I love reports of international comparisons. UNESCO does one every few years ranking countries for how good an environment they offer to bring up children. The best reports don’t just give league tables but offer clues on how to improve. Backed by real data, these are often compelling.
Sadly, political debate in many countries tosses away the opportunities that such reports offer. This is especially true in Britain, where anything foreign is viewed with some distaste and distrust. The print media doesn’t even notice some excellent reports, and pays scant regard to others.
I accept that politicians are sometimes in a bit of a bind. It is their job to promote their own party, and if league tables give embarrassing results they are hardly likely to trumpet them. Even politicians in opposition seem to stray quiet, which is rather sad, perhaps because it is all too rare that they have policies to deal with deep-seated issues. In many countries, there almost seems to be a conspiracy of politicians from all establishment parties to avoid some topics for real debate. In those circumstances, the media has a job to do to force this into the open, a job they often fail to do.
A glorious exception, of course, is The Economist, which has the advantage of taking an international viewpoint rather than a parochial one. After finishing this blog, I’ll start indulging myself in my favourite reading of the whole year, the Economist Christmas double issue.
This month, a report was issued comparing educational attainment among fifteen year-olds in different countries. This has been produced each three years since 2000 by PISA, a body with nothing to do with leaning towers but is affiliated to the OECD.
True to form, I was first alerted to the report by an excellent article in The Economist. On this occasion there was also some passing mention in the British press, for the refreshing reason that the coalition government appear to be taking its findings seriously, and shaping its policies on the generally accepted good practices emerging. Let us hope they are just as open when the next report comes out in three years time, as it is braver to highlight an inevitable mixed bag of results having been in power for a while than it is to use poor results to blame the recently ousted government.
I went online to find the PISA output. While there were some executive summaries, overall I found it rather hard going. Overall, I found a sense of caution, both in a statistical sense with a lot of caveats about significance and a lot of tables of definition, and also in a political sense with care about drawing conclusions. But what were excellent were a series of case studies of individual countries who had found some success.
It is sort of obvious the education matters, and also that it is a good leading indicator of success. Leading indicators are always gold dust, whatever the field. Most striking in the rankings is the strong performance of participating Asian nations. South Korea is at or the near the top consistently, but the Shanghai region of China, taking part in the survey for the first time in 2009, was highest in all categories. It is no surprise that well governed Asian counties march ahead relentless economically, and this suggests no let up in that trend.
Some European countries, notably Finland, are perennial strong performers, while rich nations such as the USA, Germany, France and the UK do average or worse, something of a scandal given the financial resources available. Poland and Portugal have progressed since the last report. Gratifying in this report is the march of progress in many Latin American nations, led by Chile. PISA will be thrilled that policy makers in many places have been noting good practice, applying it and benefitting rather quickly. That is true international progress.
The UK, true to form, did not have much comparable data, since their participation before 2006 was somehow not compliant (I could not find an explanation of why not). Typical UK – joining late and not following the rules. However, what data there was is very interesting. The UK does quite well in Science, and moderately in reading and mathematics. Over the last three years there was a small decline, though this was similar to many European rankings and could just be explained by developing nations catching up.
There were some statistics ranking the constituent parts of the UK. When I was growing up, I remember Scotland and Northern Ireland always scoring ahead of England and Wales. Well, Scotland seems to have lost that lead before 2006, though not to have got any worse relatively since. What has happened since 2006 is a relative decline in Wales, which now ranks well below the other three nations.
Which leads to the question, why? To their credit, Welsh assembly politicians showed some shame and urgency about the results, yet their remedies didn’t seem to amount to much more than chucking money at the problem. What is clear from PISA is a relatively poor correlation between money spent and results achieved.
The Economist had a theory. The Welsh assembly voted sometime in the mid noughties to remove league tables for schools in Wales. I vaguely recall the Scots doing that too, rather earlier. League tables have flaws, most notably that you can game them by focusing on the narrow definitions of success within their rules. There is evidence to me in some of the PISA success case studies that some countries have simply gone after the PISA defined metrics, and therefore it is possible that the progress is not so sustainable or general as made out. Nonetheless, perhaps the Economist is on to something. Competition works, and league tables certainly create some pressure and competition. Teaching unions hate them, but for reasons which I always find teacher centric rather than child centric.
PISA refrain from general advice about league tables, perhaps because of the political caution mentioned above. Their general advice seems to be to focus policy – on core curriculum areas, or on failing schools, social classes or regions. They also recommend well qualified and carefully recruited teachers. That makes sense, though I sense there is a lot more in all their pages of tables than that. What about parenting? As parents, and national citizens, we should care about this.
What I care about now is Christmas celebration, and some quiet time with the Economist. I hope you find what you care for over the holidays and in 2011.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Great English Sulk
Last week FIFA chose host cities for the World Cups of 2018 and 2022. Russia was chosen for 2018, and Qatar for 2022. Russia looks a good choice to me, a nation with a decent soccer heritage, the scale to host the event and a chance of a good legacy in the form of stronger infrastructure and growth of the game there. Qatar seems a bit stranger, having none of the above advantages, and the further problem of forty degree temperatures to contend with.
It has been embarrassing to witness the outcry in England over the Russia award. Russia beat off bids by Spain/Portugal, Holland/Belgium and by England. England suffered the ignominy of being eliminated in the first round of voting, with only two votes out of twenty two, including its own vote. This despite a national expectation, and the presence in Zurich of David Cameron and Prince William.
England has retreated into an ugly sulk. The Russians have been accused throughout of dodgy practices, with the electorate fore the award branded opaque and buyable. Various parties supposedly promised England their vote only to change their mind at the last minute.
The English media had done a typically good job of journalism in the months leading up to the vote, exposing the whole ethos of FIFA and some allegedly corrupt officials within the process. While many deny that this had any negative impact on the result for the English bid, it can hardly have helped, and one official this week came out and admitted it had influenced his vote. I hope that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the journalists should have kept quiet, as such exposes play an important role in life, and these ones might in the end have lasting positive effects.
By the way, what do you think of the Wikileaks story? I find it fascinating, and indicative of a changing world that a tiny organisation can bring to heel the mightiest establishment on earth. This will lead to major changes to how diplomacy is conducted. On the whole, I love it, but then I do wonder a little at the choice of cable to leak. For example, the list of critical sites is hardly exposing anything untoward, yet could be argued as Google Maps for terrorists. This story might be the biggest news of the whole year, and it will be fascinating to see it play out.
Back to FIFA and England. As the exposes showed, FIFA and its processes could do with reform. Sepp Blatter is not an appealing character, with his little homilies and blatant love of power, resembling an unaccountable African dictator in some ways.
But I find the reaction in England says a lot about that country. Firstly, the English invented underhand tactics, and use them liberally when it suits them. A number of other sports (snooker? Cricket, at least until recently?) have been run by English versions of Sepp Blatter. The IOC is hardly a paragon, yet not a word of protest was uttered when Britain won the 2012 Olympic games. Even last week, it was suggested that Prince William was handing out wedding invitations as inducements. There are clearly degrees of corruption, and it is quite possible that England were relatively clean. My point is that England only complain when they lose, and that is a childish time to do it.
Bill Bellichick, coach of the New England Patriots NFL team, has it right. “When you win, say little. When you lose, say less”.
Amid all the complaining, and theories about why England lost, there was also something completely absent. No one asked “maybe they didn’t like us. I wonder why?” At least, if the question was asked, the journalists were the knee jerk answer, am answer well within the national comfort zone.
Here are some less comfortable answers. First, they don’t like us because we are arrogant. England never tired of pointing out that we invented the game (wrong), and nurtured its international growth (even more wrong, actually England arrogantly refused to recognise FIFA between the two world wars). Other nations went in with joint bids, building goodwill as a consequence, but the English did not even embrace Scotland (but expected Scottish representatives to back our bid). The sneering at the opposition never helps – indeed one official had to resign for a blatant and unsupported attack on Russia. Maybe Prince William, wedding invitations or not, might just remind some voters of past colonial misdemeanours? All the interviews I saw suggested an attitude of entitlement for the England bid, which for sure will have put the backs up many voters. We are quick to observe and condemn arrogance from the USA, but we fail to see it in ourselves.
Second, they might not like us because we are insular. Few English bother with anyone else’s language or culture. (I confess I am as bad as most, living abroad for many years with precious little attempt to integrate). And we should not be surprised if the nasty little attacks on foreigners day in day out in the British press (and, sadly, on the British street) do not endear us to other nations. The EU is a dark, evil force, currency and border union is a threat to our superior way of life, and immigrants have criminal and scrounging tendencies…yet these nations should love us nonetheless, and wish us to stage their football tournaments. Sorry guys, things don’t work like that. And this small humiliation (and the Eurovision song contest year after year) gives us a chance to learn that lesson. Will we learn it? Don’t hold your breath.
So, FIFA, please reform, soccer deserves a more modern and accountable leadership than you currently provide. British journalists, please continue to make that reform more likely with your great exposures. And English people, including different, lazier journalists, please look more critically at our own nation, and see the downsides of imperial arrogance and popular insularity.
