On Friday night David Didau, the esteemed and highly
regarded teacher, blogger and author of The Perfect Ofsted English Lesson,
became embroiled in a contretemps with Rob Ward, a newly qualified teacher of
little repute. The flare-up occurred as a result of the tweet below, rumbled on
for hours and involved many educationalists with influential online presences.
The tweet was posted after Rob had spent approximately three
hours listlessly flicking through the collection of class texts in his school’s
KS3 cupboard. He had already dismissed Room 13 by Robert Swindells (on account
of it being shit) and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (because the few copies
available were unavailable). He had toyed with spending his own money on copies
of Stephen Kelman’s Pigeon English (but is skint because it’s Christmas), but
then discovered a box stuffed to the gills with JK Rowling’s tale of a wannabe
wizard. Hence the tweet – and the row which ensued.
Feeling more than a little aggrieved at the way his innocent
request for input was interpreted and the way he was personally attacked, Rob
wrote a letter to the Right Honourable David Didau. Sadly, Rob did not know to which
ivory tower he should address his missive – hence its online publication…
Dear David,
I wonder
whether you might think more carefully in future about how you choose the
targets for your opprobrium? You’ve been following me on Twitter for a while
now and have communicated amicably with me in the past, so I’m sure you are
aware that I am newly qualified. If you were unaware, maybe you might have
noticed my username; I was inordinately proud of dreaming up ‘EngQT’ to signal
my status and would be distraught to think that others were not marvelling at
my clever wordplay. Regardless, I did make it abundantly plain in my
communication with you last night that I had been teaching for just three
months. That your vitriolic messages were not tempered by this knowledge speaks
ill of you.
Worse, however, was the dogmatic, inflexible and stubborn
manner in which you chose to make your point.
You clearly don’t believe that Harry Potter will assume a
prominent place in our literary heritage. You don’t believe it is ‘exceptional’.
You wouldn’t add JK Rowling to the pantheon of great British authors. You don’t
believe I, or anyone else, should be teaching it. All valid points of view, all
of which I fully understand – and some
of which I totally agree with.
But here’s the rub, David. You didn’t ask me to what end I was
selecting my class reader. You made no effort to find out what the objectives
of my teaching would be. You don’t have the faintest idea who is in my class.
And you attacked me without making any attempt to discover these salient and
relevant points.
Let me enlighten you. My class are adorable, and I love
teaching them. They are very, very weak – working below L3 in reading and
writing. Of the thirteen children in my class, three attend fewer than half of
my lessons thanks to their ill-discipline and poor attendance. I have no
support in these lessons whatsoever. I have formed a great attachment to them
and them to me. I am absolutely determined to secure L4 for all of them before
they leave my class. And I will.
I am completely convinced that they would read the texts you
advocated. They would launch themselves into Dickens (and would probably be
familiar with the story of Oliver Twist already). They would have a good stab
at Oedipus the King. But both of these texts would be too hard for them.
I tweeted you last night with the first paragraph from both Harry
Potter and Oliver Twist. Here they are again.
Potter’s a bit prosaic, eh? Perhaps a little dull. Certainly
it can’t hold a candle to Twist. You are correct – we can learn an awful lot
from Dickens.
But you don’t know what I want my Y7s to learn, do you? At
the moment, my number one aim is to get them to write coherent sentences which
start with a capital letter and end in a full stop. If I want to use a class
text as a model for this, The Philosopher’s Stone provides clear examples of
how to do so. Rowling might not be the greatest author the world has ever seen,
but she provides sentences which my Y7s might genuinely be able to emulate.
Do you believe they could write sentences like the one
Dickens opens Oliver Twist with? That paragraph is just one long sentence. It’s
one which I would LOVE them to write. But it is beyond them right now. What use
is it providing them with examples such as these? How confusing it would be. How
alienated they would feel.
You made a massive assumption last night. A false one. You
assumed that when I said I wanted ‘accessible’ texts, you thought I was
referring to ‘easy’ ones. I was not. I was speaking of texts which were
difficult enough to stretch them. And because
I know my class, I know that Harry Potter would be a less difficult gap to
bridge than that between their current reading level and Charles Dickens.
Your snobbishness also irked me here. You airily dismissed
the teaching of texts which pupils could access at home, believing that we
should only teach them what they cannot otherwise access. For better or worse,
we use the Accelerated Reader programme at school. On average, my pupils are
reading books at level four on the AR scale. They read these for thirty minutes
at home each day (if they are good little boys and girls). Harry Potter and the
Philosopher’s Stone is a level six on the AR scale; this is a title which will stretch them. Oliver Twist is a level eleven.
I am sure you can deconstruct/dismiss my understanding of Vygotsky
and ZPD, but my impression was that pupils learning best occurred when children
are called upon to perform at the very edge of what they are already capable
of? My professional judgement is that Harry Potter and the work I set them to
do on the novel would be more likely to achieve this than Oliver Twist.
This is where you became particularly sneering and
dismissive of me. Your constant assertion that learning is supposed to be ‘hard’
was not particularly troubling – although you failed to take into account that
there is a difference between being ‘hard’ and ‘too hard’. Perhaps I’m being naïve,
but if work is ‘too hard’ will learners not become disenchanted? Evolution is
an incremental process, and I am trying to ‘evolve’ these youngsters into
confident writers and readers. Throwing them in at the deep end (apologies for
the mixed metaphor) is likely to see the majority sink rather than swim.
As for your assertion that “being satisfied with what they
can do isn’t really teaching”: thanks. Thanks for being so condescending,
insulting and obnoxious. I am not an idiot, David. I know what teaching is; I am
a teacher.
I am also self-aware enough to know that I am not a
fully-formed educator. I am learning. For that reason, I often seek advice on
Twitter from more experienced colleagues. I am happy to take advice on board
and was delighted that many people offered excellent advice and tips on
alternative texts or approaches to making the literary cannon more ‘accessible/easy’
(delete to suit your bias).
What upset me most of all was your flagrant disregard for my
circumstances. I’m not entirely sure whether it was ignorance, lack or empathy
or just a personal agenda, but the below tweet was a real low in a succession
of dismissive tweets:
There are a number of reasons why I take particular issue
with this tweet. Firstly, and forgive me for repeating myself, I am new to
teaching. I have never taught a full novel to anyone. I freely and publicly
admitted that I would find teaching Dickens to this class very difficult. And I
stand by that. It’s a massive book and, at present, I genuinely would not know
where to start. Nobody has ever told me how to condense such a weighty tome
into manageable chunks. Nobody has ever advised me on how to make some of the
language more understandable. Differentiation is the part of the job I find
most difficult. I am shocked that you find that shocking.
Secondly, I didn’t say Dickens is “too challenging to
attempt”. That makes me sound like some kind of moronic fraudster. I’d gladly
teach Dickens to different classes. In fact, I really want to teach his work. Great Expectations is high on my ‘to do’
list – when the time is right. For me and for my pupils.
You’re in a position to offer advice. If you truly believe I
should be teaching something with ‘cultural capital’ (a wholly subjective
qualification), please provide some advice on how to do this. Many others did,
whilst you seemed to relish the opportunity to pursue an agenda at the expense
of making me look foolish.
Hectoring (bullying?) me the way you did was a thoughtless
and unnecessary abuse of your status. You demonstrated a total lack of empathy
and no understanding whatsoever. Your inflexible dogmatism spoke of someone with
an agenda to pursue – one which you unfairly pursued at my expense.
I hope this letter causes you to carefully consider the way
you communicate your ideas. You might have been nominated for a prestigious
bauble, but other opinions are always available.
Yours sincerely.
Rob Ward
PS: I don’t think I was ever likely to teach Harry Potter. I
was asking out of curiosity and in the hope that someone would offer a credible
alternative.
PPS: I found a middle ground: Animal Farm. I don’t care if
you approve or not.