Some zero-sum?
26th September 2025
Many of you know that I burn off the frustrations and energy by my running routines. I am getting slower, but the enthusiasm remains. Many of those who you’ll see galloping around will have headphones on/in. Most will be listening to music and will be motivated by those running beats. Me? It’s the spoken word.
I know that there is something of a co-ordinated drive to ‘do down the BBC’ but let me remind you… when it’s gone, it’s gone – we won’t really appreciate its value until it’s not around (just look at how the media and news is delivered in the US). So, what do I listen to when running? It can be the BBC Tees podcast on all things Middlesbrough FC but usually it’s some stimulating Radio Four programme or podcast (favourites include: Radical with Amol Rajan, Political Thinking with Nick Robinson, Great Lives, Americast, This Cultural Life). However, this week I came across a really interesting programme about zero-sum thinking and it made me think hard about what we do and why it’s important. Should you want to have a listen, the programme is Rethink… Winners and Losers, you can find it at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002jtvk
Ben Ansell asks us some fundamental questions about zero-sum thinking; the idea that there are always winners and losers. If you are losing, then someone must be winning at your expense. He argues that those on either end of the political spectrum, for example the anti-migrant campaigners and anti-capitalists, share an identical mindset. Both are demonstrating zero-sum thinking; the belief that if one group wins, another has to lose. In itself, zero-sum thinking isn’t moral or immoral, right or wrong. But Economists claim it leads to poor economic policy, and they say evidence shows it is possible to create win-win situations for everyone.
What do you think? Reflecting upon the arguments I found coming to definite conclusions about education difficult.
Let’s be honest, the examination systems are zero-sum. They have to be, as they are designed at this stage. As a country/system we expect standards to be maintained year to year. We set broad bandings; allowing the examination boards and Ofqual to maintain standards by allowing for a certain number of A*s, As, 9s, 8s, 7s etc.
There can be a lot of political noise about standards, but this approach does allow for comparisons between cohorts. The issue for us might be how that data and those results are used to pigeon-hole children and young people and how to ‘beat’ the schools and colleges across the land.
But we have a challenge. If we run our schools and the college by the zero-sum philosophy we will, by design, drive differences, allow for success and determine failure. Although we haven’t written it explicitly into our visioning documentation – our ‘pole-star’ document – we do imply that our approach will be a principled ‘rising tide’ approach. We can all do better. We can all improve. We can all make progress. We can all be successful – and we do that by having a whole host of success criteria. We are driven to do this – aren’t we? We have to do this, in the simplest form to maintain the positivity that is necessary to ensure cohesion and institutional calm. If we don’t see the value of working together, sharing good practice, learning with and from each other – whoever we are, the adults or the children and young people we will fail swathes of our community. It’s in our DNA. We demand of each other; we work in conjunction with; we cooperate; we communicate; we are consistent because we know that is the only way we will offer the educational provision which changes lives – we are the engines of social change.
I conclude that the system might be zero-sum. The world around us and the politics may be becoming increasingly zero-sum. However, we do not want to operate as zero-sum. We cannot afford to operate as zero-sum. We are better than that!
‘We believe that economics does not necessarily have to be a zero-sum game; it can be a win-win proposition for everyone involved so long as they have the tools in which to succeed.’ Ron Kind