Why Did Teachers Adopt Poor Teaching
Readers must ask themselves why it is that the
educational establishments have, for so long, refused to teach reading using the
best methods. And part of the answer to this is as follows.
1. The vast majority of 'research' conducted
by educationalists is nothing more than politically-correct hokum. It is not
'research' and it is not scientific. It is, by and large, waffle and drivel.
To give readers some idea of how bad this is,
here is an anecdote.
When I first embarked upon my research for a
PhD in the area of brain functioning and language development - some 28 years
ago - I was somewhat put out by the fact that the research in the reputable
experimental Psychology journals in my particular area was a bit thin on the ground, to say the least.
There were, perhaps, some 50 papers in all that were relevant to me in
the development of reading skills. And there were about 50 papers that purported
to be relevant to the topic but were, in fact, too tenuously connected to the
issue to be of much value.
I was positively overjoyed, therefore, when I ventured into the library of the university's Educational Department and
found row upon row of journals and books entirely devoted to 'Reading Research'
and 'Language Development'.
For about two weeks, I read paper, after
paper, after paper. I studied the experiments, the protocols, the methodology,
the Maths. I looked very closely at all the books.
And, in summary, about 99.99% of what I read
was utter garbage.
It was so bad that, without exaggeration, I was almost
put into a state of shock.
It was so bad that, without exaggeration, I was almost put into a state of shock. Never before in
my life had it ever
occurred to me that such wishy-washy balderdash could be sitting on the shelves
in a library of a prestigious Education Department and that it was actually
dominating the way that the nation's children were being taught.
It was like discovering that the nation's
Office of Medical Health was testing pills solely by asking people to describe
how they felt about their colour.
And a lot of people who now sit at the top of
the educational hierarchy have taken part in the production of this balderdash,
and probably often gained promotion on the basis of it, and so, needless to say,
they are somewhat resistant to the notion that they, the 'experts', might have
been wrong for all of these years.
2. The feminist and Marxist influences within
the educational departments of universities are not directed at helping children
to learn. The feminist aim is to hold back the boys relative to the girls, and
the Marxist aim is to make everyone the same by keeping everyone at the lowest
In general, the aims of numerous educational establishments within our
universities are more often political rather than educational. And their resistance to
anything that will improve the educational standards of children is partly due
to the fact that the better is the system, the wider will be the performance
gaps between the children and, hence, the resulting adults.
Look at it like this.
If the speed limit is 30 miles per hour, then
it does not really matter what size is the engine of your car.
If the speed limit is 150 miles per hour, then it does.
And Marxists do not like the thought of some
children driving faster than others - so the speed limit is kept at 30.
The feminist influences - which are extremely powerful
- are always to the detriment of boys
3. The feminist influences - which are
extremely powerful - are always to the detriment of boys. For example, in the
UK, currently, some 18% of young men are functionally illiterate. They cannot
read or write properly. And one of the reasons for this is because the
feminist-indoctrinated teaching establishments managed to persuade teachers to
adopt a very inferior method for teaching reading.
It is sometimes described as the Look-Say
The idea behind this was to give girls an
advantage over boys by teaching all the children to approach their learning
through more holistic, right-brained methods as opposed to allowing them to use
their left-brained functions - logic, analysis, sequential processing etc.
The fact that this policy continued to result
in a deterioration of language skills for both the girls and the boys over three
decades was immaterial to the feminist groups, whose only concern was that girls
would be better off educationally than boys. And this is why governments both in
the UK and the USA are nowadays trying to force - with difficulty - the
educationalists to teach reading using more effective phonological methods.
And it is worth pointing out that even in the
area of Mathematics the feminist influences continue to be detrimental to the
For example, in the case of some new basic
Maths procedures now being taught in the
UK, the children who will be the most successful with them will be those whose
handwriting is neater, who have fewer laterality problems, and who are more
compliant, more focused and more organised when it comes to keeping pencil on
In none of these areas do
younger boys do well when compared to the girls.
To give you some feel for this; a rough
equivalent in, say, Geometry, would be for the children now to be assessed on
how accurately and painstakingly they draw a triangle to work out its angles,
instead of using algebra and the mathematical relationships of Sin, Cos and Tan
to figure them out.
What the feminist-controlled educational
academics are purposely doing through their universities is bringing in new
teaching methods in Maths to ensure that the girls outperform the boys. The progress of all the children will be
retarded when it comes to basic Maths, but it is the boys who will lose out the
And this is not just a coincidence - a
no departments are more ridden with this
sex-discriminatory ideology than are those in the world of education.
We already know that feminist ideology
pervades nearly all government departments. And no departments are more
ridden with this sex-discriminatory ideology than are those in the world of
And if you doubt this, just imagine what an
outcry there would be if it was the case that girls were significantly
less able to manipulate their writing implements but that, henceforth, the Maths
curriculum was being altered to favour the boys who had better skills in this area.
are exceptions, but here is the rule: Boys are graphologically challenged. That
males have many more problems with penmanship than females is "not even a
question," according to University of Maryland special education professor
and distinguished scholar Steve Graham. "It is one of the better
established facts in the literature." Professor Christina Hoff Sommers)
Teachers are not rocket scientists.
4. Teachers are not rocket scientists. They will listen to what
they are being told by the university professors when they are in training, and
they will have trust in what they are being taught by them. If the professors
themselves are bathed in ignorance when it comes to understanding complex
processes (such as those involved in learning, perception, memory etc) which
most of them are, and/or they are far more concerned about politics than about
anything else, there is not much hope that the student teachers are going to
learn anything of value from them.
The consequence is that on entering the
profession the teachers end up employing teaching strategies that are partly
based on the wooly nonsense that they have been taught, and partly based on
their own whims. And, having become accustomed to both of these things, and the
freedom that this gives them, they are somewhat reluctant to accept that there
are specific ways of teaching certain topics - such as reading -
that are particularly beneficial for the children.
Teaching Reading Using Phonics Eleven-year-olds
in Clackmannanshire, Scotland, who used the "synthetic phonics" method
were three years ahead in reading. ... A seven-year study by Hull and St
Andrews universities also found pupils were on average almost two years ahead of
others in Scotland at spelling. 11/02/05
What a surprise!
The failure of the teaching profession to
employ phonic methods for teaching reading over the past few decades has
resulted in inestimable damage.
Despite all the evidence (and there are
mountains of it) accumulated over the years demonstrating that non-phonic
techniques were decidedly inferior methods for both sexes - but particularly for
boys - the educationalists demanded that phonics were not taught at school.
Not mentioned in the above article was the
finding that an 18-week phonically-structured approach to reading led to the
children immediately being 7 months ahead compared to where they would otherwise
have been, and that by the time they were 11 years old this lead had increased
to three years.
(This would have happened because by learning
the phonic approach children can develop their own reading skills as time goes
Furthermore, not only were the boys now found
to be equal with the girls when it came to reading performance, they had
actually edged ahead of the girls when it came to spelling.
But the most important thing that readers must
understand is that the diabolical way in which reading has been taught for the
past three decades led to a large decline in the reading skills of both
boys and girls, and that the feminist-indoctrinated teacher-training colleges
nevertheless insisted on pursuing this course exactly because the
boys would be significantly disadvantaged compared to the girls.
Some of you might think that this claim is an
exaggeration. But it isn't.
Think about it.
For over three long decades the educational
establishments have watched the reading ages of children decline following the
politically-correct exclusion of the phonic method for teaching reading.
Why was there no outcry?
Well. The reason that there was no outcry was
because the boys were performing worse than the girls.
But can you just imagine what kind of almighty
hoohah would have been created had the girls been doing worse than the boys
under this method of teaching? We would never have heard the end of it. And the government would have been forced to
do something about the situation.
The teachers would have dropped this 'new'
method of teaching reading like a shot.
Don't ever kid yourselves that feminism is
about 'equality' or making the world a better place.
It is nothing of the sort. It is an ideology based almost entirely on
male hatred. And feminists will do almost anything to
disadvantage males relative to females, even if both genders have to lose out;
in this case, in their education.
Here is just one tiny example of this which I
have taken from Melanie Phillips' brilliant book called All Must Have Prizes.
She is quoting Margaret Meek whom she
describes as "the immensely influential educationalist from the London
Institute" - a woman who was very much involved in determining how reading
should be taught.
"The powerful literacy of the great
literate tradition in English is still exclusive. Those who complain about
standards sit within it and know that their education keeps them in the top
one damn good way of scuppering the patriarchy is, of
course, to deny a decent education to those who might eventually be its main
supporters; i.e. boys.
In other words, a main priority of this highly
influential educationalist was to dumb down the syllabus and, I imagine, to help
scupper the "patriarchy" - as has been the attitude of thousands of
feminist-indoctrinated academics in the teacher-training colleges for three
decades. And one damn good way of scuppering the patriarchy is, of course, to
deny a decent education to those who might eventually be its main supporters;
The degradation of the education of boys was
(The vast majority of teachers themselves, of
course, have been mostly unaware of this 'conspiracy'.)
In the 1960's, there was increasing belief in the notion that boys were more left-brained, and that they
approached the learning of reading by using a sequential, phonetic route. Girls,
on the other hand, were believed to be more right-brained, and they would
therefore attend more to the overall shapes of words when learning to read.
(One piece of evidence for this notion was
that men who had suffered damage to the left sides of their brains were more
handicapped thereafter with respect to language than were women with similar
damage. It was concluded that women used more of their right hemispheres for
The feminists thought that the holistic
approach to teaching reading would therefore be better for girls than for boys,
and so they ensured that schools adopted this method. And the fact that the
reading standards of both the boys and the girls
suffered as a result made no difference at all to them.
Indeed, they even refused to talk about the
issue - an issue that they walled off in a politically-corrected zone and which
they used to protect by their usual tactic of intimidation should anyone
question their alleged wisdom in this area.
And the reason for this intransigence became
clear to me the more that I read about what was going on in the world of
education and why.
Provided that the boys would be relatively
disadvantaged compared to the girls, the state teaching establishments were
Provided that the boys would be relatively
disadvantaged compared to the girls, the state teaching establishments were
Well, with any luck, the demand for the proper
teaching of reading will now be so great that the teacher-training colleges will
be unable to continue with their destructive agenda in this area.
But we must not become too
complacent, because there are a whole fistful of areas in education wherein boys
will continue to be purposefully disadvantaged by the educationalists - with
Mathematics now being an area that is almost dying a death in the west because
it is being taught so badly; once again, in order to keep the boys down.
This is not an exaggeration.
This is something that is as clear as daylight
to anyone who has looked closely at what has been going on in the world of
For the past three decades, just about every
single card in the educational book has been played specifically to disadvantage
boys relative to girls, regardless of the cost to all children and
to society as a whole.