Education according to Jerome Bruner – A tribute

Jerome Bruner, one of the most influential writers of our times in the fields of psychology and education, died aged 100 on June 5 2016. In this piece, I share some thoughts on the proposed adoption of the Beijing way of teaching and learning mathematics by the UK government, and as an homage to Bruner, discuss the proposal in the light of some of the ideas and issues he raised about instruction in mathematics.

The issues and challenges raised by Bruner are as pertinent today as they were at the time he wrote them over half a century ago. The policy announcement by the UK government to move towards an East Asian system of teaching mathematics (maths) – Beijing maths – is yet another attempt at raising standards in maths in the UK. The question remains however: why has successive policies and initiatives not delivered the desired improvements? Why the need for constant policy amendments? Yes, there is undoubtedly the need to ‘do something’ as the situation hasn’t been improving at the rate required for the UK to catch up with the best countries.

Changing the curriculum in this manner, appears analogically as fitting every player in my local football team – Gillingham FC – with the football boots worn by Messi and Ronaldo in the expectation that will propel the team to the premiership and subsequently winning the Champions League. It certainly requires more than that! How disappointing for us Medway folk. Well, the quest to improve the standards in maths in our schools certainly fits into that category. Simply changing the curriculum and method of teaching may not be enough in my opinion. There is a whole raft of issues to consider for any new initiative to have the desired impact.

I am not altogether skeptical about the proposed change. I think it has the potential to transform the teaching and learning of maths in the UK. However, I think there are structural issues that need to be addressed in order to have optimum benefits otherwise the benefits may be reaped in the middle class, leafy parts of towns leaving those who need it the most, the poorer working class, in the lurch.

Bruner wrote one of his most popular books on education – Toward a Theory of Instruction (1966) raising some issues surrounding teaching and learning in maths – issues he raised that rings true today. In the book, he emphasised elements of learner-centred education including: stimulate curiosity, develop competence, build community. These elements are as crucial today as they were in the 60s when Bruner wrote about them. Spending millions of pounds in the quest to raise standards in maths by introducing East Asian methods of teaching may be inadequate because as argued by Bruner half a century ago, learning does not take place in a vacuum. There are prerequisite dispositions and conditions that must be in place for optimum learning to occur.

In ‘lifting’ a curriculum from one country to the other, this observation by Bruner must be noted:

“there are differing attitudes towards intellectual activity in different social classes, the two sexes, different age groups, and different ethnic groupings”.

Consequently, Bruner argues that instruction must concern itself with the issue of how best to utilize a given cultural pattern in achieving particular learning objectives. To wit, Bruner seems to be suggesting that simply lifting a curriculum and a pattern of instruction (teaching) from one culture to the other may not be ideal when implemented wholesale. The differences in cultural contexts matter, and must be taken into account. One would hope this observation from Bruner will be taken into account when Beijing maths is implemented in the UK.

An element Bruner wrote about is the need to stimulate curiosity in learners. Instruction, he opined, should not aim to get learners to keep results to mind; rather, it is to enable learners to participate in the process that makes it possible to establish knowledge. Curiosity is the joy of exploration that makes children want to learn. Children must be enthused by learning – specifically maths – in this case. Curiosity will drive children to constantly and continuously seek out learning opportunities in maths. The immediate goals of grades and passing of tests are relegated to the background and they study and practice out of a desire to learn more about the subject – to become better mathematicians.

The current drive towards tests and grades could be an impediment to development of academic curiosity. Learning in order to simply pass tests results in a ‘performance orientation’ that takes away the desire to acquire learning for its own sake – a mastery orientation. The motivation of the government in adopting the famous ‘Beijing maths’ seems to be driven (probably inadvertently) by a ‘performance’ mindset and orientation. Confucian culture is able to safeguard learners in East Asia from a strictly performance mindset. This is because learning to gain mastery is a cultural and social obligation; so is learning to pass tests. Therefore, the impact of test taking on the children will be different in individualist UK culture. The question I dare ask is: are the policy makers aware of these ramifications and if not, why not? I wonder because the announcements made so far sound vacuous and looked like the policy makers had an assumption that changing the curriculum was going to be a silver bullet and panacea for the UK’s slide down international league tables.

