This article was originally published on the Taccle AI web site.

There’s a lot to think about in the ongoing debacle over exam results in the UK. A quick update for those who have not been following the story. Examinations for young people, including the O level and A level academic exams and the more vocationally oriented Btec were cancelled this year due to the Covid19 pandemic. Instead teachers were asked to firstly provide an estimated grade for each student in each subject and secondly to rank order the students in their school.

These results were sent to a government central agency, the Office of Qualifications known as Ofqual. But instead of awarding qualifications to students based on the teachers’ predicted grades, it was decided by Ofqual, seemingly in consultation or more probably under pressure, by the government to use an algorithm to calculate grades. This was basically based on the previous results achieved by the school in each subject, with adjustments made for small class cohorts and according to the rankings.

The results from the A levels were released last week. They showed massive irregularities at an individual level with some students seemingly downgraded from predicted A* *the highest grade, to a C or D. Analysis also showed that those students from expensive private schools tended to do better than expected, whilst students from public sector schools in working class areas did proportionately worse than predicted. In other words, the algorithm was biased.

As soon as the A level results were announced there were protest from teachers, schools and students. Yet the government stuck to its position, saying there would be no changes. The Prime Minister Boris Johnson said “Let’s be in no doubt about it, the exam results wed have got today are robust, they’re good, they’re dependable for employers”. However, concern quickly grew about the potential of numerous appeals and indeed at the time it would take teachers preparing such appeals. Meanwhile the Scottish government (which is autonomous in education policy) announced that they would revert of the teachers’ predicted grades. In England while the government stood firm demonstrations by school students broke out in most cities. By the weekend it was clear that something had to change and on Monday the UK government, responsible for exams in England and Wales, announced that they too would respect teacher predicted grades.

The political fallout goes on. The government is trying to shift the blame to Ofqual, despite clear evidence that they knew what was happening.  Meanwhile some of the universities who are reliant on the grades for the decision over who to offer places to, are massively oversubscribed as a result of the upgrades.

So, what does this mean for the use of AI in education. One answer maybe that there needs to be careful thinking about how data is collected and used. As one newspaper columnist put it as the weekend “Shit in, shit out”. Essentially the data used was from the exam results of students at a collective school level in previous years. This has little or no relevance as to how an individual student might perform this year. In fact, the algorithm was designed with the purpose not of awarding an appropriate grade for a student to reflect their learning and work, but to prevent what is known as grade inflation. Grade inflation is increasing numbers of students getting higher grades each year. The government sees this as a major problem.

But this in turn has sparked off a major debate, with suspicions that the government does in fact support a bias in results, aiming to empower the elite to attend university with the rest heading for a second class vocational education and training provision. It has also been pointed out that the Prime Ministers senior advisor, Dominic Cummings, has in the past written articles appearing to suggest that upper class students are more inherently intelligent than those from the working class.

The algorithm, although blunt in terms of impact, merely replicated processes that have been followed for many years (and certainly preceding big data). Many years ago, I worked as a project officer for the Wales Joint Education Committee (WJEC). The WJEC was the examination board for Wales. At that time there were quite a number of recognized examination boards, although since then the number has been reduced by mergers. I was good friends with a senior manager in the exam board. And he told me that every year, about a week before the results were announced, each exam board shared their results, including the number of students to be awarded each grade. The results were then adjusted to fit the figures that the boards had agreed to award in that year.

And this gets to the heart of the problems with the UK assessment system. Of course, one issue is the ridiculous importance placed on formal examinations. But it also reflects the approach to assessment. Basically, there are three assessment systems. Criteria based assessment means that any students achieving a set criterion are awarded accordingly. Ipsative based assessment, assesses achievement based on the individuals own previous performance. But in the case of UK national exams the system followed is norm referenced, which means that a norm is set for passing and for grading. This is fundamentally unfair, in that if the cohort for one year is high achieving the norm will be raised to ensure that the numbers achieving any particular grade meet the desired target. The algorithm applied by Ofqual weas essentially designed to ensure results complied with the norm, regardless of individual attainment. It has always been done this way, the difference this year was the blatant crudeness of the system.

So, there is a silver lining, despite the stress and distress caused for thousands of students. At last there is a focus on how the examination system works, or rather does not. And there is a focus on the class-based bias of the system which has always been there. However, it would be a shame if the experience prevents people from looking at the potential of AI, not for rigging examination results, but for supporting the introduction of formative assessment or students to support their learning.

If you are interested in understanding more about how the AI based algorithm worked there is an excellent analysis by Tom Haines in his blog post ‘A levels: the Model is not the Student‘.

Last December, the Youth Department of the Council of Europe organised a seminar on Artificial Intelligence and its Impact on Young People. The aim of the seminar was to explore the issues, role and possible contributions of the youth sector in an effort to ensure that AI is responsibly used in democratic societies and that young people have a say about matters that concern their present and future. The seminar looked, among other things, into three dimensions of AI”

• AI and democratic youth participation (including young people’s trust/interest in democracy)
• AI and young people’s access to rights (including social rights)
• AI and youth policy and youth work

According to the report of the seminar, the programme enabled the participants to put together their experience and knowledge in proposing answers to the following questions:

• What are the impacts of on young people and how can young people benefit from it?
• How can the youth sector make use of the capacities of to enhance the potential of youth work and youth policy provisions for the benefit of young people?
• How to inform and “educate” young people about the potential benefits and risks of AI, notably in relation to young people’s human rights and democratic participation and the need to involve all young people in the process?
• How does AI influence young people’s access to rights?
• What should the youth sector of the Council of Europe, through the use of its various instruments and partners, do about AI in the future?

Not only is there a written report of the seminar but also an excellent illustrated report. Sadly it is not in a format that  can be embedded, but  it is well worth going to the Council of Europe’s web page on AI and scrolling to the bottom to see the report.

geralt (CC0), Pixabay

That education policy in the UK is confused is nothing new, neither given the rapid turnover in education ministers is it surprising. But the latest turn, although rhetorical at the moment, is both strange and worrying.

In the last two weeks both the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and the Education Minister Michelle Donelan have criticised the quality and relevance of university courses. Johnson talked about “low-value courses” in his major set-piece speech on economic recovery post-Covid-19 while Donelan said that too many students “have been misled by the expansion of popular sounding courses” with what she described as poor standards and “no real demand from the labour market”.

Clearly most of this rhetoric is ideological. Johnson is talking about more funding for Further Education Colleges, which have been starved of funding through the period of austerity. However, it is being suggested that one motive may be that university cities tend to vote Labour, but in many of the towns in which the Conservatives won new seats in the election last November, there are not universities but are Further Education colleges.

To justify the talk of low value and poor quality courses the government produce various data as evidence. There are different surveys looking at issues related to satisfaction and student outcomes. The first is the student satisfaction survey conducted in every university. Although comprehensive it is doubtful that this survey has much greater validity than the happy sheets I used to hand out at the end of staff development workshops. Universities go to great lengths to make sure students are happy, through various gimmicks and social events.

The Graduate outcomes for all subjects by university (LEO) survey is undertaken by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). It surveys the employment and earnings of higher education graduates using matched data from different government departments. It is interesting that the ONS describes the survey ads “experimental.”

Although interesting the sheer number of variables impacting on graduate earnings after finishing at university render the findings meaningless when compared to subject sample sizes. After Donelan’s speech, former universities minister Jo Johnson tweeted salary data is about as useful a guide to course quality as an MP’s majority.

Of course, one of the “experimental” findings is that students undertaking STEM subjects have higher earnings that those doing humanities and arts. And the strong suspicion it is humanities and arts courses that Johnson and Donelan are firing at.

Many would probably argue that earnings are not the best proxy for judging course quality in any case. But it is interesting that the Graduate Outcomes survey, through a series of reflective questions. found that graduates of creative arts courses are more likely to be using skills learned during their course in employment than their peers who studied maths, biology, or physics.

MichaelGaida (CC0), Pixabay

I attended an excellent webinar on Thursday from the UK Centre for Cities. The webinar, presented by Elena Begini and entitled ‘How will the recession affect different parts of the country?’, provided an analysis of the latest labour market data, both around the numbers unemployed and those furloughed and receiving government funding.

