Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Julie M. Norman, Senior Associate Fellow on the Middle East at RUSI; Associate Professor in Politics & International Relations, UCL

In Gaza City, Palestinians are fleeing a renewed Israeli [assault] to take control over the area, following days of air strikes that have killed dozens. Just days earlier in Cairo, Hamas officials announced their acceptance of a ceasefire proposal following negotiations with Qatari and Egyptian mediators – a deal now probably derailed by the assault. And across Israel, hundreds of thousands of Israelis demonstrated against Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the war, demanding an end to fighting and the return of hostages.

It may be tempting to view Hamas’s announcement, combined with the protests, as potential turning points. But for many in the region, and with Israel beginning a new ground offensive in Gaza, this week’s headlines look all-too familiar.

Gaza City has been pummelled repeatedly throughout the 22-month war. Hamas has initially responded positively to various ceasefire proposals over the past year that have then broken down in negotiations. And Israelis turned out for massive protests nearly a year ago against the government’s failure to reach a ceasefire-for-hostages deal. Weekly protests have continued since in both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, to no avail.

Indeed, after spending the past month in the region, I find it hard to envisage an end to the violence any time soon. As one Israeli reservist told me: “Last year at this time, I didn’t imagine there could possibly be another year of war. Now, it’s hard to imagine there not still being a war in another year from now.” So where do things go from here?

Even before Israel’s renewed offensive, a ceasefire deal looked highly unlikely. This is despite the fact that the proposal accepted by Hamas is reportedly “98% similar” to the US-backed phased plan from July. This called for a 60-day truce, which would see about half of the hostages released while the two sides negotiate a lasting ceasefire. Hamas has also reportedly eased its demands regarding two of the major sticking points from the summer’s negotiations, namely the number of Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences to be released as part of the deal (reduced from from 200 to 150), and the size of an Israeli buffer zone along the Gaza border (increased from 800 metres to one kilometre).

But the Israeli government has said it is no longer interested in a partial or phased deal, only a comprehensive agreement that would see all the hostages freed. While Netanyahu has not formally ruled out the current offer, various members of his governing coalition have already rejected it.

Israel and Hamas remain far apart regarding what “ending the war” actually means. Hamas has long maintained that an end to the war means the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and a guarantee that any truce be permanent. Meanwhile, Israel’s security cabinet has approved a five-point plan for ending the war that, along with the return of the hostages, includes disarming Hamas, demilitarising Gaza, and taking security control of the Strip, as well as establishing “an alternative civil administration that is neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority”.

Aside from the hostage release, all of these points present major challenges, especially disarming Hamas and “security control”. Given Hamas’s depleted state, some argue that Hamas might be willing to decommission weapons as part of a negotiated disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration process, similar to the IRA in Northern Ireland or the Farc in Colombia. But this would require disarmament happening in the context of a broader long-term political agreement.

This was part of the logic behind a July declaration endorsed by all Arab League states, calling on Hamas to disarm to open up a pathway for a Palestinian state. But, given that the Netanyahu government has rejected any negotiations towards a two-state solution, Hamas’s leadership in Gaza is not likely to disarm if it is seen purely as surrendering.

Israel’s intention to maintain “security control” in Gaza arguably represents an even greater impasse to reaching a ceasefire. This is not a new position. Netanyahu articulated a plan for security control in February 2024, and has spoken openly of reoccupying Gaza since May 2025.

The government has also discussed plans to annex parts of Gaza, and continues to explore options for “resettling” Gazans to third countries – a move that would amount to forcible transfer under international law. And as the military moves forward this week with plans to retake Gaza City, all signs are pointing to a long-term or permanent Israeli presence inside Gaza.

Israeli opposition, Hamas division

These moves are happening on the backdrop of growing public wariness in Israel, where polls show more than 70% of Israelis supporting a negotiated end to the war to free the hostages. Furthermore, many view the plans to retake Gaza City as both endangering the remaining hostages in the short term and creating new security problems for Israel in the long term, as well as keeping thousands of reservists deployed.

