Tristram Hunt: if it looks like a duck...

Downton Abbey meets Labour Party policy. So Labour's education policies come down to demanding that private schools help us poor state folks with some private school noblesse oblige. The last thing state schools need is to be patronised by the private sector. Labour needs to be firm on scrapping their tax breaks and charity privileges. There is no evidence that private school teachers are better than in state schools. When I was a school governor that last thing we would have wanted was some private school types from Brighton College coming into our school to 'tell us how it's done'. Let's be clear here - we have NOTHING to learn from you.
After the Thornberry disaster, labour should be worried, very worried. It's not that their education policies are bad, they're downright dangerous. Hunt is remote, his policy ideas either anodyne or irrelevant. What's clear is that this continues in that grand old tradition among posh folk, that 'what was good for me in education' is damn well good for you. It is so obviously driven by his own private school experience. Like Miliband, he needs to go - now.
Earlier this year I gave a talk on 2500 years of learning theory, the good, the bad and the downright ugly. Tristram Hunt, the Labour shadow secretary of state for education was on after me in another room, so, given the impending 2015 election, I trotted off to see what the future holds.

Bad news folks. The future, if Labour win, in education, is anodyne. Tristram, who looked every inch the public schoolboy dressing down to appear like one of ‘us’, comes across as a bright and affable Oxbridge type, who is largely clueless when it comes to the real world. Son of a Blair created peer, he’s the product of that odd form of social mobility, the socialist who gives their son a posh sounding moniker and sends them off to private school. To be fair he hasn’t become a hideous freak, like Toby Young, but he may get power, which is worse. If asked what party this lad was in from this photo alone, what would you guess?

Gove Malt with a little water

He, like Gove and co, is besotted with OECD and PISA. His opening gambit was to parrot out the PISA results and worry about the looming 2018 tests. He’s already worried about falling off the leaning tower, before he’s even in power. Why? Because the next round of tests are bang in the middle of the next political term. Rather than present a real vision for education that tackles the ideological obsessions of the right, he simply buys into their vision and adds a little water to their expensive and elitist, single, malt whisky.

You’ve been quangoed

His next pronouncement was even worse. He wants to fund a ‘Royal College of Teaching’. Just as we’ve recovered from the implosion of the General Teaching Council, he wants to do that old Labour trick of quangoing a problem. This is a sop to teachers but it we’ve seen it all before. These quangos come and go. They are overfunded, badly managed, populated by previous quango-types and largely ineffective. They now have a half life of maybe 3-4 years. It’s like bonfire night. We spend all that time building a huge tower of babel, then rightly see it as a pile of rubbish and burn it down.

A little less

On vocational learning he will continue with the madness of forcing GCSE Maths down the throats of everyone right up to the age of 18, even for students who want to take a more vocational route in life. How do I know this? I asked him. He refuses to consider a separate functional maths qualification and has no real ideas on the hollowed out vocational heart of our educational system, the real reason for our low international, economic performance. The US is still the world’s most vibrant economy and they perform even worse than us in PISA.

Conclusion

I’ve been a lifelong Labour member and supporter. But there comes a time when you no longer recognise the values of a party, you drift apart. I have nothing in common with the current homogeneous crop of Oxbridge think-tank clones, who have little experience of the real word and little contact with the people they profess to protect. Tristram, Miliband and co look like ducks and if they look like…… They float across the surface, quacking away, in their neat little first suits, their little feet furiously paddling beneath but they are bereft of ideas, policies and even charisma. I had heard from others that Tristram was a Gove-light and this was confirmed yesterday, with a charming little speech that played to the gallery of teachers (tossing them a quango) but in reality was continuing with the policies Gove has introduced, just watered down a little and delivered with with a little less scorn.

10 Corbyn education policies that actually make good sense

I’m no Corbyn fan but his BIG idea in education (NES) is way beyond the pale, insipid Tristram Hunt policies that typified the last Labour leadership's educational policy. I was highly critical of Hunt's approach. Actually, it wasn’t a policy at all. They decided to keep the issue off the political canvas, as they largely agreed with the Conservatives. No difference, don’t mention it. Thankfully the hapless Hunt has resigned. But what does our Jeremy really promise in education? He outlined his ideas here but I've speculated a little, based on past pronouncements and alliances.

1. National Education Service

In his acceptance speech he thanked the "Socialist Education Association". Their ideas have informed his policy. It was they who want to  ‘develop a single, broad and inclusive framework for the curriculum from early years to adult education’. The emphasis on a universal (comprehensive) system, with equality of opportunity at its heart, is exactly what this organisation recommends.
So what is the National Education Service? Corbyn equates it with the National Health Service - free at the point of delivery. So far, so good. This is a fine idea. The world of learning is like the separate horizontal layers of an old, stale cake. Pre-school, primary, secondary, sixth form, FE, HE, adult learning. Yet individual learners go on a vertical journey and have to smash through each of these horizontal layers in turn, often failing, getting disillusioned and the net result is a system where nobody’s happy – learners, teachers or parents. We need to see learning as a lifelong experience, like health.
It may also align education with health in another fashion, with a focus on evidence-based teaching and learning. We have long compared education with medicine, showing that one has advanced while the other has remained largely static in terms of both delivery and outcomes. Here's an opportunity to take the research and professionalisation agenda seriously. The problem he faces is that teachers want professionalisation but then go all woozy when it comes to professional standards and a research and evidence-based approach to teaching and learning. You want to be like the NHS, then make the whole thing student-centred, in the same way that health is patient-centred.
The NES needs to be fleshed out. How will it be funded, run and organised? He has to reconcile his belief that Local Authorities should build and run schools v a NES. You can do what is currently done with the NHS - directly funded by Government, lots of control, appoint a CEO, free at point of delivery but with professional bodies, such as NICE, recommending and publishing guidelines (Ben Goldacre has written smartly about the need for a NICE model in education). A second model is the BBC-type model, where you set up a separate Trust, at arms-length from Government. This is unlikely as control is what they want and probably need, to get things done. A third model is a highly devolved model back to Local Authorities but this is dangerous as many could be hostile. Unfortunately, that's the chosen model, bringing all free schools and academies under local authority or Mayoral control.
But remember also, that it is not possible to have a ‘National’ Education Service. What he means is an 'English' Education Service. Scotland, Wales and NI, long disgusted by the political shenanigans in England, have long gone. Nevertheless there may be room for more alignment, as this is the model they sort of have elsewhere.

2. More vocational

It also unifies the funding. I’m in favour of unifying educational funding as it oils the wheels for more rational decisions, especially the balance between academic and vocational. HE has had its own way for too long. It’s bloated and over-funded. We need to rebalance HE with a stronger approach to vocational. Curiously, Corbyn is more aligned with the Conservatives and their 3 million apprenticeship promise at the last election. But his view of apprenticeships is not one of being employer-led. It would be accredited by FE (that's weird) and employers. This is a bit fuzzy but there is a clear need for a properly defined and funded apprenticeship system, which to be fair, the Conservatives have structured through a levy. It has cross-party appeal.  The good news is that he really does value ‘skills’ and wants to stop the deep erosion of FE and the adult skills budgets. It's anti-Blairite and it's right. One sad footnote - he wants to pay the minimum wage to apprentices - this is not necessary. To create a viable system we neeed to recognise that overloading it with costs is unwise.

3. Scrapping University fees

He wants to scrap fees but also reintroduce grants. This is par for the socialist course but it has consequences, not least the subsidising of the rich by the poor. The majority of young people do NOT go to University and there's growing evidence that the Blair policy didn't work as it crushed alternatives to the expensive HE path. Yet this is the only Corbyn policy that gets any attention in education, as the middle class have sharper elbows - that's a distorted shame.

4. Online education?

He’s a fan of the Open University, saw it as a socialist triumph, and talks about it fondly and explicitly as a great Labour achievement. Good on him. I agree, and hope that he will expand on this online approach to education. Tom Watson's a digitally sophisticated politician and really does get this stuff.

5. Get rid of charitable status for private schools?

Keiza Dugdale, Corbyn’s emissary in Scotland, has hung her hat on this policy in education and I’m sure Corbyn agrees and will attempt to do this south of the border. This is long overdue. The Conservatives and, unfortunately, the hapless Tristram Hunt, was in thrall to this elitist system. It's unlikely they will call for its abolition but we do have to see them as the businesses they are and recognise that they are a major force in creating inequality.
6. Scrap Grammar Schools and 11+
He want to scrap all Grammar Schools and the 11+. Indeed, this was romoured to be the cause of his divorce. This has long been a stupid anomaly in England and causes no end of chest beating in the Conservative Party. David Willets, one of the smartest people in the Conservative government, was sidelined and eventually sacked, just because he held this belief, so it is not a mad, loony-left policy but a mainstream belief. Good policy, let's get it done.
7. Fewer tests
Fewer tests! Thanks God. This taps into the widespread view among teachers and parents that this has got out of control. However, the hard-left have a habit of sticking with centralised state-control in education , so don't hold your breath. The SNP, north of the border have just introduced another raft of testing.
8. No league tables for schools
Yipee. Again this taps into the zeitgeist about education being a right, not a competitive market. We don;t have league tables for hospitals, nether should we for schools. Education is far too important to turn into a competitive sports spectacle.

9. Single examination boards?

My guess is that he’d also unify examination boards, A Gove idea but a good one nevertheless. It’s what they have in Scotland and makes a NES that much easier to implement. the current boards can barely handle the quality control necessary for an efficient system and every year we have unanswerable or stupid question items. Schools also cherry-pick (on what basis I wonder?).

10. Corporation tax

On costs he wants to add 2% to corporation tax. This is reasonable, and matches the ‘levy’ the Conservatives want to load on to employers for apprenticeships. In many ways this is easier to implement and redistributes profits into training. The problem here is that this raises only £3 billion. This nowhere near covers what Corbyn is proposing. So, as usual, the policies are not costed.
Ministers
One worry I have is that, in education, Corbyn has a pretty dismal personal record. He was pampered through fee-paying prep and boarding schools but only got two E grades at A-level. (You get an E for turning up.). He then dropped out of his University course for disagreeing with his tutors. Wow. 
Also, Lucy Powell, appointed Shadow Education post, is an apparatchik politician - school, Oxford, party HQ, assistant jobs, MP. Far from stellar, she's a bit of a Labour clone. On the upside Angela Eagle, who should have this portfolio, is a formidable and capable politician. BIS has always been badly run with lacklustre civil servants. It needs a shake-up.

Conclusion

At least it’s a bold idea, roughly in line with what many want. But to pull this off you have to centralise funding agencies (a good idea) and save costs. Yet, the idea also brings in its wake the usual quango-building. Corbyn is unlikely to go for a merger approach, so we’ll likely end up with a profusion of bodies with a large administrative centre. That’s worrying. Bureaucracy may be its downfall. One last point. Why is almost everyone in education ignoring these policies, other than student fees? Is the teaching profession sweeping actual policies and reforms under hte carpet with a focus on the one polocy that affects their kids - University fees? A conundrum.

Nicky Morgan – sheep in sheep’s clothing

The truth is out. Nicky Morgan, who became Secretary of State for Education only as a result of a Cameron/Gove spat, is a sheep in sheep’s clothing. Don’t take my word for it. Anthony Seldon, a Gove acolyte was scathing about her in The Times, claiming she knew nothing about schools and was quite disinterested in the portfolio, unlikely to make any mark and be gone after the election. And that’s from a man who is the progenitor of her ridiculous ‘Character Education’ initiative. Who needs enemies….

Sure, she didn’t ask for the job, isn’t really interested in the job but why pass over Liz Truss, who at least has some experience? Morgan has, by default, been given the image of the cleaner who came in after Gove to clean up the gallons of blood let on the floor and calm everyone down after he tried to dismantle the education system and replace it with rapacious Academy chains and a diet of Latin. Nevertheless, Ministers need to make their mark and her mark is notably absent. Her first conference speech was a hollow affair. Education policies, especially the pupil premium linked to school meals but also curriculum reforms and free school funding is a shambles. Her poor grasp of maths has let to the 'bell-curve' ridicule. She continues to underperform looking more and more like a rabbit stuck in the headlights. She’s a name, a cipher, not a leader.

Minister for straight women

Not a great pedigree, I’d say for someone with the Women and Equalities portfolio but, astonishingly, she voted against same-sex marriage. Then, oh what a surprise, she had a Damascene conversion.  This showed more than a touch of duplicity. It showed a career politician who puts progress above principles. Don’t be fooled, this is a politician on the make. Beneath the dull exterior lies an old-fashioned, Christian moralist. Politicians who do U-turns of convenience are NOT to be trusted.