A more ideal orientation, in my opinion, would be to target the incidence of low aspiration in underperforming communities in the UK. Raising aspiration has a better prospect of raising academic curiosity and motivation of children in our schools. Schools must be required to provide evidence they are working to tackle low aspiration alongside introduction of the new maths curriculum. In the era of multi-chain academies who centralise their budgets, schools with children who qualify for pupil premium funding may end up losing out. Funds could be diverted into other projects not necessarily benefitting the neediest of their children.

Bruner also stated that instruction must develop and specify the ways in which a particular subject should be structured so that it can be most readily grasped by the learner. Furthermore, it must specify the most effective sequences in which to present material to be learned. This area is one where Beijing maths might have its utility. UK maths curriculum designers might benefit from studying the way Beijing maths is structured and adopt/adapt from that. It might help with the design of a maths curriculum with better sequence and progression that enables learners to develop a better grasp of the basics of mathematics and the subsequent development of the more complex concepts. There may also be the need to make pedagogical changes in line with changes in curriculum and structure of teaching and learning due to adoption of Beijing maths.

In conclusion, I must reiterate I haven’t got any misgivings about adoption of Beijing maths in UK schools in principle. I think it may have benefits including helping to get the right balance in the depth versus breadth quandary. It might also lead to positive shifts in pedagogy among others. However, care must be taken not to simply ‘lift’ Beijing maths and implement it in the UK without giving thought to culture, personnel, structure and social considerations that could influence outcomes as argued by Jerome Bruner. Bruner raised pertinent issues in teaching and learning of maths that are very relevant today and in the context of the ‘Beijing maths adoption’, that must be heeded if optimum results are to be achieved. Hats off to Bruner, the education luminary, visionary and theorist, for his insight and impact that still resonates today and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

source: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-06-09-1465440422-9411288-cmrubinworld_JeromeBrunerMontage500-thumb.jpg

Advertisements
Standard

The Hunt v Doctors Impasse: Analysing the dispute through ‘Fiedler’s Contingency Model’

The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has been embroiled in the dispute with Junior doctors for months on end with no immediate hope of resolution in sight. ‘When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets hurt’ goes a wise African saying. This saying captures the protagonists and the plight of the only losers in all this – the poor patients. The government is in dispute with the doctors and the patients suffer for it.

Truth is Jeremy Hunt has backed himself into a corner and so long as the doctors have the stomach to keep fighting, and doctors have the public on their side, Mr Hunt would be left with only one option – throw in the towel. Considering this impasse through the lens of the decades old contingency theory – Fiedler’s Contingency Model – might help Jeremy Hunt and the government understand their options and help them to find a quick way to end the dispute. I concede the model is outdated and have been criticised multiple times but I think it illustrates the situation and how the health secretary got it so wrong.

The model, (Figure 1), has three main contingencies that gives a good handle to model the scenario on.

Figure 1

fiedler model

Source: https://www.emaze.com/@AIRQOOTI/Contingency-Model

Starting with ‘Task Structure’, the first error the health secretary made was to lose sight of the fact that he was dealing with doctors. They are highly qualified, highly skilled, highly educated professionals with ultra-high task structure. One cannot deal with people such as these as one would labourers. It would be in the interest of any leader of a group of doctors to work extremely high to have a good Leader-Member relations. Jeremy Hunt lost sight of whom he was dealing with and created the situation of ‘poor relationship’ that limited the options at his disposal.

Looking at the model from the top row, starting with poor leader-member relations position the scenario in the right half. From that half, when the second row (from the top) is considered, it further positions the scenario in the ‘High’ task structure section. The next contingency to consider for a final placement is one of ‘position power’. The submission is that the health secretary has a Weak Position Power because the position of health secretary hasn’t got any measure of power over a formidable professional body such as the British Medical Association (BMA).

According to the model, that places the health secretary in Octant 5 (types of situation; bottom row). In that situation, the most effective leadership contingency is one of ‘relationship-motivation’. Mr Hunt can resolve the impasse if he works really hard to rebuild the relationship he had with the BMA and junior doctors. Acting like a ‘Task-Motivated Leader’, as he has been doing for months, and focusing on delivering the reforms (task), by force if necessary, would only end in failure unless the landscape changes – unless the doctors back down or public support for the junior doctors wane or disappears altogether.

The government has succeeded to a large extent in emasculating the teaching unions through ‘academisation’ and by being very stealthy with some of the reforms; even then, Nicky Morgan had to do a U-turn about forced academisation because of widespread uproar. They, Jeremy Hunt and the government, underestimated the resolve of the BMA and find themselves in this intractable situation. Another U-turn seems to be the only reasonable line of action for the time being at least.

Standard

The dismantling of a Profession – Aligning Teachers along McGregor’s Theory X

Talk to any number of teachers about their motivation to go into teaching and the overwhelming majority will give answers along the lines of:

Wanting to make a difference to lives, wanting to improve the opportunities and life chances of children, their love for working with children among others.

These are all noble reasons for joining the teaching profession and teachers have traditionally been respected by society for these reasons. There are several instances of individuals leaving higher paying, comfortable jobs to join the teaching profession because they wanted to make a difference to someone’s life.

However, recent developments and reforms by politicians have reduced teachers and the teaching profession to a state that I can only explain within the framework of ‘McGregor’s Theory X’. McGregor wrote this theory in the article: ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’ in the fifties and it seems some politicians got to read the paper and characterised teachers by it so have over the years been reforming the system aided by their Ofsted attack dogs to put the teaching profession in its place. Politicians set the rules, pass them to Ofsted (who have to follow them else they lose their status), who set upon headteachers and ensure they comply. Headteachers, due to the fear of Ofsted, then set upon their staff. In the meantime, politicians release statement upon statement announcing their plans to ‘free’ teachers to do their jobs because they are the professionals. It’s a situation akin to saying someone is free to use their initiative, yet have to conform to the rigid rules set for them.

I am not arguing in favour of accepting low standards or accepting the situation where several children are failed by the system when they leave school without the basic skills to contribute to society. Yes, when a teacher takes over a new class in September, for instance, there must be the expectation the learners must make significant progress by the end of the year. As someone whose life chances have been improved drastically by education (read my previous piece on social mobility), I agree teachers must be challenged to keep doing things better for their students.

My chagrin is with the seemingly default position of politicians and policy makers’ characterisation of teachers and the teaching profession within the framework of theory x workers.

Read the assertions about theory x labour below and the treatment of teachers in recent years might begin to make sense if that is how those politicians view teachers. It explains the pressures placed on headteachers to ‘monitor’ their teaching staff; it explains the statements made by the Michael Goves of this world; it explain performance related pay; it explains all those disempowering policies; it explains ‘academisation’ allowing them to set their own terms of employment, etc:

“1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise – money, materials, equipment, people – in the interest of economic ends.

  1. With respect to people, this is a process of directing their efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, modifying their behaviour to fit the needs of the organization.
  2. Without this active intervention by management, people would be passive – even resistant – to organizational needs. They must therefore be persuaded, rewarded, punished, controlled – their activities must be directed. This is management’s task – in managing subordinate managers or workers. We often sum it up by saying that management consists of getting things done through other people.

Behind this conventional theory there are several additional beliefs – less explicit, but widespread:

  1. The average man is by nature indolent – he works as little as possible.
  2. He lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility, prefers to be led.
  3. He is inherently self-centered, indifferent to organizational needs.
  4. He is by nature resistant to change.
  5. He is gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of the charlatan and the demagogue.”

Source: The Human Side of Enterprise by Douglas McGregor

Hence, policies have been implemented and enforced through Ofsted to ensure the ‘lazy, indolent uncaring’ teachers who only became teachers for the holidays, are kept on their toes. Their every step must be monitored; pay increase restricted; ensure the brightest and best graduates are recruited to stop the rot; set performance targets for them and penalise them if they don’t achieve them – even though there may be extenuating circumstances; etc.

I wonder how those high achieving countries politicians obsess about are able to do it without attacking the teaching profession. Surely, those politicians ought to consider how the Scandinavian countries and the South East Asian countries treat their teachers and realise constantly haranguing teachers could never be the solution. It seems very obvious to me but heck, I’m a teacher so what do I know; I’m not very bright, lack ambition, self-centred and resistant to change…

The consequences of this situation would last for at least a generation. Teachers are continually being deskilled. Teachers are being treated like unskilled factory workers. Many are wondering if this is the same profession they signed up for. There are pockets of hope where headteachers resist the ‘Ofsted panic’ and run their schools to achieve those high standards for their learners and carry their staff along with them. It is not all doom and gloom but it is getting gloomier and gloomier. I will discuss these consequences in my next piece so watch this space.

