We try to explain to them that these would
not constitute 'off the shelf courses' but they are convinced that they will get away with it. Teachers and the public should realise that
we are dealing with a situation we have not encountered before. Many of these people have absolutely no fear of secondment and have even
volunteered for missions which require them to become curriculum development officers. The threat posed by them should not be
underestimated. As time goes on we are becoming increasingly concerned that this curriculum has been hijacked by some highly untrained
individuals equipped with a variety of bad ideas."



 The authorities have made it clear that if ordinary teachers are responsible, in some undefined and incomprehensible way, they will be
shouted at and publicly criticised. In fact, this will happen no matter what.



 Many questions may be answered if the curriculum's "black box" can be found. However, limited progress has been made. Repeated requests
for information regarding this have been met with the cryptic response that teachers should have been teaching inside it for the past ten
years.



 Some attention has been focussed on a Mr Gillespie. Reports suggest that Mr Gillespie changed course at some point this week. One teacher
said, "We now suspect that Mr Gillespie turned off his moral compass some time ago. It now seems he may have taken Scottish Education off
in an entirely new direction. Our concern is that it wasn't heading anywhere in particular and the worst may now have happened. We have
received no communications regarding the new curriculum for some time. However we have received statements at development days from people
claiming to be senior members of the SQA. These statements say things like, 'Teach what you want and the exams will follow' or 'The
curriculum has already been delivered.' It isn't clear what these statements mean. They may be a form of code or even a veiled threat. It
is also repeatedly stated that 'It can be done' but it is not clear what 'it' is, how it is to be done or who is supposed to be doing it.
Despite all of this, I cannot stress enough at this time that no group has claimed responsibility for this curriculum and we don't
anticipate that anyone ever will."




 Iain H.




 This message was sent via the IOP SPUTNIK mailing list.

________________________________________
From: A discussion forum and information exchange for teachers of physics in Scotland [SPUTNIK@NETWORKS.IOP.ORG] On Behalf Of Ronna Montgomery [ronnamontgomery@YAHOO.CO.UK]
Sent: 27 March 2014 16:11
To: SPUTNIK@NETWORKS.IOP.ORG
Subject: Re: [SPUTNIK] Freedom of Speech and Offense

We are the IOP Teacher Network Coordinators who are paid by IOP to support Physics Teachers in Scotland.

I am the Team Leader in Scotland.

One of our first acts almost twelve years ago now was to set up Sputnik. It is fully funded by the Institute of Physics. The Education Board of the IOP set standards that we must comply with. We are accountable to that Board.

This is my final word on this issue.

Ronna

Ronna Montgomery
Institute of Physics
Teacher Network in Scotland


07711389303
ronnamontgomery@gmail.com

On 27 Mar 2014, at 09:17, Mr Wood <gw08woodmartin01@GLOW.SCH.UK> wrote:


Despite the high regard I have for you Ronna I must respectfully decline the request, on several points of principle.



I would like to enquire who this "we" are?

As you noted in your reply they cannot be fully representative of the membership of Sputnik, therefore if this thread is to be terminated at the request of "we", then I must ask "we" to explain publicly why their wishes not only trump the wishes of other members but lead to a member of this forum being placed under significant pressure.



I have made no accusations, the significance of Malaysia flight MH370 was indicated by yourself. I am simply asking for calm, rational reasons for the actions following the initial posting.



Is it criticism of the SQA and other relevant authorities that is the issue? This has happened before with no repercussions.



Or is it the style of the initial posting that did not match the personal taste of "we"?

If this is the case then "we" have some work to do, to explain why their personal taste should override all other concerns – and I would ask "we" to do me, and other members the courtesy of doing so in public, rather than remaining publicly silent and conducting their business in the background.



This is either a forum where adult professionals can raise concerns openly, or a forum where individuals postings must pass scrutiny of the personal tastes of certain individuals? If the latter is true then these individuals are required to explain their tastes to the rest of us to avoid future repetitions.



Martin​



Martin Wood

Principal Teacher of Physics/Science

Clydebank High School

Janetta Street
Clydebank
G81 3EJ

0141 533 3000

gw08woodandrew8@glow.sch.uk


“This message may require to be disclosed by the Council under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.”
________________________________
From: A discussion forum and information exchange for teachers of physics in Scotland <SPUTNIK@NETWORKS.IOP.ORG> on behalf of Ronna Montgomery <ronnamontgomery@YAHOO.CO.UK>
Sent: 26 March 2014 15:09
To: SPUTNIK@NETWORKS.IOP.ORG
Subject: Re: [SPUTNIK] Freedom of Speech and Offense

Martin

I think we have had enough of this thread  No one has made any accusations about anyone else.

From my own personal emails, I am aware of a whole range of emotions and thoughts. It is not helpful to air these here and we will absolutely not get a full representation if we do.

So can I ask that we stop this thread now and by all means continue any dialogue you wish elsewhere.

Ronna

Ronna Montgomery
Institute of Physics
Teacher Network in Scotland


07711389303
ronnamontgomery@gmail.com

On 26 Mar 2014, at 14:45, Mr Wood <gw08woodmartin01@GLOW.SCH.UK> wrote:

Just recently I have had cause to wonder the century I live in. I tend to have this funny notion of how rational discourse is conducted .It’s an idea I picked up some time ago – its called “freedom of speech”.
It’s a peculiar idea that entails many unforeseen side effects such as: a progressive society, freedom of religious and sexual identity, tolerance and diversity to name a few. It seems to be a driving force behind the evolution of a fair, open and eventually less confrontational civilisation – mainly because no one particular group is disenfranchised and feels the need to resort to more direct methods. It also breeds honesty as everyone is free to speak their mind and everyone knows where they stand – doesn’t particularly sound like a bad thing...but I may be wrong.
Unfortunately it also has another side effect....every so often you hear something that makes you a little uncomfortable and maybe ....offended. This now appears to be a VERY BAD THING that you SHOULDN’T DO. I find this more than a little disappointing, uncomfortable even, possibly offensive?
History is littered with people that caused offence and had they been censored and censured for expressing themselves we would be living in a very different society – not a particularly good one.
It boils down to what has to be cherished more – freedom of speech or the avoidance of making people uncomfortable or offended. On the one hand if freedom of speech is paramount then we all benefit from the side effects, regardless of whether or not smaller subsections of society find it offends there particular world view. If avoidance of offence becomes paramount then we will have to limit actions and words that will cause a small subset of the group to be temporarily unsettled at any given time. As we all find different things unsettling, inevitably that will mean, eventually, all discourse will be circumscribed. Conversation will consist of groups exerting their right not to be offended over the smallest detail - “truth” will not matter. I don’t find this alternative in any way attractive. It may be just me but offering offence as a method to limit freedom of speech is wasteful and ultimately futile. Particularly when referenced to works of satire, where serious points can be made in a way that amuses, whilst engendering a level of discomfort. I realise it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but life would be one dimensional if we only took actions that caused no one to be disturbed.
The question I really want to ask though is this. Does any member of sputnik think that a member of our group wrote what he did as a deliberate act to denigrate, mock or minimise the casualties of Malasia flight MH370? I invite anyone who does to discuss it freely and openly.​

Martin



Martin Wood

Principal Teacher of Physics/Science

Clydebank High School

Janetta Street
Clydebank
G81 3EJ

0141 533 3000

gw08woodandrew8@glow.sch.uk



This message was sent via the IOP SPUTNIK mailing list. 

From: A discussion forum and information exchange for teachers of physics in Scotland [SPUTNIK@NETWORKS.IOP.ORG] On Behalf Of Mr Wood [gw08woodmartin01@GLOW.SCH.UK]
Sent: 28 March 2014 10:13
To: SPUTNIK@NETWORKS.IOP.ORG
Subject: [SPUTNIK] Bye

It's time to take my leave and bow out with as much grace as my ginger middle aged spread will allow. Its been a hoot and I've gained a lot from the generosity of the members of sputnik. I hope things I've given back on means I've paid my dues.

To tell you the truth, for the past couple of years I've only been in it for the craic, and unsurprisingly it's been a bit thin on the ground recently. It's never really been the same since PDB was given his P45.

To the ray of sunshine in the north – enjoy le shuttle.



Ronna – this was never personal nor an attempt to make your job harder. I just needed the rules of engagement clarified. I hope we can still share a friendly conversation next time we meet.



To the "plaintiffs" in the case of "offended vs Houston". Racism, homophobia, sexism etc are truly "offensive" as they are abusive behaviours, and worthy of getting collective undergarments in a twist. "The post that shall not be named" was neither of these. To cry offense at it is to minimise true "offensiveness" and does a fellow professional a grave disservice. One that I find I cannot be silent about, nor, in silence be complicit with. I would be ashamed of myself if I did. Which is surprising as I wasn't aware I had any principles left and my standards are set accordingly low.

Anyway, the line in the sand has been drawn. I was always a kid who played football on the grass and touched wet paint and I find the rent here a little too high for my taste now.



I am under no illusion that this will make the blindest bit of difference nor that I will be missed so I will avail myself of the treasures of Pixie Hollow (if the Pixies will have me) and retire to a quieter life with less inbox clutter.

If anyone need to contact me my email is at the bottom and I hear a vague rumour Pixie hollow has a forum which I hope, with permission to avail myself of.

Iain – should you produce another masterpiece – please send it my way – I could use a laugh.



One last thing... (wet paint). If anyone has been offended by anything I have said – it was never intended..... If that's not enough....might I suggest you build a bridge



All the best



Martin​



Martin Wood

Principal Teacher of Physics/Science

Clydebank High School

Janetta Street
Clydebank
G81 3EJ

0141 533 3000

gw08woodandrew8@glow.sch.uk

Saturday, 4 May 2013

Friendly encounters

The conversations with friends and family have been moved from this blog, which I'm keeping for more serious stuff. 

Stay in touch with Ian, Helen, Susan, Rachel and the rest at Friendly Encounters.

Saturday, 15 December 2012

How to copy a paragraph or two from protected pdf files into Word

  1. Open the pdf file and scroll down to the text you want to copy, so it's in the middle of your computer screen.
  2. Take a copy of what's on screen using the PrintScreen key, PRTSC.
  3. Paste this into a Word file.
  4. Save the Word file as a web page (not single file web page).
  5. Go to an online OCR (optical character recognition) site, such as http://www.onlineocr.net/
  6. Upload to the OCR site the image from the files folder you created in Step 4.
  7. Tell OCR to do its stuff.
  8. Select and copy the result into Word.
  9. Correct any errors - OCR isn't perfect yet.
  10. Pat yourself on the head, have a beer and accept that some nerd is going to call you a moron for not knowing a simpler way, but don't give a toss because this works.

Wednesday, 28 November 2012

NUJ statement on Leveson emailed to all members today 28/11/2012

Tomorrow Lord Justice Leveson will publish the findings of his inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics in the press and his examination of the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians.

It was a year ago that the NUJ fought to be a core participant in the inquiry. We had to battle to ensure that the voice of working journalists was heard, and not just that of owners and the editors of the national press. To inform our submissions and evidence we set up a Leveson email address and asked all members to contribute their concerns, experiences and views. In particular we asked members who wished to contribute evidence to the inquiry to come forward anonymously if they felt unable to speak openly about their experiences.

We came into the inquiry with a strong view on the present Press Complaints Commission. At the NUJ's 2011 delegate meeting in Southport - after a long and fruitless campaign for reform of the PCC - delegates voted for it to be scrapped and to campaign for its replacement. This came on the background of previous policy built up over many years of campaigning for change within the regulatory framework of the press and for a properly accountable media complaints commission. All union policy is made democratically from decisions taken at delegate meetings and by the union's ruling lay body the NEC.

From the outset of the Leveson inquiry, we demanded a conscience clause to safeguard journalists who object to being made to act unethically in the pursuit of a story. The industry - both the PCC and the Society of Editors - has repeatedly refused to bring in a conscience clause, despite the Home Affairs Select Committee backing the NUJ's campaign as long ago as 2003.

We highlighted the vital role a trade union plays in any workplace, and how in journalism the NUJ plays a role in maintaining standards and standing up for ethical journalism, as well as the bread and butter industrial issues of pay and conditions. We explained to Lord Leveson that an NUJ workplace chapel is not simply the vehicle for putting together pay claims and campaigning for better terms and conditions it is also the place where members can raise issues of concern on ethical matters, on staffing levels, and on bullying and editorial pressure within their workplace.

It is significant that the unfolding scandal at News International happened in a workplace where the NUJ has been effectively blocked by Rupert Murdoch, where journalists working across the titles have been denied the collective representation of an independent trade union for a generation.

We pointed to a model of regulation the NUJ is particularly familiar with - the Press Council of Ireland (PCI). The PCI is recognised under statute once it meets minimum standards which guarantee independence from ownership control. These minimum standards include civic society involvement and representation of the profession of journalism, which is provided by the NUJ. There is no direct or indirect State involvement in the regulatory system or in the work of the Press Ombudsman. No publisher is forced to join. If they do they enjoy legal privileges including a defence in libel actions. If they decide not to join they forfeit that benefit.

The new, slightly beefed up PCC proposed by Lords Hunt and Black represents more of the same. It does not propose a conscience clause; they have ruled out the involvement of working journalists in the make-up of a PCC mark 2; and worryingly it suggests that this should be the body to determine who gets a press card. A system that could withdraw an individual journalists' press card - and livelihood - would transfer accountability from the publisher to the journalist. This is unacceptable and would be akin to the licensing of journalists, something the NUJ is wholly opposed to.

The NUJ has argued for an independent regulatory body - independent of government and of the industry - that will:
  • protect free expression and a free press
  • ensure high standards of journalism
  • have the authority and ability to regulate all commercially-driven press
  • include, as does the Irish Press Council, union representatives
  • fully defend journalists who protect their sources
  • enshrine a conscience clause for journalist
  • take to task the bullying newsrooms exposed by our evidence to Leveson, recognising the vital role trade unions play in media newsrooms
  • have the power to instigate investigations, including acting on complaints from journalists
  • provide a right of reply
  • be backed by the ability to impose sanctions, such as fines
  • take third-party complaints, not allowed in the current system
  • represent members of the public
One of the red letter days of the Leveson inquiry was when John Hendy QC, NUJ counsel, had the opportunity to quiz Rupert Murdoch - he even got the media baron to admit that a conscience clause could be a good thing. When Murdoch was asked about the testimony from a journalist working for his titles who had experienced bullying, he said: “Why didn't she resign?” As Lord Leveson had to point out, “I think the problem with that might be that she needs a job.”

The Inquiry has revealed the unhealthy relationship between politicians, the police and sections of the press. It has been a powerful argument for the need for greater transparency between the political elite and the leaders and acolytes of powerful media conglomerates.

The NUJ's position has been misrepresented and attacked in many quarters of the press - including in The Sun, which accused the union of trying to end free speech in the UK, and create a press akin to that in Zimbabwe or Iran. The NUJ has been accused of supporting state control of the press.

The union does not back statutory regulation of the press. We support an independent system of regulation - independent from the industry and, crucially, from government. The long years the NUJ has campaigned for a more accountable press and for high standards of journalism have gone hand in hand with countless campaigns defending press freedom, battles to protect journalistic sources, and fights to extend the public's right to know. Our participation at the Leveson Inquiry has been a continuation of those campaigns and battles.

Yours sincerely,
Signature
Michelle Stanistreet

You can read all the NUJ submissions to the Inquiry here www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2453


Tuesday, 10 January 2012

The Intense World Theory for Autism

I've pulled out the following question and answer from an interview with the originators of the Intense World theory of autism on Wrong Planet, a well-regarded website for and by people with autism.

It explains the key differences between the Intense World theory and older ideas about autism.

Q8. "Unraveling the Paradox of the Autistic Self," by Michael V. Lombardo and Simon Baron-Cohen, states that "neural evidence provides a key clue that an 'egocentric' response in the brain (i.e., Self = Other) is actually the result of an impairment in self-referential coding of information." Do you believe an elusive sense of self is a universal autistic characteristic? Does Intense World Theory account for this impairment?

Answer. Well, we would not agree with their analysis and theory. This is just another theory that is a relic of the theories of mental retardation. It is contaminated by older theories that there is a deficit in the ability of the brain to develop a theory of mind, the ability to see and respect others thoughts feelings and emotions.

This archaic theory has also led to gross misinterpretations of the mirror neuron discoveries. According to the Intense World Theory, autists could actually be seeing much deeper into the minds, thoughts and emotions of themselves and others, which triggers active avoidance and lock down behaviors. It also requires the ability to simulate others as if you where them and to extrapolate to where their thoughts and behaviors are leading them.

Seeing into the minds of others can be extremely disturbing. Even if autists don't feel this is true for themselves it is because their brain has developed strategies to cope with this extreme insight leaving them seemingly isolated.

This theory of a deficit in self-referential coding or theory of egocentricity is also likely to be incorrect for another reason. Self-referential coding is the foundation of human consciousness. To be conscious of yourself and others requires you to have to be able to localize yourself in space and time. If you enter an isolation tank, anesthesia, or deep meditation you can lose track of yourself, where you are, who you are, what time it is.

So impairment in self-referential coding will also mean that autists are barely conscious and living in peaceful state of diffused consciousness (pain is based on a sense of self, locality). It is most likely the exact opposite of autists. They are in an extremely localized state, extremely aware of themselves, extremely aware of others and in a battle for their life to hold back the intensity and pain of it all.

Monday, 5 December 2011

Comedian Janey Godley gets tough with journalists

I am told Janey Godley is now accusing me in her blog, which I haven't read, of threatening her. So I reproduce here, verbatim and in full, the communications between us. There have been two emails from me to her and one from her to me. We have not spoken.

The story referred to in the first email is a first draft of the one that appears in the previous post. I emailed this draft - which can be read in the Addendum below - to Janey for comment.

The version on the blog has been edited slightly from that draft.

Monday, December 05, 2011 10:00 AM
Hi Janey,

Here's the story I have at the moment.

I'm not happy with the ending.

If you think ending and headline can be changed - to something like "Janey Godley steps in to save struggling children's charity" - please let me know.

Douglas

Monday, December 05, 2011 10:43 AM
I don't want a children's charity to close down as a child who suffered abuse in the past its the last thing I want. I was unaware of any resignations and withdrawal of funding, it certainly wasn't at my request. I have spoken to the women today and am sympathetic to the whole outcome of this issue. I have never put myself up as a role model for children and as far as my comedy goes I can take a bad review as good as the next person, I just never expected one from a kids charity.

I am stunned that a family connection between three charities chose to single me out online and continued to question my feminism and commitment to children. I was even more shocked that people who represent abused and hurt children opted to use registered charity names on twitter to both insult and victimize me. I now accept that the three people were naive to social media, they have sent me a personal apology which I accept. I would do anything in my power not to have the kids lose their charity, I have never denied my strong opinions- When I was wrong online in the past I apologised immediately -I am outspoken and am a strong campaigner for children and will continue doing what I can raising money for them.

Thanks Janey Godley

Monday, December 05, 2011 1:47 PM
Hi Janey,

Thanks for the speedy response and apologies for not getting back sooner. I've been out on a job and am heading out on another one soon.

I note you don’t dispute the facts I report.

I note too your feelings about the ----- Project closing as a direct result of all this. I don’t doubt your sincerity.

As I say in the story, everyone involved is on the side of the underprivileged and disadvantaged - for social justice and against the tossers who got the country in the mess we're in. So it's unfortunate that they are all now tearing lumps out of each other. Personally I think you were pretty patient with the feminist at first and she should probably have taken the hint, before you told her to fuck off and leave you in peace.

I know all these people well. They’ve been friends for years and they're good guys. They are inexperienced with Twitter and they have been naive in using it. But they are smart, hard-working and well-intentioned.

As I said, I don’t like the ending of the story at the moment. But it's the only story I’ve got right now.

I was planning to go out to the ----- Project in the New Year and write it up. I would still like to do that, if it’s there. If Janey Godley has helped in the meantime to keep it afloat – rather than sinking it with all hands – it would make an even better story.

Douglas

PS I gather you've been asking who I am. I'm a full-time freelance journalist, writing mainly about children and education these days. I have written for the Herald, Scotsman, Daily Record, Evening Times, Sunday Herald, Independent, Times and Guardian, as well as many magazines. I was shortlisted for features writer of the year at the annual publishers awards in Edinburgh last week.


Monday, December 05, 2011 5:35 PM
I have yet to receive a reply to this second email but I am told Janey has responded to it on her blog by accusing me of threatening her.

This seems as accurate and honest to me as her characterisation of the charity volunteer's comment - that Janey calling herself a comedian was an "insult to all things funny" - as "horrific personal abuse".


Addendum
Original rough draft sent to Janey for comment

I’ve a sad story for you this morning. It involves a Scottish comedian called Janey Godley and two small children’s charities in one of Scotland’s most deprived areas.

Janey describes herself as “a Scottish Stand up Comic, Actor, Journalist, Playwright and Blogger.” She takes pride in being controversial, referring to herself on Twitter as “The most outspoken female stand-up in Britain”.

Janey is very experienced online. At the time of writing she has no fewer than 43,765 tweets to her name. As you read this there will be many more. Janey tweets every few minutes.

Here are a few recent ones:

"I suggest we take all the guardian APP staff and execute them – that'll show the fuckers"

“A Union Jack in Glasgow means ‘I am mental, I own a dangerous dog and I batter fuck out of my common law wife if Rangers get beat.’”

“McMullan is now telling us anecdotes and 'funny things happened' as if we are his mates- i want the cunts face to fall off”

“So if hunt down Clarkson & shoot the cunt in the face i can say I was influenced by him and just claim insanity? am off (click loads up gun)”

The other protagonists in the story are people who have little online experience but who do good work, some of it paid, a lot of it unpaid, for a couple of charities that help disadvantaged children and their mums.

One of them, a feminist and Twitter follower of Janey, whose outspokenness on social issues appealed, was relaxing one evening when the language Janey was using caught her attention.

So she went on Twitter to ask if the frequency of the word “cunt” in Janey’s tweets – over a hundred times in a couple of days – was a feminist statement. “I said that I was interested, that I thought there might be some ideological reason that the word was being used.”

The two of them had a Twitter chat for an hour or so, before Janey ran out of patience and ended the conversation thus:

“i had boy soldiers in my family who fought for my freedom of speech how fucking dare u assume it needs explaining to u”

At this point, if the charities people had more online experience, they’d have walked away. Instead a colleague and friend of the feminist took umbrage at Janey’s last tweet and tweeted the following to her:

“Calling yourself a comedienne is an insult to all things funny. Call yourself a children's role model? Hope not.”

She made the mistake of tweeting this from the Twitter account of a small charity for single mums and children that she gives up much of her spare time to work for.

Janey’s response was instant and savage. Over the next day or so she tweeted the name of the charity no fewer than 65 times, drawing the attention of her almost 5000 followers - some of them very influential - to what she referred to as “horrific personal abuse”.

That abuse, remember, was to be called “an insult to all things funny”. It would be surprising if Janey hasn't had ten times worse abuse at an average Saturday night gig.

During the course of this Twitter-storm, another worker for a charity for disadvantaged children in the same town stepped in and tweeted as follows to Janey:

“You are a patron of our children's charity. Would you say these words to our young people?”

Again Janey took offence and tweeted this charity's name 15 times to her followers, drawing attention again to the “abuse” she was being subjected to. The second charity worker tweeted twice more as follows:

“We never questioned your motives Janey"

“Sorry you are offended Janey.”

The attempt to smooth ruffled feathers came too late. By this time some of Janey’s followers had taken up the story and were spreading her “horrific personal abuse” version.

Unaware of the full story and unwilling to trawl through the archives, two board members of the second charity, resigned at the weekend. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations withdrew its support. [THIS WAS AN ERROR ON MY PART. SCVO HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED.] Prospective funders have pulled out.

As I said, Janey has influence.

The upshot of all this is that a small charity for disadvantaged children in one of the most deprived areas of Scotland - which was being kept afloat by the dedication, long hours, hopes and prayers of the people who work there - will now be closing after Christmas.

It's a sad story. And one of the saddest aspects is that all the people involved are actually on the same side – the side of the disadvantaged. But instead of being out there attacking the selfish, uncaring and over-privileged, the corrupt politicians and rapacious bankers, they are sitting at home over red-hot computers tearing big lumps out of each other.

And it's the children the charities were helping who will suffer the most.

Again.

Janey Godley bullies children's charities who thought she wasn't funny

I’ve a sad story for you today. Janey Godley charity workIt involves a Scottish comedian called Janey Godley and two small children’s charities in one of Scotland’s most deprived areas.

Janey Godley describes herself as “a Scottish Stand up Comic, Actor, Journalist, Playwright and Blogger.” She takes pride in being controversial, referring to herself on Twitter as “The most outspoken female stand-up in Britain”.

Janey Godley is very experienced online. At the time of writing she has no fewer than 43,765 tweets to her name. As you read this there will be many more. She tweets every few minutes.

Here are a few recent tweets to give you a flavour of Janey Godley's humour:

"I suggest we take all the guardian APP staff and execute them – that'll show the fuckers"

“A Union Jack in Glasgow means ‘I am mental, I own a dangerous dog and I batter fuck out of my common law wife if Rangers get beat.’”

“McMullan is now telling us anecdotes and 'funny things happened' as if we are his mates- i want the cunts face to fall off”

“So if hunt down Clarkson & shoot the cunt in the face i can say I was influenced by him and just claim insanity? am off (click loads up gun)”

Children's Charities

The other protagonists in the story are people who have little online experience but who do good work, some of it paid, a lot of it unpaid, for a couple of charities that help disadvantaged children and their mums.

One of them, a feminist and Twitter follower of Janey Godley, whose outspokenness on social issues appealed, was relaxing one evening when the language Janey was using caught her attention.

So she went on Twitter to ask if the frequency of the word “cunt” in Janey Godley's tweets – over a hundred times in a couple of days – was a feminist statement. “I said that I was interested, that I thought there might be some ideological reason that the word was being used.”

The two of them had a Twitter chat for an hour or so, before Janey Godley ran out of patience and ended the conversation thus:

“i had boy soldiers in my family who fought for my freedom of speech how fucking dare u assume it needs explaining to u”

At this point, if the charities people had more online experience, they’d have walked away. Instead a colleague and friend of the feminist took umbrage at Janey Godley's last tweet and tweeted the following to her:

“Calling yourself a comedienne is an insult to all things funny. Call yourself a children's role model? Hope not.”

She made the mistake of tweeting this from the Twitter account of a small charity for single mums and children that she gives up much of her spare time to work for.

Cyber bully

Janey Godley's response was instant and savage. Over the next day or so she tweeted about the charity no fewer than 65 times, drawing the attention of her almost 5000 followers - some of them influential - to what she referred to as “horrific personal abuse”.

That abuse, remember, was to be called “an insult to all things funny”. She has had worse abuse, I am sure.

Janey targeted in particular with her tweets any children's charity funders who follow her.

During this cyber bullying onslaught, a worker for a second charity - for disadvantaged children - came to the defence of her friend and tweeted as follows to Janey Godley:

“You are a patron of our children's charity. Would you say these words to our young people?”

Again Janey Godley took offence and tweeted about this second charity 15 times to her followers, drawing attention again to the “abuse” she was being subjected to. The second charity worker tweeted just twice more as follows:

“We never questioned your motives Janey"

“Sorry you are offended Janey.”

Influence

The attempt to smooth ruffled feathers came too late. By this time some of Janey Godley's followers had taken up the story and were spreading her “horrific personal abuse” version.

Unaware of the true story and unwilling to trawl through the archives to separate fact from heated emotion, two board members of the second charity resigned at the weekend. Prospective funders may well pull out.

Janey Godley might be short on humour and compassion but, as I said, she has some influence.

The upshot of all this is that a small charity for disadvantaged children in one of the most deprived areas of Scotland - which was being kept afloat by the dedication, long hours, hopes and prayers of the people who work there - is likely to close soon after Christmas.

It is a sad story. And one of the saddest aspects is that all the people involved, including Janey Godley, are supposed to be on the same side – the side of the disadvantaged. But instead of attacking the selfish and uncaring - the corrupt politicians and rapacious bankers - they are sitting at home, over their computers, tearing big lumps out of each other.

And it's the children the charities were helping who will suffer the most.

Monday, 3 October 2011

Quis custodiet

Can anyone tell me how a man like Chris Woodhead survived so long as chief inspector of schools in England?

I've interviewed most of the top inspectors and decision-makers in Scottish school education and what they share, to an extent that still surprises me, is something Woodhead manifestly lacks - a powerful and, if you scratch the restrained surface, often passionate concern for social justice and the welfare of every child.

A man like Woodhead, with no interest in at least half the kids in school, or belief in the value of education for them, would not just be out of place in Scotland's school system.

He would be unemployable.

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

10 problems with skeptics

  1. They're all men.
  2. They can't spell.
  3. They're obsessed with homeopathy.
  4. They're predictable.
  5. They're confusing. Some skeptics are good guys. Some skeptics are bad guys. I can never remember who is which, and have to read another rant about homeopathy or climate change to remind me.
  6. They've upset the nice people at Glasgow Science Festival. Well that was me actually. But it was their fault. I let slip in a moment of weakness that I don't give a toss about homeopathy.
  7. They convey none of the wonder of science.
  8. They repel the scientifically uninformed but keen to learn.
  9. They've grasped one half of science - that it's analytic and critical - but not the other - that it's creative and constantly surprising.
  10. They point out stupidity wherever they find it. But no one in the history of the world - not since the first great ape stood tall on the savannah and scanned the horizon for food and women - has ever got suddenly smarter by being told how naive, gullible and brainless they really are.

Sunday, 1 May 2011

Adopted bonobo



What can happen when you tweet about bonobos. Thank you Glasgow Science Festival.

Teach the controversy in science

A few days ago I linked from Twitter to an article in Times Educational Supplement Scotland about first-year university biology students who did not believe in evolution.

The last two paragraphs of that article are quotes from an intelligent design spokesman. So I emailed the editor suggesting that an article on science and education in TESS should not be a platform for "people who peddle propaganda and have no interest in science or education."

She replied as follows: "Alastair Noble is a former HM Inspector, and we thought if it was interesting enough to run in the [Edinburgh] science festival, it was worth reporting on."

Now this seems perfectly reasonable. It's what newspaper and magazine editors routinely do in the interests of fairness, when they seek comment from opposing points of view. It's journalistic balance.

But on the same day I received an email from Glasgow Science Festival, saying "I wonder if we should make more of this. It's one vehicle for getting people discussing it. What do you think, should we try and get it talked about more?"

Here's my reply to GSF:

"The problem with any kind of engagement is that it gives them a platform, which allows them to bring very effective PR techniques into play that were first developed for the tobacco companies then later honed and improved for the climate change deniers.

It's a fight in which they are using weapons that scientists and science communicators largely don't understand.

These people give the appearance of rationality while trying to undermine reason as a way of understanding the world. It's a fundamentally and deliberately dishonest approach. So any attempt to engage honestly and openly with them only strengthens their position in the public mind.

It's all about "teach the controversy" which scientists unintentionally support and collude with, whenever we grant them an opportunity to debate with us in public - as do editors when they aim for journalistic balance, when the two sides of a dispute are anything but balanced."

GSF replied that they agreed with all that, but:

"I wasn't really thinking about a public debate or any GSF content that might be used as a platform like this. You have to fight a corner. We thought about this last year when a prominent climate change denier was offering to come to GSF and take part in an event. We decided not to risk it, as it would be hijacked. That's exactly what happened to Roger's event here.

Still, I think GSF should at least engage in some way. He was an HMI for heavens' sake. There's a lot of people and many scientists who will not have seen this TESS article, not know about Curriculum for Excellence and the Scottish Qualifications Authority and maybe we should do something for them - disseminating information, counter arguments, arming people with facts etc that might help and encourage scientists to wake up a bit and lobby SQA and Learning and Teaching Scotland."

So to summarise: The ID people managed to get a small say at an Edinburgh Science Festival event. As a result TESS, the country's leading educational publication, invited them to comment on new research findings in biology education. My own comment on this led Glasgow Science Festival to start thinking about giving more prominence to ID, if only to help scientists counter their ideas and opinions.

That is Teach the Controversy in action.

Thursday, 28 April 2011

St Luke's High School's high achievers

St Luke's High School, East Renfrewshire is the school that's bucking, by a mile, the obvious correlation in the above chart between attainment and socially advantaged catchment area.

Here's how St Luke's High does it.

Why evolution is not mentioned in the new Scottish Curriculum

A spokesperson from Learning and Teaching Scotland, said: "The use of the word 'evolution' was not avoided for religious reasons or to avoid any particular sensitivities.

"Evolution is addressed through the biodiversity and interdependence element in science, which deals with survival of the species and adaptation to the environment. This is complemented by the inheritance line of development which develops an understanding of how organisms develop and pass on genetic information to the next generation."

From Times Educational Supplement Scotland 24 April 2009

Thursday, 10 March 2011

Smiling sweetly

We writers don’t get out much and I’ll tell you why. Bad things happen when we do.

As Jean McLeish tucks into a little haggis on a stick, which the waitresses at Edinburgh’s National Gallery keep pushing on us, like they're on commission, I can’t help thinking of all the food this woman snatched from my children’s lips. Or would have done, if they weren’t both well into their twenties at the time.

I’d been writing freelance features for TES Scotland for five years when Jean appeared out of nowhere, with great ideas and well-crafted stories. The first line of hers I ever read sticks in my mind: “Chloe's tooth diamond is a twinkling distraction amid the building site paraphernalia of paint, ladders and hard hats”.

“Hey, that’s great,” I thought. “She’s got to go.”

Five years later Jean is still there, turning out high quality features every week. “Did you enjoy the educational debate,” I smile sweetly and act civilised.

“It was fine,” Jean replies. “Although I’m more interested in people than policy. Did you?”

“Didn’t make it in time,” I tell her. “Got bumped by a bus, detained by the surly, slow-writing driver, then ran round and round the National Gallery for ages, searching for a way in. Finally realised it was down here in the Gardens but the big gate was padlocked. I had to scramble over the railings to get in.”

“Good heavens, how awful,” Jean sympathises and steps back a pace. “I’m surprised you’re not even more sweat-stained and dishevelled.”

An elegant woman in a black dress floats past. “Thanks for coming, Douglas,” says the new editor. “No problem, Gillie,” I lie fluently.

The occasion is the relaunch of TESS as a magazine and the formal handover from Neil Munro, editor for ten years, to Gillie Macdonald. It’s a chance to hear her vision for the future and meet writing colleagues I never see.

Among the tall pillars and vol-au-vents, I hunt down Gregor Steele, whose fortnightly columns are funny and insightful. “Where do you get your ideas?” I ask the former physics teacher, unoriginally. “Life,” he tells me. “And physics, which is full of metaphor.”

I find Julia Belgutay, whose weekly column capturing kids’ talk makes me laugh out loud. For example: “She bought a book because she thought it was about Lance Armstrong, but it was about bike saddles.”

“I get good stuff from young people because inside my head I’m the same age as they are,” Julia tells me.

I meet news reporter Henry Hepburn, tall, slim, friendly and the official TESS tweeter, Jackie Cosh, who manages to write while bringing up four kids, and Chris Small, appointed to the News team from Children in Scotland. We share our liking for Jonathan Sher, their distinguished but genial research director, a committed children’s advocate from North Carolina.

Gillie’s talk gets off to a great start among the two Gaelic speakers at the gathering, when she tells a joke in the language of her father, author Finlay J Macdonald. A quick translation allows us southerners to join in the jollity. Then she gets serious.

The format of TESS might have changed, she says, but it’s still all about up-to-the-minute education news. “We’ve a new four-page focus that looks in detail at one topic a week. We’re taking all the expertise of our education correspondents – there’s no specialist team like it in Scotland – and providing depth now, to go with the range.”

The features section, which highlights good practice around the country, remains. “We see it as a crucial part of our role, particularly when schools don’t have money for CPD.”

Online teaching resources compiled over the years by TES UK will be plundered each week. “There are thousands of them, all free. We will take the best of those and tailor them for our Scottish readers.”

Comment, discussion and debate will be encouraged: “Don’t just read an article and think about it. Write in and tell us. You can have 900, 450 or 300 words, depending where we put it. We want to hear from you.”

Then there’s the most interesting section for many readers. “TESS used to be the place to go for jobs in education. It is again. Classroom teachers, headteachers, independent schools – they’re all there now in one place, at the back of the magazine.”

She recalls recent publishing industry awards: “2008 business and professional magazine of the year: Times Educational Supplement Scotland. 2009 editor of the year: Neil Munro. 2010 features writer of the year: Emma Seith.

“That is a track record we won’t throw away,” Gillie concludes. “I am excited to see what we can do in 2011.”

As distinguished guests and ink-stained scribblers sidestep the haggis-ball pushers and disperse, I say goodnight, find my car, take a look at the damage inflicted by the bus, decide it’s superficial and drive off into the night. It was a lovely evening in the end.

I got to get out more.

Friday, 4 February 2011

Sally Bercow

I like the photograph. But I'd have cropped it much more tightly, like this:

Sally Bercow

It makes a far better image.

But being less revealing, it's not as effective in sticking two fingers to the fogeys.

Sunday, 3 October 2010

Sugata Mitra at the Scottish Learning Festival

Who needs teachers?
The high point of this year's Scottish Learning Festival, for me and many others, was the keynote by Sugata Mitra, professor of educational technology at Newcastle University, and the man whose experiments all over India have convinced him that "education is a self-organising system where learning is the emergent phenomenon."

In other words if we give children a computer and the right conditions they can teach themselves anything. A "friendly but not knowledgeable mediator" is useful. But a teacher is not required.

I had interviewed the professor by telephone for TES Scotland the previous week, but he had kept some good stuff back for his keynote. I'm going to try to capture the content and flavour of that talk here, as well as some of the humour that makes his talks so enjoyable - the humour of a man, gently amused himself and generously sharing it with his companions.

"Having experimented for years in these very remote places," he told the packed Clyde Auditorium, "I came to the remotest place I know - Gateshead."

He chuckles, and so do we. "That's how I start my Indian lectures," he says, in a storytelling aside: 'Five thousand miles from New Delhi, across the River Tyne, there lies the hamlet of Gateshead."

Passion
But while humour is the medium at times, the message could not be more serious, and Mitra's commitment to the research he launched 11 years ago with the first hole in the wall computer - and took all over the subcontinent and beyond - is readily apparent.

"It sounds like a lifetime's work," I had commented, after listening to his description of what he had done and what he still wanted to do - an extensive longitudinal study that would determine if his methods "had really levelled the playing field".

His hesitant response had surprised me. "Yeah, well, it looks like. One gets into these things, you know. People sometimes ask if I have this passion for teaching children. I have no such passion. I have a curiosity about how the brain works. I like to know why people think the way they do - why they remember, why they forget. We need to understand what is happening inside the neural circuits - once we know that we will really understand education."

But if the initial passion was a scientist's search for knowledge and understanding, the motivation now is broader and deeper. "I wanted to know the physics of thinking," he had told me. "But that landed me into children's education and this work - which is so important socially that my conscience will not now allow me to get away from it."

The scale of the social problem all over the developing world is illustrated by India, he says, where schools and teachers are in such short supply that conventional efforts to educate are bound to fail. Over 120 million Indian children do not go to school, he says, because they have none to go to. Making up that deficit would require tripling the number of schools and teachers.

"There is not enough money to do this, nor enough time. The problem is just too large to solve with traditional linear methods of scaling up."

Dust-devils and DNA
So is there another way? Mitra's experiments have convinced him that there is, he tells his audience, and that it lies in the idea of a self-organising system, a concept well-known to physics. There are also similarities, he points out, with the "spontaneous order" of the economist Friedrich Hayek.

"That is what we are seeing in my experiments, and several educationists have approached the idea. The difference is that when they were talking about these ideas the internet did not exist. I have an unfair advantage. I can stand on their shoulders and go further."

The stock-market is a self-organising system. So is the weather, he explains to his audience. "A dust-devil is a self-organising system. There is a bit of a breeze and suddenly the structure forms and starts to move around. A self-organising system is one in which the system structure appears without explicit intervention from outside the system."

The capacity for surprise is what distinguishes such systems. "They show emergence," says Mitra. "This is the appearance of something not previously observed. We react with surprise when a little Tamil-speaking girl says 'replication of the DNA molecule'. It's emergent. It happens from within the system."

This is the reason, he suggests, that children were able to teach themselves how to use the hole-in-the-wall computers he left without instructions, in cities and villages from the Himalaya to the southern coastline. His response to the curious kids who would gather as he was building these - and building in robustness to the weather - becomes a little refrain in his keynote.