In addition to this past week’s protests, a group of more than 600 Israeli security and intelligence officials wrote a letter earlier this month stating that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel, and calling for an end to the war. Notably, the letter was sent to the US president, Donald Trump, whom most officials I spoke with agreed is the only person with the leverage to nudge Netanyahu towards a ceasefire.

Identifying external leverage for Hamas is equally difficult. There have long been internal rifts within Hamas, especially between the so-called pragmatists and ideologues. These internal divisions have multiplied over the course of the war as the group struggles to maintain a coherent vision amid the Israeli assassinations of most of its leadership and the weakening of its regional backers, Iran and Hezbollah.

As such, even when Qatari and Egyptian mediators manage to extract concessions from Hamas negotiators, they are often rebuffed by leaders and operatives in Gaza, where the group views mere survival as a form of victory. Indeed, even though Hamas’s military capabilities have been largely depleted, they maintain the capacity to sustain a long campaign of guerrilla warfare.

As both Netanyahu and Hamas prolong the war for their own survival, they appear to be locked in a mutually destructive cycle. But it’s Gaza’s civilians and the Israeli hostages who continue to bear the consequences.

Julie M. Norman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. No end to the violence as Israel launches its assault on Gaza City – https://theconversation.com/no-end-to-the-violence-as-israel-launches-its-assault-on-gaza-city-263463

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elise Smith, Associate Professor in the History of Medicine, University of Warwick

The recent publication of the University of Edinburgh’s Review of Race and History has drawn attention to its “skull room”: a collection of 1,500 human craniums procured for study in the 19th century.

Craniometry, the study of skull measurements, was widely taught in medical schools across Britain, Europe, and the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Today, the harmful and racist foundations of craniometry have been discredited. It’s long been proven that the size and shape of the head have no bearing on mental and behavioural traits in either individuals or groups.

In the 19th and early 20th century, however, thousands of skulls were amassed to enable research and instruction in scientific racism. Edinburgh’s skull room is by no means unique.

Unlike phrenology, a popular theory which linked personality traits to bumps on the head, craniometry enjoyed widespread scientific support in the 19th century because it revolved around data collection and statistics.

Craniometrists measured skulls and averaged the results for different population groups. This data was used to classify people into races based on the size and shape of the head. Craniometrical evidence was used to explain why some peoples were supposedly more civilised and evolved than others.

The vast accumulation of data drawn from skulls appealed to Victorian scientists who believed in the objectivity of numbers. It equally helped to validate racial prejudice by suggesting that differences among peoples were innate and biologically determined.

Medical history

The study of skulls was central to the development of 19th-century anthropology. But before anthropology was taught at British universities, markers of supposed racial difference were studied by anatomists skilled in identifying minute differences in skeletons. The study of skulls entered the university curriculum through medical schools, and particularly through anatomy departments.

For example, when Alexander Macalister was appointed as professor of anatomy at Cambridge in 1884, some of his first lectures were on “The Race Types of the Human Skull.”

Macalister’s annual report for 1892 in the Cambridge University Reporter describes how he had increased Cambridge’s cranial holdings from 55 to 1,402 specimens. In 1899, he reported the donation of more than 1,000 ancient Egyptian craniums from the archaeologist Flinders Petrie. Much of Macalister’s skull collection remains housed in the university’s Duckworth Laboratory, which was established in 1945.

As the prestige of craniometrical research increased, institutions had to compete for cranial collections as they went on the market. Statistical accuracy depended on vast series of craniums being measured to produce representative “types”. This created an increased demand for human remains.

In 1880, the Royal College of Surgeons purchased 1,539 skulls from the private collection of Joseph Barnard Davis. This was added to their existing cache of 1,018 craniums to create Britain’s largest craniological collection. This collection was largely destroyed in 1941 when the college building was bombed during world war two. The remaining skulls are no longer held by the Royal College of Surgeons.

Oxford’s University Museum of Natural History included rows of crania in their anatomical displays in the 19th century, as did the University of Manchester’s medical school (the medical school is no longer on the same site). This investment in skulls ensured that racial researchers had enough material to study and use in their teaching.

