State schools

A reply to a ‘lefty trad’ (part 3): What do socialists say about high expectations?

The final post in this series responds to the ‘lefty trad’ case for high expectations. The line of reasoning is straightforward: As socialists believe ordinary people are capable of great achievements, then we should expect working-class children to comply with strict discipline techniques, such as SLANT.

The simplicity of the argument fails to hide the sleight of hand. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. It is true that socialists have the highest expectations of the working class. Indeed, as the revolutionary class, it will be responsible for nothing less than the end of capitalism. However, that does not mean socialists expect children to comply with ‘no-excuses’ school cultures.

A reply to a ‘lefty trad’ (part 2): What do socialists say about work?

In part one of this series we analysed a quote about ‘order’ from a socialist politician in 1923. After establishing its context, we concluded that the quote did not support the ‘lefty trad’ case for the use of strict disciplinary techniques, such as SLANT, in state schools today.

Now we turn to a second quote used to justify those techniques. The argument is as follows: In a socialist society everybody will be expected to work for mutual benefit. However, idleness is a natural part of human character and requires a sanction. Avoidance of work is “amplified a thousandfold” in schools. Teachers must impose strong discipline to ‘correct’ adolescents’ reluctance to engage in learning.

A reply to a ‘lefty trad’ (part 1): What do socialists say about order?

The ‘lefty trad’ claim that socialists should promote traditional teaching methods has resurfaced in two posts. The posts advance four interlinked arguments:

1. Socialists support community order, promote a strong social work ethic, and have high expectations of the working class.

2. The same applies “a thousandfold” to children in schools.

3. Teachers achieve order, hard work, and high expectations in schools through traditional methods of behaviour management, such as SLANT. (Progressive methods lead to chaotic classrooms and cannot, therefore, realise socialists’ aims.)

4. Traditional methods allow working-class and disadvantaged students, including those with SEND and the neurodiverse, to thrive. A very small minority will not cope – but there is always another school for them!

Alex Bloom’s progressive school community

Alex Bloom was headteacher at St George’s-in-the-East school (Stepney, London) for 10 years in the immediate aftermath of World War II. In that time, he created a beacon of progressive education in the state sector, insisting that “a child can’t grow up in an atmosphere of fear.” As the Daily Mirror reported in 1951, the school did not have “formal lessons in the accepted sense, tests or competitions, prizes for achievement, penalties for failure, imposed punishment, division of children into ‘bright’ or ‘dull’ classes.”

#leftytrad – a contradiction in terms?

In a recent blog post Adam Boxer declared himself to be a ‘lefty’ in politics and a ‘trad’ in teaching. He complains that there is a “consistent and widespread conflation of traditional education with right wing politics” – a conflation that is not warranted. Indeed, Boxer stresses that he is a traditional teacher precisely because he is left-wing:

I believe that everyone, regardless of their background, should be able to access society at any level. I believe that a highly effective way to achieve that is by transmitting the cultural goods of society; its finest discourse and mores. I also believe that our cultural and intellectual goods are the right of all citizens, whatever their backgrounds.

Boxer goes on to claim that politics and teaching methods are not related. His left-wing views, he argues, have not changed since employing progressive approaches as a lefty NQT. However, he has come to the realisation that the best way to educate for social equality – or, in Boxer’s words, “level the field and to pass on society’s goods” – is to teach as a traditionalist. The assertion that traditional teaching methods and left-wing views are compatible deserves scrutiny.

Ofsted: attack dog and lapdog

I am not unbiased in the discussion about Ofsted. Over the last five years, I have worked in two schools that have been downgraded from ‘good’ to ‘requires improvement’ within weeks of starting there. Unlucky? Yes, but the experience has given me a detailed view of the injustices of our education system. I have witnessed the paranoia and stress that follows an RI rating.

Is progressive education dead in state schools?

To answer the question, we need to define what we mean by progressive education. Steve Nelson writes in First Do No Harm that, “A fundamental concept of progressive education is the idea of children being agents or architects of their own learning.” For me, this is the fundamental concept. Children negotiate with the teacher over what, when and how to study, learning to take and justify decisions independently. Using this definition, progressive education in the state sector has been extinguished.

Dare the School Build a New Social Order?

In 1932, George Counts took on the leaders of the Progressive Movement of his day in a pamphlet called Dare the School Build a New Social Order? He counter-poses the individualistic aims of US progressives to the collective solutions required in economic crisis. In a vision of the ‘American dream’ that might jar for its overt nationalism, Counts resolutely places the agency of teachers and students at the heart of building a new social order in which the citizens control ‘the machine’ of industrialism.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: