Educational research has never helped children to learn

WITH reference to children and their education, I have just read the article by David Green about children needing knowledge to get them thinking (Yorkshire Post, March 27).

Like ED Hirsch and every other so called expert in education – hardly any of whom have ever actually worked with children – David Green misses the whole point about education, which is that the ethos and social and emotional atmosphere of the school are the factors which determine what children learn.

With all respect to David Green, research findings of so called academics like ED Hirsch contribute nothing to the quality of learning in schools. It is a simple fact that not one single piece of educational research has ever had any beneficial effect on the quality of children’s education.

Research carried out in the 1950s and 1960s, which purported to prove that mixed ability teaching and comprehensive education were superior to streaming and the tripartite system of grammar, technical and secondary modern system, all caused more harm than good.

I have known many people who were bone idle at school and university who nevertheless became great thinkers, great scientists and great engineers. Their success had very little to do with the lessons they had at school. Neither, incidentally, did it have anything to do with whether or not they took part in competitive sports.

A last point: I have just re-read the article by Jayne Dowle about Michael Gove (Yorkshire Post, March 25). Now there’s a woman who really understands children and their educational needs.

The article was brilliant. If I were still working as a headteacher, I would pin it up on the school noticeboard.

I thought of sending a copy of the article to Michael Gove but then, I thought, he wouldn’t understand any of it.

From: Miss Mary Lister, Almsford Oval, Harrogate.

HEARTY congratulations to Jayne Dowle on her splendid article “Mr Gove has turned schools into learning factories”.

She has made it abundantly clear what is now happening in the name of education. She is concerned about “the sheer, relentless demands of the new National Curriculum, the detail, the endless benchmarks and levels, children are expected to reach”. She is a teacher herself with children.

Hearty congratulations, too, to Dr Mary Bousted for her very clear warning at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers’ Union Conference, after the vote of no confidence was passed regarding Michael Gove, and the Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw “who are sucking the life and hope out of our education system”.

Jane Dowle and Dr Mary Bousted have made some very important observations which should be sent in large print to Michael Gove and Sir Michael Wilshaw.

I venture to suggest that transparency now be used to a much greater degree within schools.

From: W Mike Wilson, Seaton Garth, Staithes, North Yorkshire.

I READ Geoffrey North’s letter (Yorkshire Post, March 26) and would like to offer a suggestion: instead of inventing a new word should we not carefully check rough drafts of our writing to avoid unhelpful repetition of 
any words, and where 
necessary re-cast how we express ourselves?

To use his example, here are two ways round the problem: “The person who is entertaining you next is no stranger to the club circuit, having gained a reputation at many festivals worldwide” or “Having gained ... festivals worldwide, your next speaker is no stranger to the club circuit.”

If people really want to write accurately perhaps one day teachers of English will again be allowed and expected to offer youngsters in school the chance to redress the present attitude: “If u u’stand it its OK”.

From: Brian H Sheridan, Redmires Road, Sheffield.

UNLIKE Geoffrey North, I don’t have a problem with the use of a plural verb with a singular noun if the subject is collective as in the case of “Leeds United are playing badly or “the company are making a profit”. (“Two issues about misuse of English language”, March 26). In fact, wouldn’t it suggest a lack of education to say: “Leeds is playing badly”?

Your correspondent would also like an alternative to the royal “one”. Well, if one does not want to sound pompous one uses “we” or “you” eg : “you’re not allowed to smoke in here”. However, I’m afraid the French get the last word here: ordinary French folk use “on” (“one”) constantly and, therefore, without affectation.