Letter: Diversity, choice and a misunderstanding of the history of education
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: John Patten (5 April) writes about the restrictive nature of 'masterplans' produced by earlier governments.
He deceives himself if he thinks that the present arrangements within the framework of the national curriculum provide real 'choice and diversity'. While there may now be choices on the administrative arrangements for state schools, the opportunities for choice on what is learnt in them become more restricted.
As an example, from this autumn the study of technology becomes compulsory at Key Stage 4, the two years up to GCSE. This is despite reports, by for example the Engineering Council, that have used phrases such as 'Blue Peter model-making' and 'Mickey Mouse technology' to describe the content of the national curriculum in this area.
Yours faithfully,
P. G. L. WYNN
Maldon, Essex
5 April
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments