Monday, September 29, 2008

A Bailout We Don't Need

washingtonpost.com

A Bailout We Don't Need

By James K. Galbraith
Thursday, September 25, 2008; A19

Now that all five big investment banks -- Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have disappeared or morphed into regular banks, a question arises.

Is this bailout still necessary?

The point of the bailout is to buy assets that are illiquid but not worthless. But regular banks hold assets like that all the time. They're called "loans."

With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear the loan book is bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that. So why not eliminate the pointless $100,000 cap on federal deposit insurance and go take inventory? If a bank is solvent, money market funds would flow in, eliminating the need to insure those separately. If it isn't, the FDIC has the bridge bank facility to take care of that.

Next, put half a trillion dollars into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. fund -- a cosmetic gesture -- and as much money into that agency and the FBI as is needed for examiners, auditors and investigators. Keep $200 billion or more in reserve, so the Treasury can recapitalize banks by buying preferred shares if necessary -- as Warren Buffett did this week with Goldman Sachs. Review the situation in three months, when Congress comes back. Hedge funds should be left on their own. You can't save everyone, and those investors aren't poor.

With this solution, the systemic financial threat should go away. Does that mean the economy would quickly recover? No. Sadly, it does not. Two vast economic problems will confront the next president immediately. First, the underlying housing crisis: There are too many houses out there, too many vacant or unsold, too many homeowners underwater. Credit will not start to flow, as some suggest, simply because the crisis is contained. There have to be borrowers, and there has to be collateral. There won't be enough.

In Texas, recovery from the 1980s oil bust took seven years and the pull of strong national economic growth. The present slump is national, and it can't be cured that way. But it could be resolved in three years, rather than 10, by a new Home Owners Loan Corp., which would rewrite mortgages, manage rental conversions and decide when vacant, degraded properties should be demolished. Set it up like a draft board in each community, under federal guidelines, and get to work.

The second great crisis is in state and local government. Just Tuesday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced $1.5 billion in public spending cuts. The scenario is playing out everywhere: Schools, fire departments, police stations, parks, libraries and water projects are getting the ax, while essential maintenance gets deferred and important capital projects don't get built. This is pernicious when unemployment is rising and when we have all the real resources we need to preserve services and expand public investment. It's also unnecessary.

What to do? Reenact Richard Nixon's great idea: federal revenue sharing. States and localities should get the funds to plug their revenue gaps and maintain real public spending, per capita, for the next three to five years. Also, enact the National Infrastructure Bank, making bond revenue available in a revolving fund for capital improvements. There is work to do. There are people to do it. Bring them together. What could be easier or more sensible?

Here's another problem: the wealth loss to near-retirees and the elderly from a declining stock market as things shake out. How about taking care of this, with rough justice, through a supplement to Social Security? If you need a revenue source, impose a turnover tax on stocks.

Next, let's think about what the next upswing should try to achieve and how it should be powered. If the 1960s were about raising baby boomers and the '90s about technology, what should the '10s and '20s be about? It's obvious: energy and climate change. That's where the present great unmet needs are.

So, let's use the next few years to plan, mapping out a program of energy conservation, reconstruction and renewable power. Let's get the public sector and the universities working on it. And let's prepare the private sector so that when the credit crunch finally ends, we'll have the firms, the labs, the standards and the talent in place, ready to go.

Some will ask if we can afford it. To see the answer, don't look at budget projections. Just look at interest rates. Last week, in the panic, the federal government could fund itself, short term, for free. It could have raised money for 30 years and paid less than 4 percent. That's far less than it cost back in 2000.

No country in this situation is broke, or insolvent, or even in much trouble. For once, Wall Street's own markets speak the truth. The financially challenged customer isn't Uncle Sam. He's up on Wall Street, where deregulation, greed and fraud ran wild.

James K. Galbraith is the author of "The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too."

