Traditionalists

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!

#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.

Prejudice upon disdain: a new low for traditionalists

There’s nothing new about the traditionalists’ disdain for progressive ideas on social media. They attempt to shame anyone who questions the traditional model, ganging up on progressive teachers without feeling the need to justify their moribund ideas. Developing a mob mentality is a good way for them to feel safe in numbers. However, this recent tweet from Tom Bennett (adviser to the UK government) reached a new low point.

Back to front: the problem of research for classroom teachers

Over recent years teachers have been coming under increasing pressure to incorporate research findings in their classroom practice. The Schools Minister takes every opportunity to promote the research of his favourite academics who draw on cognitive science and advocate direct instruction. A slew of simplistic manuals and blogs written by his acolytes purport to help overworked teachers digest the ‘evidence’ in bite sizes. However, in this rush to popularise the traditionalists’ focus on curriculum content and teacher talk, the teaching profession is in danger of approaching educational research and the aims of education back to front.

Debate deniers

The traditionalists continue to rail against all those who ‘deny’ the debate over progressive and traditional teaching methods. This latest post correctly views the two approaches as rooted in different philosophies of education. It then makes the incorrect inference that, as there are two philosophies, teachers must follow one or the other. Yes, you can’t be both progressive and traditional, but you could be in the ‘middle’ if you hold to a different philosophy – such as pragmatism.

Our ‘knowledge’ is different to theirs

Recently David Didau wrote about ‘neo-progressivism’. His post summarises the traditionalists’ current critique of progressive education. Apparently, Didau believes in social justice, wants children to be creative, collaborative and critical and grow up “to be tolerant, compassionate, open-minded, curious, cooperative and to help leave the world in a better condition than that in which they found it.” Before we mistake Didau for a modern-day Dewey, he quickly establishes his traditionalist credentials by declaring that “knowledge underpins all of those attributes.” He upholds the traditionalists’ two-stage prescription for education: students should acquire knowledge, then use that knowledge as an object for critical thought.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: