Ever wondered why ancient buildings are so beautiful and strong that not only are they are still around today, but they can also still create such awe and wonder? “We don’t make ‘em like we used to”, hey. To find out why this is the case, we will travel back to WWII.
When planes were sent over in the war effort their damage was analysed upon their return. This was to see where reinforcement should be placed in order to better protect them from enemy fire.
Analysis of all the places planes are being shot at, like in the image on the left, would let engineers know where to add extra armour. The aim here was to ensure more planes returned home than previously. Armour was added to the red areas, since this is where the data suggested the enemy guns were hitting, and planes were sent out again. Unfortunately, it had little impact.
Enter Abraham Wald. He was a Jewish Hungarian, who, when antisemitism rose in Europe, moved to America. When the war broke out, he was at hand to aid to Allied effort. Like so many unsung heroes of WWII, he was a mathematician. He said that if we only look at the bullet holes of the planes that have survived then we are leaving out a crucial set of data, those that did not.
Whilst it would be impractical to go and find the planes that had been shot down, perhaps we could infer this information from the survivors. If we look again at the image of the plane and realise that these are the bullet patterns of the planes that have returned, it suddenly isn’t a big leap to say that the armour should go where the red dots aren’t. It is likely the planes are being shot everywhere but, since we can’t see any planes that have been shot in certain areas, this is more likely due to shots there being devastating to the plane, rather than that area being missed.
This is an example of survivorship bias – only looking at the data of those that have “survived” to inform your decisions. This is also the reason why it can appear that all ancient buildings are strong and awe-inspiring; the reality is those that weren’t have either collapsed because they weren’t sturdy or have been demolished because they weren’t impressive. There is little choice but for the ancient buildings that are around today to be strong and beautiful, they wouldn’t be here otherwise.
What does this have to do with education?
It is not uncommon to see in the public domain, people deriding the use of explicit methods of teaching. Phonics and fronted adverbials are common targets here.
An author (as all the people above are), criticising how reading is taught in schools is another example of survivorship bias. They think that, understandably, they managed to flourish without needing these methods so therefore it isn’t needed for anybody. What they are omitting from their data is the thousands of pupils (more likely than not, disadvantaged pupils) who left the education system the same year as them with little to no literacy. This explicit teaching is not for the few who survived, it is for those who otherwise wouldn’t.
“Since the introduction of the phonics screening check in 2012, the percentage of Year 1 pupils meeting the expected standard in reading has risen from 58% to 82%, with 92% of children achieving this standard by Year 2.” DfE
What about teachers? Do we carry this bias around with us and how might it present itself? If you’re teaching in a school the chances are you have a degree, for that, you probably did pretty well at school. Whatever your background, you most likely found ways to navigate the system. This can lead to assumptions about all learners. It can lead to assuming that others don’t need certain structures put in place because you survived without them. It can lead to people deriding, not explicit ways of teaching vocabulary, but explicit ways of teaching anything.
If you’ve successfully navigated school and are now a teacher, you might ask:
Why do I need to explicitly teach learners how to revise?
Why do I need to teach self-regulation?
Why do I need to use routines in my lesson?
…after all, I survived without them.
If you’ve successfully navigated being a teacher, and are now leading teacher in some way you might ask:
Why do we need these frameworks and policies?
Why do I need to show others how to explicitly teach/plan?
Why do I need to share my tips for teaching?
Why do I need to line manage people so explicitly?
…after all, I survived without them.
It’s important when systemising processes and making things more explicit that we do not take agency away from individuals and that our plan, in the long run, is for them to be successful independently of us. Our aim is to produce a cohort of staff and students who don’t just survive but thrive in the education system. To do this though, we need to look beyond the success stories, the top sets, the high fliers, and think about those that might be struggling and what extra armour needs putting in place to ensure they succeed too. After all, a bit of extra protection, if you don’t need it, does no harm.
Summary
It is important to know that in many ways, you are a survivor. This is something to be celebrated but also something to be acutely aware of. As a teacher, you likely need to give many students more explicit help then you ever received yourself. As a leader, you likely need to give many teachers more explicit help than you ever received yourself. Remember, this isn’t for those people who are going to be fine otherwise (though they are likely to benefit too), it is to ensure that no matter what, when you work or learn at a great school, you have just as much chance of succeeding as anybody else. In short, make sure you know where your holes are, or perhaps more aptly, where they aren’t.
I’m always interested in what people make of this so please feel free to comment with thoughts, questions or incomplete musings. Follow this or my Twitter account Teach_Solutions for similar content in the future. Also, check out the rest of this site, there’s some good stuff knocking about the place.
Teach Solutions 