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

A crise do capitalismo neoliberal revisitada

A crise do capitalismo neoliberal revisitada

André Freire - 20080929 Público

As tomadas de posição de alguns dos mais ardentes defensores portugueses do neoliberalismo não devem ficar sem respostaRevisito hoje um tema que já abordei aqui: Crise do capitalismo neoliberal: diagnóstico (21/4/08) e Crise do capitalismo neoliberal: alternativas (26/5/08). Primeiro, por causa do brutal agudizar da crise no sistema financeiro dos EUA e das maciças intervenções públicas para evitar o seu colapso. Segundo, porque creio que as tomadas de posição de alguns dos mais ardentes defensores portugueses do neoliberalismo não devem ficar sem resposta.
Um conjunto de tais posições foi assumida por Pacheco Pereira (PP) neste jornal (20/9/08), "O ataque ao 'neoliberalismo' e o 'bacalhau a pataco'": "A 'crise' não é o sinal da crise do liberalismo, mas sim do seu normal funcionamento (...), das regras do jogo dessa mão que Adam Smith dizia ser 'invisível'." Porém, esta não é uma crise qualquer: Alan Greenspan classificou-a como a "mais grave desde a Grande Depressão" e a dúvida que se levanta é se, sem as maciças intervenções públicas a que temos assistido, a crise não seria tão ou mais profunda do que a de 1929. Ou seja, se deixássemos funcionar apenas a "mão invisível" do mercado, provavelmente estaríamos já na iminência de um colapso semelhante ao de 1929 (Tony Jenkins, Expresso, 20/9/08). E, embora com a particularidade de se situar bem no centro do capitalismo mundial, esta crise segue-se a outras também violentas e com devastadores efeitos socioeconómicos: México, 1994-1995; Este e Sudeste Asiático, 1997; Rússia, 1998; Argentina, 2001-2002.
Mas P.P. também afirma que não sabe o que é o neoliberalismo e que é falso que este alguma vez tenha sido hegemónico: "O que para mim é estranho é que nunca vi essa coisa do liberalismo, agora apodado sempre de 'neo' (...) (para) lhe dar os tons arrivistas da moda, ser o vencedor, o ganhador, o hegemónico, que os seus adversários dizem que foi ou que ainda é. Nunca vi o liberalismo, como ideia e como prática, ser dominante (...)."
Há dezenas, provavelmente até centenas, de prestigiados livros académicos sobre o neoliberalismo e a sua hegemonia na cena mundial. O liberalismo é um fenómeno multidimensional. Na esfera política, é hoje um património partilhado por todos os democratas, da direita à esquerda: a ideia do governo representativo, responsável perante um parlamento, e fiscalizado por vários órgãos através do sistema de checks and balances. Na arena sociocultural, o liberalismo está até mais frequentemente associado à esquerda (liberalização do aborto, casamento homossexual, etc.). Na esfera económica, o liberalismo costumava estar mais associado à direita: a crença no mercado como a forma mais eficiente de alocação de recursos e o cepticismo quanto ao papel do Estado. Com a "Grande Depressão" verificou-se à exaustão que o mercado só por si é incapaz de se auto-regular e que, por isso mesmo, é necessária e benéfica a acção do Estado para corrigir as ineficiências do mercado e para a provisão de certos bens públicos essenciais (saúde, educação, segurança social, etc.). Seguiu-se a era do "capitalismo regulado", do New Deal, do "consenso keynesiano": foram três décadas de enorme prosperidade. Com o declínio das taxas de lucro, agravado pelos choques petrolíferos (e a inflação gerada por essa via), veio a crise do "capitalismo regulado" e aquilo a que os especialistas convencionaram chamar a fase do "capitalismo desregulado" ou "neoliberal". Repescaram-se as ideias fortes do liberalismo económico e atacaram-se as ideias e políticas centrais da era keynesiana. Os primeiros experimentos renegaram por completo o liberalismo político: aplicando as doutrinas económicas da escola de Chicago, o tiro de partida foi dado no Chile de Pinochet (1973) e na Argentina de Videla (1976), ambos generais golpistas que derrubaram regimes democráticos. Seguiram-se os governos de Thatcher, em 1979, e de Reagan, 1980. O novo consenso neoliberal seria consagrado no chamado "consenso de Washington" e imposto a nível mundial pelas várias organizações dominadas, sobretudo, pelos americanos e ingleses (Fundo Monetário Internacional, Banco Mundial, OCDE), nomeadamente através dos programas de austeridade e de liberalização dos mercados (de capitais, etc.) que os países em dificuldades eram obrigados a cumprir.
Além das várias crises já relatadas, cerca de 30 anos passados sobre o início da era do capitalismo neoliberal, há hoje evidência de que, excepto nalgumas regiões da Ásia (onde o liberalismo económico foi sempre bastante mitigado pela acção do Estado), as taxas de crescimento económico nas várias regiões do globo foram bastante superiores na era do "capitalismo regulado" do que na do "capitalismo neoliberal" (ver o meu artigo de 21/4/08).
Numa coisa penso que os neoliberais portugueses têm razão: tudo pode ainda ser pior (Rui Ramos, Este mundo era o vosso, PÚBLICO, 17/9/08). É também a tese de Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine) para explicar a combinação entre regimes ditatoriais e neoliberalismo. Aliás, o deslumbramento dos neoliberais com o crescimento económico da ditadura chinesa faz temer o pior. Para nos libertarmos da canga do neoliberalismo, é necessário que, quer a social-democracia europeia (e os democratas americanos), quer a democracia-cristã, antigos pilares políticos do keynesianismo e do Estado Social, quebrem o consenso neoliberal. Como sublinhou Mário Soares (DN, 23/9/08), a esquerda europeia precisa de apresentar alternativas. Algumas ideias do altermundialismo (e não só) podem ser úteis: a Taxa Tobin, o combate aos paraísos fiscais, o relançamento do keynesianismo à escala supranacional (nomeadamente europeia) e a utilização das instâncias supranacionais (nomeadamente a UE) para regular a globalização (ver o meu artigo de 26/5/08). Mas há também que encontrar aliados à direita: Sarkozy ("é o fim do capitalismo laissez-faire" e "é o fim do mercado todo-poderoso") pode ser um deles. Politólogo (ISCTE) (andre.freire@meo.pt)

Sunday, September 28, 2008

'No evidence' exam targets work

BBC NEWS
'No evidence' exam targets work

There is "no quantified evidence" about whether threatening to close schools affects their pupils' performance, the National Audit Office says.

Its report on the use of rewards and sanctions in the public sector said people believed there was an effect but those judgements were subjective.

It said value added measures of school performance were good practice.

But "threshold" measures, such as the proportion getting good GCSEs, could distort schools' behaviour.

Motivation

The audit office (NAO) report concludes: "We found no quantified evidence of the effect of sanctions and rewards on levels of performance for the programmes in the survey."

It noted that people needed to be able to affect the outcome if they were to be motivated by some sanction or reward.

"Unless the agent can expect their behaviour to affect the outcome, the mechanism provides little motivation to strive for the desired levels of performance."

It said an example of a good measure was the "contextualised value added" assessment of how much progress pupils have made in schools.

This takes into account factors outside schools' control but which are known to affect how well children do, such as poverty and ethnicity.

This "is generally seen as a better performance measure than the previous 'gross output' measure which did not make any kind of adjustment", said the report.

Distortion

However, Prime Minister Gordon Brown's determination to drive out failure - as he put it - in England's schools uses a "floor target" for GCSE performance that does not work in this way.

The target is 30% of pupils getting five good GCSEs including English and maths.

The NAO report says that such "threshold" schemes may not reward those who improve the most as result of starting from a lower base.

Some of the schools identified by the Department for Children, Schools and Families as falling below the floor target were regarded by Ofsted inspectors as "outstanding".

The audit office also noted that simplistic targets could distort what went on in the education system.

"The literature also contains examples of cases where the choice of outcome measure has led to 'gaming' or strategic behaviour by agents, such as anecdotal evidence of 'cream-skimming' by schools to select the best students."

It added: "Threshold measures - measures concerned with achieving an absolute level of performance, such as the number of pupils achieving GCSE grade C or higher - are seen as particularly vulnerable to gaming."

Social segregation

The government had recognised this risk and introduced additional targets about the outcomes to be achieved for less well-performing groups, the NAO said.

The report also considered the impact of competition - and said children from poorer homes could lose out.

"In the case of schools, the costs to the consumer of switching are significantly higher than in the case of, for example, utility providers.

"Children from families that are less well-informed, or less mobile, are at risk of becoming 'stuck' in less well-performing schools, furthering the inequity.

"It also gives schools the incentive to pick the best pupils."

So secondary schools had become more efficient - in terms of better results - but the trade-off had been greater social segregation, it said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/education/7638091.stm

Published: 2008/09/26 13:48:10 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Em defesa do Magalhães

Em defesa do Magalhães

Manuel Carvalho - 20080927 Público

Pondo de parte a encenação que visa projectar a gloriosa missão modernizadora do Governo, nada justifica uma crítica rotunda ao programa e-escolinhasOs spin-doctors que fazem a assessoria de imagem do primeiro-ministro e o próprio José Sócrates já tiveram tempo e oportunidades de perceber que as megaoperações mediáticas encenadas para promover as suas medidas só servem para embrulhar a realidade num véu de propaganda e desconfiança. Foi isso que aconteceu em finais de Julho, quando um regimento de 18 ministros e secretários de Estado se dividiram pelo país a entregar computadores a alunos do secundário. Aconteceu de novo esta semana, com a entrega dos primeiros computadores Magalhães a crianças do ensino básico. Uma medida louvável, porque permitirá a milhares de crianças ter acesso mais facilitado ao mundo da informática, acabou por ser dizimada pela ostentação cerimonial da entrega do Magalhães. Em vez de computadores, de educação ou da equidade no acesso a bens essenciais, foram as legítimas suspeitas de que a real motivação do Governo é a propaganda e não a info-inclusão que dominaram os debates.
E tudo isto se explica não tanto pelo hipercriticismo no qual o país é pródigo, mas porque o Governo não se revê nas estratégias dos pequenos passos e mede qualquer uma das suas medidas como a prova do insuperável sucesso do país a caminho da vanguarda tecnológica. Assim sendo, é natural que se discuta a vaidade, a fronteira entre a mentira e a verdade, o limite da propaganda e da informação, o que é ambição legítima ou devaneio de sonhador. Mas é também fundamental que se reflicta e se avalie a natureza própria do programa. É, ou não, razoável que o Governo se empenhe em garantir a posse de um computador portátil a 500 mil crianças? Que garantias há de que esse instrumento pedagógico será bem utilizado? Que perigos há de que as dádivas sejam, em alguns casos, rapidamente vendidas a pataco no mercado negro? Que condições têm as escolas e que formação específica têm os professores para promover o seu uso? Vai ou não haver ajustamentos pedagógicos de modo a que, por exemplo, os trabalhos de casa passem a ser feitos no computador? São, afinal, perguntas que se deveriam centrar na questão essencial para o país, que é a de saber até que ponto a entrega do Magalhães contribuirá para que as gerações mais jovens consigam estar mais bem preparadas para as exigências do mundo contemporâneo.