Catalogues kept by universities in the 19th and early 20th centuries reveal not only the size of their skull collections, but also the origin of individual specimens.

Historical trauma

Some medical schools, such as Edinburgh’s, repurposed skulls procured by phrenological societies earlier in the century to enhance their holdings. Others, including Oxford’s, made use of skulls unearthed by archaeologists to conduct racial research into the country’s past. This research attempted to trace the movements of Celts, Normans, Saxons, and Scandinavians across the British Isles.

Yet because craniologists wanted to capture the full extent of racial variation, skulls from abroad were especially prized. Medical graduates of British universities posted to the colonies sent foreign bones to their old professors.

In research for my forthcoming book on skull collections, I’ve found that Cambridge’s cranial register includes a skull sent from a former student stationed in India. He had plucked it from a cremation site in Bombay despite the outrage of gathered mourners. Brazen grave-robbing and colonial violence were central to the international network that furnished British universities’ skull rooms.

The racist ideology that spurred the collection of skulls 150 years ago has been completely discredited. However, some anthropologists believe these bones may still shed light on human origins, relations and migrations.

Yet ethical factors now equally shape institutional policies towards human remains. The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford took its infamous “shrunken heads” off display in 2020.

Increasingly, universities and museums have confronted the historic injustices and inter-generational trauma perpetuated by their retention of human remains. Since the 1970s, Indigenous groups from around the world have launched campaigns to repatriate their ancestors’ bones. Research institutions have become increasingly responsive to these requests.

In London, the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons no longer displays the skeleton of Charles Byrne, the so-called “Irish Giant”. Byrne had explicitly denied consent for his remains to be dissected and mounted before he died in 1783.

The skulls in British universities are a testament to a vast theft of human remains from almost every territory on earth. Yet they have the potential to become powerful symbols of reconciliation if their discriminatory histories are acknowledged, and remedied through their return.

A spokesperson for the Duckworth Laboratory, University of Cambridge, said:

“We, like many institutions in the UK, are dealing with the legacies and past unethical practice in assembling the collections in our care. The Duckworth Collection and the Department of Archaeology are dedicated to fostering an open dialogue and building robust relationships with traditional communities and other stakeholders. This commitment is seen as an integral part of a continuous, reciprocal exchange of knowledge, perspectives, and cultural values. The aim is not only to address past inequities but also to enrich contemporary academic and cultural understanding through a respectful and equal partnership. In this vein, the Duckworth Collection is actively expanding its work with archival documentation and improving our records and database. In essence, the Duckworth Laboratory’s approach to repatriation and community engagement is marked by a commitment to openness, inclusivity, and a recognition of the need for an ongoing dialogue.”

Elise Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How the racist study of skulls gripped Victorian Britain’s scientists – https://theconversation.com/how-the-racist-study-of-skulls-gripped-victorian-britains-scientists-262280

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dominik Piehlmaier, Associate Professor in Marketing, Department of Strategy and Marketing, University of Sussex

Have you ever spotted an empty supermarket shelf and felt a sudden pang of discomfort, even though you weren’t looking for that item? You’re not alone. Shocks such as COVID and cyberattacks on retailers have made empty shelves a common sight in many countries. These moments often come with media coverage of panicked shoppers and long queues.

But what happens when those shelves are empty while shopping during normal times and when you weren’t even planning to buy what’s missing?

My recent study, undertaken with my colleague Ursula Dávila Gamiño, found that empty shelves can trigger anxiety in shoppers, regardless of whether they intended to buy the missing product.

We explored how consumers react emotionally to “stockouts” (when products are unavailable or shelves are bare). The findings reveal that just the sight of empty shelves can stir up feelings of anxiety.

Our research found that shoppers’ brains may still interpret the empty space as a warning sign. It appears to be a kind of emotional conditioning: after seeing empty shelves during stressful times, consumers start to associate them with anxiety.

So even for people just browsing or picking up a few essentials, the sight of a stockout can make them feel uneasy.

One of our most striking findings is that the anxiety is not tied to the specific product. Shoppers might feel stressed when they see an empty shelf of canned soup, even if they were looking for bread. The emotional response is triggered by the visual cue itself, not the item.

Previous research has shown that media coverage alone can create a sense of urgency and fear of missing out, even when consumers aren’t directly affected by stockouts.

This means that shoppers are reacting to the idea of scarcity, not the actual inconvenience. It’s a subtle but powerful shift in how we experience retail spaces.

Different countries, different reactions

Our study also compared shopper responses in two countries – the UK and Mexico. Interestingly, UK shoppers were more likely to feel anxious when they saw empty shelves, while Mexicans were less affected.

We measured their anxiety using a method known as the state anxiety inventory by asking them to describe their current feelings either in English or Spanish towards randomly allocated images of fully stocked or empty shelves. The list of feelings covered “at ease”, “frightened”, “comfortable”, “nervous”, “worried” and “pleasant”.

We found the difference came down to their experiences. In Mexico, there was widespread reporting on severe supply chain disruptions when the country was hit hard by the 2009 swine flu outbreak.

However, over the 16 years since the outbreak occurred, the association between this traumatic event and empty supermarket shelves has weakened. This appears to have made Mexicans less likely to interpret stockouts as a sign of danger even though there were also supply chain problems during the height of the COVID pandemic.

British shoppers saw a roughly 11% increase relative to their average anxiety levels when exposed to images of empty shelves. In contrast, Mexican consumers had no detectable reaction when they were shown these photos.

In contrast, UK shoppers, who have more recently experienced sudden and dramatic shortages as a novel phenomenon during Brexit and COVID, have a stronger emotional reaction. For them, an empty shelf might not be just a gap in inventory. It could be a reminder of the uncertainty they experienced just a few years ago – official figures show that average anxiety levels in the UK jumped rapidly over the first part of 2020.

Our environment affects us, even in subtle ways. Supermarkets are not just places to buy food, they are commercially driven spaces that influence how we feel. The layout, lighting and even the state of the shelves can shape our mood and determine if and how much we buy.

Rather than using signs to explain the shortages, one practical solution to help shoppers avoid feelings of anxiety could be for supermarkets to cover empty shelves with images of fully stocked ones.

This visual trick might help reduce anxiety and create a more pleasant shopping atmosphere. While it may sound like a small change, it could make a big difference for shoppers who are sensitive to signs of scarcity.

There is a growing body of research into how everyday experiences affect our mental and emotional wellbeing. Even routine activities such as grocery shopping can have psychological impacts, and small changes in our environment can influence how we feel.

So the next time you’re in the supermarket and the sight of an empty shelf makes your heart sink, remember it’s not just about the missing products. It’s about how your brain has learned to respond.

Dominik Piehlmaier does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why empty supermarket shelves make you uneasy – even if you don’t want the missing items – https://theconversation.com/why-empty-supermarket-shelves-make-you-uneasy-even-if-you-dont-want-the-missing-items-262285

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robin Canniford, Professor of Markets, Business, and Society, University of Bath

Psychologists have long considered how a tendency towards irrational thinking or particular personality traits might predict peoples’ interest in conspiracies. Yet these individual factors do not explain the group processes through which conspiracy theorists are extending their influence and impact.

Over five years, we sought out and got to know people on the cusp of becoming conspiracy theorists. And the results of our new study show that a sense of community activism is attracting people to these ideas.

Indeed, contrary to the stereotype of isolated keyboard warriors who have gone down the rabbit hole, conspiracy theorists are becoming organised, recruiting supporters, picketing vaccination centres and vandalising telecommunication and traffic infrastructures.

Our research examined the growing interest in conspiracy theories and how associated activism emerges. Immersive research with conspiracy theorists is rare. But revealing our status as researchers actually allowed us to build relationships with people, who shared insights into what motivates their involvement.

In particular, we spoke to people about conspiracy theories concerning 5G technology, COVID-19, 15-minute cities and low-traffic neighbourhoods. We also took part in online discussions and travelled the UK to sit in on public meetings and conferences. Ultimately, our insights revealed how people tend to follow a pathway from initial interest, to community engagement and potentially activism.

Awakenings

Belief in conspiracy theories is often initiated by traumatic life events. Job losses or the death of a loved one can trigger anger and suspicion towards public services, authority figures, and experts. This is especially so if people feel that the tragic or destructive events that affected them could have been averted. And these emotions can motivate a search for answers.

When conspiracy theories claim to explain painful personal circumstances or wider fears over COVID-19, or climate change, people can experience “awakenings”. These are moments of insight during which people come to believe that the causes of their problems lie with secretive groups which control society.

One person we spoke to described conspiracy theories as enabling him to “access the way the world really works… as if a light was switched on in my head and I could see things clearly”.

People rarely experience their awakening in isolation. In online group chats, people discover others with similar problems. In public meetings, beliefs in various theories are boosted by interactions where people discuss their suspicions over who is to blame for particular issues. In the process, these groups feed off their common emotions, building an atmosphere of energy and excitement.

The loss of traditional meeting places such as pubs and high streets, along with high levels of loneliness, may be driving people to look for new forms of connection and meaning.

The people we spoke to expressed surprise at the social connections they had found through these communities. As one participant put it, “there’s a lot of support out there for people who are doing their own research… there is always someone wanting to hear more, building on the work of others, giving each other support. There’s a real buzz in this community.”

Do your own research

Conspiracy theories don’t merely offer alternative explanations for events, they are resources for communities that provide identity, purpose and belonging. These benefits may explain why it is so difficult to talk people out of their beliefs in conspiracy theories.

Indeed, when conspiracy communities generate common interpretations and shared emotions, conspiracy theories can resonate powerfully, making them seem more real than they are.

This effect is compounded by the way which conspiracy theories invite believers to build on ideas by “doing their own research”. The internet serves as a vast database where conspiracy theorists can discover articles, documents and scientific reports to support their claims.

And despite the questionable quality of many such sources, contributing to conspiracy theories can provide a boost to people’s self esteem, making them feel like experts and heroic detectives. A key aspect of these communities is how they empower members to contribute.

Yet, beyond generating more theories, conspiracy communities are becoming organised networks for protest and activism. Given that conspiracy theories raise suspicion and anger over peoples’ problems, and point the blame at particular targets, we found that believers can feel compelled to take part in protests.

For example, some claim that the urban planning concept of 15-minute cities is part of secretive government scheme to limit citizens’ movement. Protesters against these and other efforts to improve urban environments are uniting under slogans such as “stop the tyranny”.

Who benefits?

Activism based on conspiracy theories can come with serious risks. Many of those involved lose contact with family and friends. Increasingly, conspiracy activists are being charged with crimes. In 2024, an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist was sentenced to prison for five years for encouraging violence against chief medical officer for England, Chris Witty.

Moreover, when conspiracy theorists take action without tested evidence, they may misidentify targets. This can result in harm to innocent people and can undermine the very institutions needed to solve crimes.

To be sure, instances of conspiracy and foul play by powerful figures and organisations do happen. You have to wonder how much energy then, is wasted fighting imaginary enemies while actual wrongdoing is overlooked.

Perhaps the real winners here are the conspiracy entrepreneurs – people who capitalise on conspiracy theories by creating content that heightens peoples’ suspicions about problematic events. In the process, these people build attention and fame, while peddling products and services from books, merchandise and coaching, to vitamin pills and gadgets.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why people embrace conspiracy theories: it’s about community, not gullibility – https://theconversation.com/why-people-embrace-conspiracy-theories-its-about-community-not-gullibility-262276

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jo-Anne Johnson, Head of Undergraduate Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University

Could blowing a conch shell help treat sleep apnoea? As a doctor working in sleep medicine, this unexpected news story certainly grabbed my attention. My first reaction was scepticism – sleep specialists don’t typically prescribe natural objects found on beaches as medical therapy. But perhaps I was too hasty to dismiss the idea.

For those unfamiliar with them, a conch shell is the spiral home of a large sea snail that, when hollowed out, can be blown like a trumpet. This practice isn’t new – cultures worldwide have used conch shells for thousands of years in rituals, ceremonies and communication. What’s novel is the suggestion that it might help with a serious medical condition affecting millions.

We all know someone who snores, but not all snoring is harmless. If your partner notices you sometimes stop breathing during the night, that’s cause for concern. You may have obstructive sleep apnoea, a condition where throat muscles relax excessively during sleep, causing the airway to narrow or close completely. These breathing interruptions – called apnoeas – can happen dozens or even hundreds of times per night.

The consequences extend far beyond disturbing your partner’s sleep. Each pause in breathing jolts your brain out of deeper sleep stages, leaving you exhausted the next day. This isn’t merely inconvenient – drowsy drivers cause thousands of accidents annually. The repeated drops in oxygen also strain your heart, increasing risks of high blood pressure and heart disease if left untreated.

Standard treatments focus on keeping airways open during sleep. The gold standard is Cpap (continuous positive airway pressure), where a mask delivers steady airflow that acts like an internal splint. We also use oral devices that gently shift the jaw forward, surgical removal of enlarged tonsils or adenoids, and even newer techniques involving tiny electrical impulses to stimulate airway muscles.

Lifestyle changes matter, too. Weight loss reduces fatty tissue around the neck that can compress airways, while cutting alcohol and stopping smoking helps maintain firmer airway muscles – both substances make throat tissues floppier and worsen symptoms.

Muscles matter for sleep

So where does the conch shell fit? When you blow through any narrow opening, you’re essentially training your upper airway muscles to stay open and firm. This concept, called airway muscle training, has legitimate scientific backing. Studies show that exercises targeting the tongue, soft palate and facial muscles can improve mild to moderate sleep apnoea symptoms.

Research has even examined whether playing the didgeridoo – another wind instrument requiring sustained airway control – might benefit sleep apnoea patients. The results were promising, though limited by patient compliance. The challenge with any exercise-based treatment is maintaining daily practice long-term.

This is where the conch shell idea becomes more intriguing. For carefully selected patients with milder symptoms, it could offer an engaging, culturally rich alternative to conventional airway exercises. It’s certainly more accessible than learning the didgeridoo – and probably easier to explain to concerned neighbours.

However, let’s be clear: conch shell therapy won’t revolutionise sleep apnoea treatment. Anyone with suspected sleep apnoea needs proper medical evaluation and evidence-based treatment. Cpap therapy remains the most effective option for moderate to severe cases. But as part of a comprehensive approach – alongside weight management, lifestyle changes and conventional treatments – prescribed conch shell exercises might one day earn a place in our therapeutic toolkit.

So sleep medicine, typically obsessed with high-tech solutions, might benefit from embracing something as ancient and simple as blowing into a seashell. Of course, being sleep specialists, we’d inevitably need to give it a suitably technical name – “conchological respiratory muscle rehabilitation” has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

Jo-Anne Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Sleep apnoea and the unlikely role of conch shells – https://theconversation.com/sleep-apnoea-and-the-unlikely-role-of-conch-shells-263458

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hannah Wilkinson, Lecturer in Educational Psychology, University of Manchester

Many students rejoice when they find out their GCSE results. In 2025, 21.9% of grades awarded are at grade seven (previously A) or above. But others will be holding a piece of paper – or looking at a screen – that tells them they have failed to reach expected standards. This year, 32.6% of awarded grades were below the pass grade of four.

It is important to consider the potential impact of this failure, and examine whether these exams are effectively serving young people.

GCSEs were originally conceived as a criterion-referenced assessment. This means that that students’ performance would be measured against a fixed set of criteria, with the intention of being accessible and fair for all candidates. There would be no limit on, for instance, how many students could get a top grade.

However, the reality incorporates elements of a norm-referenced approach, whereby grades are standardised.

This means that grade boundaries are adjusted so that overall results generally align with the proportion of grades awarded at each level for a predetermined standard. This is applied to ensure consistency across years: to eliminate issues if exams are judged to be particularly “easy” or “difficult” in a given year. However, this process means that there will always be a percentage of students who fail because their performance is not judged to hit the grade four threshold for a pass mark.