Standard

The Quest to Limit Aspiration in Working Class Children – Role of the Media.

One of the greatest challenges to the quest to raise attainment in our schools is the lack of aspiration in some children – particularly those from lower socio- economic groups. Educators and policy makers have continually initiated and implemented a myriad of projects and strategies to raise attainment including through tackling low aspiration. These initiatives have yielded mixed results probably because the root causes and perpetuating agents of low aspiration may be more complicated than is realised.

It is therefore important to consider the potential impact of popular media, particularly the section that is popular with people from the lower socio-economic group, in entrenching such low aspiration. This paper is drawn from my experience as a primary school teacher and my thoughts about how the media could potentially, yet unwittingly hamper all efforts at raising attainment through raising aspirations.

In the UK and probably in many other Western countries, there is a so called ‘poverty gap’ in academic performance of children – children from poorer areas perform worse than children from more affluent areas. That there is low aspiration among children in lower attaining schools is a recognised fact. For instance, Gorard, See and Davies, (2012) found an association between low aspiration and lower attainment.  Consequently, the raising of self-perceptions and aspirations have become a major focus in the UK and in 2004, the Government rolled out ‘Aimhigher’, a national programme operating at national, regional and area levels that incorporate a wide range of activities/courses aimed at increasing participation in higher education. One of the national objectives of Aimhigher is to “improve the attainment, aspirations, motivation and self-esteem of gifted and talented young people aged 14-19” (Aimhigher, 2007).

The government and education policy makers have attempted to address the issue of low aspiration in many ways but with varying degrees of success. My argument is that the issue cannot be tackled in the schools and classrooms alone. They have an important and crucial role to play but whatever good that is achieved in schools may often be unravelled by the negative influence of media portrayals on the target children.

 

Influence of TV

According to researchers Heather L. Kirkorian, Ellen A. Wartella, and Daniel R. Anderson , (2008) “Early exposure to age appropriate programs designed around an educational curriculum is associated with cognitive and academic enhancement, whereas exposure to pure entertainment, and violent content in particular, is associated with poorer cognitive development and lower academic achievement.”

Unfortunately, children most vulnerable to poor academic attainment are exposed to those programs that contribute to poorer cognitive development. I surveyed a primary school in a low socio-economic area where a large percentage (51%) of children were on FSM. I found out that about 90% of children in years 5 and 6, N=60 watch EastEnders, a TV soap, every day. They will watch a catch up programme if they missed an episode. Other favourite TV programs were BGT, X-Factor or I’m a celebrity. The boys were also heavily steeped in video games such as: call of duty, manhunt and GTA. All of these programmes fit into the category identified by Kirkorian and her colleagues as being detrimental to cognitive development and academic achievement.

In my opinion, British society is structured in a two tier culture. Inherent in this dichotomy of cultures lie the challenges of raising aspiration in the country.

There are those who belong to what I call the ‘EastEnders’ subculture. They identify with the dross and stagnancy of the soap – a view of life where effort to make progress in life is not worth it because eventually, no good thing happens in life. Like life on the soap, aspiring to such as becoming a doctor or city worker doesn’t belong. The soap has to kill off every character who achieves at something or aspires to and strives to achieve in life. Doctors are written out even portrayed in a bad light, city worker characters are killed off, and in the recent past, the only character to make it to Oxford University – Libby – had to be given a reduced bit part role in the soap.

The people who belong to this subculture watch ‘EastEnders’ religiously and more importantly, identify with its view of life. Such low aspiration is entrenched and normalised in them. What I find tragic in all this is a tax payer funded organisation such as the BBC spewing out and perpetuating such low aspiration in the masses. Sometimes it looks like a deliberate ploy to entrench low aspiration in this subculture. I say this because the producers have had several opportunities to introduce a glimmer of aspiration into the plots and story lines but never have they followed that path. The opposite always seem to be the case.