"What should we do with this," the children would ask Mitra in their own language, for most spoke no English. "I don't know," he would reply. "And anyway I'm going."

Lingua Franca
A few months later he would come back to find the children using the computer and the English words needed to do so, having taught themselves and each other in the meantime. He describes one seminal experiment in Hyderabad - "a sprawling, south Indian city with many private schools for the poor.

"They exist because they promise to teach English. So parents pay a few pounds a month to have their children educated, because being able to speak English makes a huge difference to their future.

"The schools do their best, but native English speakers do not go into the slums of Hyderabad to teach. They have to use local teachers who speak a language called Telegu. They have a very strong accent which is almost unintelligible."

Again the amused aside, shared with the audience: "If you thought Geordie was difficult then go to southern India."

Given this language barrier, what Mitra did next - setting up a computer in Hyderabad equipped with a speech to text program - should have been pointless. "You talk into the computer and it types the words, " he explains. "I trained it in a neutral British accent. So when the children spoke into it the computer typed complete nonsense, which made them laugh. I told them I would leave it for two months and they should try to make themselves understood.

"The children said, 'How do we do that?' and I said - and this is the crux of the method - 'I don't know. And anyway I'm going. "

Two months later a couple of very interesting things had happened. The children had improved their English, which was now clearer and more intelligible, both to an English-speaker and to the computer. But they had also done something more fundamental and richer in educational implications.

Stick to facts?
"They had invented their own pedagogy," Mitra tells the audience and pauses to let that sink in. "I learned that not only can children achieve an educational objective but they can invent the pedagogy itself."

He contrasts this with the conventional classroom in which "we take it on ourselves to make the pedagogy" and the children are "the recipients of it."

The realisation that youngsters in his experiments were doing far more than learning facts and some skills came slowly, Mitra says. In the streets of Delhi, where he had set up his first hole-in-the-wall computer, the kids had now begun to Google their homework. "Their teachers were telling me that their English had become fluent and they had become deep learners."

He was doubtful at first. Were they doing more than just copying off Wikipedia? Was there any real understanding being developed?

By the end of the second phase of experiments, around India and beyond, Mitra had demonstrated that groups of children could teach themselves to use a computer, navigate the internet and improve their English. He had begun to suspect they could do much more.

So when the opportunity arose to pursue his research in England he bought himself an overcoat in November 2006, he says, "and came to Newcastle after 45 years in Delhi." The scepticism he met at Newcastle University challenged him to devise more ambitious tests, which in turn led to deeper understanding of the implications of his research for education in the developing and developed world.

The hypothesis he now decided to test experimentally was that "Tamil-speaking 12-year-olds in a Tsunami-hit village in southern India could not teach themselves the biotechnology of DNA replication on their own".

Method of the grandmother
The experiment disproved this hypothesis. The kids could teach themselves biotechnology - but only at first to a level of 30% in tests. On their own, in a foreign language, from a starting point of 0%, this was already educationally startling, says Mitra. But it was still a fail. He began to ponder how to help the children to pass.

The answer he hit upon - a "friendly but not knowledgeable mediator" - became a vital piece of the jigsaw that Mitra was beginning to call minimally invasive education. "A local organisation had an accountant, a young girl, who was great friends with the children and played football with them," he tells us.

"I asked if she would help them pass the test. She wondered how, when she didn't even study science at school. I said: 'Use the method of the grandmother. Stand behind the children and admire them. Say: 'How did you do that?' 'Can you do a bit more of this?' 'I couldn't understand a word of that, if I was your age.'"

The young "grandmother" did a fantastic job, Mitra says. "Two months later the children's test scores were up to 50% - the same as they'd have got in formal schooling.

"It is all in this month's British Journal of Educational Technology."

Mitra now began testing his ideas in schools in England and Australia, where the biggest problem he encountered, understandably, was getting the teacher out of the room. Digging deeper into the question of real education or regurgitation led to a surprising discovery, he says.

Mitra set half a dozen GCSE science questions to a primary class working in groups at computers. The fastest group got all of them right in 20 minutes, the slowest in 45. When tested as individuals on the questions the class scored an average of 76%, he says "This is incredible for 10-year-olds on GCSE questions.

"But the teacher said, 'So what? They just Googled the answers or looked up Wikipedia.'"

First prize
So two months later Mitra came back and tested that same class again, individually and without access to a computer. "I knew I had hit the jackpot when I took back the answer sheets and corrected them," he says. "Because the average score was ... 76%.

"There was photographic recall of what they had done, because they had done it themselves."

The same experiment has been repeated many times since, he tells us, with similar results. Indeed one experiment in a Gateshead school recently threw up an even more startling outcome, which he is "still struggling to explain", he says.

"The post-test results after six months were higher than the originals."

The teacher's explanation is that the children kept thinking about the questions, coming back to them, investigating, finding out more for themselves.

Mitra has summarised his findings about Self Organising Learning Systems, in a document that also provides practical advice to schools interested in trying them out: "These techniques and facilities can be constructed in any school and will result in significant improvement in children’s learning and examination performance," he says.

"You cannot force a self-organising system to do anything - any more than you can force an apple tree to make apples."

But what we can do, he says, is understand the nature of a self-organising system and create the right conditions for emergence. Mitra's experiments oblige us, as teachers, to re-examine our expectations of pupils. "The bars that we set for our children may be way lower than the bars they set for themselves," he says.

They also shed a 21st century light on the age-old question of the curriculum. What should schools be teaching children? "I think this is very closely related to your Curriculum for Excellence," he tells his predominantly Scottish audience.

"We are looking at two skills - reading comprehension and information search and analysis. We have to measure carefully improvements in both of these."

Sugata Mitra concludes his Scottish Learning Festival keynote with a statement of the hypothesis that has emerged from a decade of research in schools across the world - ever since that first hole-in-the-wall in the slums of New Delhi. "Education is a self-organising system where learning is the emergent phenomenon."

Right now this is speculation, he points out. But if it's true it will lead us to a physics of education and a hitherto unheard-of ability to predict educational outcomes.

"I believe a physics of education lies just around the corner," he says. "And that therein lies the future of education."

Sugata Mitra's keynote presentation at the Scottish Learning Festival 2010.

Monday, 13 September 2010

Science writing and readability

Science erects high barriers to otherwise well-educated people, some of whom wear “I'm hopeless at science and maths” like a badge of honour. But the level of ignorance among our decision-makers and opinion-formers is far from honourable. It is shameful and dangerous.

The UK went to war in Iraq because members of parliament couldn’t analyse simple science and engineering, in weapons inspectors' reports that were readily available and in the Prime Minister's 24 Sep 2002 speech to Parliament about weapons of mass destruction.

Lacking the basic knowledge that would allow them to distinguish between “significant quantities of uranium from Africa” and “fissile matériel”, the MPs concluded that Saddam would have a nuclear weapon “in a year or two.”

Which was of course the explicit intention of Tony Blair, who used an old lawyer's trick of telling the truth but not the whole truth, and allowing the lie to happen in the listener's mind. By playing on MPs' ignorance of the difference
between natural and fissile uranium – and of the fact that this is the major technical challenge in making nuclear weapons – he frightened Parliament into voting for war.

Honest and effective science communication matters. Without it we launch illegal wars. We are duped by ministers and journalists. We melt the icecaps and pollute the seas.

So there is a huge burden on people who try to explain science to those who don’t yet get it. And especially on writers and scientists who aim to communicate science to children and young people.

There is no point in talking to Sarah Palin or Christopher Monckton about climate change. Or indeed anything else. These mature adults have made their minds up long ago. The same can be said for many other adults, far less irrational, malign or deluded than this perverse pair.

Kids and science
Children are different. All of them have opinions, but most are not yet set in stone. Kids grow, learn, assess evidence and change their minds – and are far more capable of doing so than most of us realise.

If we can find a way to keep the flame of science curiosity that burns brightly in most primary schoolchildren from flickering out when they hit adolescence, the world might hav
e a chance.

But it's not easy to keep teenagers interested in science. Traditional science teaching, aimed exclusively at future scientists, didn’t even try. The new curricula, with their focus on science for citizenship and making connections across the curriculum are much more promising.

But these need to be backed up and kept fresh by communications from the front lines – by direct contact with the people who are out there pushing back boundaries, getting excited, working long hours, making discoveries, doing the science.

Written word
Which brings me back to the barriers. There are
plenty. There are strong emotions stirred by past school science humiliations. There is the difficulty of some science concepts. There’s the maths. There’s the arrogant tone some scientists and writers take when ridiculing unscientific beliefs.

All these repel rather than attract non-scientists.

But I'm not going to talk about any of those here. Instead I want to look at a barrier that has been barely recognised. Which is surprising because it may well be the highest hurdle of them all.

Let me tell you a story – short and relevant. Until recently historians believed the Scots came originally from Northern Ireland. But it’s a myth. It has no foundation in evidence, as Glasgow University's Ewan Campbell has shown. Instead the west of Scotland and north of Ireland were part of a common culture for centuries, united by the sea.

Modern eyes look at big patches of blue on a map and see only a barrier. But the ocean was a highway to our ancestors.

When it comes to the written word, we writers and scientists are like ancient Celts surveying the sea. We see beyond it to old friends, other lands, new excitements. Most children and young people look in the same direction and see salt spray, high waves and hidden danger.

All this was brought home to me gradually but forcefully when trying to get inside the head of my dyslexic son, and when teaching English and science classes in secondary schools after 20 years of R&D in industry.

Unreadable
Scientists and writers are comfortable with words. Much more so than most people. I’m a writer, physicist and teacher, which gives me three overlapping perspectives. I know that what is taught is rarely what is learned, and that the reader seldom hears exactly what a writer is trying to say. Getting stuff out of one mind into another is much harder than many of us realise.

This is why almost everything written by scientists or science writers is unreadable by young people, or indeed most adults.

I am not talking about published papers, whose apparent obscurity masks clarity for colleagues. I’m referring to newspaper articles and blog posts that are supposed to be communicating science to non-scientists.

Most fail. The main reason is that the words and sentence structures in otherwise well-written pieces are too difficult for most readers. You might argue that science is hard and technical words unavoidable. This is true. But it is possible to write about hard science in a way that is accessible to young people. Younger than you might imagine.

I've seen cooperative learning classes with 10- and 11-year olds, who were using readable texts to research, discuss and present sophisticated science concepts, and astonishing even their teachers with the science they were capable of getting to grips with.

So let's take a look at the readability of some recent articles by science writers. Readability statistics are often criticised because good numbers don’t necessarily mean good writing. But this misses the point. We’re not using these stats to pick winners but to eliminate losers - or show where more effort might get us over the line. Good readability stats are a necessary but not sufficient condition for conveying science to young people in writing.

So what does the table three paragraphs down tell us? Well it’s a small sample. But this is an exercise I’ve done many times on many writers. It is not something I’ve only just discovered.

Real Science
I realised long ago that readability was a widespread and widely underestimated problem in science communication. It was one of my motivations in launching the Real Science website.

I'm going to repeat the readability analysis on these 12 writers and maybe a few more in the coming weeks, as they continue to produce articles. This should build a better picture of how consistently readable or otherwise they might be for younger people and non-scientists.

In the meantime it is interesting at least, and maybe significant, that the three most effective writers by readability - on this single exercise - are Alice Bell, a university lecturer in science communication, Alom Shaha, a science teacher and communicator, and Mark Changizi, a research scientist and author.

And that the three least effective – Mark Henderson, Alok Jha and Ben Goldacre – are all science journalists.


TitleWriterSourceReading easeGrade levelFog indexComment
Physicist, chemist & zoologist
Alice BellGuardian677.610.1Easy
King of the UniverseAlom ShahaBlog708.511Easy
Levels of real world wizardryMark ChangiziPsychology Today599.313.2Readable
The shark-toothed dinosaurEd YongBlog5310.313.1Hard
The grand designRobin McKieGuardian4911.815.1Hard
Analysis of PepsiGateMartin RobbinsBlog5211.713.4Hard
Rich-world diseasesDebora MacKenzieNew Scientist4412.114.2Unreadable
Glow in cattle's eyesKatia MoskvitchBBC4912.314.8Unreadable
If the world is going to hellDavid BielloScientific American4512.415.1Unreadable
Blind prejudiceBen GoldacreBad Science4613.216.4Unreadable
Humpback dinosaurAlok JhaGuardian3513.814.9Unreadable
Potential of genomic medicine
Times3614.517.7Unreadable

Photo credits
Images 2, 3 and 4 are by my highly artistic son, Douglas W. Blane.

Note on readability statistics

“Reading ease” in the table above is Flesch readability. “Grade level” is Flesch-Kincaid. “Fog index” is Gunning-Fog.

I obtain the first two using the built-in readability tool in Word – except when the second comes out at 12.0. In that case, since Word rounds down to 12.0 for this metric, I take the Grade level from this online analysis tool. That also provides me with the Fog index figures.

For the comment column I have crudely assigned one word to sum up readability for a target audience of young teenagers, as follows: Grade level >12 is Unreadable, (10-12] is Hard, (7-10] is Readable, and ≤7 is Easy.

The accepted wisdom is that texts aimed at a wide audience generally need a Fog index less than 12, and that targets for the other two indices should be 60-70 and 6-8. Note that readability increases as Flesch increases, but decreases with Flesch-Kincaid and with Fog.

For comparison, Reader's Digest has a Flesch readability of about 65. Time magazine scores 52, while Harvard Law Review is in the low 30s.

My own observation is that readability stats of one writer in one publication tend to be fairly consistent. But good writers vary their style to suit their audience. When I write for Glasgow University alumni, my Flesch-Kincaid often exceeds 12. For The Guardian it comes out at 10-11, while my articles in Times Educational Supplement and Real Science tend to cluster around 6-8
.