The Webmag carried a piece by Professor Ewan Anderson about the National Minimum Standards. This triggered a response from Nick Bradshaw which raises major issues.

Can attempts to measure success in human services such as childcare actually get at the most important qualities, or do they have a deleterious impact on the quality of services by diverting attention to things which are measurable? Is quality like the atom? i.e. if you measure, it moves.

Here we print Nick Bradshaw’s letter and Ewan Anderson’s reply. Like to join in?

Dear Ewan,

Interesting that, the more uncertain our society becomes about the meaning of such ideas as "right," "good", "normal" and other increasingly provocative and tendentious terms...although terms that not long ago, would have been regarded as unexceptionable with meanings that were obvious...the more necessary it becomes to define the purpose of an institution in terms of mission statements, or operational standards; and to assess its success in mathematical terms, by measuring how closely its performance approaches a defined efficiency, however it may be defined.

In the end, such attempts fail for the oldest of reasons; the felicific calculus never was a success, and was blighted by the ultimate logical fallacy of utilitarianism. The performance reflects the social requirement, and such mutual reinforcement results in a downwards spiral of moral content. Boarding schools, for example. You would know far better than I, but did they not operate, still do perhaps, on very old principles? If they did not reflect society's current values, no matter; change society ( usually, change it back to what it was), or wait for it to change back. It always would. It always has, anyway

The desire to codify performance, to test and to measure success, might it not be merely an attempt to establish a moral direction in an increasingly amoral world? And might not the accumulation of such attempts, by all sorts of institutions, organisations and individuals, result in an aggregate level of principle that might result in society rediscovering its moral direction? I believe, rather in an English Idealist, T H Green-ish way, that society's morality is thus formed ; and once formed, the operating rules of institutions become very much simpler to decide upon, and measurement of their success comes from measuring the success of the individual produced from such establishments, as that individual attempts to make a way in a moral society.

Yours aye,
Nick Bradshaw

Dear Nick,

I find your argument both interesting and salutary. Education, health and social work, all key components of child care, seem to be increasingly devoted to measurement of the measurables. Sadly, the measurables are often superficial and bear little relation to the major problems. In research terms, the quantitative is valued above the qualitative despite the fact that the latter more closely addresses the real issues. My own feeling is that the two should proceed together but that there should be a greater emphasis upon practice-based qualitative evidence to inform evidence-based practice. Such evidence, if meticulously collected and analysed, can certainly have validity.

With regard to national minimum standards, there are a number of fairly obvious problems. There are major discrepancies, which cannot be accounted for by the difference in clientele, between the five sets of standards for young people: boarding schools, special residential schools, FE colleges, children's homes and care homes for young people. In many ways, those for the boarding schools are the most restrictive and pay least attention to the pastoral side of residence. The primary concern of all the sets of standards is with premises, policies and the appointment of staff. These are relatively clear cut issues and it is possible to set generally acceptable standards.

However, it is arguable that the main concern of residential education is with living together and learning together. The major aims are therefore about personal and social development of the young people and there is virtually no mention of these aspects in the standards. Indeed, in the boarding schools standards, pastoral care is dismissed in terms of a "sound relationship between staff and boarders".

While standards must necessarily be concerned with the relatively short-term aims, residential education and care must also focus upon the longer term outcomes. Therefore, it can be argued that standards fail to address the major issues concerning young people who live away from home in groups.

Many thanks for raising these issues, Nick. I think that they form part of an ongoing debate to improve the life chances of all young people in residential education and care.

With good wishes.

Ewan Anderson