bright sixteen-year-olds should be challenged with literature out of their comfort zone: Shakespeare, Chaucer, Keats, etc.
Why?
Where does the idea come from that older = better quality? Shakespeare wrote a lot of plays that really weren't very good at all - in his time he was a jobbing playwright with deadlines to meet, you know. I read some Dryden recently because Michael Gove likes him so much, and I didn't think it was anything very special at all.
Having said that, I have nothing against teaching classical texts at GCSE level, but I would want them taught to all 16-year-olds - pitched and taught appropriately. My mother used to teach English as a foreign language in the Netherlands, and she was laughed at for teaching Shakespeare to students not working towards the equivalent of an A-level. She did it anyway, and it was hugely successful. If we're going to raise the bar, then surely the classic texts should be made available and accessible to all?
When I did my A-levels (also in Holland, English as a foreign language though I have been bilingual from the age of 11), we were required to read 15 full-length novels or plays for each language we took, 3 of which had to be from earlier than the year 1900. I'm sure something similar could be implemented for GCSEs too.
What concerns me most in the whole 'children must read X, Y and Z' debate is that the issue of reading as something pleasurable is completely lost. When I hear about the number of households where there are no books at all, that concerns me. We need to engage young people with literature, not force it down their throats.