Elwyn Richardson: Lessons to be learned (01) - Click here.

'In the Early World'

Introduction to a series of 11 postings

Delightful education philosophy: To the outside world, a complicated personality

There will be a series of postings on Elwyn Richardson with the purpose of confirming, reacquainting, or introducing, our primary school heritage. Primary school teachers do not share a set of values, and associated teaching practices, as cohesively as they once did. There are a number of reasons for this including the multiplicity of teacher education institutions; the university control of many of these (and the resulting understandable focus on research-developed knowledge); the considerable diminution in the number of national and regional in-service courses; the movement away from the curriculum by NZEI; ideological rifts such as the place of electronics in pedagogy, or the debate about phonics (the advocates, of course, provide a fancier title) as against the established eclectic approach; the various lengths of teacher-training courses and styles of taking them (online courses, for instance); the shift in attention, as a result of Tomorrow's Schools, away from the curriculum; the considerable growth in management courses; the resort to American education trends (Gardner, Dunn and Dunn) by teachers as a result of alienation from aspects of the education system; a degree of competition between schools for status; and parental control of principal appointments and the populism that occurs as contenders jockey for preferment.

The postings will argue that Richardson is best considered on the basis of his first publication 'In the Early World' because his second major publication - 'Into the Further World' -  is derivative and does not add much, and his other pamphlet-type publications which he clumsily typeset and printed, are repetitive, and lacking in discipline and clarity. He says in his Valedictum in 'Into the Further World' that after 'In the Early World' he did not think he 'would turn to write again, no matter how pressing I found the need to record at least something of my theory'. That initial impulse was probably correct because his attempts to explain himself, and education in general, are unconvincing. I recommend that teachers read for themselves Richardson's account of what went on over 13 years in the 1950s and '60s in the small country school of Oruaiti by the main road between Kaeo and Mangonui. 'In the Early World' is widely available because it was reprinted in 2001 by the Council for Educational Research. Teachers will take many different things from the book according to what they bring to it, but no teacher who reads it will be unaffected. I will argue that this book, for all the reservations and qualifications that could be made about it, should be central to professional development courses at teachers colleges. The main voice in the postings will be Richardson's as we share in the drama of his classroom epiphanies and confusions. Overall, the postings should be seen as more a celebration of who we are as primary teachers, rather than a critique. However, there will be one caution about using Richardson's classroom practice as a model for what teachers will recognise as based on the developmental philosophy. The dominance in his teaching of the relationship between the immediate environment, artistic and written expression, while legitimate and highly attractive, should not define exclusively what developmental is.  

 The series of postings will pay some attention to what I consider weaknesses of Richardson's style of advocacy that occurred as he went about his long and intense campaign to encourage teachers to use children's emotional life as the basis for programmes. The postings will argue, though, that Richardson's quickness to take offence, even pettiness, his sense of being unappreciated, can be excused to some extent as part of the individualism that was important to his education contribution. This kind of attitude, shared by Sylvia Ashton-Warner, seemed to provide a necessary sense of alienation, of being an explorer in education, of going where few had gone before. It will be argued in the postings, however, that Richardson was, in fact, well treated by the education system, which is not too surprising because he was not a 'man alone', no matter how much he wanted to feel he was, but a logical outcome of where the official system was going and what it valued.

The series of posting will look at the teaching ideas and philosophy that can be gained from a consideration of Richardson's publications, in particular, 'In the Early World'. This intention may seem somewhat at odds with the declaration in an earlier paragraph, that the teaching implications of what Richardson has to say will be very different for different teachers. I still stand by that, these postings, indeed, have just that purpose, of getting teachers to read 'In the Early World' and to take their own meaning from what strikes them. While Richardson has long been an inspiration, I am, for the first time, getting to grips, in detail, with what he means to me - so it is a personal journey which I hope will encourage other people to take theirs. The ideas I will concentrate on are those that arise from the excitement Richardson experiences as he explores and develops his way of teaching; the interaction between art, observation of the local environment, writing, also drama and movement; the development and use of children's emotional responses; the children's use of artistic and written expression to learn 'Who I am'; the teacher sensitivity to what children are doing; the rigorous demand for exactness in observation and reflection, and for sincerity and truthfulness in expression; the emphasis on children evaluating their work and the work of others; the democratic nature of much of the programme; the shifting role of the teacher; the expectation that children will experiment, persevere, discover, and refine; and the incidental nature of much of the programme. Teachers in reading about Richardson will always have a number of questions: What parts of what he says are suitable or practicable for me? How relevant is Richardson to teaching in large schools, and in the prevailing education climate? How sustainable in the long-term is such a programme? I can see strengths in such a programme, but what are the weaknesses? Richardson mainly writes about the inspirational, creative processes, though there are references to more formal practices, what is the nature of these? The main point to keep in mind, however, will be that primary teaching needs to re-establish greater cohesiveness, and more confidence in itself, by looking to its traditions, as exemplified by Richardson, to better meet present and future challenges.