I’ve had an idea!
For a while now I’ve been increasingly disgusted at the way English language has been dumbed down as a GCSE subject. Really, what is the point of asking pupils to analyse leaflets for RNLI or websites about skateboarding? What’s the point of committing so much time and effort to teaching kids how to write like tabloid journalists?
I can see an argument for teaching English as a set of ‘functional skills’ but the Language GCSE isn’t even that. Leaflet analysis and persuasive writing are pointless as well as crass. The exam on which thousands of teachers waste thousands of hours teaching thousands of students how to pass is the bankrupt exercise in hoop-jumping, and I’m looking forward to seeing the back of it. (See this post from Katie Ashford for more horror.)
Now, I know the governments’ plans for the new English language GCSE to include “Unseen high-quality, challenging texts from the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries” and I’m aware of the requirement that exam boards must avoid texts that are “essentially transient”. This is all to the good. But I still don’t really understand what our subject has become. This merely sounds like a watered down version of a literature exam.
It’s fascinating that English Language has achieved such preeminence at GCSE. It’s a non-subject with no body of knowledge, and bears little or no resemblance to the subject as taught at A level and beyond. The only part of the specification that had any connection to the subject studied at A level was the spoken language study, and that’s been axed! All we’re left with is wish-washy, generic reading and writing skills, which exam boards claim are transferable. (They’re not. If you’ve ever experienced the frustration of teaching analysis of non-fiction and then being stumped at pupils’ inability to transfer these skills to analysing poetry you’ll know exactly what I mean.) What’s more, after GCSE, Language suddenly loses its sparkle. Even though the A level in English Language is an actual subject with a unique body of knowledge, no one’s really interested in it. English Literature comes to the fore as the qualification of choice. Just ask any admissions tutor at a Russell Group university.
So, if I was King of English, I’d do away with language altogether. English teachers would teach a combination of literature and grammar, and other subject teachers would be responsible for explicitly teaching the genres of writing which occur within their domains. So, for instance, science teachers would teach pupils how to argue and challenge aspects of science, explain scientific events and how to organise information scientifically; history teachers would teach pupils how to record, argue and explain. And so on. That this doesn’t happen systematically as things stand is a bit lamentable; the language of our subjects is interwoven with their content. How can it be sensible to avoid teaching pupils to write like subject specialists? (Click here for genres in science, history & geography)
Sadly, my benevolent dictatorship is some way off, and no one really cares what I think. But I have spotted an interesting possibility. The government’s efforts to shore English Literature as a GCSE subject may have inadvertently undermined the primacy of English Language. This TES article reports the government’s new plans for Literature to count double in the new Progress 8 accountability measure.
Bethan Marshall, chair of National Association for the Teaching of English, thinks this is a very good thing. She says, “This is a very good thing.” She goes on to say:
“Literature counts for a great deal and would have been seriously under threat,” the senior lecturer in English and education at King’s College, London said. “Now that they have equated language and literature then [schools] may concentrate on doing both.”
Dr Marshall points out that under the previous proposals
“Schools might have entered them for the literature but not bothered teaching it. Now that it counts if you have a child who is very good at reading but not so good at language I think they might focus on the literature. I think the balance is more equal.”
Well, couldn’t it now also be the case that we could enter students for ‘the language’ and not bother teaching it? How great would that be? No longer would we be shackled to the pointless tedium of teaching to a very poor test.
And if we really put some thought into this and got the teaching of writing genres right across the curriculum then as long as the exam wasn’t as warped out of shape as the bafflingly inaccessible current AQA offering, pupils probably could do well in it without any specific teaching to the test!
Just a thought.
I’m sure the confederacy of dunces will see fit to stamp out this possibility, but Oh! What marvellous and delicious irony!
Should we also expect a rebalancing of time away from English lessons to the humanities, then?
It’s a thought.
I totally agree with your comments. We have just accepted the teaching of meaningless analysis of non-fiction texts and so-called stand alone ‘writing to’, instead of developing fundamental reading and writing skills. I no longer see the point of the current specification and hope that the new accountability measures do free us up to develop our students love of literature.
Hi David. Whilst I probably wouldn’t make the point as forcefully as you, I agree with many of your concerns about the GCSE English language qualification. The reading sections are often incredibly dull, too formulaic, and because of the heavy emphasis on ‘skills’ a little vacuous. We have recently moved to the iGCSE, which whilst not a panacea does contain elements of good writing that I think are valuable and that you can assess – the ability to precis a text or read source material to produce an authentic voice and point of view.
I think you are absolutely correct about the genres being better served from being taught across the curriculum within subject domains. Not only would this approach genuinely raise the profile of writing across the curriculum, it would make the impetus and purpose of that writing much more relevant to the students: they would need to learn the genres of historical analysis or scientific explanation because these are what you are going to be assessed in and are what is valued by that discipline beyond school. In other words, a more credible Text type, Audience and Purpose, or whatever beastly acronym we use to sell the form to the students. This would leave creative writing (or composition) as perhaps the one genre we would like to preserve, one that could flourish with the added time available to properly study and learn from the best of what has gone before.
I also agree with your comments about A level language. In a way I think if that was taught at GCSE (as is) it would be much more rigorous, purposeful and dare I say ‘engaging’. The Spoken Language Study was a poor relation that was watered down to the point of being virtually useless. Shame!
You’re right – the Cambridge iGCSE is better and, I think, an accurate prediction of what the new GCSE will look like.
[…] Read more on The Learning Spy… […]
[…] Read more on The Learning Spy… […]
Still having Martin Robinson’s excellent Trivium 21C at the front of my mind, I would focus on rhetoric and dialectic in the English Language component. Those are, after all, the functional , practical aspects of language use. The GCSE could lay the groundwork for a Theory of Knowledge element at sixth form.
Ha! I *just* said that on Twitter! Well, sort of. Yes to teaching rhetoric as a domain, but not dialectic – I see that as more of a methodology for teaching other domains.
Teach English grammar, rhetoric and philosophy: history & theory of knowledge. Include debating?
Also logic…
Always including debating. What would English be without debating? The theory of knowledge suggestion is an interesting one. but I’m not sure English lessons are the right place, not if we want to develop it as a properly academic subject with it’s own body of knowledge. Further, Im not sure that philosophy & logic should be taught to young children.(When I say I’m not sure, I’m just that – I’m uncertain.) But it’s a fascinating part of the IB.
Only really because your tweet suggested unanonimous support was unsettling but do you really want to shift a couple of periods a week across to Sience? Id like to think wea’r generily literate ourselves, and can contribute to the literasy of our students, but most of us are already having to teach 3 subjects to GSCE, and sex. I’m not sure you want to make us reprehensible for the schools’ english results as well as a big chunck of EBacc and the teenage pregnancy rate. Wea’r good but wea’r not that good!
No, of course I don’t want to make science teachers responsible for English results. That would be silly.
But I do want to make science teachers responsible for teaching pupils how to write like scientists. This is hugely important and, I think, very sensible: language and content should be seen as inseparable.
This is a very useful resource: http://www.decd.sa.gov.au/literacy/files/links/link_157535.pdf
Wow! That’s a nicely controversial post. Certainly more and more has been bolted on to the English curriculum over the years so that it all feels a bit of a mish-mash. And I’d agree that we need more debate and a sense of coherence over the fundamental point and aims of English at school. The introduction of media texts and non-fiction texts seemed like an exciting move to make the subject more relevant to more students, but I can see that it has evolved into a rather artificial exercise with material which often seems quite arbitrarily selected. The writing elements of this part of the curriculum can tend towards training in writing to a formula which often loses the potential for creativity or genuine expression of thought.
However, stripping subject English back to its literary roots would seem to me like a step backwards. Granted, it would simplify the subject by narrowing our focus, and, if ‘quality literature’ is your priority, then you would have more time to focus on that.
I think part of the problem is the fret over whether English is seen to have a demonstrable ‘body of knowledge,’ as you put it. The current relentless focus on monitoring progression and core knowledge is problematic for English and forces us to think about what we are teaching them. Yes, if we see learning as knowledge that they put into their heads, then identifying ‘great writers’ and ensuring students are exposed to them and ‘know’ about them, or ensuring they are competent users of written language in terms of its grammar and spelling, become our central drivers. But English is about much more than that, and I feel that we shouldn’t allow the current zeal for measurable knowledge to drive development of our curriculum.
I recently read a really interesting article by Gunther Kress entitled Reimagining English which opens up some interesting ideas about ways forward. He looks at ‘meaning-making’ as a unifying principle of the subject (individuals making sense of and articulating their interpretation of society and coming into contact with others’ views of it.) In this regard privileging certain texts over others, particular genres over others, even specific modes of communication over others, is unhelpful. The choice of texts is always going to be political. Narrowing the subject down to the literary, and then only the literature which is approved by the powers-that-be, is reductive, shutting out huge swathes of communication and expression which takes place in our lives.
