1
00:00:07,270 --> 00:00:10,850
Many countries have a system of mandatory
school tests.

2
00:00:10,850 --> 00:00:15,940
Children are regularly tested to determine
their educational level and progress.

3
00:00:15,940 --> 00:00:19,610
In many countries,
there is opposition to such tests.

4
00:00:19,610 --> 00:00:26,850
We have an example here of an education minister
who wants to introduce an additional mandatory school test.

5
00:00:27,300 --> 00:00:33,020
He has to respond to a scientist,
who raises serious objections to school tests.

6
00:00:33,030 --> 00:00:40,030
Let’s first have a look at the scientist
There is no scientific evidence that the constant

7
00:00:40,150 --> 00:00:44,489
introduction of new tests adds any value.

8
00:00:44,489 --> 00:00:48,070
What we do know,
on the basis of scientific studies,

9
00:00:48,070 --> 00:00:55,070
is that such tests place too much emphasis
on a “one size fits all” approach.

10
00:00:55,520 --> 00:01:01,040
We also know that many schools eventually
start “teaching to the test”.

11
00:01:01,050 --> 00:01:04,989
And finally,
scientific research shows that the scope of

12
00:01:04,989 --> 00:01:10,240
such tests is very limited,
since they do not cover a wide range of important

13
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:14,300
knowledge and skills.

14
00:01:14,460 --> 00:01:20,300
As a scientist,
I am therefore opposed to additional mandatory tests.

15
00:01:21,920 --> 00:01:25,640
The scientist’s frame is as simple as it
is powerful:

16
00:01:25,640 --> 00:01:30,899
there is insufficient scientific evidence
in support of mandatory school tests.

17
00:01:30,899 --> 00:01:35,709
The minister can choose to step into this
frame by challenging the scientific evidence.

18
00:01:35,709 --> 00:01:37,740
That is a risky strategy.

19
00:01:37,740 --> 00:01:41,950
Instead,
this minister responds as follows:

20
00:01:41,950 --> 00:01:43,840
I am familiar with these studies.

21
00:01:43,840 --> 00:01:49,039
The objections that have been raised are significant,
and we are doing our best to address them.

22
00:01:49,039 --> 00:01:51,509
At the same time,
however,

23
00:01:51,509 --> 00:01:56,389
I believe that parents have a right to know
how their child is getting on after six years

24
00:01:56,389 --> 00:01:57,700
of education.

25
00:01:57,700 --> 00:02:02,899
I also feel that parents are entitled to an
objective assessment rather than depending

26
00:02:02,899 --> 00:02:07,039
solely on what their child’s school has
to say about his or her development.

27
00:02:07,039 --> 00:02:10,679
Ok,
that was the minister.

28
00:02:10,679 --> 00:02:11,849
What just happened?

29
00:02:11,849 --> 00:02:14,780
First,
the scientist presented a factual frame,

30
00:02:14,780 --> 00:02:20,220
a frame about the facts:
studies show that mandatory tests have no added value.

31
00:02:20,940 --> 00:02:25,210
Next,
the minister responded by presenting a value

32
00:02:25,210 --> 00:02:27,880
frame,
a frame about parental rights.

33
00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:30,920
It is a sympathetic frame.

34
00:02:30,920 --> 00:02:37,440
What parent would decline the right to know
how his or her child is getting on in school?

35
00:02:37,440 --> 00:02:43,500
It looks like the scientist wants to deprive
parents of this right.

36
00:02:43,500 --> 00:02:44,990
It is possible,
the minister notes,

37
00:02:44,990 --> 00:02:46,310
that a school may be underperforming.

38
00:02:46,310 --> 00:02:51,170
In such cases,
the parents’ right to know is even more significant.

39
00:02:51,380 --> 00:02:54,990
Obviously,
the minister does not ignore the facts – he

40
00:02:54,990 --> 00:02:58,930
says he is familiar with these facts,
but he reframes the issue.

41
00:02:58,930 --> 00:03:01,400
From facts to values.

42
00:03:01,400 --> 00:03:07,580
From an emphasis on findings of research to
an emphasis on parental rights.

43
00:03:07,580 --> 00:03:13,760
So there are two conflicting perspectives,
two conflicting worlds here.

44
00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:16,050
There is a world of facts:
numbers,

45
00:03:16,050 --> 00:03:19,460
analysis,
research and research findings.

46
00:03:19,460 --> 00:03:22,450
And there is a world of values:
rights,

47
00:03:22,450 --> 00:03:24,260
principles,
ideals.

48
00:03:24,260 --> 00:03:30,900
A statement based on values can be reframed
by focusing on the facts.

49
00:03:30,900 --> 00:03:35,810
I believe that people on higher incomes should
pay more tax.

50
00:03:35,810 --> 00:03:39,960
Those with the broadest shoulders should carry
the heaviest burden,

51
00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:42,230
especially in times of crisis.

52
00:03:42,230 --> 00:03:46,390
There is a lot of wealth at the top,
and those who possess this wealth should pay

53
00:03:46,390 --> 00:03:48,490
their fair share of income tax.

54
00:03:48,490 --> 00:03:52,270
I am therefore in favor of raising taxes.

55
00:03:52,270 --> 00:03:55,020
This is a frame based on values.

56
00:03:55,020 --> 00:03:58,900
The broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest
burden.

57
00:03:58,900 --> 00:04:01,690
Now suppose you don't agree with this.

58
00:04:01,690 --> 00:04:03,690
How do you reframe?

59
00:04:03,690 --> 00:04:08,810
This is a fine ideal,
but it does not work,

60
00:04:08,810 --> 00:04:12,090
it doesn’t work.

61
00:04:12,200 --> 00:04:17,620
If we raise taxes even higher,
people will come up with all kinds of tricks

62
00:04:17,630 --> 00:04:19,870
to avoid paying tax.

63
00:04:19,870 --> 00:04:22,180
And they will succeed.

64
00:04:22,180 --> 00:04:26,240
In addition,
raising taxes removes the incentive to earn

65
00:04:26,240 --> 00:04:29,729
more money,
because far too much of it ends up going to

66
00:04:29,729 --> 00:04:31,680
the taxman.

67
00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:33,840
His proposal does not work.

68
00:04:33,840 --> 00:04:37,599
It is bad for the economy.

69
00:04:37,599 --> 00:04:44,219
I respect your ideals,
but they are naïve.

70
00:04:44,219 --> 00:04:47,770
The game of framing and reframing will be
clear to you.

71
00:04:47,770 --> 00:04:51,389
The broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest
burden.

72
00:04:51,389 --> 00:04:55,779
The facts are:
it does not work.

73
00:04:55,779 --> 00:05:00,479
So factual frames can be countered using value
frames – and vice versa.

74
00:05:00,479 --> 00:05:02,819
What effect does this have?

75
00:05:02,980 --> 00:05:06,759
First of all,
you don’t need to step into the frame of

76
00:05:06,759 --> 00:05:10,759
your opponent,
who immediately goes from having home advantage

77
00:05:10,759 --> 00:05:12,189
to playing an away game.

78
00:05:12,189 --> 00:05:14,279
But there’s more.

79
00:05:14,279 --> 00:05:18,409
If you are using a value frame – an ideal
– like the one in the example on income

80
00:05:18,409 --> 00:05:22,020
tax,
you will end up looking naïve if your opponent

81
00:05:22,020 --> 00:05:25,309
reframes the issue by appealing to the facts.

82
00:05:25,309 --> 00:05:29,520
You may have fine ideals,
but they don’t work in practice.

83
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:33,129
Conversely,
how will come across if you are relying on

84
00:05:33,129 --> 00:05:37,110
a factual frame,
and if your opponent reframes the issue by

85
00:05:37,110 --> 00:05:38,689
appealing to values?

86
00:05:38,689 --> 00:05:42,430
Well,
take the scientist and the school tests.

87
00:05:42,430 --> 00:05:46,770
The scientist turns into someone who questions
people’s rights.

88
00:05:46,770 --> 00:05:49,849
If you refer to the facts and your opponent
to values,

89
00:05:49,849 --> 00:05:52,069
you might also be seen as a cynic.

90
00:05:52,069 --> 00:05:55,340
If people have a right,
you should do your utmost to uphold it,

91
00:05:55,340 --> 00:05:58,789
rather than trying to take it away.

92
00:05:58,789 --> 00:06:02,039
Finally,
have a look at this.

93
00:06:02,039 --> 00:06:06,469
Bill Clinton argues for equal economic opportunities.

94
00:06:06,469 --> 00:06:11,499
His stance is equal opportunities is morally
right.

95
00:06:11,499 --> 00:06:14,089
That’s the world of values.

96
00:06:14,089 --> 00:06:17,050
This is what he says.

97
00:06:17,050 --> 00:06:24,050
It turns out that advancing equal opportunity
and economic empowerment is both morally right

98
00:06:24,689 --> 00:06:26,099
and good economics.

99
00:06:26,099 --> 00:06:28,539
(Cheers,
applause.) Why?

100
00:06:28,539 --> 00:06:32,809
Because poverty,
discrimination and ignorance restrict growth.

101
00:06:32,809 --> 00:06:36,669
(Cheers,
applause.) When you stifle human potential,

102
00:06:36,669 --> 00:06:42,550
when you don’t invest in new ideas,
it doesn’t just cut off the people who are

103
00:06:42,550 --> 00:06:45,189
affected;
it hurts us all.

104
00:06:45,189 --> 00:06:50,099
(Cheers,
applause.) We know that investments in education

105
00:06:50,099 --> 00:06:55,349
and infrastructure and scientific and technological
research increase growth.

106
00:06:55,349 --> 00:06:59,050
They increase good jobs,
and they create new wealth for all the rest

107
00:06:59,050 --> 00:07:00,080
of us.

108
00:07:00,080 --> 00:07:02,819
(Cheers,
applause.) In this statement,

109
00:07:02,819 --> 00:07:07,619
Clinton offers both a moral and a factual
justification for his ideas.

110
00:07:07,619 --> 00:07:11,819
This makes it much harder for his opponents
to reframe the issue.