When I went through the 11+ at my fair-sized junior school in a fairly rough part of town I was one of only a handful to pass and be offered a council funded place at a private grammar school. I fitted in well and had a ‘successful’ secondary education which I only came to question in later years: another story. It dawned on me in later years how arbitrary the 11+ had been, especially as my older brother, cleverer and with a better memory than me, but rubbish at sport, had ‘failed’ the test and gone to a local comprehensive where he was desperately unhappy, leaving with no qualifications at all.
What we did to get through the 11+ in the 1950’s and 60's is pretty much the same as kids do now for SATs, except the 11+ was supposed to be a test of IQ, a fixed amount of intelligence that had something to do with your educability, whatever that is/was/might be. We practised answering 11+ type questions for most of the penultimate year at school – a practice no doubt designed to ensure that we improved our IQs. The point was to sort, separate, segregate, to find the magic 10% fit for an academic education.
By the mid-60’s everyone in education knew how flawed the 11+ was, but even more importantly sociology was highlighting how divisive separate schools were: segregation by money, by postcode, by religion, by some artificial notion of ‘academic ability’ all were being revealed as damaging to individuals and society. Only those with a vested interest in maintaining their own positions of power or privilege wanted these discredited structures to survive, although naturally enough they were the kind of people who had the power actually to do so: the church, the moneyed, the irretrievably middle-class. Even Special Education was eventually drawn into the reforming circle.
Where are we now? the eradication of grammar schools was never completed, private schools enjoy the same tax privileges via charity status they have always enjoyed, the sector is growing, city technology colleges, beacon schools, specialist schools, religious schools all on sale to any screwball with enough money and desire to buy access to a few hundred young minds. The government has been prattling on about choice in education when all people really want is a decent school down the road, realising that, as with health, the noise and fury surrounding ‘choice’ is just that. The altruism of those putting their money into PFI schemes should be tested: under no circumstance should control of the curriculum or entry be vested in the school, it should lie with the local authority, let's see how many benefactors want to 'give something back' under those circumstances.
While most parents will put up with what their local primary school has to offer, they will move house, lie, cheat and steal, even commit heresy, to get their children into a ‘good’ secondary, because they are desperate to avoid their offspring being ‘contaminated’ – yes, I have heard the word used. Parents want the best for their children, that’s natural isn't it? Certainly. Good for us as a society? hmmm, it’s natural to drive at whatever speed and on whichever side of the road you feel comfortable with at the time, it’s natural to urinate and defecate wherever you happen to be, whenever you feel the need….. The concept of choice is an illusion and not much of an idea to begin with, selection even more so.
Saturday, 8 September 2007
Saturday, 28 July 2007
Rupi – In memoriam, gloriam
.JPG)
We had our Rupi killed today because her future held no future for her, her dog-life was over, there was only pain, deterioration, a joyless struggle to exist in prospect. I would have administered the injection myself if the kindly, obviously sympathetic, vet had not been there to do it for us.Losing a friend or a member of your family hurts like nothing else, a pet like Rupi becomes both.
This is to honour her memory.
Rupi waskind, gentle, loving, patient, wise, playful, enthusiastic, giving, appreciative, rarely smelly, powerful, strong, full of heart, as fast as the wind, impressively muscular, lithe, trusting, heart-rendingly vulnerable, sensitive, curious, a little clumsy, empathic, protective, caring, quiet, well-mannered (to her own and other species, especially human), brave on behalf of others, brave in the face of pain, unconfident, eager to learn, tolerant, beautiful beyond the dreams of marketing executives.
Her suffering was short, her life full of meaning, she will be missed so very much.
They say all greyhounds have been touched by angels, I commend this one to them.
Thursday, 5 July 2007
Getting the Question Wrong
Ask a Stupid Question, get a Stupid Answer, strange how that childhood comeback has come back in the form of: ask the wrong question and you will always get the wrong answer.
For example ask: ”What's the best way of delivering 90% of someone's educational experience online?" and you will eventually get 'A Virtual Learning Environment, everyone needs one', as the answer.
But ask: "What's the best way of delivering a high quality education?", and you will get an answer involving well-motivated, well-trained and well-resourced teachers with smaller and smaller groups of students.
As a result of this particular misconceived question, millions of pounds, hundreds of thousands of people hours and multiple Gigajoules of mental energy are going to be wasted forcing every school in the country to adopt a VLE.
Another example of a wrong answer because the question was wrong would be ‘OFSTED’, by asking, “How can we force schools to change?”, as opposed to, “What do schools need to assist the change we will be working hard to convince them is necessary?”
Can you think of the questions that should have been asked when we got these answers?
SATs, National Curriculum , Curriculum 2000, PFI, Building Schools for the Future, BECTA Self Review Framework, TLRs, PPA, Threshold, ASTs, Chartered London Teacher Status, Local Management of Schools, Capita, National Literacy Strategy, The Primary Framework, The Interactive Planning Tool, DiDa and on and on and on…..
For example ask: ”What's the best way of delivering 90% of someone's educational experience online?" and you will eventually get 'A Virtual Learning Environment, everyone needs one', as the answer.
But ask: "What's the best way of delivering a high quality education?", and you will get an answer involving well-motivated, well-trained and well-resourced teachers with smaller and smaller groups of students.
As a result of this particular misconceived question, millions of pounds, hundreds of thousands of people hours and multiple Gigajoules of mental energy are going to be wasted forcing every school in the country to adopt a VLE.
Another example of a wrong answer because the question was wrong would be ‘OFSTED’, by asking, “How can we force schools to change?”, as opposed to, “What do schools need to assist the change we will be working hard to convince them is necessary?”
Can you think of the questions that should have been asked when we got these answers?
SATs, National Curriculum , Curriculum 2000, PFI, Building Schools for the Future, BECTA Self Review Framework, TLRs, PPA, Threshold, ASTs, Chartered London Teacher Status, Local Management of Schools, Capita, National Literacy Strategy, The Primary Framework, The Interactive Planning Tool, DiDa and on and on and on…..
The Pendulum Swings
Education swings like a pendulum do….
There was a time when segregation and separation were seen as a bad thing, comprehensive schools were intended to right that wrong, now a plethora of special interest schools are positively encouraged, in the name of ‘choice’. The educational pendulum whooshes past…
When the Primary Literacy Strategy was introduced at the end of the 90’s the mantra was handed down about the way literacy HAD to be taught with group carousels, strict timings, rigid adherence to the word/sentence/text level work regime (all with dodgy new interpretations and redefinitions of English syntax) a return to the lesson based approach ditched in the 60’s … Whoosh….
