19th century novels for GCSE English....

Niminny - you are wrong. All students will study English Literature. It is certainly not an option. Glad to see lots of us are concerned. This is not about what texts we studied at school. It is about the failure to design a curriculum which is both relevant and accessible- not for some -for all.

In theory it's all good - challenge, interesting texts and plenty of scope for exploring language and context. However, the reality is (thanks to Progress 8 measures) all children now need to read these texts. For some, they are still learning to read, not reading to learn. They cannot access these texts. I could cry when I think about my lovely Year 8 MLD class. They work so hard but they will fail this exam. And to be honest- that's the least of their worries. The new demands are unnecessarily elitist. People need to get into schools and see exactly what our students are up against.

I reread Jane Eyre last year and thought it was horribly tedious too.

OfficerVanHelsing - I find that is so often the case with teens and fictional death
Curley's wife = utterly unmoved. Candy's dog = outrage.
Same with Private Peaceful.

Dd did Jane Eyre at school and I read it alongside her for moral support, having tried and failed to read it several times in the past. I can honestly say that it is one of the dullest books I have ever struggled through. I wanted Jane to die so the book could end, she could stop being so annoyingly worthy and the ridiculous coincidences could stop. So many opportunities were missed to kill her, why did she not just starve to death or die of consumption? If I had been forced to read it at school I would have been in despair (our set books were Catcher in the Rye, Portrait of the Artist as A Young Man and The Power and the Glory; we had a slightly eccentric teacher). I love all of Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy and lots of the other 19th century novels mentioned here, but lord preserve the young from the dirge that is Jane Eyre.

Another vote for Northanger Abbey and definitely for The Sign of Four!

Need to put Thomas Hardy in there too. Far from the madding crowd is fab, and a pretty easy read.

Oh, and we did War of the Worlds in Year 8, so definitely not too hard for GCSE imo.

Not a huge fan of many of the recent reforms, but I think this one's a good idea. The list possibly isn't as inspiring as it could be, but I don't think the texts are prohibitively difficult. Schools have always been tactical in their choice of set texts for exams, and there are enough 'easier' ones here to prevent weaker cohorts of pupils from being faced with Great Expectations and the like. Plus I think it will benefit brighter pupils who will welcome the challenge of a meaty C19 novel - my GCSE class (way back in 1996!) found some of the previous 20th century favourites (notably Of Mice and Men) deathly dull.

Many of these have TV/film adaptations which could be exploited to pique pupils' interest - loads for Pride and Prejudice, and Sherlock Holmes is huge at the moment, which could be a great way into The Sign of Four.

Agree about Northanger Abbey, by the way - I chose to write about it for my GCSE extended essay as I loved it so much. And the intention to read the whole text rather than extracts out of context is long overdue imo.

OP, it no wonder nearly half your children struggle to get a C with the low expectations you have of them - there is plenty of research that shows your attitude helps them fail.

Niminy is right. I do wonder though if the list of texts couldn't have been broader for exactly the reasons Hakluyt mentions. Also we need to be realistic about the length of some of the novels that have been suggested given that students at this age are taking a range of GCSEs so the number of texts and the length need to take this into account. Is there any difference for foundation tier students or do they have to study the same texts and the same number of them as higher tier? If they do, I understand the concern about attaining grade C. Or does it mean more schools will dissuade students from taking literature as a GCSE at all?

But there's a huge range of texts here Hak, so that (as I understand it) teachers can choose texts manageable for their specific cohorts.

I think it would be a rare 14 year old who actually "enjoyed" Great Expectations, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth offering it as an option for children who are likely to be moving on to A Level. I loathed Hard Times when I did it for O Level (top set English) but I did learn a fair amount about the Victorian novel from studying it, and it stood me in good stead when I did Little Dorrit at A Level (I also hated that, but it was a useful book to study anyway - IME the books you love are often the ones which are most difficult to do a good essay on).

Of course.

But we are talking about people who have chosen to do literature at GCSE, not the entire population of 15 year olds.

And at some levels I think education has to take people out of what they feel comfortable with. One of the important things I do as a teacher is to help people see that they can be interested in, even inspired by things they didn't initially like.

I love all the novels mentioned but Great Expectations is a terrible choice for GCSE, it's not only complex but psychologically twisted as well! Fantastic choice for A Level though! And definitely second Northanger Abbey!
I think any top set students will be fine with most of the texts listed apart from Great Expectations. I do think there should be more flexibility for other students, not necessarily to avoid the Victorians altogether but to choose short stories, such as ghost stories, as a gentler introduction to Dickens or Gaskell, for example.

x-posted with you Niminy - my response was to Hak's post, but perhaps just as apposite to yours!

Yes, and my DD1, who got A* at GCSE, is currently doing A-level lit and planning to study English at university found Jane Eyre unbearably tedious, ditto Austen. (And my DH managed to do an entire English degree at an RG university without reading any Austen. When I found out, I forced him to read Mansfield Park which he flung across the room in disgust once he finished it.) 19th century, while my passion, is clearly not everyone's cup of tea.

I read Jane Eyre at about 14 and was completely entranced. I have a complete empathy fail if I try to imagine someone finding it boring.

But I did Great expectations for GCSEa and hated it, even though I was a voracious reader. Personally I think Dickens is something you have to come to when you're ready - he's now my favourite nineteenth century novelist, and I get more out of him every time I read him.

But doing GCSE literature did nothing to increase my love of literary study - in fact I got an F. But then went on to study literature at university, do a PhD in it and then teach it.

Yes, Hak, I think that is exactly right. (And although I love Vanity Fair, at well over 300,000 words I think we might have to start it in Year 7 to get through it in time.)
I think what people do need to remember though is that the vast majority of GCSE candidates are going to find ANY 19th century text challenging.
And I disagree with you about S&S btw on two counts: I think it is OK to feel sympathetic to Marianne on a first reading and then change your mind when you are a bit more mature - but I also know my top sets would have no problem appreciating Elinor.
Northanger Abbey I really would enjoy teaching, especially in a Gothic context.
I just hate those exam board lists for being so confined and prescriptive.