Whose methods are 'poor' now?;Letter

19th June 1998 at 01:00
Chris Woodhead reiterates the view that ". . . the roots of education failure lie in poor teaching methods . . .". But how did "poor teaching methods" arise in the first place?

Until 10 years ago - even after the first national curriculum - it was common to find school inspectors promoting the view that non-subject-based topic teaching was the only valid primary teaching style; that teachers should avoid direct teaching - especially whole-class teaching - and become "enablers" of pupils managing their own learning.

These methods are now regarded as "poor". They were adopted, though, by inspectors who presumably believed in them at the time, and by teachers who trusted them. A good many inspectors must now be upholding the opposite of what they preached 10 years ago.

Chris Woodhead deserves the profession's scorn - not for wanting to root out poor methodology, but for sustaining the lazy tabloid myth that teachers are always to blame for it. Roy Hattersley details the effects on morale in the profession on the same page.

Michael Hurdle

Primary deputy headteacher 7 Farm Lane Send Woking, Surrey

Subscribe to get access to the content on this page.

If you are already a Tes/ Tes Scotland subscriber please log in with your username or email address to get full access to our back issues, CPD library and membership plus page.

Not a subscriber? Find out more about our subscription offers.
Subscribe now
Existing subscriber?
Enter subscription number


The guide by your side – ensuring you are always up to date with the latest in education.

Get Tes magazine online and delivered to your door. Stay up to date with the latest research, teacher innovation and insight, plus classroom tips and techniques with a Tes magazine subscription.
With a Tes magazine subscription you get exclusive access to our CPD library. Including our New Teachers’ special for NQTS, Ed Tech, How to Get a Job, Trip Planner, Ed Biz Special and all Tes back issues.

Subscribe now