ABSTRACT
In this, they were not unlike the teachers discussed by Lee and Lee (1987). These authors reject the notion of liberal education as conveyed in the Plowden Report (1967) and as supported by writers such as Jeffcoate (1984). They agree with the efficacy of active learning and democratic procedures, but reject the view of the teacher as neutral chairperson. Teachers cannot be neutral with regard to racism. As Lee and Lee point out, ‘the idea that children can and should learn by exploration is different when that learning is not merely a matter of individual interest but at least reflects the experience of the social group to which the child belongs’ (Lee and Lee 1987: 218). At the heart of their reconciliation of a progressive primary pedagogy with anti-racist action is ‘ a commitment to talking as learning’. It has to be recognized that people talk on the basis of their own experience, and this differs among different groups. Thus, ‘children speak not merely from the perspective of the child but from the perspective of the black child, or female child or working-class child’ (ibid.). Lee and Lee compare their approach with some proponents of anti-racist education who seem to imply that teachers should instruct children into ‘correct perspectives’ (such as Mullard 1984). While agreeing with their aims, they feel these aims are much more likely to be met through a ‘democratic process underpinned by a progressive pedagogy . . . [which] values co-operation and collaboration through talk rather than simply individual exploration (Lee and Lee 1987: 219). In such circumstances, young children’s capacity to think and to learn has been shown to be more considerable than sometimes thought (see, for example, Blenkin 1988).
