Right of Reply: Doug McAvoy

The NUT's General Secretary responds to our defence of the National Literacy Project

Doug McAvoy
Wednesday 09 December 1998 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

THE NATIONAL Literacy Project is a success story. Its development had all the characteristics that promote school improvement: the enthusiasm of teachers who knew they were in on something big; a decent time-scale for implementation (two years); quality professional development; and partnership between those responsible for the project and those at the chalk face.

With such preconditions for excellence, it is hardly surprising that children in the project leapt ahead by eight to twelve months, though it is cause for celebration.

So why is the Government's successor literacy strategy problematic?

At the core is a fact that the Government still has difficulty in recognising. Critical to its future is an entitlement within which teachers' professional views are central.

Instead, the Government attempted its version of the Great Leap Forward with a six-month time-scale, and with a string of veiled threats about the dire consequences for schools if they did not operate the strategy.

Remarkably, the Government's attempt to pretend that the Literacy Strategy was a requirement on schools was rejected by the Chief Inspector himself, who told the NUT that it was not Ofsted's job "to comment upon the extent to which the school has taken on the literacy and numeracy strategies".

For teachers to back the literacy initiative enthusiastically, they have to feel that their enthusiasm and commitment are recognised. Enthusiasm and commitment cannot be imposed. They have to come from teachers themselves, a lesson which the Government must learn for its latest big project, the Green Paper on the future of the teaching profession.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in