Poor at maths

The hapless Morgan has form on poor maths. She got into trouble for making, what was more than a schoolgirl error, on presented figures to Parliament, claiming that a third of all kids under the Labour Government had left school unable to read or write. This was wrong-headed nonsense. The head of the UK Statistic Authority had to come came out and publicly place a dunces hat on her head, something they never usually do to a Minister. She was clearly in over her head, as she confused Levels and failed to grasp what the actual statistics really meant.

This FAIL in maths should come as some embarrassment to the Minister who claimed that pupils should focus more on maths and sciences, not the humanities. If only her PPE bosses has taken her advice. In December, she was also caught out by a 10 year old who asked her, on Sky News (see here), a basic GCSE question, ‘What is the cube root of 125?’. She refused to answer – twice. Maybe she needs to do some of that rote learning she's loves so much? The times tables farrago was her low point. Policies based on whim, another sign of a lack of intellectual depth.

Character education

But if there is one thing that has marked her out as different, it’s ‘Character education’, an old, long-discredited idea that has no evidence to support it, other than the views of public school types whose education policy comes down to ‘if only everyone were like us’. For Morgan, this seems to come from her Christian background, For ‘character’ education read ‘moral’ education. If character is exemplified by Gove & Morgan, then I’d march up to the school and demand that my kids exercise the right to not attend the classes. For a more detailed analysis of this issue see ‘Character Education– an assassination’.

Nicky & Tristram

She grew up in Surbiton - surely the only duller sounding name in the UK is Slough? Public school, Oxford – became a lawyer, every bit the professional politician we’ve come to see as careerist and disengaged from voters. To be fair, she did get one thing right, describing Tristram Hunt as ‘vacuous’. In fact, she’s not that different from her Labour shadow, Tristram Hunt, who is cut from the same sheep-wool cloth, devoid of any true understanding, ideas or feel for the job.

Last word….

If I seem to have been harsh here, it’s because I despise this public-school driven drivel, that sees state education as dysfunctional and public schools as models of perfection. This chapter in education policy needs to be brought to a close. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that the voters in England continue to to play out their role in Downton Abbey, happy to be subjected to the whims of toffs. This, in effect, makes education, unreformable. 

Character education stays 'in character' poorly researched, conservative nonsense

When a politician such as Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Morgan, Hunt or Hinds talk about ‘character’, my heart sinks. It’s like Jimmy Saville taking a line on sex education – he’s an expert of sorts, just the wrong sort.
In a rather pathetic attempt to build 'character' the Education Secretary has create a 'passport' where you get stamps for going on a treasure hunt, visiting a local landmark or walking along a nature trail.  Three years ago the Department of Education announced funding and awards (£5 million) for the teaching of ‘character’ in schools, when, of course nothing really happened. I thought I had seen it all when it comes to education’s obsession with ‘C’ words – creativity, collaboration, community, contructivism, coding etc. but this is a ‘cracker’. The tendency for education to take an abstract noun (usually a C-word) then, not by providing evidence or research, but simply repeating it ad nauseam, with some half-baked scheme, is now a well established practice.

What is Character?

Well, according to the DfE, it is; perseverance, resilience, grit, confidence, optimism, motivation, drive, ambition, neighbourliness, community spirit, tolerance, respect, honesty, integrity, dignity, conscientiousness, curiosity and focus. One mighty sentence that only a saint or Greek hero could satisfy, so wide a set of qualities that you may as well just say – let’s teach ‘human nature’. There is no common agreement, certainly no evidence-based research, to define, never mind show, what character education should be. The very foundation of character education fails at this first hurdle – the definition of ‘character’. It's everything therefore it's nothing. 
What lies, barely beneath the surface, are the poking out bones of moral and religious instruction. Whenever you hear the word ‘character’ think of these other ‘c’ words - compliant, conventional, conformist. It’s barely disguised moral education. Let’s explore this further. In the UK there seems to have been two different origins for this current bandwagon, one theoretical, the other political. The two feed off each other.