Pondo de parte a encenação que visa projectar a gloriosa missão modernizadora do Governo, nada justifica uma crítica rotunda ao programa e-escolinhas. Mais importante do que a história do "primeiro portátil português", como o designou José Sócrates, ou da duvidosa informação sobre a incorporação de tecnologia portuguesa no Magalhães é o facto de se terem criado condições para que milhares de crianças portuguesas tenham acesso a um computador. Muito mais significativo é o facto de, com o Magalhães, aquilo que já é familiar no quotidiano das crianças de famílias de rendimentos médios, poder passar também a poder ser parte das vivências das crianças de famílias pobres, mesmo as que não dispõem de rendimentos suficientes para pagar as ligações à Internet.
Era sobre isto que se devia reflectir, com maior ou menor dose de crítica e de cepticismo. E só não se foi por aí porque a concepção majestática do Governo sobre as suas acções o impediu. Com tanto ruído, tantos ministros e tantas meias-verdades sobre o que é de facto o Magalhães, o país acabou por se concentrar no embrulho mediático e esquecer o que está lá dentro. Parece difícil acreditar que José Sócrates e os seus assessores aprendam a lição e percebam que não é o aparato que valida as boas ideias e os bons programas. Mas descontando esta antipática característica da governação, convém separar as águas e reconhecer que a entrega do Magalhães é uma boa notícia para as famílias de menores rendimentos e, por consequência, para o país.