It has been embarrassing to witness the outcry in England over the Russia award. Russia beat off bids by Spain/Portugal, Holland/Belgium and by England. England suffered the ignominy of being eliminated in the first round of voting, with only two votes out of twenty two, including its own vote. This despite a national expectation, and the presence in Zurich of David Cameron and Prince William.
England has retreated into an ugly sulk. The Russians have been accused throughout of dodgy practices, with the electorate fore the award branded opaque and buyable. Various parties supposedly promised England their vote only to change their mind at the last minute.
The English media had done a typically good job of journalism in the months leading up to the vote, exposing the whole ethos of FIFA and some allegedly corrupt officials within the process. While many deny that this had any negative impact on the result for the English bid, it can hardly have helped, and one official this week came out and admitted it had influenced his vote. I hope that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the journalists should have kept quiet, as such exposes play an important role in life, and these ones might in the end have lasting positive effects.
By the way, what do you think of the Wikileaks story? I find it fascinating, and indicative of a changing world that a tiny organisation can bring to heel the mightiest establishment on earth. This will lead to major changes to how diplomacy is conducted. On the whole, I love it, but then I do wonder a little at the choice of cable to leak. For example, the list of critical sites is hardly exposing anything untoward, yet could be argued as Google Maps for terrorists. This story might be the biggest news of the whole year, and it will be fascinating to see it play out.
Back to FIFA and England. As the exposes showed, FIFA and its processes could do with reform. Sepp Blatter is not an appealing character, with his little homilies and blatant love of power, resembling an unaccountable African dictator in some ways.
But I find the reaction in England says a lot about that country. Firstly, the English invented underhand tactics, and use them liberally when it suits them. A number of other sports (snooker? Cricket, at least until recently?) have been run by English versions of Sepp Blatter. The IOC is hardly a paragon, yet not a word of protest was uttered when Britain won the 2012 Olympic games. Even last week, it was suggested that Prince William was handing out wedding invitations as inducements. There are clearly degrees of corruption, and it is quite possible that England were relatively clean. My point is that England only complain when they lose, and that is a childish time to do it.
Bill Bellichick, coach of the New England Patriots NFL team, has it right. “When you win, say little. When you lose, say less”.
Amid all the complaining, and theories about why England lost, there was also something completely absent. No one asked “maybe they didn’t like us. I wonder why?” At least, if the question was asked, the journalists were the knee jerk answer, am answer well within the national comfort zone.
Here are some less comfortable answers. First, they don’t like us because we are arrogant. England never tired of pointing out that we invented the game (wrong), and nurtured its international growth (even more wrong, actually England arrogantly refused to recognise FIFA between the two world wars). Other nations went in with joint bids, building goodwill as a consequence, but the English did not even embrace Scotland (but expected Scottish representatives to back our bid). The sneering at the opposition never helps – indeed one official had to resign for a blatant and unsupported attack on Russia. Maybe Prince William, wedding invitations or not, might just remind some voters of past colonial misdemeanours? All the interviews I saw suggested an attitude of entitlement for the England bid, which for sure will have put the backs up many voters. We are quick to observe and condemn arrogance from the USA, but we fail to see it in ourselves.
Second, they might not like us because we are insular. Few English bother with anyone else’s language or culture. (I confess I am as bad as most, living abroad for many years with precious little attempt to integrate). And we should not be surprised if the nasty little attacks on foreigners day in day out in the British press (and, sadly, on the British street) do not endear us to other nations. The EU is a dark, evil force, currency and border union is a threat to our superior way of life, and immigrants have criminal and scrounging tendencies…yet these nations should love us nonetheless, and wish us to stage their football tournaments. Sorry guys, things don’t work like that. And this small humiliation (and the Eurovision song contest year after year) gives us a chance to learn that lesson. Will we learn it? Don’t hold your breath.
So, FIFA, please reform, soccer deserves a more modern and accountable leadership than you currently provide. British journalists, please continue to make that reform more likely with your great exposures. And English people, including different, lazier journalists, please look more critically at our own nation, and see the downsides of imperial arrogance and popular insularity.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Travel Chaos
We have an unusual cold snap in Europe just now. I was in cold, cold Oslo on Tuesday, and saw a headline saying this had been the coldest November there for 90 years. It certainly felt it on the last day of November, as a foreign visitor without the right footwear. Nonetheless, it was sunny, and the pure air and light were a total joy to experience. It reminded me of the good part of living in Scandinavia.
Transport policy and effectiveness does seem very different in different countries. I wonder if places learn from each other. Of course the population densities and climates vary a lot, but it is strange how progress appears so variable.
One topical area is handling winter weather. Poor old Gatwick seems to be the loser time after time, and again this week is closed for two days or more. Yet even Heathrow seems to be OK, not to mention Amsterdam or Oslo. There has to be a balance between investment and frequency of problem, so of course Oslo has all the best technology for runway clearance and everything else. I’m not suggesting Gatwick copies Oslo completely, but my guess is there is a middle path which short sighted cost considerations are blocking there. As usual, the holistic picture is probably lost amid departmental budgets and targets.
We like to have a good moan, and of course it is no fun at all being delayed for hours, but on balance some places achieve great things. Airports such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen have always impressed me in how they keep things flowing, even in adverse conditions. Last winter I got caught, and ended up sleeping overnight in Heathrow, having deliberately chosen the very first plane out the next morning, judging that it had the best chance. At 5.30am things started coming together. I was impressed at many small heroes who made things possible – for example the gate staff who had walked to work in the snow. In the end, just as we were about to taxi off, the snow came back and it was all in vain, and I had to resort to the Eurostar train. But it reminded me just how many people are involved in these operations.
De-icing may be one opportunity area, as technology and practices seem to have barely developed over the last twenty years. There always seems to be a long queue for a de-icer, and that queue leads to slots being missed, as the de-icers don’t seem well integrated with the rest of the airport.
But remember fifteen years ago, when we had to wait in the sky circling airports all the time, and when take off slots seemed to be routinely delayed by an hour? The integration of European air traffic control has surely paid dividends. That is just one small example of where taking a European or even global approach benefits everyone, yet many national politicians seem to find this anathema, and no one seems keen on trumpeting the benefits. And remember that traffic has probably increased 50% in the interim. The old procedures and the new traffic would likely have led to gridlock by now, not to mention more plane crashes.
Still, it is more fun to have a moan, and the security people must be top of the list of targets. Since 9/11, I have witnessed many ridiculous things in the name of security. For months, it seemed to be OK to carry liquids on planes into the UK, but deadly dangerous to carry them out. Not enough holistic thinking there within an airport, and between countries.
Security people seem to have carte blanche, but then their solutions don’t seem smart. When I lived in Northern Ireland during the troubles in the 1980’s, it was always funny to me how tough the security seemed at the airport, yet if you went on the Larne-Stranraer ferry they didn’t even check your ticket, let alone your bag! And even the airport security seemed mainly for show. I worked out that if I had been in certain places the day before I would always be pulled in, yet if I hadn’t I was never pulled in. If even I could do that, imagine what true terrorists could work out.
If you see some differences between countries in airports, in roads it is even more marked. I love the traffic management in The Netherlands. Firstly, bicycles, public transport and even pedestrians have been given priority for years, which has led to adequately funded and fair priced trains and trams, and road designs where bikes are safe. If you are driving, you do encounter queues during peak hours, but not as many as in the UK. In such a densely populous country, and with some many natural barriers in the form of canals, that is no mean feat.
Apart from smart, holistic goals and brilliant long term planning, another key is the use of technology. In Holland, the majority of traffic lights have sensors, so that their phasing can be influenced by traffic needs. Generally, what happens is that a light stays green as long as a steady flow of traffic is approaching it. The result is that the overall sequence takes longer to play through, but queues tend to clear during each phase. Outside peak hours, the sequence goes through quicker, so at a quiet time you often find a light turning green as you approach it. During the night, many lights are automatically switched off.
This technology is available, and is much less expensive than the alternative cost of disruption. So why is it almost unheard of in the UK? The same old reasons I fear. It was not invented in the UK and the Brits don’t learn well. One department has a budget and so integrated thinking is missing. And the road lobby (and its votes) seem to me to be particularly short sighted and powerful in the UK. They block smart innovation like road pricing, and somehow even manage to hold back speed cameras, which all logic and data support overwhelmingly. Jeremy Clarkson has plenty to answer for, I fear.
But then it works the other way too. It seems to me the UK is much better at major road improvements, since they are more ready than Holland to work at night. On this one, it seems the holistic picture is better managed in England. And why is it that in Holland they still don’t have the yellow box junctions, in which you shouldn’t enter until you can see your way to exit? They are, simple, effective, and almost free. Yet absent from Dutch roads.
At least driving in Western Europe is relatively safe these days, and most countries have managed to change the drink driving culture. Experiences in India, Russia and elsewhere remind us that in Europe we have some blessings to count. Let us do that as we try to navigate our way through this cold snap.
Transport policy and effectiveness does seem very different in different countries. I wonder if places learn from each other. Of course the population densities and climates vary a lot, but it is strange how progress appears so variable.
One topical area is handling winter weather. Poor old Gatwick seems to be the loser time after time, and again this week is closed for two days or more. Yet even Heathrow seems to be OK, not to mention Amsterdam or Oslo. There has to be a balance between investment and frequency of problem, so of course Oslo has all the best technology for runway clearance and everything else. I’m not suggesting Gatwick copies Oslo completely, but my guess is there is a middle path which short sighted cost considerations are blocking there. As usual, the holistic picture is probably lost amid departmental budgets and targets.
We like to have a good moan, and of course it is no fun at all being delayed for hours, but on balance some places achieve great things. Airports such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen have always impressed me in how they keep things flowing, even in adverse conditions. Last winter I got caught, and ended up sleeping overnight in Heathrow, having deliberately chosen the very first plane out the next morning, judging that it had the best chance. At 5.30am things started coming together. I was impressed at many small heroes who made things possible – for example the gate staff who had walked to work in the snow. In the end, just as we were about to taxi off, the snow came back and it was all in vain, and I had to resort to the Eurostar train. But it reminded me just how many people are involved in these operations.
De-icing may be one opportunity area, as technology and practices seem to have barely developed over the last twenty years. There always seems to be a long queue for a de-icer, and that queue leads to slots being missed, as the de-icers don’t seem well integrated with the rest of the airport.
But remember fifteen years ago, when we had to wait in the sky circling airports all the time, and when take off slots seemed to be routinely delayed by an hour? The integration of European air traffic control has surely paid dividends. That is just one small example of where taking a European or even global approach benefits everyone, yet many national politicians seem to find this anathema, and no one seems keen on trumpeting the benefits. And remember that traffic has probably increased 50% in the interim. The old procedures and the new traffic would likely have led to gridlock by now, not to mention more plane crashes.
Still, it is more fun to have a moan, and the security people must be top of the list of targets. Since 9/11, I have witnessed many ridiculous things in the name of security. For months, it seemed to be OK to carry liquids on planes into the UK, but deadly dangerous to carry them out. Not enough holistic thinking there within an airport, and between countries.
Security people seem to have carte blanche, but then their solutions don’t seem smart. When I lived in Northern Ireland during the troubles in the 1980’s, it was always funny to me how tough the security seemed at the airport, yet if you went on the Larne-Stranraer ferry they didn’t even check your ticket, let alone your bag! And even the airport security seemed mainly for show. I worked out that if I had been in certain places the day before I would always be pulled in, yet if I hadn’t I was never pulled in. If even I could do that, imagine what true terrorists could work out.
If you see some differences between countries in airports, in roads it is even more marked. I love the traffic management in The Netherlands. Firstly, bicycles, public transport and even pedestrians have been given priority for years, which has led to adequately funded and fair priced trains and trams, and road designs where bikes are safe. If you are driving, you do encounter queues during peak hours, but not as many as in the UK. In such a densely populous country, and with some many natural barriers in the form of canals, that is no mean feat.
Apart from smart, holistic goals and brilliant long term planning, another key is the use of technology. In Holland, the majority of traffic lights have sensors, so that their phasing can be influenced by traffic needs. Generally, what happens is that a light stays green as long as a steady flow of traffic is approaching it. The result is that the overall sequence takes longer to play through, but queues tend to clear during each phase. Outside peak hours, the sequence goes through quicker, so at a quiet time you often find a light turning green as you approach it. During the night, many lights are automatically switched off.
This technology is available, and is much less expensive than the alternative cost of disruption. So why is it almost unheard of in the UK? The same old reasons I fear. It was not invented in the UK and the Brits don’t learn well. One department has a budget and so integrated thinking is missing. And the road lobby (and its votes) seem to me to be particularly short sighted and powerful in the UK. They block smart innovation like road pricing, and somehow even manage to hold back speed cameras, which all logic and data support overwhelmingly. Jeremy Clarkson has plenty to answer for, I fear.
But then it works the other way too. It seems to me the UK is much better at major road improvements, since they are more ready than Holland to work at night. On this one, it seems the holistic picture is better managed in England. And why is it that in Holland they still don’t have the yellow box junctions, in which you shouldn’t enter until you can see your way to exit? They are, simple, effective, and almost free. Yet absent from Dutch roads.
At least driving in Western Europe is relatively safe these days, and most countries have managed to change the drink driving culture. Experiences in India, Russia and elsewhere remind us that in Europe we have some blessings to count. Let us do that as we try to navigate our way through this cold snap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)