Outside of the years when marking and results were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, on average, fewer than 70% of students reached the level required for a grade four pass mark, meaning that at least 30% of students always fail.

The expectation of failure can have negative consequences for students. In response to consistent failure, students can become helpless, seeing themselves as having less control over their future outcomes and attributing their failure to a lack of ability. Students who feel helpless are less likely to persist when they fail. Even in the face of success, helpless students are more likely to view this as a one off.

What’s more, a series of education reforms over the past four decades has turned GCSE education into an extremely competitive system.

Focus on academics

GCSEs were initially introduced in 1988 under the Education Reform Act. This was followed by the introduction of performance league tables in 1992, requiring schools to publish the number of students achieving five or more passes at GCSE. These reforms intended to transform schools into a competitive marketplace, with the aim of improving schools and student outcomes.

This change was followed by further reforms in 2015, which saw coursework and modular exams replaced with exams at the end of two years of study.

In a bid to focus schools on providing an academic curriculum, schools now also have to publish the number of students taking up the English baccalaureate: a set of subjects taken at GCSE which must include English language and literature, maths, the sciences, geography or history and a language. They must also publish their students’ average performance across these five subjects.

This means that students may be encouraged to study and take exams in subjects that don’t suit them and that they don’t enjoy.

The pressure on schools to perform well in these league tables can lead to them engaging in practices often referred to as “gaming the system”. These range from the more obvious (such as spending increased time on core subjects and exam preparation) to the downright dubious, such as lower test scorers being removed from taking exams in order to inflate average test scores.

Exams and wellbeing

There are also growing concerns around the impact of exams on students’ wellbeing. A recent survey by charity Young Minds found that 63% of 15 to 18-year-olds said they struggled to cope in the lead up to and during GCSE and A-level exams. The survey found that 74% of 15 to 18-year-olds think exams should be reformed to improve mental health. Childline, the counselling service for young people, have also raised concerns regarding the increase in calls relating to exams and revision stress.

The purpose of education

This high-pressure environment can also have a suffocating effect on curiosity in learning. In one memorable lesson during my research observing teachers and pupils in the GCSE classroom, I observed a student asking the teacher the first name of a historical figure he was discussing. “You won’t get any more marks for knowing their first name,” the teacher responded.

This example highlights the focus in classrooms on knowledge acquisition for the purpose of passing exams. This approach leaves little time for in-depth understandingor the development of higher-order cognitive skills, such as problem solving and critical thinking. Both employers and universities note that current exam system does not prepare young people for life beyond school. They have called for more focus on other skills such as independent and creative thinking and greater ability to collaborate.

What do students want?

In a research study with GCSE students, the teenagers in the study felt that a return to previous assessment methods would be beneficial: such as a number of smaller modular-based exams over the course of study, or a combination of coursework and exams, to spread the risk if something doesn’t go to plan.

The students also noted that the current system places heavy emphasis on remembering quotes, equations and formulae. A move towards open-book exams would mean moving away from rote learning and allowing a greater focus upon skills such as understanding and application, which are more relevant and useful for life beyond the classroom.

The potential negative influence of current exam processes on the mental health of young people and the lack of real-world skills this approach promotes calls into question the need for a further reform to GCSEs – as well as the need for greater consideration of young people’s voices in assessment policy.

If you are upset, disappointed, or worried about your future, you can talk with a Childline counsellor.

Hannah Wilkinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. GCSE results are out – but is the system worth it? – https://theconversation.com/gcse-results-are-out-but-is-the-system-worth-it-261888

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Leonie Fleischmann, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

The Israeli government has approved a plan for construction of a massive new settlement bloc in the controversial E1 area in the occupied West Bank.

In reviving a project first proposed in 1994, which will comprise about 3,500 new dwellings in a line across the West Bank, finance minister Bezalel Smotrich laid bare the intentions of his government. He declared that “approval of construction plans in E1 buries the idea of a Palestinian state, and continues the many steps we are taking on the ground as part of the de facto sovereignty plan”.

