Ideas in education

Press, 10 January 1987, Page 16

Ideas in education

Sir, —It is in the nature of systems to rigidify with time, also, unfortunately, for some people within to follow suit and not question whether the system is the servant or the master. I found Les Cramond’s comments a hopeful sign that someone had survived long contact with “the system” and remained openminded, ,and. able to take, an over-view. After early teaching and then parenting six children, I feel as strongly as ever that education must always be open to change. This does not mean that many changes in the past have not been ill thought opt — in particular, following slavishly other countries’ ideas, often long after they have been discarded by the originators as useless. "Balance” is, of course, the ideal. V

We need young people today conversant with the three Rs, but in the rush of change we also need, to ensure that flexibility, self-esteem, tolerance and the ability to work with others are given their due.—Yours, etc., JILL WILCOX. January 6, 1987. Sir,—Mr Les Cramond (January 2) has aimed a sarcastic bureaucratic salvo at Mr J. Baker. The implied message seems quite plain: “Principals of six-pupil schools are backwoods know-nothings but district senior inspectors are infallible.” Mr Cramond is "pleased” that Mr Baker disagrees with his article. Does it “please” him that I, as a former primary school principal and a senior staff member in one of New Zealand’s largest secondary schools, agree with Mr Baker? Perhaps the broad vistas of the upper Rakaia Valley encourage a wider perspective than the miasmic confines of Cranmer Square.—Yours, etc., PETER BAIN. | Ashburton, January 5, 1987. i ■ • Sin—The article by Mr James Baker, of Double Hill School (December 20) was splendid. In manyjfirms, with his understanding of the essentials of his work he would be highly commended by hiS employer and earmarked for rapid promotion. I trust that the small number whose children' benefit-from Mr Baker’s obvious talents realise their good fortune. Mr L.jCramond’s response (January 2) was not worthy of notice;-—Yours, etc., jF. S. ATKINS. January 6, 1987.