English isn’t a Real Subject

I recently got involved in a twitter thread where an English teacher said she hated reading, found it really boring and only read one or two books a year. She then got very indignant when I challenged this and claimed it wouldn’t improve her teaching if she read more books! I’ve been an English teacher for 25 years as PPs have said there’s a new breed of teachers who are pretty bullish about their views. English is very different to teach than a subject about which some pupils will have very little previous info or knowledge- that’s why I love it. It is then also problematic because articulate well read students will do better.

Oh dear, that AI stuff is proper neurobollocks.

But (despite what is said I have now looked at his feed) , looking back it is possible he is actually an English teacher, or maybe history.

Seriously, though, who puts on their Twitter bio the schools they went to when they were 5??

This THIS is why I can't stand that bunch of supercilious know alls. (although he seems the be saying something about not knowing all,; I have to say I think his point is unclear, if he has one)

AQA are cracking me up, though, with their suggestion hat some year 11s had a grasp of aesthetics, which they evidenced somehow in a comprehension paper. In other words, they liked the show offs!

This does have some truth in it, e.g. the assumption that all Y11 students understand all references to archaic items/vocabulary, particularly in 19th century and early 20th century texts (Language or Literature).

An example might be intertextual references or biblical allusions in 19th century novels and non-fiction.

This can affect their ability to understand and/or see the subtleties or implications in a text.

Some people refer to this as 'cultural capital', i.e. the body of Anglocentric general knowledge which people acquire to different degrees as they grow up.

I couldn’t believe it when looking at A levels, entry requirements for Maths A level is usually at least a 7 at gcse (occasionally 6) , for English it’s a 4.
I was stunned.

He taught at Michaela!!

I can't actually be bothered to look up the Teach First Arsewipe who wrote the Tweet : what is his subject?

I do think AQA are trying to desperately to please the Knowledge crowd and sound all trendy with that bit of the report. backfires slightly when they start banging on about not using long words (or even quite short ones)

NaughtToThree, on a point of English, it should be “you’re” in an English speaking country, not “your”, in your post!
Pedantic? Hell, yes! (Autistic ex grammar school pupil...)

But, yeah, it's why maths is easier

don't kill me noble

Isn't that just the whole knowledge curriculum and cultural capital thing again?

Yes, you do better in English if you know stuff, definitely. But, as I am always saying to my whiny year 10 girls, I know so much stuff BECAUSE I read books!

Sorry you think English teachers teach loads of stuff that's not on the syllabus??
Where do they get the time to do that??

It’s just mad to expect English teachers to coverthe whole of anglocentric knowledge, which they need to do for kids who are new to it.

This would be true, but they don't teach everything - like maths, they teach what's on the syllabus. Having a wide general knowledge may be helpful to any subject, but it's not a necessity. Also, you can take GCSE English as a second language.

(I am not an English teacher, though.)

Ahh the underline was want to e a strike through

Errr you won't get a qualification in well anything without English (If your in an an English speaking country) so by your own flawed logic it's every other subject that's not a real subject and English that's the purist subject.

Because you don't actually need any thing to teach English or learn it. You do need English to teach and learn maths.

What do you teach your mathematics in? Runes? Or do you use English