E1 (“East 1”) refers to 12 square kilometres of unsettled land east of Jerusalem. It sits inside the boundaries of the third most populous Israeli settlement in the West Bank, Ma’ale Adumim.

In 1975, Israel expropriated 30 sq km of land on which seven Palestinian villages had once stood. Here they built Ma’ale Adumim, one of three Israeli settlement blocs that form an “outer ring” around the Israeli-defined municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.

Israeli authorities refer to these blocs as “facts on the ground”. They were initiated in the West Bank by the Israeli government after the 1967 War to ensure that Israeli population centres were protected from potential attacks.

Today, almost 40,000 Israelis live in Ma’ale Adumim – largely secular Israelis and diaspora Jews who have moved to Israel. Far from the makeshift Israeli outposts that are scattered across the rural West Bank, Ma’ale Adumim was designated a city by Israel in 2015. It is considered by the majority of Israeli Jews to be a permanently protected settlement bloc, which will be retained through land swaps in any final agreement with Palestinians.

The E1 development plan would involve a significant expansion of the existing settlement. All settlement building in East Jerusalem and the West Bank is deemed illegal under international law, but the E1 plans are particularly controversial.

At the heart of the controversy is the viability of a Palestinian state. Israeli construction in E1 would cut the West Bank into two separate parts, rendering it impossible to establish a contiguous Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

In addition, according to an objection lodged by the Israeli pressure group Peace Now, Israeli construction in E1 would negatively affect the economic development of a future Palestinian state.

Its objection argues the E1 area is essential for expansion of an urban metropolis necessary for economic growth, and is the only land in East Jerusalem suitable for further development in the Palestinian part of the city. It states that E1 should therefore be left for Palestinian rather than Israeli development.

Political threat

The plan to develop E1 was first proposed in 1994 by Israel’s then-prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, to make sure Ma’ale Adumim was part of a “united Jerusalem”. This was subsequently reaffirmed by Shimon Peres during his prime ministership in 1996, as part of proposed territorial swaps in the framework of a permanent peace agreement.

In 2005, those plans were frozen after the US administration under George W. Bush told Israel that settlement in E1 would “contravene American policy”.

The plan was reignited by Israel’s current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2012, in retaliation for the United Nations’ extension of non-member status to Palestine. But it was then put on hold for eight years due to international pressure.

In 2020, a week ahead of the third national elections held in Israel in a single year, Netanyahu pledged to revive the E1 project, with the hope of securing votes and to court the ultra-nationalist parties into a potential coalition. In 2022, Netanyahu renewed the E1 construction plans, weeks before then-US president Joe Biden was due to visit Israel.

Opposition and support

Each time the plans have been proposed, the decision to advance construction has been met with both internal and international condemnation. On June 9 2023, the planning hearing was “indefinitely” postponed following a call between Netanyahu and Biden’s secretary of state, Antony Blinken.

In response to the most recent announcement to reinstate the plans, the European Union put out a statement expressing concern. It urged Israel “to desist from taking this decision forward, noting its far-reaching implications and the need to consider action to protect the viability of the two-state solution”.

However, Donald Trump now appears to be breaking with the position of previous US administrations. It was recently reported in the Jerusalem Post that the Trump administration supports the reactivation of the development plans. A spokesperson for the US State Department said “a stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with this administration’s goal to achieve peace in the region”.

Israel’s latest attempt to initiate construction in E1 shows that, while the plans have consistently been delayed, they have never been abandoned. The question is why did Smotrich, with the apparent approval of Netanyahu, make this announcement now?

The answer is most likely that, with the international focus firmly on the continued assault on Gaza, the Israeli government believes it has the breathing space to press ahead with its commitment to building settlements across the West Bank.

Alongside the proposed Israeli takeover of Gaza City, the promise by Smotrich that 2025 would be Israel’s “Year of Sovereignty” – and with it the end of a future Palestinian state – appears to be coming ever closer.

Leonie Fleischmann does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Israel’s plan for massive new West Bank settlement would make a Palestinian state impossible – https://theconversation.com/israels-plan-for-massive-new-west-bank-settlement-would-make-a-palestinian-state-impossible-263451