Another way in which I see the subculture dichotomy being entrenched by society is in the portrayal of people who have attended good universities and are in middle class jobs. The media constantly portrays them as if they were all born with a silver spoon in their mouths. They are portrayed by politicians as if it is a bad thing to achieve that status. Rhetoric around the amount of tax they should be paying, their earnings, and their comfortable lives are commented on with a negative slant that makes them not to be role models, but as characters to be reviled. An instance is the rhetoric espoused by the leader of the labour party in the build up to the last general elections. His constant calls to tax the rich, attacks on what he called the ‘friends’ of the Tory party, among others must have left a sour taste for aspirational voters.

The public is never given the story behind some of such people – how hard they had to work, make sacrifices to get themselves to where they are. For instance, it would be highly unfair to portray Piers Linney – one of the millionaire ‘dragons’ in the TV show (dragons den), in a negative light simply because he is wealthy. I think such an individual’s biography and success story must be celebrated because his life wields immense potential to inspire the present generation. Society in general, and the ‘eastenders’ subculture need role models – coping models – as the psychologists call them. They need role models in people from similar backgrounds as theirs and the stories of their journey from the ‘bottom’ to the top. I am certain there are lots of individuals who fit this profile but the media and society don’t seem to be interested.

The only way a lot of such children see themselves as bettering their lives is through singing or one of such celebrity led futures. There is nothing wrong with them having such aspirations, but feeding children into seeing such a narrow range of options stunts their aspirations and dreams.

Improving educational attainment of working class children is a complicated process. Changing or adapting curricular is great; improving pedagogy and quality of provision is another important element. Nevertheless, society in general and the media in particular, has a role to play in raising aspiration, and perseverance in working class children.

