Defence Weakness

Published Letter The Times 29 February

Sir, Your report (Feb 28) that Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has reprimanded General Sir Patrick Sanders for making a speech warning that the army was at risk of becoming static and domestically focused raises important points. It is a fact that the British Army can no longer deploy a fully supported mechanised division abroad. It is a concern to serving and retired officers that our politicians are failing in their duty to ensure that our army has sufficient resources to deter our enemies, secure our borders, assist the civil power in an emergency, support our allies and to honour our treaty obligations. The US has made its concerns about our diminished defence capabilities clear several times but with no substantive response from our ministers. There is little hope that next week’s budget will do anything but reinforce the fact that our politicians are in denial in failing to acknowledge or meet the new challenges we and our allies face, and the manifest implications this has for the resourcing of our armed services.
Patrick Watson
Former Black Watch officer

POST OFFICE SCANDAL-THE TYRANNY OF GROUPTHINK AND CONFIRMATION BIAS

There are are three standouts from the Post Office debacle.

Groupthink and confirmation bias are deeply embedded in the system. In short,  individuals , and indeed groups, look for evidence that supports their view ,or stance and either ignore arguments and evidence that undermines this, or afford it insufficient weight. They then become so invested in their view that to change it would be very damaging to them reputationally, and probably financially. They then aggressively defend positions that are wrong and unsustainable. As a former political lobbyist I clocked this years ago!

Third, and this is a new one on me, there is a presumption in common law that computer evidence is reliable. Indeed, Courts are directed to assume that a computer system has operated correctly, unless there is explicit evidence otherwise. This is complete nonsense on stilts and illogical. We all know that complex software is subject to bugs and glitches. Which is why , and how, hackers can access systems and steal information and data. They exploit programmers errors.

So why this presumption?

It has enabled a gross miscarriage of justice, on an industrial scale . While this is referred to as a  ’miscarriage of justice’ ,the term ‘perverting the course of justice’ seems rather more apposite. Post Office executives ,and their lawyers, knew of the glitches in the Horizon software yet chose to withhold, and not disclose this information , from the accused postmasters and the courts !

And, incredibly , programmers do not need any particular qualifications to practice. The law does not require anyone building computer systems to have any competence or qualifications.!

What could possibly go wrong?

THE NEED FOR MARTHAS LAW-WHY NHS TREATMENT AND CARE NEEDS FUNDAMENTAL REFORM.

I am recovering having just listened to Merone Mills on Radio 4 Today programme (around 7.40 this morning 4 September ) talking about the avoidable death of her 14 Year daughter, Martha, in an NHS specialist hospital. The most moving testimony I have heard in a long while. And of visceral importance too. Merone is lobbying for a new law ‘Marthas Law’ that gives a family the right to a second opinion if they are concerned about the diagnosis or treatment of their loved one in hospital. Martha had a minor bike accident that damaged her pancreas. If properly treated and monitored this should not have proved fatal. But negligence by NHS staff including senior consultants and duty doctors, meant that she got sepsis, which was then not diagnosed quick enough and she should have been put in intensive care before it was too late. Merone knew that her daughter was very seriously ill and probably had sepsis but was ignored or patronised by staff. She felt impotent with no agency. She deconstructs many of the problems endemic to the NHS ,experienced by many of us who have watched someone close to us die and been at the interface between NHS critical care and families.. Its important to point out that, generally, if it is an immediate obvious emergency the NHS generally is very good. And life saving. But too often after that initial emergency help the quality of treatment and care falls off a cliff..
Merone said that the hierarchy in which senior doctors opinions are never challenged is a huge issue. Doctors get it wrong and family members issues and concerns are ignored. True. You have no agency and there is no transparency or real accountability.
I remember from my experience at Kingston Hospital family visiting hours were arranged after Doctors and Consultants did their rounds, so as to avoid it, seems any contact with the family who couldnt be briefed and ask questions about the on-going treatment . We as it happens simply ignored visiting hours in order to get daily access to doctors
The NHS operates in silos. And this is the second problem. Nobody has ownership of the patients case. There is no one person you can talk to (if you can get access which often you cant )
who can give you chapter and verse on the treatment and prognosis. My experience is that they have very little time for you. And every day you see a different doctor , some more assiduous at reading notes than others. I remember challenging doctors three or four times saying you know he has already had that, or youve done that test already etc.. They dont seem to talk to each other in the way you might expect leading to a lack of continuity and inevitably a series of mistakes.
Third and many people seem unaware of this, as Merone pointed out , the NHS doest provide the same quality of treatment and care 7 days a week. The care noticeably drops off at Weekends and Bank Holidays. Those tests you think are vital wont happen on a Sunday or Bank Holiday Monday And that Doctor you spoke to on Friday wont be there or Saturday, nor will any other Doctor. To me this is quite staggering and unbelievable. Consultants as part of their contract can opt out of weekend work. God help you if something goes wrong at a weekend! This is the NHS in the 21st Century.
Last but no means least, which we have touched on already, if you have real concerns and worries there is nobody to talk to. You are patronised fobbed off avoided. If you break the rules and are there when the Doctor comes round, some treat you with contempt, others will give you 30 seconds before they march down the corridor with you in pursuit. You have no agency as concerned relatives. You cant challenge them or even alert them to an issue of concern. They and their opinions are sacrosanct. But they get things wrong, as do the nurses, (my god they do) and quite often the family are the only people who notice the sins of commission and omission because they are there day in day out (and yes at weekends) observing questioning and indeed caring . That is why the NHS needs fundamental operational reform. In the meantime we should support #marthaslaw #MeroneMills #NHS #nhsreform #demos

Times letter: Government complacency about defence ; Published Thursday June 29 2023

Sir, Your leading article suggesting that the government is complacent about defence policy is correct (“Thin Red Line”, Jun 28). But this extends to its dysfunctional procurement system too. The new armoured vehicle, Ajax, is not only late and over budget but has been plagued by development problems, and by most accounts,is signally ill suited to the needs of modern mechanised infantry. Yet the British Army has been lumbered with this white elephant for a generation. The truth is that the failings in successive governments’ defence policies mean that the army no longer has the capacity to deploy a full strength, fully supported mechanised division abroad. How, exactly, does this square with our obligations as a Nato member to defend other members if they are attacked? In short, we are failing to protect both our own, and our allies’, interests.
Patrick Watson
Former captain in the Black Watch, London SW8

Are T Levels Struggling?

What exactly are T Levels for?
In October 2007 at the CBI , flanked by Richard Lambert of the CBI, Mike Tomlinson ,the former head of Ofsted and Steve Smith VC of Exeter University, Ed Balls, the then Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, pronounced , with much brio ,that the” Diploma range could become the qualification of choice over the next decade.”
He intoned “If Diplomas are successfully introduced and are delivering the mix that employers and universities value, they could become the qualification of choice for young people. But, because GCSEs and A-Levels are long-established and valued qualifications, that should not be decided by any pre-emptive Government decision, but by the demands of young people, schools and colleges.”
It turned out to be a big ‘ if’. The demand simply wasn’t there. Designed by a committee of ‘experts’, they were neither academic nor technical qualifications, but a hybrid instead . It was a qualification, moreover ,that no employer had ever asked for. Nobody ever said that ‘the one thing we really need now is a qualification that is neither academic, nor technical but somewhere in between? Yet that is what the Diploma was. With the demand not there, aswell as being expensive to deliver, Diplomas quickly disappeared from the qualifications landscape. The fear now must be that T Levels may well go the same way, unless some radical action is taken.
The government wants level 3 BTECs, which are taken by around a quarter of a million students each year, to be largely replaced by T Levels. So that we have a binary system either A levels or T Levels.
In late 2021, ministers asked universities “to accept T Levels for entry to, at a minimum, all courses of study for which you currently accept other technical qualifications”.
But as FE Week revealed last week, not all universities have responded positively to this .Indeed, less than half of all UK universities so far have confirmed they will accept T Levels for entry this year, with most Russell Group universities opting out. The most obvious reason why universities are not opting in, at the moment ,is fear of the unknown. T Levels are untested. It takes time for any qualification to bed in and demonstrate its relevance, and robustness. Universities will be concerned that the T Levels on offer may not adequately prepare students for their courses. As things stand students with BTEC qualifications are more likely to drop out of courses than those with other’ academic’ qualifications. The fear must be that the T Level students carry the same, if not greater, risk for universities. The Office for Students, which is taking a more robust stance on drop- outs and value for money in HE courses, will be all over any university like a bad rash, that is seen to be failing in these areas. So, universities are being entirely rational in showing some caution.
Mary Curnock Cook argued, last week in FE Week, that three things need to happen. First, they should make things much clearer to T Level students – many of whom might have expected a wealth of HE course opportunities on the back of the fanfare about UCAS points being awarded. Second, if universities have doubts about the suitability of T Levels, they should engage with the DfE to ensure that future waves of T Level development take those concerns into account. And finally , all of this would be easier for universities, she says , if the government were clearer about exactly what and whom T Levels are for. A qualification highly specified against occupational standards and clearly tilted towards specific job roles might never do well in supporting pathways to higher education.
Curnock Cook added that ‘Positioning T Levels as all things to all pathways is unfair to students when the choices they make at 16 are so critical to their future working lives’
