ABSTRACT

A formal/informal division between styles or approaches to teaching is used interchangeably with traditionalism/progressivism by many commentators. Teachers themselves have always claimed to be ‘formal’ or ‘informal’ in approach. In his appraisal of progressivist achievements, Robin Alexander’s (1994) main caveat is that the ideology’s antipathy to traditionalism polarizes formal against informal, process against product, whole-class against individualistic methods and so on, restricting teachers’ choice of practices unnecessarily. Such polarizing has been already admitted as fatal to effective teaching (Alexander, 1994; Carr, 1988; Mackenzie, 1997; Sharpe, 1997). Because it is, empirical comparisons of wholeclass, smallgroup and individualistic teaching bolstered the government-sponsored ‘three wise men’ report (Alexander et al., 1992) which was meant to be a watershed in converting primary school teachers from their child-oriented follies. The present HMCI (Chris Woodhead) berates progressive primary school teachers for insufficiently using whole-class teaching. Even the Prince of Wales chides traditionalists and progressivists for their ‘fatuous’ arguments (1997), implying, presumably, that classroom techniques should be chosen for their effectiveness not their ideological credentials.