@gideonsappor

Standard

The Quest for Social Mobility – the EastEnders effect

As someone who was born into a low working class background whose only ticket out of that background has been education (albeit in a different country), I follow the political sound bites about social mobility with interest.
I was born into a very humble socio-economic background. My mum who never had the opportunity to set foot in a formal classroom sold smoked fish at the market. She left home at 5 am everyday Monday to Saturday and didn’t get back till 7 pm. She never took a holiday except when she had to travel to the village for a family event such as a funeral.
My father was the most educated among 24 (known) siblings having studied to GCE O’ Level stage. He was a storekeeper at the company he worked with.
I was blessed with parents who in spite of their lowly academic background or the lack of it, inspired me to value education. My mum could not read nor write but she ensured I read the books she purchased from the hawkers at the market. My parents were instrumental in my academic success and so were my teachers.
I still remember some of my primary school and secondary school teachers for the role they played in pushing me to aspire to the top. Names like Messrs Akpabli, Aidoo, Amega from my primary school years and Rev Dr Godwin Odonkor, Mr (now Rev) Aboa Offei will be forever etched in my fond memories. I remember Mr Amegah – my year 6 teacher – teaching, encouraging, and inspiring us to study so we would do well in the common entrance exams required to go to secondary school.
In secondary school, I remember Rev Odonkor’s mantra – study! study! – resonates in my mind to this very day. These teachers were so inspiring I worked hard to meet their high expectations. Their expectations were high, but never felt like a burden. I knew my teachers had my back; all I needed to do was work hard.
Given this background, I have been following with intrigue the ‘political football’ being played by all the in the name of social mobility. Some of the arguments raised sound like the vacuous hot air that can only emerge from the depths of stark ignorance – not having a clue about the subject. Yet some appear to come from a good heart, but still devoid of an awareness of the requisite levers that need pulling. This was typified by Michael Gove, the former education secretary. His pronouncements appeared to be drawn from a heart that sincerely wished to improve the life chances of children from poorer backgrounds. Sadly, that is where it ended. He failed to realise the problem was more complex than to heap the blame on teachers – the very ones who wielded the potential to make a difference, and indeed are giving their ‘blood and sweat’ for the cause.
Yes there are some teachers who need support to improve their practice and some head teachers who need a kick up the proverbial; however constantly haranguing and tarring everyone of them (that is what it seems) with the same dirty brush isn’t the best move to say the least. Denigrating an entire profession for a situation that in certain instances may be beyond their scope of influence could hardly be fair.
In my opinion, British society is structured in a two tier culture. Inherent in this dichotomy of cultures lie the challenges of social mobility in the country. There is the subculture that include those whose children attend the fee paying public schools who are primed to become the elite. Also included in this group are a minority whose parents support and encourage them to do well and be aspirational in state education.
Then there are those who belong to what I call the ‘EastEnders’ subculture. They identify with the dross and stagnancy of the soap – a view of life where effort to make progress in life is not worth it because eventually, no good thing happens in life. Like life on the soap, aspiring to such as becoming a doctor or city worker doesn’t belong. The soap has to kill off every character who achieves at something or aspires to and strives to achieve in life. Doctors are written out, city worker characters are killed off, and in the recent past, the only character to make it to Oxford – Libby – had to be written out of the show.
The people who belong to this subculture probably watch ‘EastEnders’ religiously and more importantly, identify with its view of life. Such low aspiration is entrenched and normalised in them. What I find tragic in all this is a tax payer funded organisation such as the BBC spewing out and perpetuating such low aspiration in the masses. Sometimes it looks like a deliberate ploy to entrench low aspiration in this subculture. I say this because the producers have had several opportunities to introduce a glimmer of aspiration into the plots and story lines but never have they followed that path. The opposite always seem to be the case.
Another way in which I see the subculture dichotomy being entrenched by society is in the portrayal of people who have attended good universities and are in middle class jobs. The media constantly portrays them as if they were all born with a silver spoon in their mouths. They are portrayed by politicians as if it is a bad thing to achieve that status. Rhetoric around the amount of tax they should be paying, their earnings, and their comfortable lives are commented on with a negative slant that makes them not to be role models, but as characters to be reviled. The public is never given the story behind some of such people – how hard they had to work, make sacrifices to get themselves to where they are. Society in general, and the ‘eastenders’ subculture need role models – coping models – as the psychologists call them. They need role models in people from similar backgrounds as theirs and the stories of their journey from the ‘bottom’ to the top. I am certain there are lots of individuals who fit this profile but the media and society doesn’t seem to be interested.
The only way a lot of such children see themselves as bettering their lives is through singing or one of such celebrity led futures. There is nothing wrong with them having such aspirations, but feeding children into seeing such a narrow range of options stunts their aspirations and dreams.
This is only a simple illustration of how complex the challenge of social mobility is. The solution lies in a multi-pronged radical root and branch approach. Listening to the political debate in the build up to elections doesn’t give me much hope of that happening.
My submission is that, even though teachers have a pivotal role to play in the quest for social mobility, there may be situations that lie beyond their excellent capabilities. This is particularly the case for teachers working in some of the most deprived schools in the country. Teachers can and do certainly make a difference; yet subjecting them to unbearable and unreasonable pressure may be pushing some of the most gifted and committed teachers out of the schools that need them most or worse, quitting the profession.
As another illustration, I have followed the recent debates about homework in the media with interest. The value of homework in raising standards has been questioned by several experts, interestingly in my opinion, including a public school head. I find this interesting because the public schools have some of the most stringent and elaborate culture of homework. The first thought that came to me when I read about the public school head’s opinion was whether he had banned it in his school. I doubt it. If homework was that ineffective, why do the public schools and high achieving schools take it so seriously? Is one thing good for the goose but not for the gander? Yes there may be problems with homework being taken by children into chaotic homes that render them worthless. However, the solution I believe, doesn’t lie in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Some schools have found a way round this by running homework clubs for such children.
This leads me to one of the problems I see with the approach to improving standards in schools. Schools are rarely similar in terms of their demographics and dispositions. It is virtually impossible to have a one size fits all solution to the challenge of raising standards; yet that is what happens be it from the Mandarins in Whitehall or the Ofsted ‘clipboards’ as I call the inspectors. Creativity is supposed to be encouraged in classrooms, yet inspectors still go into schools with their literal and metaphorical tick sheets or clipboards. A strategy that achieved resounding success in a particular school may not be as effective in another school half a mile down the same road due to the unique disposition of that school. The idea may be brilliant but may need to be adapted to suit the second school. The wholesale replication of ‘best practice’ across different schools may be a cause of some of the problems we have in our schools.
The current debate is led mostly by people who have no experience of what it takes to climb up the social ladder. Education is the vehicle but it needs to drive up a road. The ‘road’ doesn’t currently exist at a sustainable level with the way social mobility politics is being played at the moment. The debate needs to change and the rhetoric brought down to earth if we are serious about having any sustainable impact on social mobility.

@gideonsappor

Standard