Character and theory

There’s usually a villain and in this case it’s Kohlberg (arguably Piaget). Now I’ve been critical about Piaget elsewhere, and the bottom line is that none of his research and findings has survived scrutiny. So let’s look at his ‘moral equivalent’ Kohlberg. His six stages of moral development were highly influential and teachers were encouraged to use teaching tactics appropriate to these stages. Subsequent research showed that the stages were wrong, so wrong that the very idea of the Kohlberg framework had to be seriously adjusted. However, the adjustments proved so extreme that the framework had to be abandoned in favour of other possible approaches, especially the work of Elliot Turiel who saw that the development process was also massively fuelled by social convention. There was an amusing interlude when Carol Gillighan took a huge gender swipe at Kohlberg in her book "In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development" (1982). She made the reasonable point that his research had only involved males and that Kohlberg was simply reinforcing stereotypical male character traits. She had a point but simply replaced Kohlberg with another set of character traits around a morality of care. It had all gone to pot. Since then, the work of Judith Harris has really put this stuff to bed, as peer-pressure rose to the surface as a primary driver, something the school environment, unfotunately, does all too well, and often badly.

Character and politics

My own view is that the deep, political roots of character education really lie in conservative worries about cultural and moral decline. Every older generation has its views that the world is going to the dogs (or mongrels) and that we must bring back some golden age of high character (usually theirs) to tame this new, feral, non-conformist generation.

In the US the character education movement is often pushed by conservative and religious sources that see the creep of liberal values as equivalent to moral decline. The religious lobby, in particular, has been successful in pushing this agenda. The most recent Federal example was G. W. Bush, who saw it as the sun in the centre of his education reform, and at the state level, it is often an ever-present lobby force with evolutionary theory always in its gun sights.

In the UK we have an entirely different, and hugely influential, stream of thought that comes originally from Thomas Arnold and the public school system. Let’s call it the ‘playing fields of Eton’ complex, but anyone who has experience in the UK system knows exactly what this is. With a hugely disproportionate number of politicians and civil servants coming from a public-school background, this tradition is stronger in the UK than almost any other comparable nation. There is constant pressure to see the state system as dysfunctional and if we could only take some of the magic dust from the private schools and scatter it down upon the teachers in the state system, all would be well. With its all too casual attitude towards pederasty, lack of experience in dealing with students with serious social issues, its filtering out of SEN students and relatively well-funded context, I’m not convinced that teachers in the state system have anything to learn from this tiny layer of elitism, that all too obviously produces condescending politicians with character and values at odds with the population. Astonishingly, this view was also been adopted by Tristram Hunt, a past Shadow Education Minister for the Labour Party, himself public school educated. See more here.

Character as a subject

The DfE talks of “the teaching of character as a separate subject”. Really? There is no evidence for this at all. In fact there is plenty of evidence to show that this has no effect whatsoever. The teaching of character and values, if they can be ‘taught’ at all, is a bold claim.

Let’s start with the big one, certainly the one with the biggest title, ‘Efficacy of Schoolwide Programs to Promote Social and Character Development and Reduce Problem Behavior in Elementary School Children’ a report from the Social and Character Development Research Program (2010). It looked at seven SACD programs and 20 student and school outcomes, all on social and character development and concluded that school-based character education programs produce no measurable improvements in student behaviour or academic performance. This was an astonishing result from a large and well designed piece of research. In fact there are no peer-reviewed studies that support the idea that character teaching has a positive, measurable effect.

Character and curriculum

The DfE also talk about integration into the curriculum and wider aspects of a school. But what makes education think that teachers either have more character or know enough about character or have the slightest idea about how it is taught? Are teachers really any more equipped than parents or anyone else in terms of its possession and the ability to pass it on? It is not a criticism of teachers to say - I think not.

Character and extra-curricular

If we’re talking about extra-curricular activities, such as sport and music and outward facing activities, such as community work and volunteering, and the DfE does, then, in my experience, schools are weak on this and that the more recent trend, in Scotland for example, of having ‘Activity co-ordinators’ with links out to professional sports clubs and other organisations is the way to go. This means you have continuity across the long holiday periods and a sustainable path when they leave school. Both of my sons have had high-level sports and musical careers that orginated outside of school and carried on long after they left school. If character development is to be found, there is a strong argument for saying it is more likely to be found outside of the school walls.

Character as conformity

Character and conformity are easily confused. Far from shaping ‘character’ in schools, we should be doing the opposite and encouraging students to question these norms and become autonomous learners, able to distinguish between moral inculcation, based on assumed social norms, from more open tolerant approaches to education. It is by no means clear that the character traits of teachers is the right model or that teachers know what character traits are and how to teach them. Education should be opening young minds up not closing them down. One man's character trait is another man's nightmare - and I use the word 'man' deliberately here.

Character and schools

Character education has been a feature of many totalitarian, religious and repressive systems, as character is moulded to match particular ideologies. In the US this is often a route for conservative, religious education. In China, the Confucian system, strongly character driven, pushes students towards a highly conformist, non-critical form of rote learning. In Islamic states a strictly conformist and literal form of the Koran is used to shape character. Private schools with a narrow socio-economic group is likely to promote character in terms of that group's values. In truth, unless a school system is truly secular (and arguably even then) character education tends to reflect the cultural norms of that school. In the UK, with the rise of faith schools, this has already caused considerable problems.

Conclusion
Politicians love to meddle in educational practice, in a way they would never in say, medical practice. That’s because they think of themselves as ideals and whatever ‘they’ experienced in education must be good for the rest of us. This explains their obvious disengagement from the voters and blindness when it comes to judgments on the role of character in education, even the world at large. Let’s put this rather odd ‘C-word’ back where it came from, in the files marked ‘bad theory’, ‘old-school thinking’ and ‘political conceit’.

Jeff Haywood: stunning analysis of the future of online in HE (MOOCs etc)

When it comes to online learning, the University of Edinburgh, has become the most active and interesting HE institution in the UK. This is something of a surprise, after its disastrous performance in student surveys on teaching, perhaps even, a response to this problem. They do, however, have one great advantage, Jeff Haywood, who has led the charge towards the sort of experimentation and strategic, economic thinking that put the rest to shame.

Haywood keeps an eye on the data emerging from online activity in HE and points towards a steady rise in its use and acceptance by students and faculty (one third have taught an online class, 71% used OER). He points towards an increasing portion of younger people taking MOOCs with a rise towards 1 in 5 students taking online courses. There is a growing recognition that online may even be as good, if not, at times, better that the traditional campus course

.

Students not staff

In his recent ALT talk, Haywood gave a masterful talk on how to think strategically about online learning in HE. I have written about their bold move with six Coursera MOOCs, along with their excellent publication of the resulting data. This is only one strand of a strategy that looks towards 2025. It is a strategy that takes the business case, the economics, seriously.

Where he is way ahead of most commentators in he is that 90% of the tech is used by students not staff. The focus on staff is, to his mind a bit myopic and a bit of an EU obsession. This movement is “student oriented rather than institution oriented”.

MOOCs

“Love or hate them MOOCs have forced open a debate at policy level on digital education”.  Spot on. David Willetts, with Martin Bean, took the bull by the horns and kick started Futurelearn. There is no doubt that this action has stimulated both debate and action in HE. Unfortunately, he has been sacked, and there is no sign that the Shadow Minister for Education Tristram Hunt, is anywhere near as interested.

Unlike many in academe, Haywood speaks with authority based on real and substantial experience, with substantial data, when he makes the important statement that MOOCs “touch learners much more than you might think”. As an aside he also mentions that it has forced Universities to up their game on marketing. We have learnt he says, that “courses can be run at surprisingly large scale” and that “charismatic teachers can reach learners”. Accelerated innovation has also been seen with “a range of technological innovations doing things at scale – peer assessment, comparative judgement online etc.”.

Scale

One word matters above all in this analysis “scale”. Haywood is right to place it at the centre of his analysis. Sure we know that faculty have low digital skills and that there are low rewards for teaching but we must get to scale and move beyond the “bijou and niche”

Where Edinburgh and Haywood have the intellectual upper hand is in their honest appraisal of the economic implications of online learning. In my view the majority of academics are stuck in an analysis that focuses only on quality, ignoring the real issue of cost. Seb Schmoller and others have been arguing for some time, with estimated figures for cost per student, that online, while it may not match the quality, is so much cheaper, that even a weak result makes it worthwhile. I’d argue that the quality issue is fast disappearing, with degree delivery by the likes of IDI. His vision looks to on demand, self-paced, location flexible, relevant to your future, global & local, personalised, affordable, value-added learning; “Without technology this is undoable”.