HEPIs Nick Hillman suggests that Ministers should now discuss with universities whether there are enough resources to ensure applicants with T Levels will thrive on degree courses. In return, universities should, wherever possible, give the benefit of the doubt to those applicants who are , what he terms, ‘T Level guinea pigs’ .( I think we should also remember, at his juncture and with some sympathy, the Diploma Guinea Pigs! )Young People are adversely affected by these policy errors and there is also much waste of taxpayers money. (although one wonders given how much money is being written off by the Treasury in the wake of the Covid 19 Furlough scheme whether getting value for money for us taxpayers is a government priority anymore)
Hillman also shares others concerns over government attempts to create a simple binary qualifications scheme in the complex interconnected landscape that has evolved over the years, ie either A Levels or T Levels. It is premature, he argues (FE Week 25 Jan), to start shutting down the proven BTEC route. In this many would agree.
The Times Education Commission has just issued some interim findings of its Inquiry, (its full report is out this summer) which provides a depressing picture of the inadequacies of our education system and how it is failing both our children, and employers. On the vocational side it says that ‘ Despite government promises to boost technical education, there has been a 36 per cent drop in apprenticeship starts over the past five years. The new vocational T-levels are proving problematic in areas where it is hard for students to get the work placements that are required and many universities are not accepting the untested qualification.’
What is clear is that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed, short term, that require action and collaboration between the government, HE providers, FE Colleges ,trainers , UCAS and the Regulator too , if these teething problems are to be sorted out . At the moment the drop in Apprenticeships available , the drive to end BTECs , and the problems with T- levels and universities, paint a picture of some chaos in our technical and vocational education landscape , presenting a massive challenge for the new education secretary. It is far too important for this particular Can to be kicked down the road, yet again.

Higher Educations Moral Failure

HE Institutions Need to Be Incentivised to Protect Basic Freedoms
Its fairly apparent now that rather too many of our universities are cavalier about supporting and protecting academic freedom and freedom of expression. Academics targeted by activists ,in social media and through other means, ( more often than not espousing minority views and coercive tactics), find themselves unprotected and unsupported by university authorities, who signally lack moral courage and prefer inertia to action. .These freedoms-these pillars- that underpin the enlightenments conception of the purpose of higher education, are being eroded. Given the importance of these freedoms, I have long argued that any university league table worth its salt should rate how well respective institutions protect academic freedom and freedom of speech. One of the architects of the The Times Higher Education league table asked me how this might be measured. Easier to measure I suggested than an institutions quality of teaching and research, which current league tables purport to measure and rate accurately. There are no good reasons why THE, and indeed other league tables, should not do this. I can understand why Cambridge, Sussex and just about every Chinese University out there ,might robustly object to this, but that is hardly a sufficient reason to block an initiative that would make league tables fairer and more credible, while incentivising universities to protect these vital freedoms.
British universities should also consider adopting the draft model code of conduct developed by the Academic Freedom and Internationalisation Working Group to show that the sector is serious about enhancing transparency and accountability.
The Academic Freedom and Internationalisation Working Group (AFIWG) brings together academics from UK Higher Education institutions, who are supported by relevant civil society representatives and the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group (PHRG), to strengthen protection for academic freedom and the academic community within the context of the internationalisation of UK Higher Education, broadly defined, by:
highlighting the fundamental importance of academic freedom to the UK Higher Education sector and its future success;
assessing the current protection for academic freedom and members of the academic community in the context of the internationalisation of UK Higher Education;
identifying related risks and gaps;
promoting a collective response by UK universities, particularly by preparing a model Code of Conduct for the UK Higher Education sector; and,
facilitating constructive engagement with relevant stakeholders in connection with the above, including to encourage adoption of the Code of Conduct by UK Higher Education institutions, in partnership with their respective academic communities, and develop and share best practice

Army Support to the Civil Power -Times Letter

Letter Published The Times 30 September 2021

Sir, In the Winter of Discontent in 1978-79, I, with other soldiers, was on standby over Christmas to keep fuel supplies going when tanker drivers threatened a national strike. The British Army was then 160,000-strong and was able to make available many hundreds of HGV drivers. Now the army is at 82,000-strong, a more modest total of 150 was apparently available, and they are having to be trained (report, Sep 29).

Politicians and civilians alike expect the military to help with vaccinations, set up hospitals, fight fires and floods, support the emergency services and provide vital strategic support to supply chains, yet when the regiments are culled and the size of the army shrinks yet again, few if any raise any objections. We are at a tipping point now where the army’s ability to provide such support in emergencies is seriously compromised. However, whether those planning the future of our armed forces have this at the forefront of their minds, I very much doubt.
Patrick Watson
Captain, 1 Black Watch 1974-82; London SW8

Is ‘Face to Face’ Losing out to ‘Blended’ Tuition in HE ?

The government has no intention of introducing a statutory baseline of contact hours between students and academics in HE institutions. But Ministers have increasing concerns that students are being offered massively reduced contact time by universities, in favour of whats called ‘ blended ‘ or ‘hybrid’ learning- that is a mix of face to face and remote learning, with the balance, more often than not, it would seem, in favour of remote learning. The BBC in a recent snapshot survey of 47 universities, found that just 13 said they would be offering mostly face-to-face tuition this term. . The others say they are adopting a more blended approach. 19 institutions also told the BBC they would be offering additional online learning resources.
English higher education (HE) providers are, in law, autonomous institutions, which means that they have the freedom to determine the way their courses are taught, supervised, and assessed. So, its clearly a matter for individual providers to ensure that all students have the support they need to succeed and benefit from their HE experience. But many students suggest that the institutions academic offer to them now is very different from that which they signed up to. And there is a perception, among a significant number, that this diminishes their overall university experience. According to a HEPI survey, only just over half of students are satisfied with the on line offers from their universities . Yet they are still having to fork out the full fees. They don’t think much of this, but find that there is not an awful lot they can do about it. . Student surveys also suggest that close to half of students believe that they are not getting value for money. The most recent HEPI survey -2021 found that while just over one-in-four students (27%) felt they have received good or very good value , 44% of students perceived poor or very poor value. Overall, student satisfaction rates with the university experience are historically in decline too. Universities point out, not unreasonably, that applications to their courses are at record highs.But given that the pandemic has ridden a coach and horses through the jobs market , recruitment processes and internships , is it not likely that students are opting for what they see as a safe option that will give them some security over the next three years. Good risk management shouldn’t be mistaken for a massive vote of confidence in the sector, and whats on offer academically and pastorally.
Ministers have made it pretty clear that all registered providers must continue to meet the Office for Students (OfS) registration conditions in relation to the quality of HE. These registration conditions make clear the need to ensure that courses are high-quality, and that students are properly supported to achieve good outcomes.
The government has now lifted the restrictions on in-person teaching and providers are therefore able to shape their courses without restrictions on face-to-face learning.
The governments view, shared by students representatives, is that HE providers should therefore not be planning to restrict teaching based on COVID19 restrictions. As Minister Michelle Donelan said ,on 21 September, ‘ We expect all universities to continue to deliver excellent learning, in line with guidance from the OfS, and that they should provide students with a full experience’. Nicola Dandridge of the regulator ,OfS said she was expecting the overwhelming majority of universities and colleges to offer primarily face-to-face teaching. But she added that the experience of the pandemic had revealed “elements of online provision which are really valuable and really useful”. “So, there will be elements of online provision where it suits students and where it works, in terms of quality of teaching, but primarily it is face-to face-teaching.” The OfS, in short ,will looking at the quality of provision whether or not it’s face-to-face or online.
The UPP Student Futures Commission ,in its interim report, published recently, said ‘ It is clear from the evidence that many institutions genuinely believe blended learning has real potential, and they wish to continue some of the progress they have made as a result of the pandemic for the benefit of students.’ Nothing wrong with that. But the Commission also notes that there is a perception out there that universities are currently short changing students . So, there needs to be much more engagement with students on this issue. It also points to the need, more broadly, for better management of students expectations.

Universities, of course, have faced unprecedented challenges over the last 18 months , but its absurd to think that all have met these challenges equally well. They haven’t.
Looking ahead , Its is not at all obvious that most HE institutions will be offering, primarily, face to face teaching, in future, as predicted by the OfS . So, what will the OfS do then when that penny begins to drop?
As far as international competitiveness goes, a study from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said that English universities charged more than publicly funded institutions in any other country, even though students often reaped lower economic benefits.
. Its education expert, Andreas Schleicher, suggested that students at English universities will expect to have much more than online lessons for such high fees. “Students go to university to meet great professors, to watch with colleagues, to experience a social life,” he told an event launching the OECDs ‘At a Glance Report’ which compares education systems around the industrialised world.
“If too much of university life remained online, he said, it would fundamentally challenge the “value proposition” of tuition fees.” Quite so.

Note .
The #StudentHappinessIndex, undertaken by @Endsleigh Insurance in partnership with the National Union of Students (@NUSUK), claims to be the first research project of its kind to delve into the concerns of students. Its key finding is that Undergraduate university students across the UK become less happy after their first year of study The Student Happiness Index report confirmed that undergraduates were largely unhappy this year. When asked to rate their contentment on a scale of 0 to 10, 40% of students scored themselves in the lowest bracket of between 0 and 3. In fact, the average life satisfaction score for the students surveyed was 5.9 out of 10, significantly lower than the national average of 7.1*. Furthermore, only a third (33%) of undergraduates said they were optimistic about life after university.

Need for Assessment Reforms

The Times -Letter Published 10 June 2021

Sir, It is comforting that Professor Louise Hayward (“It’s time to shake up the English education system”, Red Box, Jun 8) is looking at the future of assessment. The present system places a ridiculously high premium on students’ short-term memorisation while barely acknowledging the need for critical thinking or collaborative work to problem-solve, a requirement out there in the real world. The ability to get the best out of yourself and others in a collaborative environment is not valued, let alone assessed. We know that a scaffold of core knowledge and concepts is required by all students to problem-solve and progress in education, but a better balance can be struck. After formal education our young people have to work, not in isolation but with others, and with constant access to changing information. Hence it is essential that future accountability and assessment frameworks properly reflect this.
Patrick Watson
London SW8

Time to Shake up Our Assessment System ?

Louise Hayward, professor of Educational Assessment and Innovation at the University of Glasgow and chairwoman of the Independent Assessment Commission, this week informed Times readers that the Independent Assessment Commission (IAC), which comprises teachers, parents, young people, employers, policymakers, teacher educators and researchers, are seeking to develop principles for a qualification system that delivers Equitable, Reliable Assessment (ERA) . The idea is to inspire a national conversation around England’s qualification system. Some have been arguing that our assessment and qualifications system is no longer fit for purpose. The hiatus caused by the pandemic means that now may be the time for a fundamental rethink ,particularly around the nitty gritty of assessment. I agree. The commission wants ‘ a new ERA for our qualifications system to encourage all young people to learn throughout their personal and professional lives. Enabling a strong, stable and sustainable society where everyone can contribute and make progress and that meets the needs of all young people.
Professor Hayward also asked for help in gathering evidence. So if you are interested contact http://www.neweraassessment.org.uk.
As things stand the current system places a ridiculously high premium on students short term memorisation, while barely acknowledging the need for critical thinking or collaborative work to problem solve, a requirement out there in the real world. The system also elevates the importance of summative assessment above formative assessment, although, arguably, the latter is more valuable to both teacher and student ,enabling teaching and learning to be be adjusted continuously. The ability to get the best out of yourself and others, in a collaborative environment, is not valued, let alone assessed. We know that a scaffold of core knowledge and concepts is required by all students to problem solve and progress in education , but a better balance can be struck . After formal education our young people have to work , not in isolation, but with others and with constant access to changing information. It is essential, therefore, that the future accountability and assessment frameworks properly reflect this . So lets get on with it!