The whole or real book movement had swept away much of the grammar focussed learning which had held reading back for so long (ancient whoosh....). KS2 texts for the most part were now to be studied in extracts, giving rise to a surge, a frenzy of publishing in the educational book market, with whole school sets of courses designed to meet the needs of the literacy hour. Upon inspection of a few of these I was amazed to see a rigid, repeated structure, under various grammatical and text type labels: a passage of text from some worthy literary or other source, comprehension questions, exercises on spelling and grammar loosely based on a feature of the text passage, some ideas for writing or other activities – jaw-dropping, take away the colour illustrations and photos and these were the very same books my junior school was using in the 1950’s! Whoosh….
The Janet and John type reading scheme books so sneered at for 20 years are now reappearing as part of an expensive RML revolution. Whoosh….
Extended writing disappeared with the Literacy strategy but it was quickly noticed that the Strategy made no mention of writing anything longer than a few sentences. Big Writing suddenly appears, like a new idea, Whoosh….
Trying to follow the handwriting pendulum is liable to cause you a seizure: necessary? useful? redundant? gives sense of pride? stifles creativity? pen? pencil? which colour? do we correct it in all work? Whoosh….
Does marking, including grammar and spelling undermine the confidence of the writer or provide instant feedback? Whoosh…. or should that one be the rapid boing-boing of a pin ball machine?
Milk….no milk…..milk… Whoosh….
Should children explore the world through a series of exploratory exercises in a structured but open environment, using their natural curiosity and instinctive wisdom or be led by the nose to a variety of knowledge troughs, forced to slurp up whatever has been deemed of value by a higher power? Whoosh….
Rote learning of times tables, pages of sums, endless focus on abstract mathematical skills were widely replaced by topic based maths in the 80’s, maths had to be integrated with other learning to make it meaningful to the learner…Whoosh…., then re-whoosh…. the Numeracy strategy puts all of that back on the menu, reinforced with medium and short term (unit) plans, actually backed up by resources, that looks pretty settled ……… Oh, no, everybody duck!! re-re-whoosh…. the strategy is being over-prescriptive, teachers are slavishly following the plans, afraid to adapt them for their own classes (where on earth could silly teachers have got the idea that they would be in trouble if they didn’t do what the government told them to do, in the order they were told, at exactly the time they were told?).
Discrete lessons, integrated curricula, topic based learning ….. back and forth the pendulum swings, each parabola spawning a new generation of experts, people who have developed an in-vogue teaching style, system or philosophy in their school and are employed to spread it around.
Perhaps the image of the pendulum is not as potent as that of a deranged snake coiled around itself, poked by many masters wishing to prod it in different directions, for different reasons. The snake writhes and wriggles, driven by the increasing demands made of it. It hisses and occasionally strikes but to little effect. None of the tormentors and especially not the snake have a clue what the outcome will be.
There was a time when segregation and separation were seen as a bad thing, comprehensive schools were intended to right that wrong, now a plethora of special interest schools are positively encouraged, in the name of ‘choice’. The educational pendulum whooshes past…
When the Primary Literacy Strategy was introduced at the end of the 90’s the mantra was handed down about the way literacy HAD to be taught with group carousels, strict timings, rigid adherence to the word/sentence/text level work regime (all with dodgy new interpretations and redefinitions of English syntax) a return to the lesson based approach ditched in the 60’s … Whoosh….
The whole or real book movement had swept away much of the grammar focussed learning which had held reading back for so long (ancient whoosh....). KS2 texts for the most part were now to be studied in extracts, giving rise to a surge, a frenzy of publishing in the educational book market, with whole school sets of courses designed to meet the needs of the literacy hour. Upon inspection of a few of these I was amazed to see a rigid, repeated structure, under various grammatical and text type labels: a passage of text from some worthy literary or other source, comprehension questions, exercises on spelling and grammar loosely based on a feature of the text passage, some ideas for writing or other activities – jaw-dropping, take away the colour illustrations and photos and these were the very same books my junior school was using in the 1950’s! Whoosh….
The Janet and John type reading scheme books so sneered at for 20 years are now reappearing as part of an expensive RML revolution. Whoosh….
Extended writing disappeared with the Literacy strategy but it was quickly noticed that the Strategy made no mention of writing anything longer than a few sentences. Big Writing suddenly appears, like a new idea, Whoosh….
Trying to follow the handwriting pendulum is liable to cause you a seizure: necessary? useful? redundant? gives sense of pride? stifles creativity? pen? pencil? which colour? do we correct it in all work? Whoosh….
Does marking, including grammar and spelling undermine the confidence of the writer or provide instant feedback? Whoosh…. or should that one be the rapid boing-boing of a pin ball machine?
Milk….no milk…..milk… Whoosh….
Should children explore the world through a series of exploratory exercises in a structured but open environment, using their natural curiosity and instinctive wisdom or be led by the nose to a variety of knowledge troughs, forced to slurp up whatever has been deemed of value by a higher power? Whoosh….
Rote learning of times tables, pages of sums, endless focus on abstract mathematical skills were widely replaced by topic based maths in the 80’s, maths had to be integrated with other learning to make it meaningful to the learner…Whoosh…., then re-whoosh…. the Numeracy strategy puts all of that back on the menu, reinforced with medium and short term (unit) plans, actually backed up by resources, that looks pretty settled ……… Oh, no, everybody duck!! re-re-whoosh…. the strategy is being over-prescriptive, teachers are slavishly following the plans, afraid to adapt them for their own classes (where on earth could silly teachers have got the idea that they would be in trouble if they didn’t do what the government told them to do, in the order they were told, at exactly the time they were told?).
Discrete lessons, integrated curricula, topic based learning ….. back and forth the pendulum swings, each parabola spawning a new generation of experts, people who have developed an in-vogue teaching style, system or philosophy in their school and are employed to spread it around.
Perhaps the image of the pendulum is not as potent as that of a deranged snake coiled around itself, poked by many masters wishing to prod it in different directions, for different reasons. The snake writhes and wriggles, driven by the increasing demands made of it. It hisses and occasionally strikes but to little effect. None of the tormentors and especially not the snake have a clue what the outcome will be.
Sunday, 17 June 2007
Assessment 1 Measure for Ever
What is assessment for? whom does it benefit? what can we reasonably expect from our assessments? if only these questions were always asked….
Assessment as certification has been with us for a very long time, enabling employers and academic institutions to have a rough guide to an applicant’s skills or potential and giving applicants a set of transparent targets to aim for. Success has never been guaranteed by those certified attainments however, interviews always follow as a way of cross-checking that an applicant is suited to a post or course, an implicit acknowledgement that certificates are not in and of themselves a reliable guide to someone’s abilities or suitability for anything.
It has always been apparent that our methods of mass testing have been inadequate, the results unreliable: the law had to be changed to allow pupils at secondary modern schools to take GCE examinations in their school as it became apparent that so many of them were already gaining GCE ‘O’ levels after they had been specifically selected at 11 to go to schools where they would not do such a thing because they were unable to do such a thing. It was later realised that by age 14 as many as 20% of the pupils in grammar and secondary modern schools were in the ‘wrong’ school, because their God-given, unalterable and above all measurable IQs had mysteriously altered. The key lies in the word: measure, to assign a numerical value to - even if it is expressed in various combinations of alphanumerics. People talking about education often refer to assessment when they actually mean measurement. The former involves an awareness of the person being assessed, the latter involves generating a number or something easily converted to one.
The SATs system has evolved with even more strangled logic than the poor old GCEs, which were actually designed by universities to progressively weed out candidates for university education. Employers simply highjacked them for their own purposes, as they were the only indicator of educability widely available. Almost by accident, the earliest Key Stage 1 SATs (when the T was for Task, as I recall), made a fairly good fist of assessing what children could do but they were so labour intensive, time consuming and hence expensive that they were quickly abandoned. SATs were never intended to do anything for children anyway, assessment was not what the government of the day or any since was actually after. They needed to be seen to be doing something about raising standards, they needed a measurement system for schools and teachers. This would then allow for all the trappings of the target culture, particularly annual tests enabling league tables, which, coupled with the less explicit excesses of the educational inquisition which OFSTED became, would ‘drive up’ standards. The language said it all – there was an assumption that teachers did not really want to improve standards, they had to be driven. Standards were identified, targets set. Failing teachers, schools and Local Authorities could be identified through the power of the graph, the cold certainty of the numbers rather than the wordy, subjective view of old fashioned inspectors.
The ’97 change of government only made things worse because they were prepared to put money into all of this, so, along with smaller class sizes, a massive influx of technology, a boom in TAs etc they also brought in endless costly initiatives aimed at ‘driving up standards’, coupled with the expansion and entrenchment of a massively expensive and completely useless ‘assessment’ system. Teaching, pupil progress, the value for money of an LA were now all redefined so that they could be measured and the expenditure justified.
Assessment as certification has been with us for a very long time, enabling employers and academic institutions to have a rough guide to an applicant’s skills or potential and giving applicants a set of transparent targets to aim for. Success has never been guaranteed by those certified attainments however, interviews always follow as a way of cross-checking that an applicant is suited to a post or course, an implicit acknowledgement that certificates are not in and of themselves a reliable guide to someone’s abilities or suitability for anything.
It has always been apparent that our methods of mass testing have been inadequate, the results unreliable: the law had to be changed to allow pupils at secondary modern schools to take GCE examinations in their school as it became apparent that so many of them were already gaining GCE ‘O’ levels after they had been specifically selected at 11 to go to schools where they would not do such a thing because they were unable to do such a thing. It was later realised that by age 14 as many as 20% of the pupils in grammar and secondary modern schools were in the ‘wrong’ school, because their God-given, unalterable and above all measurable IQs had mysteriously altered. The key lies in the word: measure, to assign a numerical value to - even if it is expressed in various combinations of alphanumerics. People talking about education often refer to assessment when they actually mean measurement. The former involves an awareness of the person being assessed, the latter involves generating a number or something easily converted to one.
The SATs system has evolved with even more strangled logic than the poor old GCEs, which were actually designed by universities to progressively weed out candidates for university education. Employers simply highjacked them for their own purposes, as they were the only indicator of educability widely available. Almost by accident, the earliest Key Stage 1 SATs (when the T was for Task, as I recall), made a fairly good fist of assessing what children could do but they were so labour intensive, time consuming and hence expensive that they were quickly abandoned. SATs were never intended to do anything for children anyway, assessment was not what the government of the day or any since was actually after. They needed to be seen to be doing something about raising standards, they needed a measurement system for schools and teachers. This would then allow for all the trappings of the target culture, particularly annual tests enabling league tables, which, coupled with the less explicit excesses of the educational inquisition which OFSTED became, would ‘drive up’ standards. The language said it all – there was an assumption that teachers did not really want to improve standards, they had to be driven. Standards were identified, targets set. Failing teachers, schools and Local Authorities could be identified through the power of the graph, the cold certainty of the numbers rather than the wordy, subjective view of old fashioned inspectors.
The ’97 change of government only made things worse because they were prepared to put money into all of this, so, along with smaller class sizes, a massive influx of technology, a boom in TAs etc they also brought in endless costly initiatives aimed at ‘driving up standards’, coupled with the expansion and entrenchment of a massively expensive and completely useless ‘assessment’ system. Teaching, pupil progress, the value for money of an LA were now all redefined so that they could be measured and the expenditure justified.
Assessment 2 What are the results?
Does it really matter what assessment/measuring has become, as long as we get on with the teaching? Well, yes, it does, because it permeates the nature, purpose, outcomes and effects of our education system.
Teaching to the test has become the norm in Years 5 and 6: when decisions have to be made on what to teach, how to deploy staff, the emphasis that will be put on anything, the most powerful consideration is always the impact on SAT levels. This is hardly surprising. Judgments on primary schools’ effectiveness are principally made on the basis of their SAT results, so schools naturally force those results to look as good as possible by forcing their teachers to do the same. Pupils and staff are bullied, a climate of fear is created in schools and LAs, there are endless (apocryphal?) stories of cheating, the entire curriculum and allocation of human resources in the year leading up to the test is skewed to get the results. Children not likely to look good in the results are effectively abandoned, expensive interventions are forced on borderline children to squeeze them into the sausage skin of a level 4 at KS2.
Pupils and their parents are consistently lied to about the importance of the tests the children will face. Half an hour spent browsing the educational shelves in WHSmiths gives an insight into how publishers push their expensive aids, often using the word ‘pass’ in relation to SATs: the fear spreads to parents. Families at my school can’t afford private tuition but I would bet my pension that there are large numbers of tutors at work in this country helping to prepare children for SATs.
What do we do with the SAT levels generated at such financial and human expense?
KS2 SAT levels are only used as a rough guide to anything by secondaries because they know how unreliable they are. I dread to think how many KS3 children at a new school have been placed in entirely inappropriate courses, groups or settings because of inflated SAT results. At a school I know, a secondary phoned up to check that they had just welcomed the correct child who had a SAT level 5 in English, but was working at a real level of low 3, the child even had some indications of dyslexia! As to variations between feeder schools for secondaries, the sky's the limit! Teacher insecurity, management’s craven attitude to OFSTED, league tables, coaching and the look good culture make KS2 SAT results unreliable for determining any new Y7's level of attainment, particularly in the tested subjects. The practice of extrapolating capability in order to create teaching groups in other subjects is doubly misleading.
End of KS1 SAT levels do not carry over to KS2 within the same primary school: a child with Level 3 at KS1 SAT would not be viewed as such by a year 5 or 6 teacher and would definitely look very alien to a KS3 colleague.
Schools are caught between a rock and hard place: they want their KS1 SATs to look good but then it appears that Years 3 and 4 are years of poor progress (the so-called ‘dip’), some children even go backwards! I was once asked to reconsider my targets for my year 4 class, because they didn’t show enough progression from their KS1 SAT results, I refused but the head changed them anyway.
Education has been distorted and redefined to suit a system of measurement which allows bureaucrats to fit children, teachers and schools into a spreadsheet and measure them to 2 decimal places. I for one am truly sick of it.
Teaching to the test has become the norm in Years 5 and 6: when decisions have to be made on what to teach, how to deploy staff, the emphasis that will be put on anything, the most powerful consideration is always the impact on SAT levels. This is hardly surprising. Judgments on primary schools’ effectiveness are principally made on the basis of their SAT results, so schools naturally force those results to look as good as possible by forcing their teachers to do the same. Pupils and staff are bullied, a climate of fear is created in schools and LAs, there are endless (apocryphal?) stories of cheating, the entire curriculum and allocation of human resources in the year leading up to the test is skewed to get the results. Children not likely to look good in the results are effectively abandoned, expensive interventions are forced on borderline children to squeeze them into the sausage skin of a level 4 at KS2.
Pupils and their parents are consistently lied to about the importance of the tests the children will face. Half an hour spent browsing the educational shelves in WHSmiths gives an insight into how publishers push their expensive aids, often using the word ‘pass’ in relation to SATs: the fear spreads to parents. Families at my school can’t afford private tuition but I would bet my pension that there are large numbers of tutors at work in this country helping to prepare children for SATs.
What do we do with the SAT levels generated at such financial and human expense?
KS2 SAT levels are only used as a rough guide to anything by secondaries because they know how unreliable they are. I dread to think how many KS3 children at a new school have been placed in entirely inappropriate courses, groups or settings because of inflated SAT results. At a school I know, a secondary phoned up to check that they had just welcomed the correct child who had a SAT level 5 in English, but was working at a real level of low 3, the child even had some indications of dyslexia! As to variations between feeder schools for secondaries, the sky's the limit! Teacher insecurity, management’s craven attitude to OFSTED, league tables, coaching and the look good culture make KS2 SAT results unreliable for determining any new Y7's level of attainment, particularly in the tested subjects. The practice of extrapolating capability in order to create teaching groups in other subjects is doubly misleading.
End of KS1 SAT levels do not carry over to KS2 within the same primary school: a child with Level 3 at KS1 SAT would not be viewed as such by a year 5 or 6 teacher and would definitely look very alien to a KS3 colleague.
Schools are caught between a rock and hard place: they want their KS1 SATs to look good but then it appears that Years 3 and 4 are years of poor progress (the so-called ‘dip’), some children even go backwards! I was once asked to reconsider my targets for my year 4 class, because they didn’t show enough progression from their KS1 SAT results, I refused but the head changed them anyway.
Education has been distorted and redefined to suit a system of measurement which allows bureaucrats to fit children, teachers and schools into a spreadsheet and measure them to 2 decimal places. I for one am truly sick of it.
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Core Confusion
This irritant started for me in 2000: we were heading out of special measures and had endured LEA advisers crawling all over us for a couple of years. I was interviewed by a particularly unpleasant adviser who stated that the most recent report had deemed standards in ICT to be below national expectations. I hesitated for a moment but fairly confident that it had contained no such judgment retorted that it had not . She said it did. I said it didn’t…this continued for a bit. When I asked her to quote the relevant section she read out “Standards in the core subjects do not meet national expectations”. “Ah,” said I, with a small smile of satisfaction,” that’s where your problem comes from, ICT is a foundation subject!”. “No, it’s a core subject” replied she, “No, it’s foundation”, “No……..” this also continued for a bit. The interview eventually ground to a halt, after I had pointed out that as ICT Coordinator I would have thought someone would have told me.
I immediately went to check my copy of the National Curriculum 2000 and there, sure enough, was the proof, page 16. ‘Stupid woman’ thought I and gave the matter little more heed. Until a few months later, when I had the same discussion with an OFSTED inspector, a very experienced ex-HMI who commanded a great deal of respect in me but who said the same thing. She was however unable to tell me when it had been changed or by whom. It seemed it was one of those ‘givens’ everyone knew of but no-one knew why.
Outraged that the government had been tinkering with my curriculum area without telling me, I e-mailed OFSTED, BECTA (I think), the DFES, NC online and the QCA asking when and how the status of ICT had been changed. Reply came there none, despite re-sending all the mails. When my head told me it was a core subject I was finally certain it couldn’t possibly be.
A stand-up ding-dong with our LEA adviser followed a few weeks later when we met over a different matter and I raised the subject. He agreed that he couldn’t actually quote me chapter and verse on when or how the change was made but he was sure it had. He got back to me a week later trying to ‘explain the confusion’ (not his confusion, of course) but I had actually worked it out a while before.
The confusion had arisen because of the introduction of the Literacy Strategy in the late 90's. OFSTED announced that during the first year of its introduction, when schools would be struggling to embed the new way of teaching literacy, their teams would exercise greater flexibility (now called a lighter or softer touch) in their inspections of the Foundation subjects but would maintain full rigour for the Core subjects and ICT. Somehow these then remained inextricably linked in the minds of many highly paid people. In the ensuing years references to the core subjects and ICT just dropped the last 2 words and were understood to include ICT. When the lead inspector at our last OFSTED referred to ICT as “extended core” I nearly burst out laughing, my head looked daggers at me, I nearly burst out laughing all over again but the moment passed.
Whenever I have challenged an assertion that ICT is a core subject over the last 5 years I have run into brick walls of incredulity and misplaced certainty. What I find truly horrifying is that I, an ordinary primary classroom teacher, have had to correct people who train and inspect teachers and are paid twice as much as me for it!
One place where you would have thought I might find some respite or support is the TES staffroom forums but….. no. I found the same entrenched error, hotly defended, robustly, even arrogantly, asserted, and often backed up by references to irrelevant documents, websites or wrong advice. Here are a few:
ICT is now a core subject and subject as a result to SATS testing (although of course, SATS will shortly be abolished) and so if the school wants to keep its scores up, it will need to have the ICT result in there.
It's a core subject, it just hasn't got an examined SAT. You will see in your schools PANDA that it is reported alongside English, Maths and Science. That's my understanding anyway.
Call it what you want but ICT is a core subject, this has been confirmed to me by the se area Strategist.
English, Maths and science are core subjects. This means they are an necessary part of the curriculum. They are assessed, with results reported.
Page 8 of "Secondary National Strategy for school improvement 2005–06" (Ref: 1651-2005 DCL-EN) states:"Middle leaders in schools have a powerful influence on classroom practice and are gatekeepers to change and development. They are well placed to ensure that teachers draw on and use the Strategy to address the learning needs of their pupils. Termly development meetings for subject leaders in the core subjects (English, mathematics, science and ICT), and behaviour and attendance leaders, will provide a forum for local work, updating on national developments and sharing good practice.
It already is a core subject at both key stage 3 and key stage 4 - it is just that in some schools SMT appear not to know or do not want to know!
ICT is core at KS3 in our school but not at KS4
I asked this question of my LEA advisor and this seems to clarify the point rather well:At KS3 ICT is a core subject from 2008 when the test starts. At present most schools treat it as core because there are separate targets for ICT at the end of the KS as there are for Eng, Maths and Science.
I immediately went to check my copy of the National Curriculum 2000 and there, sure enough, was the proof, page 16. ‘Stupid woman’ thought I and gave the matter little more heed. Until a few months later, when I had the same discussion with an OFSTED inspector, a very experienced ex-HMI who commanded a great deal of respect in me but who said the same thing. She was however unable to tell me when it had been changed or by whom. It seemed it was one of those ‘givens’ everyone knew of but no-one knew why.
Outraged that the government had been tinkering with my curriculum area without telling me, I e-mailed OFSTED, BECTA (I think), the DFES, NC online and the QCA asking when and how the status of ICT had been changed. Reply came there none, despite re-sending all the mails. When my head told me it was a core subject I was finally certain it couldn’t possibly be.
A stand-up ding-dong with our LEA adviser followed a few weeks later when we met over a different matter and I raised the subject. He agreed that he couldn’t actually quote me chapter and verse on when or how the change was made but he was sure it had. He got back to me a week later trying to ‘explain the confusion’ (not his confusion, of course) but I had actually worked it out a while before.
The confusion had arisen because of the introduction of the Literacy Strategy in the late 90's. OFSTED announced that during the first year of its introduction, when schools would be struggling to embed the new way of teaching literacy, their teams would exercise greater flexibility (now called a lighter or softer touch) in their inspections of the Foundation subjects but would maintain full rigour for the Core subjects and ICT. Somehow these then remained inextricably linked in the minds of many highly paid people. In the ensuing years references to the core subjects and ICT just dropped the last 2 words and were understood to include ICT. When the lead inspector at our last OFSTED referred to ICT as “extended core” I nearly burst out laughing, my head looked daggers at me, I nearly burst out laughing all over again but the moment passed.
Whenever I have challenged an assertion that ICT is a core subject over the last 5 years I have run into brick walls of incredulity and misplaced certainty. What I find truly horrifying is that I, an ordinary primary classroom teacher, have had to correct people who train and inspect teachers and are paid twice as much as me for it!
One place where you would have thought I might find some respite or support is the TES staffroom forums but….. no. I found the same entrenched error, hotly defended, robustly, even arrogantly, asserted, and often backed up by references to irrelevant documents, websites or wrong advice. Here are a few:
ICT is now a core subject and subject as a result to SATS testing (although of course, SATS will shortly be abolished) and so if the school wants to keep its scores up, it will need to have the ICT result in there.
It's a core subject, it just hasn't got an examined SAT. You will see in your schools PANDA that it is reported alongside English, Maths and Science. That's my understanding anyway.
Call it what you want but ICT is a core subject, this has been confirmed to me by the se area Strategist.
English, Maths and science are core subjects. This means they are an necessary part of the curriculum. They are assessed, with results reported.
Page 8 of "Secondary National Strategy for school improvement 2005–06" (Ref: 1651-2005 DCL-EN) states:"Middle leaders in schools have a powerful influence on classroom practice and are gatekeepers to change and development. They are well placed to ensure that teachers draw on and use the Strategy to address the learning needs of their pupils. Termly development meetings for subject leaders in the core subjects (English, mathematics, science and ICT), and behaviour and attendance leaders, will provide a forum for local work, updating on national developments and sharing good practice.
It already is a core subject at both key stage 3 and key stage 4 - it is just that in some schools SMT appear not to know or do not want to know!
ICT is core at KS3 in our school but not at KS4
I asked this question of my LEA advisor and this seems to clarify the point rather well:At KS3 ICT is a core subject from 2008 when the test starts. At present most schools treat it as core because there are separate targets for ICT at the end of the KS as there are for Eng, Maths and Science.
It has been a Core Subject for about 3 - 4 years.
ICTs status as a core subject has also been confirmed by our LEA ICT advisors
This fits in with our OFSTED (Feb 2006). When the lead inspector asked to meet with the subject leaders of the core subjects, he included ICT in that.
The definitions of core and foundation were first published in the early days of the National Curriculum then repeated in Curriculum 2000.
ICT was then, and is still, a foundation subject:
http://www.nc.uk.net/nc_resources/html/ks1and2.shtml.
http://www.nc.uk.net/nc_resources/html/ks3and4.shtml
It will take an act of parliament or the use of a statutory instrument to change it. Many schools may treat ICT as a core subject in their timetabling and staff structure (TLR payments for coordinating ICT in some schools are the same as for core subjects for instance) but this does not affect its status as a National Curriculum subject.
I tried one more time to get an answer from the DFES (after at least 6 years!), this time asking only what the status of ICT is. The reply:
Dear ……
Thank you for your email of 15 February asking for clarification of whether ICT is a foundation subject or a core subject.
I can confirm that ICT is a foundation subject and statutory throughout all key stages of the National Curriculum.
Once again thank you for writing.
Regards
…….. Public Communications Unit
Case closed. On the question of whether it should be made a core subject however .......
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Little Dogs and Little Fleas
It is alarming how bullying has become deeply embedded in our education system. The target culture promotes bullying in many ways. As targets are passed down the bully’s railway, they are translated into new, smaller targets. Targets are set by those above you and are aimed at what you do to the people below you.
Government formulates policy and targets then proceeds to bully Local Authorities into implementing them, using financial pressure and their own dedicated attack dogs from OfSTED.
The LAs then bully heads into implementing the policy or targets using administrative or personal pressure. Heads know which side their bread is buttered when it comes to funding opportunities and career advancement, as well as lovely invites to conferences in far-away places. They also know that LAs can get rid of any head they take a dislike to: a really good audit, in depth interviews with staff, a nod to the attack dogs can unleash an Armageddon onto a head which only the strongest could withstand.
Heads naturally bully staff as they are the galley slaves, the ones who actually do the work of generating the statistics by which the policies’ and targets’ success will be judged. Teachers are regularly given unrealistic targets and additional workload which serve no useful purpose for the children we are meant to educate, they contribute only to the façade of a school being successful or value for money. The spectre of OFSTED is again very useful in enforcing compliance without question.
The staff have to bully the children, they have no choice, except perhaps to resign. We bully our pupils into fitting moulds, raising achievement in areas which are not in their interest nor interest them. They are fed half-lies about how important their SATs results are, we know full well that they only reflect on the school and, in particularly badly-managed establishments, the teacher; bullies always lie.
And at the bottom of the pile? Well, children have always been quite likely to bully each other, the lowliest victim beats himself up.
Government formulates policy and targets then proceeds to bully Local Authorities into implementing them, using financial pressure and their own dedicated attack dogs from OfSTED.
The LAs then bully heads into implementing the policy or targets using administrative or personal pressure. Heads know which side their bread is buttered when it comes to funding opportunities and career advancement, as well as lovely invites to conferences in far-away places. They also know that LAs can get rid of any head they take a dislike to: a really good audit, in depth interviews with staff, a nod to the attack dogs can unleash an Armageddon onto a head which only the strongest could withstand.
Heads naturally bully staff as they are the galley slaves, the ones who actually do the work of generating the statistics by which the policies’ and targets’ success will be judged. Teachers are regularly given unrealistic targets and additional workload which serve no useful purpose for the children we are meant to educate, they contribute only to the façade of a school being successful or value for money. The spectre of OFSTED is again very useful in enforcing compliance without question.
The staff have to bully the children, they have no choice, except perhaps to resign. We bully our pupils into fitting moulds, raising achievement in areas which are not in their interest nor interest them. They are fed half-lies about how important their SATs results are, we know full well that they only reflect on the school and, in particularly badly-managed establishments, the teacher; bullies always lie.
And at the bottom of the pile? Well, children have always been quite likely to bully each other, the lowliest victim beats himself up.
Monday, 4 June 2007
Being Well
A few years ago a school I know got involved in a project to improve the 'wellbeing' of staff. It was announced, with some fanfare, that they would participate in a project devised by a consultancy which involved identifying key areas for improvement and developing an action plan with the school. There were testimonials from other Local Authorities as to the efficacy of this initiative. 2 colleagues were trained, 2 staff meetings given over to passing on the fruits of that training, all leading to the entire staff having to complete an online, supposedly anonymous, questionnaire with questions about how they felt about and within the school, with a large section on management. By lying about such things as age, sex, number of years experience etc anonymity was indeed preserved. The completed questionnaires were then analysed by the company which had sold this tosh to the LA – I have no doubt that their motives were pure.
When the analysis came back, accompanied by a couple of suits to explain it to SMT, the results were truly awful, despite being couched in the most sickeningly positive consultant-speak. Management were shocked to discover the low esteem in which they were held, the lack of team spirit and respect for decision makers, the almost universal sense of unfairness, abandonment and thinly disguised chaos. Communication with and between staff was highlighted as a major problem area. The result? after hundreds of hours and thousands of pounds worth of teacher time? the school ended up with a foil covered shoe box, marked ‘suggestions’ in the staff room. It was removed after a week because of the vicious and anatomically threatening nature of the suggestions inserted into it. The shiny new policy, sweated over for minutes by a time-server on SMT, the action plan and indeed the whole project were quietly forgotten about, never mentioned again.
Moral: Ask the wrong questions and you will always get the wrong answers, create the wrong ethos and all your outcomes will be wrong, even if they look right in light of the targets you are working to.
When the analysis came back, accompanied by a couple of suits to explain it to SMT, the results were truly awful, despite being couched in the most sickeningly positive consultant-speak. Management were shocked to discover the low esteem in which they were held, the lack of team spirit and respect for decision makers, the almost universal sense of unfairness, abandonment and thinly disguised chaos. Communication with and between staff was highlighted as a major problem area. The result? after hundreds of hours and thousands of pounds worth of teacher time? the school ended up with a foil covered shoe box, marked ‘suggestions’ in the staff room. It was removed after a week because of the vicious and anatomically threatening nature of the suggestions inserted into it. The shiny new policy, sweated over for minutes by a time-server on SMT, the action plan and indeed the whole project were quietly forgotten about, never mentioned again.
Moral: Ask the wrong questions and you will always get the wrong answers, create the wrong ethos and all your outcomes will be wrong, even if they look right in light of the targets you are working to.
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
Nodding Dog Syndrome
Does this picture seem familiar to you?
A large room is full of primary teachers released from their classrooms, at great expense and to the relief of many, although a few have been ‘sent’ because they are ‘looking after’ *****cy as the last coordinator left and no appointment was made. Pads are unflipped, notebooks opened, a couple of PDAs are prodded into life. Large piles of paper are arranged in neat piles around the room.
A frighteningly young looking adviser who was a good classroom teacher for a couple of years brings the room to order and fires up a PowerPoint presentation. The PPT betrays all the hallmarks of government work: a dash of colour and a logo decorate each slide, bullet-pointed text begins to appear in an endless stream of edubabble, accompanied by a stylised commentary, punctuated by smiles. A story emerges of concerns raised by teachers (no-one asks who), achievement, standards, delivery, empowerment, objectives ….. on and on. Vague references are made to research findings no-one has heard of or known anyone involved in.
There is a pause for questions, there are none. As the presenter gains eye-contact with participants and attempts to discuss the significance of what has just been presented, the little nods begin to appear from various heads around the room – not the shy ones: heads bent down, still writing copious notes. Not the small group of crusties at the back, who are still cracking whispered jokes to each other about how awful this all is. But in various parts of the room, individuals are half-smiling or making a serious face at the presenter, all the while making little nods of the head, just like one of those little dashboard doggies I have never had in any of my cars (why were they ALWAYS brown?)
What do those little nods indicate? Is it agreement tending to approval? very doubtful, you would have to really understand and believe the basis for this presentation, have faith that there was an identification of need, a widespread consultation, expert data collection and analysis, endless meetings of top educationalists to agree a new approach. I am convinced they are a sign of submission, equivalent to a dog rolling over to have its tummy tickled, they indicate that the nodder will continue to sit there and listen, making notes but not questioning the basis for anything they hear or analysing any views put forward. The presenter continues, reassured by the number of nods.
Video clips are shown in which neat ranks of children respond enthusiastically and with skill beyond the experience of most in the room to whatever *****cy activity is on display. No-one points out that none of the children is being sick or acting up, playtime arguments have all been settled, no child has brought their stickers or cards in, the children with emotional or behavioural problems are engaged elsewhere, it does not rain, the equipment is all in place and it all works, there are no interruptions to the teacher’s highly scripted flow, there are adult helpers working with groups all over the place, the teacher is able to work uninterrupted with a small, serious group. The video glides silkily to an end. Not a murmur of protest is heard (except from the crusties, who are giggling), no-one questions the authenticity or relevance to their own setting of what they have just seen. Participants nod in proportion to how impressed they think they are supposed to be with what they have just witnessed.
More slides follow, more bullet points. The efficacy, efficiency, necessity and miraculous educative effect of the new strategy, initiative, resource, tool or pack is re-affirmed. The nods increase, notes are scribbled, more frantically now as the listeners begin to perceive that they will most likely have to lead a staff meeting on this stuff they have been nodding along to. They’ve not really taken it all in, much of it is alien because the problems highlighted were not the problems they know at their school, the solutions seemed fanciful but worth a nod, you wouldn’t want to be seen to be swimming against the stream, would you?
Then the training pack/tool/website/CD is introduced. The crusties groan. A collective sigh of relief is perceptible in the non-audible range from the nodders as they realise they will simply have to run a DVD (mental notes are made that they will have to skip huge chunks as their staff will laugh at them) then run a cut-down PPT, reading each bullet point aloud and handing out hardcopy with all the text on them and with space for notes which will never, ever see the light of day again. The presenter begins to relax, no-one asked any of the how, why, who questions a couple of people on the consultants course had raised and the trainer was unable to answer convincingly. Only another 15 cohorts of teachers to go!
As the session runs down, there is more nodding, more acquiescence, the participants are exhorted to carry this new message of hope, a clarion call to action, back to their schools and galvanise their colleagues into new ways of teaching. Packs are handed out, evaluation sheets full of platitudes and half-lies are filled in and everyone goes home early. A few linger in the room or the car park expressing how valuable or important the session was.
A few weeks later, back at school, the *****cy person runs their training session in a mainly silent staffroom, reading out a similar script to the one they were subjected to. Now and then a few colleagues pipe up with questions or comments about time, resources, the effort involved in re-jigging everything set up in the last few years but alternatives are not mentioned, opposition is silenced, but not by more powerful pedagogic arguments. It is firmly explained that this is the way it is going in *****cy and that OFSTED will be looking for this new strategy, initiative, resource or tool to be in place and in use. The implied question hangs in the air: what if the school ended up failing an inspection as a result of your inability to change??
A few of the staff nod….
A large room is full of primary teachers released from their classrooms, at great expense and to the relief of many, although a few have been ‘sent’ because they are ‘looking after’ *****cy as the last coordinator left and no appointment was made. Pads are unflipped, notebooks opened, a couple of PDAs are prodded into life. Large piles of paper are arranged in neat piles around the room.
A frighteningly young looking adviser who was a good classroom teacher for a couple of years brings the room to order and fires up a PowerPoint presentation. The PPT betrays all the hallmarks of government work: a dash of colour and a logo decorate each slide, bullet-pointed text begins to appear in an endless stream of edubabble, accompanied by a stylised commentary, punctuated by smiles. A story emerges of concerns raised by teachers (no-one asks who), achievement, standards, delivery, empowerment, objectives ….. on and on. Vague references are made to research findings no-one has heard of or known anyone involved in.
There is a pause for questions, there are none. As the presenter gains eye-contact with participants and attempts to discuss the significance of what has just been presented, the little nods begin to appear from various heads around the room – not the shy ones: heads bent down, still writing copious notes. Not the small group of crusties at the back, who are still cracking whispered jokes to each other about how awful this all is. But in various parts of the room, individuals are half-smiling or making a serious face at the presenter, all the while making little nods of the head, just like one of those little dashboard doggies I have never had in any of my cars (why were they ALWAYS brown?)
What do those little nods indicate? Is it agreement tending to approval? very doubtful, you would have to really understand and believe the basis for this presentation, have faith that there was an identification of need, a widespread consultation, expert data collection and analysis, endless meetings of top educationalists to agree a new approach. I am convinced they are a sign of submission, equivalent to a dog rolling over to have its tummy tickled, they indicate that the nodder will continue to sit there and listen, making notes but not questioning the basis for anything they hear or analysing any views put forward. The presenter continues, reassured by the number of nods.
Video clips are shown in which neat ranks of children respond enthusiastically and with skill beyond the experience of most in the room to whatever *****cy activity is on display. No-one points out that none of the children is being sick or acting up, playtime arguments have all been settled, no child has brought their stickers or cards in, the children with emotional or behavioural problems are engaged elsewhere, it does not rain, the equipment is all in place and it all works, there are no interruptions to the teacher’s highly scripted flow, there are adult helpers working with groups all over the place, the teacher is able to work uninterrupted with a small, serious group. The video glides silkily to an end. Not a murmur of protest is heard (except from the crusties, who are giggling), no-one questions the authenticity or relevance to their own setting of what they have just seen. Participants nod in proportion to how impressed they think they are supposed to be with what they have just witnessed.
More slides follow, more bullet points. The efficacy, efficiency, necessity and miraculous educative effect of the new strategy, initiative, resource, tool or pack is re-affirmed. The nods increase, notes are scribbled, more frantically now as the listeners begin to perceive that they will most likely have to lead a staff meeting on this stuff they have been nodding along to. They’ve not really taken it all in, much of it is alien because the problems highlighted were not the problems they know at their school, the solutions seemed fanciful but worth a nod, you wouldn’t want to be seen to be swimming against the stream, would you?