Walks the walk

At national and international level, policy level discussion is needed with a road map that has clear steps over the next ten years to 2025. This is also true within your institution. If not planned it will not happen. Without investment it will not happen. Without agility it will not happen. This is why “MOOCs and the children of MOOCs are so important”. But that’s just a fraction of the story.  Edinburgh’s MOOCs have racked up huge numbers, with 800k learners on 15 MOOCs and another 15 in the pipeline. Edinburgh has 30k students on campus but also with 50 odd fully online Masters Degrees. (2500 students). It’s a mixed strategy.

Vision by 2020

By 2020 they want 40k students with “all students taking one full online course” and all faculty and teaching staff will have some experience of teaching online. They have the ambition to try to reach 10s of millions of learners through increased online Masters degrees, OER and MOOCs. The means to the end is a series of real funded experiments and pilots, which are all potentially scalable.

Haywood is optimistic and thinks that he is swimming with the tide. The technology has matured, interest risen among learners and policy discussions are far more outcome oriented. One wit in the audience thought that CAVE dwellers (Colleagues Against Virtually Everything), were his biggest problem. Haywood thought that MOOCs had been useful in that those Universities that had taken this leap have found that MOOCs encourage faculty to come forward, as they know they will get support. He added that employers are clearly interested in MOOCs. In Scotland SMEs are interested. For Haywood this is about “opening up the boundaries of space and time – as campus education is limited on both”. He sees nothing wrong with pro bono working education with the secondary aim of recruiting students and charged services coming through.

Diana Laurrilard made a point she often makes and it is pertinent, that Universities have never really understood the cost of teaching. This is true, they don’t even know what is being delivered and to whom. Unfortunately, she has been on the warpath against MOOCs, but only on a straw man basis. She doesn’t believe that MOOCs will entirely replace current HE model. That’s fine, neither do most MOOC providers, including Haywood. Haywood’s response to her question on quality was entirely right. Sure, the tough part is supporting and nurturing students through their personal intellectual development but the answer may be in the middle way. We know that lectures can easily scale so what about the varying degrees of personalised support (something grossly exaggerated in HE). He thinks that technology is already providing solutions, allowing portions of courses to be run on their own, without tutor intervention. Haywood is keen to use intelligent technology at the kind of numbers we run on our MOOCs. He, unlike Laurrilardian sceptics, know a good deal more about the technology, such as adaptive learning, and rightly look for economies of scale, before making rash announcements.

Leaps

The sort of leaps he sees in technology, that allow you to step back and let parts of course run on scale are being looked at, especially in their expanding masters programme. First, there’s online assessment, the Achilles’s heel in HE. The lecture model completely negates sensible formative assessment and the long-form essay, with slow, and often amateurish feedback, seems incredibly dated.

Adaptive learning

He is spot on in looking at learning analytics, especially adaptive learning, for scaling right across the institutions. This is the one technology that already offers hope in tackling the hard to deliver ‘tutor’ functions, pushing courses towards competence-based learning, where learners get personalised learning delivered at their own pace. This is already happening in the US, with considerable investment by the Gates Foundation and a rack of other institutions. Haywood and Edinburgh are the first UK institution to pick up on this and take it seriously. He is being true to his word in retaining some small group pedagogy where you need it but always looking for economies of scale.

Conclusion

Information technology has been extremely consequential in HE over the last 25 years but principally in ‘output enhancing’ ways that do not show up in the usual measures of either productivity or cost per student. Stanford 2012 Tanner Lecture

This is a great quote and recognises that technology has enhanced what we do but the economic are rarely understood. Haywood wants to find ways to use technologies to increase the throughput of students, move through curriculum at their own speed, and automate some parts of the curriculum where you can scale. We need to address the question of increasing productivity without decline in quality. If not we’re just polishing the current system without addressing access on scale.

At last we have a University and academic who is sophisticated enough to think big, be thoroughly strategic, agile, consider the economies of scale with an impressive focus on productivity and costs. One of the great failures in HE planning is a serious attempt to consider actual costs, to be specific, as Lewin and Blefield recommend on detailed cost effectiveness analysis. He also has a vision of the future University, not just being more “open on the boundaries“ but more productive and efficient.