Elena explained that in the first month between March and April there was very rapid increase in the numbers employed and furloughed but of the main impact Covid 19 crisis was on those cities with weaker economies mostly in the north of England

Between April and May the increase in unemployment was slower. But in this month, it was the stronger city economies in the south of England that were hard hit. London and Basildon both joined the 20 hardest hit cities in terms of unemployment COVID 19 has spread out across most cities. Interestingly those cities hardest hit by unemployment are also those with the most furloughed workers. To a certain extent this depends on whether jobs in a city are able to be undertaken from home. In Wales Cardiff and Swansea have relatively lower rates of both unemployment and furloughed staff whilst in Newport the rates are higher, presumably reflecting a higher percentage of office worker in Cardiff and Swansea while a higher percentage of industrial enterprises in Newport.

These broad trends are also reflected in the percentage of self-employed workers who have applied for government assistance.

Type of employment is important. Crawley and Reading are both major and previously relatively economically strong cities close to London. But while Reading has (only!) 25 percent of jobs hit by the recession, Crawley has 38 per cent reflecting the importance of the aerospace industry (and particularly Gatwick airport) to the city.

It also should be noted that all cities have fast rising unemployment of young people although once more there is wide variation, for instance very high rates in northern cities and relatively low rates in Oxford and Cambridge.

One of the strengths of the Centre for Cities is that they not only analyze the data but put forward policy measures o respond to the research. Elena suggests the scale of the recession means there is an urgent need for active intervention. Austerity is not an option.

But because of the different trajectories in different cities the policy response needs to be differentiated.

For those cities which are relatively strong economically, there is the potential for a quick “bounce back”. This requires enhanced career support both for those seeking jobs for which they are already qualified or for employment in jobs with similar skill requirements.  Secondly there is the need for grants for those seeking retraining or upskilling (and also courses are needed to support this). For places with weaker economies the priority is job creation with a particular focus on the green economy and on infrastructure development.

I have written this from my notes taken during the webinar so apologies for anything I have missed or for misreporting. A recording of the webinar is available for the Centre for Cities web site together with the data and their analysis.

Last year I evaluated the ICT in education projects and programmes for UNESCO. In particular I looked at UNESCOs work in sub Saharan Africa. In a ‘Landscape Review’ of the use of ICT in education I wrote:

“UNESCO has a humanistic vision of education and of the role of ICT in education linked to its mission of providing inclusive and quality education that is transforming lives and at the heart of UNESCO’s mission to build peace, eradicate poverty and drive sustainable development.

UNESCO believes that education is a human right (so it cannot be a market good) for all throughout life and that access must be matched by quality. It has a mandate to cover all aspects and all levels of education and to lead and contribute to the Global Education 2030 Agenda through Sustainable Development Goal 4. UNESCO believes information and communication technology (ICT) can complement, enrich and transform education for the better. As the lead United Nations Organization for education, UNESCO shares knowledge about the many ways technology can facilitate universal access to education, bridge learning divides, support the development of teachers, enhance the quality and relevance of learning, strengthen inclusion, and improve education administration and governance.”

I am very pleased to see UNECO is opening up a global discussion on the futures of education.

UNESCO is now inviting organisations and networks to mobilize their stakeholders and partners to engage in the global debate on the futures of education and provide inputs to the International Commission on the Futures of Education.

They have prepared guidelines for running stakeholder focus groups so that a broad range of unique perspectives can be brought into the global discussion.  The insights gained through focus group discussions, they say, will be synthesized by UNESCO and presented to the International Commission as an input into the development of a global report on the futures of education.

UNESCO is also inviting its partners and organizations broadly interested in the futures of education to organize seminars or work groups that result in a written report  for the UNESCO International Commission on the Futures of Education.  Input is sought on identifying and addressing key challenges and opportunities foreseen for the future.

More informati0n at https://en.unesco.org/futuresofeducation/how-contribute

I guess it is no secret that Pontydysgu staff are not great fans of Brexit. Given that much of our work is undertaken in partnership with organisations from across Europe, Brexit is a threat to our future. That is one reason we have set up Pontydysgu SL, a Spanish registered SME.

Anyway – to get to the point – people have been asking what will happen to Erasmus Plus projects in the event that the UK leaves the EU -with or without a deal. This is the latest UK government position:

Under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK would continue to take part in current EU programmes, including Erasmus+, for the duration of the transition period. Any participation beyond this would be a matter for upcoming negotiations on our future relationship with the EU. While the regulations for future EU programmes are still in the process of being developed, the Political Declaration envisages the possibility of UK participation in EU programmes like Erasmus+ and the negotiation of general terms of participation.

In the event that the UK leaves the EU with no agreement in place, the Government’s guarantee will cover the payment of awards to UK applicants for all successful Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps bids submitted before the end of 2020. This means UK Erasmus+ students already abroad will be able to complete their study placements.

It is far from ideal but better than nothing.

We have long known that educational outcomes are heavily influenced by social class. But little has been done to try to understand how social class affects learning. In that respect the article by Lien Pham on ‘How socioeconomic background makes a difference in education outcomes‘ is very welcome.

Pham notes that although “PISA publishes its PISA context assessment framework to supplement its regular international PISA testing of reading, maths and science”, ” these are just snapshots rather than an analysis of the impact of students’ background characteristics on their participation in these processes, or whether the educational system, schooling processes and classroom practices may favour certain groups over others” and “they do not help to shed light on how and why some students perform better than others.”

Pham says “In order to truly understand what is happening with inequality I believe we have to recognise the implicit social relationships and social structures in the schooling processes that position students in different vantage points.”

Pham goes on to look at what PISA says about students’ family backgrounds, student ethnicity and polices to improve educational inequality, adding his own comments and analysis. His overall conclusion is that reducing inequality neds more than just access to economic resources

We need to deeply understand students’ “real” opportunities within our systems of education. I believe we need to look more closely at what students can reasonably do (or not do) with those resources given their backgrounds and situations.

Resources are important, but just because a school has a wide variety of resources doesn’t mean all of its students will benefit from those equally.

I am arguing that policy attention to improve educational inequality should place student agency and diversity at the forefront, rather than focussing on resources with the assumption that all students will be able to access them in similar ways with similar outcomes.

You can read more in his paper: Capital and capabilities in education: Re-examining Australia’s 2015 PISA performance and context assessment framework

During the last few weeks – after getting my computer problems sorted out – I have tried to catch up with my duties for our ongoing EU-funded TACCLE4-CPD project. As I have told in my blogs last year, this project is looking at concepts and models for promoting continuing professional development (CPD) of teachers and trainers with emphasis on digital competences. The project builds upon a series of TACCLE projects that worked with classroom teachers. Now, the challenge is to develop CPD models for wider use – including also adult education (AE) and vocational education and training (VET). In particular the extension of the scope to the field of VET provides a challenge since this brings into picture different governance models, different training providers and different learning venues.

In the light of the above I have written a document with the heading “Policy analyses as background for continuing professional development of teachers and trainers in the field of vocational education and training (VET)”.  Here I share a summary of my interim conclusions:

“This document was started with an overview of educational governance and steering models in the field of vocational education and training (VET). After a rough overview a closer look was taken on the specific features of federal governance and dual system of organizing VET in Germany. As we have seen, the picture of policies promoting digital competences has remained somewhat patchwork-like.

The third section has given a closer picture of local educational and VET contexts as well as of recent R&D projects. These descriptions have given an understanding on the state of the art and of pioneering initiatives. Also these descriptions have given a picture of a patchy landscape of local developments. From this perspective it is worthwhile to ask, what kind of role integrative frameworks can play and how they can be shaped.

The European “DigCompEdu” framework was presented in the fourt section. It differs clearly from European Qualification Framework (EQF) or European Frameworks for Credit Transfer (ECTS and ECVET) or from  European Quality Assurance mechanisms. This framework is not paving the way to intergovernmental agreements with signatory states. Instead, it provides practical assistance for linking digital tools and enhancement of digital competences to different learning contexts.

However, from the perspective of the VET sector, the DigCompEdu framework remains very generic. Yet, in this sector, there are very specific challenges for promoting digital competences. Therefore, the framework study of the project Berufsbildung 4.0 starts with a useful differentiation between ‘digitisation’ (at operative level) and ‘digital transformation’ (at the level of whole organisations and networked production/service processes). Taking into account both levels the project is looking for development perspectives for future-oriented VET provisions. From these starting points the project has worked with several theses and feedback workshops and synthesised the results in transversal themes and analyses that focus on different levels or educational steering and change management.

Altogether, the above-presented sections provide very heterogeneous impulses for anyone, who wants to grasp the essence of policy processes and their impact on policy implementation in the field of VET. Yet, the impulses, insights into field and explorations on framework documents or framework studies need to be considered when taking further steps in shaping continuing professional development of teachers and trainers. For this purpose the next working document is looking more closely at developments in the previous TACCLE projects and in the parallel project Learning Layers. Both projects have a history in developing training for teachers and trainers. Now it is time to put these developments into a wider European picture.”

These were my interim conclusions from the ‘policy analyses’ with which I tried to provide a background understanding for discussing the theme ‘promoting digital competences’ in the field of VET. This takes me further to the next document with which I have been working recently – but that is already a topic of its own.

More blogs to come …

PS: If someone wants to read the full document, I can send it via e-mail or share a link to Google Drive folder. PK

Last week I spoke at a meeting – Circular Economy Competences Making the Case for Lifelong Learning – at the European Parliament in Brussels. The meeting was hosted by MEP Silvia Costa and organised by ACR+ as part of the Erasmus+ CYCLE project, brought together key actors working on incorporating circular economy competences in education and lifelong learning. Pontydysgu are partners in the project and I introduced briefly what we are doing.

The press release below gives a good summary of the event. But the main lesson for me was that there are a lot of people doing practical things (and policy initiatives) around the circular economy. And there are a lot of people in the education sector (not least of all students) wanting to do things around the environment and climate change.

The problem is that for some reason there is not a lot of communication going on between the two communities. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has produced some excellent and there have been a number of MOOCs, hosted mainly by Dutch and French organisations. But a lot of the learning materials available are focused on particular technical areas, rather than looking at the Circular Economy as a whole.

The CYCLE project is a start – aiming to develop an online competence centre for learning materials. But in reality the project is really too small when compared to what is needed.

I think the next step should be to attempt to develop a European Special Interest Group (SIG) on the circular economy and Education. Anyone interested?

Press Release

Brussels, Belgium. The event “Circular Economy Competences Making the Case for Lifelong Learning”, hosted on 19 February at the European Parliament by MEP Silvia Costa and organised by ACR+ in the framework of the Erasmus+ CYCLE project, brought together key actors working on incorporating circular economy competences in education and lifelong learning.

The fully booked event was opened by MEP Silvia Costa, who stressed the importance of mainstreaming circular thinking in lifelong learning policies. The MEP also reported on the dialogue between the Parliament and the European Commission aimed at introducing recitals on climate change and sustainable development goals in the text of the next Erasmus+ 2021/2027 programme. Afterwards, Callum Blackburn from Zero Waste Scotland gave an introductory speech calling for international cooperation for circular economy education based on strategic partnerships that facilitate mutual learning.

The first thematic panel tackled the issue of circular thinking in education. Graham Atwell from Pontydysgu presented the e-learning platform that is currently being developed within the CYCLE project. The platform, which will be launched in May 2019, aims to collect training material on circular economy for adult educators. Sander Bos and Heleentje Swart from the Dutch Fryslan Region showed how governments and schools are already working together within the regional SPARK initiative to achieve a circular change in educational methods, practices and tools.

The second panel focused on how to upskill waste, repair and reuse industries. Fiona Craigintroduced the audience to the SWITCH Forum, a multi-partnership forum made up of organisations active across all the sub-sectors of resource management . The SWITCH Forum aims to support continuous improvement in education and training and in health and safety in this sector. Roberto Cerqueira from LIPOR presented the training programmes of the LIPOR Academy, which include circular economy as an area of knowledge.

The speakers of the last panel discussed the evolution of the labour market related to the circular economy and the skills that will be increasingly required for circular jobs. Lorenzo Barucca from Legambiente presented the key outcomes of a study carried out together with the University of Padova, about the main connections between innovative industries (Industry 4.0) and circular economy. Joke Dufourmont from Circle Economy presented the mapping of core and enabling circular jobs in the city of Amsterdam, reflecting on the technical and transversal competencies that underlie them.

The slides of the presentations made at the event are available on the ACR+ website.

In reply to a comment by Cristina Costa on the Social Theory Applied Facebook site, Randolph Presisinger Kleine wrote “I recommend to get in touch with Prof. Catherine A. Odora Hopper. She’s one of the most influential thinkers in Africa. Some years ago she founded an African think tank, whose mission is to build a African paradigm, that shall overcome the shortcomings and pitfalls in Western social theory.” Randolph pointed to this video. It goes a long way to explaining my unease around strategies for overcoming teacher shortages in Sub Saharan Africa through the se of Technology Enhanced Learning. Nothing wring with that per se but are we just transporting knowledge paradigms not only from the rich countries, but from the tech industry in those countries?