You question the point of training students to write like tabloid journalists, but what is the point of training them to write literary essays for that matter? While we do need to remember that GCSE English may be a preparation for A-level, or a university degree in the subject for some students, I think we also need to keep in mind broader aims, which encompass all students and life generally. Making students feel that their views of the world have legitimacy, relevance and interest, engaging them in debates, of which literature forms a part, rather than positioning them as labouring under the shadow of great writers, opens up opportunities to engage with the pleasures of English rather than shutting them down.
I do share your exasperation with a lot of the material and your frustration with the way creativity and literature can get squeezed out by the ‘skills’ type tasks. However, I really don’t think the marginalising of English language in the government plans you refer to is something to be celebrated. You recently joked about the danger of becoming a cultural fascist in another post, I think this move would definitely be a step in that direction. I think your question about ‘what our subject has become?’ is a vital one.
Sorry, I think this is a bit too long to qualify as a post! I got a bit carried away.
Thanks Alison
I don’t buy the cultural relativism that all texts are equal. All texts are (perhaps) worthy of being read, but only certain texts are worthy of study. Why? Because of the opportunity cost. If you fill your curriculum with web sites, leaflets and Robert Swindells, there’s no time left for the cannon. Why does that matter? Because knowledge is power, and some knowledge is culturally richer, and therefor more powerful than other knowledge.
I do understand the argument that English should be about functional literacy, although I don’t accept it. What’s wrong with the study of English being elitist? I want the children I teach to be elite. Teaching anything else denies them this opportunity. I’m not against “Making students feel that their views of the world have legitimacy, relevance and interest” but I want to do this through teaching the ‘best that’s been thought and known’ not by dumbing down to what they already know. Otherwise we end up with writing persuasive letters to headteachers complaining about school uniform! I’m not interested in “positioning them as labouring under the shadow of great writers”, I’m interested in critiquing the cannon – denying knowledge of great writers doesn’t result in freedom, it results in ignorance.
Right, now that’s off my chest, thank you for taking the time to write such a lengthy response.
Agree entirely. Perhaps the ideal would be to incorporate some ‘literary non-fiction into the revised GCSE for literature. There’s plenty which is worthy of study: essays by Montaigne, Woolf and Foster Wallace, journalism by Capote, letters by Keats, travel writing by Chatwin, speeches by the great orators etc
Perhaps creative writing and rhetoric could then remain a separate subject and exam, with an emphasis on using great works of literature as models.
Sounds good to me!
I found this post and the subsequent discussion interesting to read and agreed with some of it, but not all of it.
Encouraging young people to analyse the language of advertisements, for example, to consider how the choice of words influences/manipulates, is valid and can be fascinating, and the same goes for other forms of persuasive writing, such as you might find in leaflets produced by charities. I always wanted those I taught to be astute, discriminating readers of everything they were exposed to, and encouraging them to have a critical eye with regard to the kinds of non-fiction they routinely meet seems like a useful skill to me. I might not want them to write like tabloid journalists (although that can be an interesting exercise!) but I’d want them to be aware of how tabloid journalists manipulate emotion through their use of words and be discerning and perceptive readers of all kinds of journalism.
And I’m not sure what’s wrong with the persuasive letter to the headteacher about uniform – it makes students think about appropriate tone, different audiences, how to show commitment and conviction and use evidence to support argument etc. Many will have to produce persuasive writing in their professional and personal lives beyond school so, again, it seems a useful skill to me.
Creative writing in English, and speaking and listening skills, as you mention, have also been key, productive areas of English language teaching throughout my career. I’ve loved teaching English Literature too, and agree with what you say here and elsewhere about the canon, but I don’t see this as an either/or….
Will anyone agree with me and stick up for English Language?
The English & Media Centre blog certainly will: http://englishandmedia.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/ks4-english-curriculum-proposals-a-backward-step/
Hi Jill. You say “Encouraging young people to analyse the language of advertisements, for example, to consider how the choice of words influences/manipulates”.
In my view, studying mistakes (or lies, in the case of advertising) gives a temporary feeling of satisfaction but is not useful in the long term. It doesn’t teach one anything about the opposite. Instead, study the best that’s available. We learn by example.
[…] Principled curriculum design: the English curriculum Is there a way to avoid teaching rubbish in English? […]
[…] kids absolutely love it!” The phrase that launched a thousand gimmicks Is there a way to avoid teaching rubbish in English? Principled curriculum design: the English […]
[…] curriculum design: the English curriculum Is there a way to avoid teaching rubbish in English? Redesigning a […]
[…] Is there a way to avoid teaching rubbish in English? […]
[…] Is there a way to avoid teaching rubbish in English? […]