In a recent article in the Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente pokes fun at progressive models of learning and touts the simplicity of traditional schooling and the ‘3Rs’ of reading, writing and arithmetic. Ms. Megan Pearson, a teacher and Inquiry consultant at Richland Academy, challenges Ms. Wente’s article in a letter that Inquiring Minds would like to share with you.
Dear Ms Wente,
I was intrigued to read your article in the Globe and Mail on September 7th of this year. As an intentional and experienced teacher, I can assure you, I am not “rolling my eyes and pretend[ing] to comply” with the “fads and magic beans” of a necessarily evolving educational system. As someone who is also deeply entrenched in providing the best possible education to my students, I am well read in the latest research. Actually, all of my colleagues are, as certainly, we cannot hope to improve our teaching practices by reveling in tradition. Though there is certainly something to say for tradition, it’s tradition for a reason, after all, and why change a good thing?
It was tradition, that with the threat of the strap always looming, teachers had 30-40 silent children, acting as empty vessels, waiting to be filled with facts and figures. Regurgitate and succeed. Why have large classroom sizes, corporal punishment and blind repetition gone by the wayside? Weren’t those a part of a strong and traditional model of schooling?
There is a constant struggle to lower class sizes, create more jobs for teachers and hire more teaching assistants, none of which are part of the “school was simple” model you are touting. And who are the children who are successful in a traditional model? In actuality, that model is made only for a fraction of the population: The high achievers who are going to succeed anyways, and the “middle of the roaders” who have an education system tailor made for them. The students who struggled in the traditional model, well, they still struggle.