Jump to content

William Tyndale affair

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TheWilliam Tyndale affairwas a controversy in British education arising from the introduction in 1974–75 of radically progressive methods at theWilliam Tyndale Junior Schoolin theLondon Borough of Islington.After parent protests and the publication in 1976 of a report commissioned by theInner London Education Authority,the affair led to an increase in government authority over education in England and Wales and a reduction in the autonomy of thelocal education authorities.

Events

[edit]

In January 1974, Terry Ellis was appointedheadmasterof the William Tyndale Junior School, located inIslingtonbetween the gentrified area ofCanonbury Squareand several largecouncil estates.[1]He and deputy head Brian Haddow instituted a radicalchild-centredsystem, the 'integrated day',[2]under which the school day was divided into alternating 'open' and 'closed' one-hour periods, with pupils free to choose what they did in the open periods.[1]They had great freedom and access to all parts of the school, "even the staff common room and lavatories".[3]Ellis responded to parents' concerns that children were being allowed to roam the streets: "What do you expect me to do? Make the school into a concentration camp to keep your children in?"[4]Ellis and his colleagues went beyond traditional progressive education of the period as recommended in thePlowden Report,[5]which they saw as chiefly benefitting better-off children whose parents could help them with their work; rather, in Ellis's words, Tyndale "geared its main educational effort towards the disadvantaged."[6]Frank Musgrove, a professor of education, has described the Tyndale experiment as "implement[ing] a fair selection of sociologically inspired clichés in the repertoire of advanced diploma courses for serving teachers."[7]A cloakroom was converted into a 'sanctuary' for disturbed children with a special teacher, and to provide all the children with an outlet for their own skills, asteel bandwas organised which practised as much as eight hours a week.[1]Severe disciplinary problems arose that the staff were unable to solve, including gambling away of lunch money, fire-starting and throwing full milk bottles into the infants' playground from the roof of the toilets.[1][4]

Annie Walker,a part-time remedial reading teacher, led a protest by the minority of staff who objected to the changes, and issued a circular to parents; many parents, particularly of academically able children, withdrew their children or refused to allow them to continue from the infant school in the same building, so that the number enrolled fell sharply, eventually to 55 from 230 in 1973.[1][2][4]The teachers had refused to allow the formation of aparent-teacher associationbecause they thought it would be dominated by middle-class parents; since there was none, the parental complaints and staff disagreement caused the school managers to become involved on the side of the protesting staff, including seeking to inspect the school and witness classes.[1]The dispute was widely covered in the press[5][8]and there was general agreement that the children were receiving a poor education.[9]The Inner London Education Authority responded to the managers' appeal in autumn 1975 by sending a team of inspectors to the school, who were at first forced to teach children themselves since the radical teachers had set up a rival 'strike school' elsewhere.[1]The ILEA endorsed pupil-centred teaching and many 'experimental' schools at the time were in London, and under Ellis's predecessor Alan Head, Tyndale had been noted for team teaching, but the authority allowed heads considerable autonomy and had increasingly replaced inspection of primary schools with support for teachers and self-evaluation;[1]the affair revealed a general reluctance of local education authorities to set policy and problems dealing with inadequate teachers.[10]It also widened the conflict between the ILEA and theInner Londonboroughs, which had no control over education but did appoint the boards of secondary schools and the managers of primary schools.[1]

Investigation and aftermath

[edit]

A parliamentary inquiry was conducted from October 1975 to February 1976 byRobin Auld,QC.The Auld Report, published in 1976, did not attempt to formally assess children's mastery of skills such as reading,[1]but was critical of all concerned.[2][11]Ellis, Haddow and five other teachers were dismissed based on it, but the local authority itself was found to have not fulfilled its legal responsibilities.[1]A book by twoTimes Educational Supplementjournalists, Mark Jackson and John Gretton, advocated government intervention to define and enforce educational standards: "After William Tyndale, the Secretary of State can no longer pretend, as he and his predecessors have so often tended to do, that it is all happening somewhere else."[3]The affair catalysed public loss of confidence in the management of the education system and led to 'The Great Debate' on state education after Prime MinisterJames Callaghan's speech atRuskin Collegein October 1976, in which he referred to "the new informal methods of teaching, which seem to produce excellent results when they are in well-qualified hands but are much more dubious when they are not", and eventually to state standards and policies which greatly reduced the freedom of the local education authorities and the autonomy of teachers in individual schools.[2][8][12][13][14]It also probably contributed to the eventual dissolution of the ILEA.[15]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abcdefghijkJohn Davis,"The Inner London Education Authority and the William Tyndale Junior School Affair, 1974–1976",Oxford Review of Education28.2/3,A Century of Local Education Authorities(June–September 2002) 275–98.
  2. ^abcdGerald Haigh,"Flutterings from the Tyndale affair",Times Educational Supplement,7 July 2006, updated 12 May 2008.
  3. ^abMark Jackson and John Gretton,William Tyndale: Collapse of a school—or a system?,A Times Educational Supplement special report, London: Allen & Unwin, 1976,ISBN9780043710470,cited in Haigh.
  4. ^abcRobert Peal,"Islington: Children as Guinea Pigs of the Left",Standpoint,May 2014.
  5. ^ab"Plowden’s progress",The Economist,18 June 1998.
  6. ^Davis, pp. 283-84.
  7. ^Frank Musgrove,School and the Social Order,Chichester, [West Sussex] / New York: Wiley, 1979,ISBN9780471276517,p. 193,quoted in Alan Barcan,Sociological Theory and Educational Reality: Education and Society in Australia since 1949,Kensington, New South Wales: New South Wales University, 1993,ISBN9780585354118,pp. 171–72.
  8. ^abKathryn Riley,"William Tyndale 'nourished agenda',Times Educational Supplement,18 October 1996.
  9. ^Brian E. Woolnough,Physics Teaching in Schools, 1960–85: Of People, Policy, and Power,Studies in Curriculum History 8, London/New York: Falmer, 1988,ISBN9781850002024,p. 14.
  10. ^Woolnough, pp. 14–15, 182–83.
  11. ^"Freedom that led to chaos in school",The Glasgow Herald,17 July 1976, p. 3.
  12. ^Davis, p. 292.
  13. ^Woolnough, pp. 14–15.
  14. ^Roger Seifert,Teacher Militancy: A History of Teacher Strikes 1896–1987,London: Falmer, 1987,ISBN9781850002475,p. 134: "part of the process that has taken us to the brink of central control of all aspects of school and teacher existence in the state sector", quoted in Davis, p. 292.
  15. ^Davis, p. 293.

Further information

[edit]
  • "William Tyndale, School or Scandal",Public Affairs,BBC Radio 4,1990.
  • Terry Elliset al.William Tyndale: The Teachers' Story.London: Writers and Readers Publishing Co-operative, 1977.ISBN9780904613315.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Tyndale_affair&oldid=1172955900"