As perguntas que devem ser feitas sobre o Magalhães

José Pacheco Pereira, Público 27 de Setembro de 2008

O caso do Magalhães é mais um exemplo de como pouco se escrutina a actividade governamental
As entregas de computadores nas escolas pelo primeiro-ministro são uma peça essencial da propaganda governamental de sucesso garantido a abrir um ano eleitoral. Como é óbvio, ninguém deixa de gostar que lhe dêem coisas. Valentim Loureiro dava frigoríficos e outros electrodomésticos, coisas que ninguém pode achar serem inúteis e desvantajosas para quem as recebe, Sócrates "dá" computadores, um objecto cuja aura é hoje superior ao frigorífico, e que vem envolvido com toda uma retórica de modernidade, que ninguém se atreve a contestar. Uma das características deste Governo é um grande deslumbramento tecnológico que tem muito a ver com o primeiro-ministro, um típico tecnocrata, mais autodidacta do que com uma formação profissional sólida, e que por isso "gosta" de gadgets e não sabe viver sem eles. Mais: está convencido de que são os gadgets que mudam as pessoas, numa visão tecnocrática típica, sem perceber que o modo como as pessoas os usam pode ou não ser vantajoso conforme as literacias prévias que possuam.
A operação é inevitavelmente popular, e por isso tem havido muito pouco escrutínio sobre ela, quer da comunicação social, quer da oposição. A oposição sente-se intimidada em criticar algo que sabe ser popular, e hesita. Passada a desmontagem das mentiras habituais na sua apresentação (o computador "português", etc., que só a RTP hoje repete), sobra quase tudo por analisar e questionar, mas isso incomoda muito pouca gente no ambiente de aceitação acrítica da governação e do embevecimento tecnológico que o povo recordista dos telemóveis inevitavelmente tem. O resultado é que toda esta história do computador Magalhães vai passar incólume mesmo que tudo, ou quase tudo, seja errado nesta operação.
Quanto mais sei sobre todo este processo do Magalhães, mais objecções tenho ao que se está a passar. E acresce que não sei muita coisa, porque há demasiadas obscuridades sobre como este projecto apareceu, como foi decidido, quem foi consultado nas escolas (pedagogos, professores) e na indústria, como foi financiado, de quem são os computadores que o Governo "dá", visto que não os comprou e não houve concurso público, que engenharia criativa foi feita para não haver concurso público, como foi escolhida esta empresa, que compromissos existem com ela, e como vai ser dada continuidade à produção, dados os números mirabolantes que o Governo agita, e que seriam bons para a capacidade produtiva de Taiwan, e as maravilhas de design nacional que supostamente vão ser incorporadas (o que significa que os computadores que o Governo está a "dar" são inferiores aos que vai "dar" daqui a um ano). E por aí adiante. Tenho tanta convicção de que isto foi feito no joelho e à pressa que desafio o Governo a mostrar as consultas, os estudos, que fez previamente, sobre as vantagens pedagógicas do Magalhães, por especialistas da educação, e sobre cada uma das opções, pelo Classmate, pela empresa de Matosinhos, etc., etc., que sustentaram um programa calculado em 200 milhões de euros à cabeça.
Há várias perguntas de fundo a fazer, que deveriam ter sido feitas e cuja resposta deveria ser prévia às sessões de propaganda para a televisão. A primeira e mais fundamental das perguntas é a de saber se a distribuição de computadores individuais para as crianças do ensino básico tem sentido pedagógico e utilidade no combate à info-exclusão. Sobre isto a maioria dos pedagogos responde não à primeira e a maioria dos estudos responde também não à segunda questão. Não é unânime a resposta, mas existem muitas dúvidas. Um relatório do Departamento de Educação americano é explícito: "A tecnologia parece ser completamente irrelevante quando se trata de ajudar estudantes a melhorarem os seus níveis de aproveitamento académico." É que nestas coisas nem tudo o que parece evidente para os deslumbrados dos gadgets é verdadeiro.
Não é líquido que um computador individual na sala de aula do ensino básico (o problema é diferente para outros níveis de ensino) possa beneficiar a aquisição das competências básicas, em particular na leitura e na matemática. No caso da leitura é claramente contraproducente, afastando as crianças da leitura "plana", corrida, na fluência do texto, fundamental na ficção e na poesia, a favor de uma leitura em volume, com o uso do hipertexto, com outras virtualidades, mas que não substituem a leitura "literária".
Ou seja, não é líquido que a aparente evidência de que quanto mais cedo for a exposição ao mundo dos computadores, através da opção pelo computador individual (um elemento básico desta escolha é a individualização da máquina), melhor será a aprendizagem e a info-inclusão. Não está em causa facilitar o contacto com os computadores, sem dúvida necessário, mas sim a posse de um computador individual e a sua utilização para aprender ao nível do ensino básico. Se for para jogos é outra coisa, se for como brinquedo tem certamente mais sentido, mas não é suposto o Estado distribuir consolas de jogos. Ou se é, na verdade as consolas de jogos são muito mais eficazes na idade do básico, não é suposto que essa seja uma prioridade pedagógica.
A questão essencial é que todas as crianças tenham facilidade de contacto com os computadores, não é ter um computador individual nesta faixa etária. Desse ponto de vista, tem muito mais sentido facilitar a presença de computadores em casa para a família, baixar o preço das comunicações, em particular a banda larga, e generalizar competências nos adultos, de modo a que as crianças que com eles convivem possam conhecer um ambiente amigável com os computadores, sem deixarem de fazer os trabalhos de casa escrevendo e lendo, sem ser fazendo copy-paste ou serem atirados para procuras na Internet cuja relevância não têm, como muitos dos seus professores, as literacias para julgarem.
A situação muda na pré-adolescência, onde a individualidade do computador é fundamental para o seu uso juvenil, que inclui uma utilização paraconfidencial face aos adultos como diário (nos blogues de adolescentes) ou nas actividades de turma ou grupos de amigos, como a partilha das fotos, chats, etc. É aliás na pré-adolescência que mais profícuo é o investimento na info-inclusão, cujo será tanto mais eficaz quanto as literacias básicas tenham sido adquiridas no básico. É que o combate contra a info-exclusão não depende em primeiro lugar das próprias tecnologias, mas sim de competências que lhe são prévias e que são, digamos assim, mais "clássicas". Se os computadores servem para procurar resultados de jogos de futebol ou pornografia, pouco mais acrescentam ao que se pode fazer com o teletexto da televisão e os canais por cabo e não "modernizam" nada.
Esta primeira questão tem a ver com a segunda: é este computador, pensado para as "comunidades em desenvolvimento" (como diz a Intel), ou seja países como a Índia, a Indonésia, países africanos, mesmo Venezuela e Angola, onde já está comercializado ou vai ser, a melhor opção para a Europa, adequado a Portugal? Existe nalgum país europeu um programa semelhante ao do Governo português, mesmo quando neles se comercializa o Classmate? Não. E a razão percebe-se muito bem: o tipo de contactos necessário e vantajoso das crianças daquela idade com o computador na Europa não passa pela propriedade de um computador na idade do brinquedo, mas sim pela possibilidade de as crianças jogarem jogos em consolas ou "pintarem" ou desenharem no computador das famílias ou da escola. Diferentemente da Indonésia ou do Burkina Faso, já existe em Portugal um parque de computadores nas casas e nas escolas, suficiente para esse acesso, o que não acontece nos países "em desenvolvimento", em que a opção pelo computador individual deste tipo tem outro sentido. A não ser que o computador esteja a ser dado aos pais e não às crianças e, nesse caso, rapidamente se verificará que na maioria dos casos o Magalhães pouca utilidade tem para os adultos, dadas as suas limitações e pelo preço do acesso à Internet. Aí é que as desigualdades sociais se vão verificar.
O caso do Magalhães é mais um exemplo de como pouco se escrutina a actividade governamental. Acenam-nos com as bandeirinhas do progresso tecnológico e nós concedemos tudo. Mas a verdade é que vários programas destes de "progresso" estão aí em ruínas, alguns com dois anos e milhões de euros deitados ao lixo, sem ninguém se dar ao trabalho de pedir contas. O caso da Via CTT é talvez o mais evidente, mas o das Cidades Digitais também exigia avaliação. E na altura, ai dos "velhos do Restelo" que se opusessem a essa magnífica ideia democrática e moderna de dar nas estações de CTT um e-mail a cada português!
Historiador

Friday, September 19, 2008

Almost half of England's schools are not teaching mathematics well enough, putting too much emphasis on "teaching to the test", inspectors have said.

Too much maths 'taught to test'

Almost half of England's schools are not teaching mathematics well enough, putting too much emphasis on "teaching to the test", inspectors have said.

Ofsted said pupils were taught to pass exams and results had improved, but understanding of the subject had not.

Teaching and learning, the curriculum and management were all stronger in primary schools than secondary schools.

The government said it was investing £140m in measures "to transform the standard" of maths teaching in England.

Ofsted said its report, Mathematics: Understanding the score, was based principally on evidence from inspections undertaken between April 2005 and December 2007 in 192 maintained schools in England, 84 primary and 108 secondary.

Many secondaries had big problems finding good teachers. Pupils' progress was inadequate in one in 10 lessons, Ofsted said.

The effectiveness of work in maths was judged to be outstanding in 11%, good in 44% and satisfactory in 40% - by an inspectorate which regards "satisfactory" as not being good enough.

Of the nine schools where the quality was deemed to be inadequate, six were secondary schools.

Strategies

The report said there had been a steady improvement in test and examination results.


We need children to be equipped to use mathematics with confidence in and beyond the classroom to play their part in a rapidly changing society
Chief inspector Christine Gilbert

Key Stage 3 results - from the tests taken by pupils aged 13 and 14 - were improving and a greater percentage of pupils reached the vital threshold of grade C at GCSE level.

"But this does not tell the whole story," Ofsted said.

"Based on the gains made at Key Stage 3, more pupils than at present should be reaching the higher GCSE grades.

"Evidence suggests that strategies to improve test and examination performance, including 'booster' lessons, revision classes and extensive intervention, coupled with a heavy emphasis on 'teaching to the test', succeed in preparing pupils to gain the qualifications but are not equipping them well enough mathematically for their futures.

"It is of vital importance to shift from a narrow emphasis on disparate skills towards a focus on pupils' mathematical understanding."

Rapid change

Pupils should be taught to make sense of mathematics - so they could use it confidently in their everyday lives and were prepared for further study and the workplace.

Chief inspector Christine Gilbert said: "The way mathematics is taught can make a huge difference to the level of enthusiasm and interest for the subject.

"As well as developing fluent numeracy skills to deal with everyday mathematics, children and young people need to be able to think mathematically, model, analyse and reason."

She added: "We all benefit from the advanced mathematics that underpins our technological world.


We know that more needs to be done to improve maths for the long term
Jim Knight, Schools Minister

"We need children to be equipped to use mathematics with confidence in and beyond the classroom to play their part in a rapidly changing society."

Among a series of recommendations, Ofsted said the Department for Children, Schools and Families should reintroduce separate reporting of pupils' attainment in "using and applying mathematics".

The National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics - set up after a previous critical inquiry into maths teaching in England - should help teachers assess their own knowledge, get access to training and share good practice.

To an extent Ofsted's report has been overtaken by a later review the government commissioned, by Sir Peter Williams, which was published in June.

Accepting his findings, ministers said 13,000 maths specialists would spearhead better primary school teaching. It will take 10 years to train them.

England's Schools Minister Jim Knight said: "While Ofsted recognises there are positive trends, with results in maths up at all ages, we know that more needs to be done to improve maths for the long term.

"That’s why we are introducing a whole range of measures, backed by £140m, which will transform the standard of maths teaching in this country.

"Good teachers know that the best way to ensure pupils make good progress – and to pass exams and tests - is to give them a broad, in depth understanding of the subject. There is no reason why testing should result in a narrow focus or uninspiring lessons.

"This year’s new secondary curriculum will help bring mathematics to life. It will promote better mathematical thinking and problem solving as well as developing pupil's confidence in maths and their ability to apply maths in real life, relevant contexts."

Are you a maths teacher or student? What's your reaction to this story? Send your comments using the form below.

With targets to meet is it any surprise the focus is on passing the exams? With the pass rate rocketing recently this is simply confirming what we already knew.
Stephen, Caerphilly

Half of all maths teachers inadequate? Good grief thats almost 3 out 10 of them.
Richard, Merseyside, England

OfSTED's hypocrisy is breathtaking: they have spent years policing the high stakes testing regime promoted by government and they now dare to criticise schools for 'teaching to the test'. Independent research has shown for years the impoverishing effect that this approach has had on the school curriculum but still there appears to be no end in sight.
Alan, Manchester

If it possible to 'Teach to the test' then the tests are at fault, not the teachers.
B J Nicholson, Manchester, England

If they don't like 'teaching to the test' what is the point of the test? Perhaps they should look at exactly what they are testing and why.
Susie Schofield, Dundee, Scotland

In most cases a selection of your comments will be published, displaying your name and location unless you state otherwise in the box below.

Name
Your E-mail address
Town & Country
Phone number (optional):
Comments

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

'Creationism' biologist quits job

Page last updated at 19:42 GMT, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 20:42 UK

'Creationism' biologist quits job

Dinosaur fossil
Evolution and creationism could both be examined, Prof Reiss said

Professor Michael Reiss has quit as director of education at the Royal Society following the controversy over his recent comments on creationism.

Last week Prof Reiss - a Church of England minister - said creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue.

He was criticised by other scientists - though misquoted as saying creationism should be "taught" in science classes.

The society said some of his comments had been "open to misinterpretation".

This had damaged its reputation.

'Not scientific'

"As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of education - a part-time post he held on secondment," it said in a statement.

"He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science education at the Institute of Education."

The Royal Society reiterated that its position was that creationism had no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum.

"However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific."

I believe the Royal Society should have supported him and used this opportunity to further a reasoned debate
Roland Jackson
British Association for the Advancement of Science

It added that the society greatly appreciated the efforts of Prof Reiss, a biologist, in furthering its work in the important field of science education over the past two years and wished him well for the future.

Creationists take a literal interpretation of the Bible's description of the origin of life and reject the Darwinian concept of evolution.

Prof Reiss, speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, estimated that about one in 10 children was from a family which supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.

He said his experience had led him to believe it was more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution - rather than simply giving the impression that such children were wrong.

Misconceptions

Reacting to his stepping down, Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London, said: "I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself.

"This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists.

"This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science - something that the Royal Society should applaud."

Dr Roland Jackson, chief executive of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, said Prof Reiss's departure was a "real loss".

"I was at the actual discussion and what I heard him say , however it has been reported, was essentially the position advocated by the Royal Society," he said.

Dr Jackson said the organisation "should have supported him and used this opportunity to further a reasoned debate".

Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of Durham, said: "There should be no room for doubt - creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought."


Read a selection of your comments on this story:

At the beginning of the school year, pupils should be briefly told about creationism. It should be pointed out that this is a RELIGIOUS concept and therefore should be taught in religious education only. Only evolution should be taught in mainstream classes, to avoid confusion
Rita Elliott, Kingston/Jamaica

The persecution of this man - leading to his resignation -- is an embarrassing shame. Have we become so biased (or is it fear?) that we simply cannot discuss a dissenting opinion? Is that really the kind of society we want -- one where people are so afraid of persecution that they are unable to express their views? Shame on you!
S. Lee, USA

It is appalling that Professor Reiss has had to resign. Just because these closed-minded scientists cannot prove creationism doesn't mean it isn't a possibility. Evolution has far from been proved either actually. Interesting how the atheists are more intolerant than those they criticse. What are they afraid of?.....
Francesca Quine, London, UK

Yes, I think there should be open discussion about creationism alongside open discussions about evolution. Otherwise it looks as though evolutionists are closed-minded and are afraid of something.
Kerina Jones, Swansea, Wales

It is sad to see a learned professor resign a post over a media whipped misinterpretation of his intent. However, that seems to be the world we live in, with press readily willing to deliberately mis-represent people in order to create higher sales (of papers) or achieve higher viewing numbers. I do find that objectionable. If Creationism is raised in a Science class, it needs to be made plain that a Scientific Theory has far higher requirements than the definition of the word that merely states "conjecture on limited information". A Scientific theory needs to be presented in a fashion whereby it can be proved incorrect by experimentation. Evolution is presented this way, Creationism is not. Hence Evolution is Science, Creationism is faith.
Rich, Bristol

Freedom of speech and belief are rapidly being destroyed in this country. Evolutionists are free to peddle their godless, atheistic bias, and any considered concepts alien to their 'faith' is shut out. That a leading scientist is put into a position where he has to resign is astonishing. Prof. Higgins, in your report says "creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory..." Wrong. There is considerable evidence that creationism is a valid theory. But if one does not want to believe it, 'any port in storm will do.'
Pete Hodge, Skelmersdale, England

If you let the subject of creationism enter science classes, what next? Flat Earth, Geocentrism? When will there be time for real science?
Mark, Malvern UK

It's a shame that the Royal Society has decided that there should not even be any discussion of creationism in classrooms. If a student brings the subject up, what else is to be done? The question can't be ignored, but should be explored in a reasonable manner. There is plenty of evidence that can be brought to bear to support the theory of evolution, so why the fear of getting into that discussion? Is it, perhaps, that creationism is such a hot potato that the Society wants to distance itself from even the debate about it?
Chris, Glenrothes, UK

After studying biology and natural history for years, the strict biblical interpretation of The Creation leaves, to say the least, much to the imagination. It is, however, my firm belief that a Superior Being started the whole thing going (Big Bang). How can nothing produce something?
Guy Tremblay, Ottawa, Canada

I believe the discussion of creationism in the classroom to be a good thing - even if only to show how utterly preposterous the idea is. Science should have consigned religion to the bin, but the capacity for the human mind to grasp on to superstitions and ancient dogma never ceases to amaze. They say money is the root of all evil; the facts say it is religion.
Tom Croft, Belfast

I think creationism should be explained in class as a theory of what happened at the beginning of time. After all, none of our imminent scientists were there at the "big bang" their's is only an "educated" theory. Both should stand side-by-side.
Julie, Warrington

Of course Professor Reiss should not have resigned, and there should most definitely be a discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories at schools. Our children have to learn about all kinds of religious beliefs at school, whether their parents agree with those beliefs or not. Children are not stupid. If they ask questions, they deserve an answer. If the only answer which can be given is that Creationism is "unscientific" then that is a very poor response, and totally diminishes the reputation of scientists.
Jeanette Stewart, Dingwall, Scotland

Teaching creationism in schools, or even giving it a base as a real theory is akin to informing children that the earth is flat. As the majority of rational thinking people will know, this is not the case! Why people feel the need to justify their existence with what is essentially a made up story is beyond my comprehension. There is enough false information to be found on the internet and on the television, so you would expect that the scientific community would strive to eradicate these archaic beliefs so that our children grow up rational and not tainted by religious fanaticism. Instead, we see the leaders of the scientific education community suggesting that a story be debated as an alternative to a sound scientific theory.
Andy White, Weston-s-Mare, North Somerset

