One day I must write a book called ‘the fine line’ because the older I get, the more I understand how every issue has a fine line regarding its reality. The perception creates the reality according to the perceiver’s criteria based on his or her understanding, experience and viewpoint. What can look good or persuasive can look equally wrong or inappropriate when seen through another perspective.

This is exactly the case regarding the arguments between traditionalist and progressive education. It is so easy to argue the pros and cons one way and then another. People like myself who have fought rigorously, for example, to bring in small step, rigorous, systematic, whole class phonics teaching for reading, writing and spelling are described as traditional and right wing. This is far from the truth. What I do see from my knowledge, experience and viewpoint is that small step direct instruction along with ample time provided for children to put into practice what they are being taught is essential for underpinning their creativity and for developing their individual talents in all subject areas. In other words, there is room and need for both rather stereo types of teaching and learning.

Teachers, however, have been pushed this way and that way – and never more so than in the past few decades. They have not had the opportunity, nor been invited, to give their feedback on their own experiences and views on official guidance and everyone accepts that bureaucracy and pressure has grown beyond all reasonableness in recent times.

Worst of all, teachers are so overwhelmed for the most part that they have not the energy or inclination to fight their own corner to join in any debate about schools or teaching. Many of them, I suspect, have given up all hope of common sense systems (be they traditionalist or progressive or a mixture of both) and I doubt that they feel they have a true voice in the wider public domain.

It seems to me, one of the most traditional forms of learning – the ‘liberal arts’ curriculum is all about developing competencies and introducing a challenging body of knowledge. Getting students to engage and ‘do learning’ through grammar, logic/dialectic and rhetoric is at the root of so much good practice in academic and in practical teaching and learning.

However one dichotomy is all pervasive: are schools there to ‘discover’ clever kids or grow them? When a teacher believes the former they are unlikely to unlock the true potential of their charges, and this is one of the main reasons that many are held back by their schooling rather than liberated by their learning.

In terms of outcome, I am sure we can agree that what goes on inside the building is more important than the building.

Traditionalist/progressive – not helpful labels – kids need the foundations of numeracy and literacy as a bare minimum and then need to develop their talents and enthusiasms – for some that may mean latin and classics, for others it may mean food technology, IT or textiles.

Michael Gove – he really ought to engage. I know that I can come across as a bit abrasive (particularly over student fees and top up loans grr) but you, Matthew, can at least debate the points I make even though you don’t agree with them. What’s Michael afraid of? Surely testing your ideas against someone who may not agree with them is the best way of refining and testing those ideas. As I continually remind myself, no one has a monopoly on judgment.