Then the training pack/tool/website/CD is introduced. The crusties groan. A collective sigh of relief is perceptible in the non-audible range from the nodders as they realise they will simply have to run a DVD (mental notes are made that they will have to skip huge chunks as their staff will laugh at them) then run a cut-down PPT, reading each bullet point aloud and handing out hardcopy with all the text on them and with space for notes which will never, ever see the light of day again. The presenter begins to relax, no-one asked any of the how, why, who questions a couple of people on the consultants course had raised and the trainer was unable to answer convincingly. Only another 15 cohorts of teachers to go!
As the session runs down, there is more nodding, more acquiescence, the participants are exhorted to carry this new message of hope, a clarion call to action, back to their schools and galvanise their colleagues into new ways of teaching. Packs are handed out, evaluation sheets full of platitudes and half-lies are filled in and everyone goes home early. A few linger in the room or the car park expressing how valuable or important the session was.
A few weeks later, back at school, the *****cy person runs their training session in a mainly silent staffroom, reading out a similar script to the one they were subjected to. Now and then a few colleagues pipe up with questions or comments about time, resources, the effort involved in re-jigging everything set up in the last few years but alternatives are not mentioned, opposition is silenced, but not by more powerful pedagogic arguments. It is firmly explained that this is the way it is going in *****cy and that OFSTED will be looking for this new strategy, initiative, resource or tool to be in place and in use. The implied question hangs in the air: what if the school ended up failing an inspection as a result of your inability to change??
A few of the staff nod….
Monday, 7 May 2007
The IT Magician
The magician (shaman, priest, witch doctor, ‘holy person’, IT coordinator) traditionally holds power over his flock through their belief in his ability to influence the seen and unseen worlds (hardware, software including OS). I refer to the magician as male but this is merely for brevity, only a few die-hards exclude women from their beliefs nowadays.
When a member of the flock needs help they call on the magician to offer advice or even a spell. The magician engages in inscrutable rituals and incantations to affect either the seen or unseen world, the majority of the flock care not what any of it means, they just want their cow to give milk, their wife to bring forth sons, their Word table to stay on one page of the document. Magician wannabes will peer over their shoulder trying to gain entry to the unseen world (password) or scribbling down the spells in the hope that they will be able to repeat them. They won’t.
The magician never says I can’t do that, only it can’t be done. There is a natural order to things (permissions, security settings) which can not be disturbed (edited).
The rituals, spells and incantations are based on ancient manuscripts in strange languages (manuals, help files), experience (Windows 3.1), exotic vocabulary derived from ancient cultures (dos, ASP) and magician’s covens (edugeek et al). When they don’t work the failure is usually blamed on an outside force such as powerful spells cast by another malevolent wizard (virus), an all-powerful demon intent on evil (hacker), neglect by the victim (have you installed AV, defragged, cleared your cookies, used P2P, not switched to Firefox?). Other belief systems are openly, often viciously, derided (Linux, Acorn) or at best tolerated as having some merit but not being quite right for all occasions (Mac). There are frequent wars and deep, lingering resentments on all sides.
The magician has noticed that sometimes he can actually change things, even bring them back to life (re-boot) and endlessly seeks to ensure that rituals are carried out in exactly the right way, in the right order, with the right emphases, accompanied by the correct chants similarly ordered. Occasionally he will shake bones or hang bunches of animal bits and/or vegetation over the prostrate body of a victim (running utilities, resetting profiles, virus scans). In some cases a sacrifice is called for to appease the gods (reformat, reinstall). Whenever something works he will try to repeat the process, without any idea as to why it worked or why things went wrong in the first place but he will explain it to the innocent in terms of energy flow, Chi, grace, higher purpose, appeasement (power surge, stability, Service Pack, malware etc). This is because the Creator (known to initiates simply as Bill) works in mysterious ways, his purpo$e$ are unknown but if we fail to honour him we shall be cast out (blue screen of death, black for the purgatory awaiting those who may yet be ‘safe’).
There are pretenders - PC world assistants, ‘my brother’s mate who built his own PC’, the dreaded ‘partner who works in IT’- who claim to know of the rituals but can actually wreak havoc dabbling with things they don’t really understand.
The magician is not necessarily a charlatan, although he is usually badly dressed.
When a member of the flock needs help they call on the magician to offer advice or even a spell. The magician engages in inscrutable rituals and incantations to affect either the seen or unseen world, the majority of the flock care not what any of it means, they just want their cow to give milk, their wife to bring forth sons, their Word table to stay on one page of the document. Magician wannabes will peer over their shoulder trying to gain entry to the unseen world (password) or scribbling down the spells in the hope that they will be able to repeat them. They won’t.
The magician never says I can’t do that, only it can’t be done. There is a natural order to things (permissions, security settings) which can not be disturbed (edited).
The rituals, spells and incantations are based on ancient manuscripts in strange languages (manuals, help files), experience (Windows 3.1), exotic vocabulary derived from ancient cultures (dos, ASP) and magician’s covens (edugeek et al). When they don’t work the failure is usually blamed on an outside force such as powerful spells cast by another malevolent wizard (virus), an all-powerful demon intent on evil (hacker), neglect by the victim (have you installed AV, defragged, cleared your cookies, used P2P, not switched to Firefox?). Other belief systems are openly, often viciously, derided (Linux, Acorn) or at best tolerated as having some merit but not being quite right for all occasions (Mac). There are frequent wars and deep, lingering resentments on all sides.
The magician has noticed that sometimes he can actually change things, even bring them back to life (re-boot) and endlessly seeks to ensure that rituals are carried out in exactly the right way, in the right order, with the right emphases, accompanied by the correct chants similarly ordered. Occasionally he will shake bones or hang bunches of animal bits and/or vegetation over the prostrate body of a victim (running utilities, resetting profiles, virus scans). In some cases a sacrifice is called for to appease the gods (reformat, reinstall). Whenever something works he will try to repeat the process, without any idea as to why it worked or why things went wrong in the first place but he will explain it to the innocent in terms of energy flow, Chi, grace, higher purpose, appeasement (power surge, stability, Service Pack, malware etc). This is because the Creator (known to initiates simply as Bill) works in mysterious ways, his purpo$e$ are unknown but if we fail to honour him we shall be cast out (blue screen of death, black for the purgatory awaiting those who may yet be ‘safe’).
There are pretenders - PC world assistants, ‘my brother’s mate who built his own PC’, the dreaded ‘partner who works in IT’- who claim to know of the rituals but can actually wreak havoc dabbling with things they don’t really understand.
The magician is not necessarily a charlatan, although he is usually badly dressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)