On the last official day of the school year, while teachers are closing classrooms, shutting laptops, and limping toward summer, an email lands from the Minister of Education.
Solid breakdown of how selective data presentation works. The "up to" framing is brutal once you see it – it technically allows for any distribution where at least one student hit the max gain, which could mean most kids saw way less. I've reviewed enough education pilots to know that when methodology details are missing and numbers are announced at holiday timing, someone upstream made acalculation about attention spans. What bugs me is the opportunity cost: parents who actually want to support learning at home get handed a platform without the context to judge whether it solves their kid's actual bottlenecks. If the phonics gains are real and sustained, great – but the way it's communicated undermines rather than builds the trust needed for harder conversations down the road when results are mixed.
I’m especially glad you raised opportunity cost. That’s the quiet harm here. When parents are genuinely trying to support their children, being handed a platform without context doesn’t empower them, it asks them to substitute hope for understanding. And when results are inevitably uneven, the system has already spent its credibility.
I agree entirely: if the phonics gains are real and sustained, that’s genuinely good news. But communicating early results as settled victories may win a news cycle while making it much harder to have the honest, nuanced conversations education always demands. In the long run, trust is built by explaining uncertainty, not smoothing it away.
Really appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoughtfully.
I’m especially glad you raised opportunity cost. That’s the quiet harm here. When parents are genuinely trying to support their children, being handed a platform without context doesn’t empower them, it asks them to substitute hope for understanding. And when results are inevitably uneven, the system has already spent its credibility.
I agree entirely: if the phonics gains are real and sustained, that’s genuinely good news. But communicating early results as settled victories may win a news cycle while making it much harder to have the honest, nuanced conversations education always demands. In the long run, trust is built by explaining uncertainty, not smoothing it away.
Really appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoughtfully.
Thanks for this article. This has been niggling at me too. The data tells us children learned the skills that were taught. That’s encouraging. What it doesn’t yet tell us is whether those skills lead to stronger reading and writing over time. That’s not an attack on teachers or families - it’s the next question any serious education system should ask.
Solid breakdown of how selective data presentation works. The "up to" framing is brutal once you see it – it technically allows for any distribution where at least one student hit the max gain, which could mean most kids saw way less. I've reviewed enough education pilots to know that when methodology details are missing and numbers are announced at holiday timing, someone upstream made acalculation about attention spans. What bugs me is the opportunity cost: parents who actually want to support learning at home get handed a platform without the context to judge whether it solves their kid's actual bottlenecks. If the phonics gains are real and sustained, great – but the way it's communicated undermines rather than builds the trust needed for harder conversations down the road when results are mixed.
I’m especially glad you raised opportunity cost. That’s the quiet harm here. When parents are genuinely trying to support their children, being handed a platform without context doesn’t empower them, it asks them to substitute hope for understanding. And when results are inevitably uneven, the system has already spent its credibility.
I agree entirely: if the phonics gains are real and sustained, that’s genuinely good news. But communicating early results as settled victories may win a news cycle while making it much harder to have the honest, nuanced conversations education always demands. In the long run, trust is built by explaining uncertainty, not smoothing it away.
Really appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoughtfully.
I’m especially glad you raised opportunity cost. That’s the quiet harm here. When parents are genuinely trying to support their children, being handed a platform without context doesn’t empower them, it asks them to substitute hope for understanding. And when results are inevitably uneven, the system has already spent its credibility.
I agree entirely: if the phonics gains are real and sustained, that’s genuinely good news. But communicating early results as settled victories may win a news cycle while making it much harder to have the honest, nuanced conversations education always demands. In the long run, trust is built by explaining uncertainty, not smoothing it away.
Really appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoughtfully.
Thanks for this article. This has been niggling at me too. The data tells us children learned the skills that were taught. That’s encouraging. What it doesn’t yet tell us is whether those skills lead to stronger reading and writing over time. That’s not an attack on teachers or families - it’s the next question any serious education system should ask.
Good article. Thank you for standing on business on the last days of the year.
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for your article.
Minister Standford's experience in reality TV is being applied here.
It is very tumpian indeed. I hate the fact that, that is even a phrase that is so well understood now.
Non of this is in a genuine effort to improve education. It is about producing unthinking, obedient citizens.
Do you foresee book banning in the coming years(similar to the US)?
Anyway, try not to clog your brain up with these matters too much over the holidays.
Merry Xmas to you Sarah.
Appreciate your work.