This is not a debate between creationism and evolutionary theory. In fact, the debate is between creationism and the whole of science as we know it. If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then:

all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong; the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. For informed people to challenge accepted scientific orthodoxy on the basis of proper evidence is always healthy, but to debunk the whole of science is another.
S. England, Cardiff

As a scientist, I am thoroughly ashamed of my own breed. Professor Reiss' comments were completely taken out of context. Besides, religion is a very personal spiritual experience. Are you telling me that there are no scientists out there (or in the Royal Society for that matter) who aren't Christians? The more pressing question is how do we acknowledge that both the creationism and Darwinism exist in the classroom, rather than ignore the issue. We let the kids decide for themselves how they reconcile scientific facts and religion.
Michelle, Cambridge

I am very disappointed with Prof. Reiss' resignation and more for him than for criticism in itself. We also know that evolutionism and creationism don't exclude each other and this was a good reason to keep on discussing the subject within a scientific context
Giuseppe Ragazzoni, Florence, Italy

It is exactly because people do not understand what makes a science and what makes a pseudo-science (like Creationism) that are so many misconceptions surrounding scientific theories such as evolution. The idea that creationism should be discussed if raised in a science lesson seems reasonable; kids need to understand why it's not a science. For the majority, it would hopefully develop the critical thinking skills necessary for sifting though all the misconceptions we're fed through life. Why the Royal Society failed to support him I cannot understand.
Laura Morgan, Jersey, Channel Islands

That the director of education has been forced out of his post for his comments is ridiculous. His only error was that he remained unclear by failing to state that when creationism is discussed, it should be in such a way as to show that it has no basis in science or truth & should therefore be dismissed.
Jonathan MacDonald, Madrid, Spain

Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools

Times Online Logo 222 x 25

From
September 12, 2008

Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools

ritish Museum view an illuminated ceiling showing the 'Creation of Adam' by the Renaissance artist Michelangelo (Ian Nicholson/PA)

(Ian Nicholson/PA)

The education director at the Royal Society says science teachers should treat creationism as legitimate

School Gate: What our children should learn about the Big Bang

Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, according to the Royal Society, putting the august science body on a collision course with the Government.

The Rev Michael Reiss, a biologist and its director of education, said it was self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed in the literal account of God creating the Universe and all living things as related in the Bible or Koran. It would be better, he said, to treat creationism as a world view.

His comments put him at odds with fellow scientists as well as the Government. Former Fellows of the Royal Society include Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution.

National curriculum guidelines state that creationism has no place in science lessons. The Government says that if it is raised by students, teachers should discuss how creationism differs from evolution, say that it is not scientific theory and that further discussion should be saved for religious classes.

Professor Reiss, a biologist, was speaking at the British Association’s Festival of Science in Liverpool. Other scientists were vociferous in their response, saying that creationism should remain entirely within the sphere of religious education.

Professor Lewis Wolpert, of University College Medical School, said: “Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. It is based on religious beliefs and any discussion should be in religious studies.”

Dr John Fry, a physicist at the University of Liverpool, said: “Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence. Creationism doesn’t challenge science: it denies it!”

However, Professor John Bryant, a biologist at the University of Exeter, agreed that creationism should be discussed as an alternative position of the origins of man and earth.

“If the class is mature enough and time permits, one might have a discussion on the alternative viewpoints,” he said. “However, I think we should not present creationism as having the same status as evolution.”

The Royal Society’s support for the presence of creationism within the classroom points to a remarkable turn-around. Last year the society issued an open letter stating that creationism had no place in schools and that pupils should understand that science supported the theory of evolution.

A spokesman for the organisation, which counts 21 Nobel Prize winners among its Fellows, confirmed yesterday that Professor Reiss’s views did represent that of its president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the society.

He said: “Teachers need to be in a position to be able to discuss science theories and explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism isn’t.”

The Rev Tim Hastie-Smith, the new chairman of the Headmasters and Headmistresses’ Conference, which represents 250 leading independent schools, said that creationism was taught in science classes at his school, Dean Close in Cheltenham, as a theory that some people believe in, not as a fact.“If we get creationist books sent to us then we give them to the science department to be discussed. We want children to be aware of it.”

Teachers would try to be sensitive if a pupil believed in creationism.

Professor Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, said: “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.”

Many children who go to school believing in creationism come from Muslim or fundamental Christian families, he said. While making clear to them that it is widely rejected by scientists, teachers should ensure they avoid denigrating creationist beliefs.

The theories

Creationism

The Universe and living organisms originated from acts of divine creation. This belief embraces the Biblical account and rejects theories in which natural processes are central, such as evolution. Some creationists have accepted geological findings and other methods of dating the Earth, insisting that such accounts do not necessarily contradict Biblical teachings

Evolution

Different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms. Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution holds that this development took place by natural selection of varieties of organism better adapted to the environment and more likely to produce descendants

Intelligent Design

Certain features of the Universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents insist that it is not based on the Bible, claiming that its roots include the teachings of Plato and Aristotle, who, they say, articulated early versions of the theory

Sources: New Oxford Dictionary of English, Times Database

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.

Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.

This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.