Letter: I was being generous when I called the curriculum 'tinpot' - it has been dumbed-down shamefully
A letter from Dr William Kitchen:
I was intrigued to read the letter penned by JN Morton – a former school principal – offering his views on my articles in this newspaper in relation to traditional, teacher-led, knowledge-based education (‘Lecturer can do better in defending education than regurgitating discredited research projects,’ June 19).
Mr Morton’s conclusion is that as an academic who is responsible for training new teachers, I “can do better” than my current performance in this debate. I hope not to disappoint.
First, on the notion that I have selected carelessly the adjective “tinpot” in order to describe the Northern Ireland Curriculum; I intend not to add any further oxygen to Mr Morton’s peculiar comments, which offer no meaningful contribution to the substance of this argument. This shamefully dumbed-down curriculum is an educational travesty; “tinpot” was a generous descriptor.
Secondly, on the notion that I have selected literature which confirms my biases and prejudices, and ignored that which refutes them. This criticism is asinine. I write articles for this newspaper which are often restricted to 750-or-so words. My lack of citations of the alternatives to my arguments is not because of my unawareness or misunderstandings. If Mr Morton wishes to further develop his understanding of my understandings, he can read my book on these issues, Authority and the Teacher.
Thirdly, that the selected literature – in particular, Project Follow Through – has been effectively discredited. Mr Morton should do more than a “few minutes of research”, and direct his attention to the following non-exhaustive list of readings: Craigen (2016); Bereiter and Kurland (1981); Carnine (2000); Watkins (1995); Englemann (various); Hattie (2009); Chall (1990); Heath, Ermisch and Gallie (2005).
Fourthly, on the notion that Project Follow Through was “intended to assess educational achievement in USA elementary schools”, Mr Morton must not have read the literature in sufficient detail. The remit of Project Follow Through was much broader than that, in particular in relation to what was under investigation; namely, how successfully different curricular approaches would develop: (1) academic mastery; (2) problem-solving skills; (3) self-esteem. Furthermore, there were many follow-up studies undertaken, which widen the original scope of the project.
Mr Morton has outlined that he was energised by ‘learning’ about Project Follow Through, which is alarming, given that he was involved in education at the time of its publication. In an evidence-informed practice like teaching, this extensive body of research ought to have been known.
Finally, Mr Morton conceded that “Dr Kitchen is entitled to his views”. Alas, I will continue to form my own views, whether permission is granted or not.
In conclusion, Mr Morton claims that anyone who “invests a few minutes research time” will conclude, as he did, that Project Follow Through was a failure. I might counter that anyone who believes they can research anything in just a “few minutes” is perhaps not researching at all! As such, my assessment of Mr Morton’s performance might be succinctly summarised as “more reading is required”.
Dr W H Kitchen, Co Down