AIBU to think they might actually read a book in English? (Secondary)

[runningoutofnewnames]

DS's English class start reading books, then the teacher uses them to demonstrate some kind of grammar exercise or other construction of the English language - then they never actually finish it.

He's in Year 8, and they've only read one book from beginning to end in class since he started at secondary last year.

They're told they're not allowed to read ahead and often they're not even given the book, they're given photocopied sheets each lesson.

So, they read half of Animal Farm. The point of that was to teach them how to write a paragraph with a persuasive argument, apparently. Once they'd done that exercise, the module was finished and they stopped reading the book. DS loves reading and wants to discuss the content of the book in class. This isn't allowed.

This half term, they've done dystopian fiction but they've only read passages from books, not whole books (e.g. photo copied pages from the Hunger Games). The point of that was to demonstrate the elements needed to do a "creative" short story exercise - they were marked on the inclusion of these specific elements, not encouraged to be creative.

He's only read one whole book at school since he started nearly 18 months ago.

Do your DC read whole books in school?

We used to read loads when I was young! We did English Language AND literature when I went to school - it wasn't all about the mechanics of language, it was about appreciating books too and exploring ideas. I loved doing Animal Farm. We certainly read it to the end!

There's a similar focus on the mechanics and lack of creativity in his art lessons too, but that's another story.

Is this is the curriculum (fucking Gove's influence, still?) or his school, I wonder?

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to blame the government for this. Michael Gove hated the practice of reading extracts rather than whole books and the national curriculum makes clear that pupils should read whole books.

I have copied the following extract from the National Curriculum for English at key stage 3, but the same wording also appears at key stage 4

Reading and writing
Reading at key stage 3 should be wide, varied and challenging. Pupils should be expected to read whole books, to read in depth and to read for pleasure and information

@Fifthtimelucky

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to blame the government for this. Michael Gove hated the practice of reading extracts rather than whole books and the national curriculum makes clear that pupils should read whole books.

I have copied the following extract from the National Curriculum for English at key stage 3, but the same wording also appears at key stage 4

Reading and writing
Reading at key stage 3 should be wide, varied and challenging. Pupils should be expected to read whole books, to read in depth and to read for pleasure and information

It's all very well to say that, but if Gove has created a system where pupils are tested on the mechanics of language but never assessed on their appreciation of the whole text and the teachers are under pressure to get results, while not being able to afford to but the books then saying "they should read the whole book" is just hot air.

@HarrassedMumof3

This is a really poor curriculum and it won't stand up to the new Ofsted framework. I'm a secondary English teacher and curriculum lead.

Sorry for my ignorance but what does that mean in practical terms? Do OFSTED have enough teeth to create change here?

But for English Lit they are not just tested on the mechanics of language. The assessment objectives are much wider than that and the subject content for GCSE English Literature expects whole texts to be studied

Extract below:

Detailed study
Students should study a range of high quality, intellectually challenging, and substantial whole texts in detail. These must include:
at least one play by Shakespeare; at least one 19th century novel; a selection of poetry since 1789, including representative Romantic poetry; fiction or drama from the British Isles from 1914 onwards.

@Fifthtimelucky

But for English Lit they are not just tested on the mechanics of language. The assessment objectives are much wider than that and the subject content for GCSE English Literature expects whole texts to be studied

Extract below:

Detailed study
Students should study a range of high quality, intellectually challenging, and substantial whole texts in detail. These must include:
at least one play by Shakespeare; at least one 19th century novel; a selection of poetry since 1789, including representative Romantic poetry; fiction or drama from the British Isles from 1914 onwards.

OK, so can you explain how my DS's school has the highest grades of the state secondaries in our town, yet they don't read whole books?

Your quote is about intentions, Fifthtimelucky, but how is it assessed?

This thread has plenty of examples of teachers cherry picking the bits of the books they expect to be assessed.

If schools are under enormous pressure and they can get the DC good grades by teaching to the test, rather than the wider subject, then many will.

If we want children to really get to grips with whole text then it needs to be assessed and resourced so the schools can do this.

But from the stories people have shared here, that doesn't seem to be happening, does it?

Gove's curriculum was widely criticised before it was implemented and the kind of conversation we're having here about teaching to the test is exactly what people said would happen, it's not a surprise. It's just bloody depressing to see actually happening. (Read Michael Rosen's thoughts on Gove and the curriculum for just one example).

Ah fuck. I'm arguing with Tories. Enough. It must be time for bed.

(Apologies Fifthtimelucky if you're not an actually tory but are jumping to defend Gove for some other reason I can't imagine)

I completely agree OP, had the same issue with lack of actually books through GCSE's. There seemed to be huge focus on short stories plus I remember a play in DD's case because it was the same play she was studying for Drama. When I studied GCSE's I remember having to pick a theme and read at least 3 books with work comparing and contrasting them etc. Unfortunately GCSE English Lit doesn't seem to broaden the minds of those without a love of reading and must be incredibly frustrating for those who do.

I didn't have any short stories on the curriculum when I was GCSE-ing but wouldn't that be better than just learning from random extracts from longer novels with no context?
There are many famous short stories that would appeal to teens of that age, esp. in horror/thriller genres. I know eg. Katherine Mansfield would have gone down very well at my all-girls school - there's also Roald Dahl's scary adult writing, all kinds of Gothic stories, etc...

Reading a complete story with themes, twists and turns is important and going through an anthology bit by bit might be a good way to expose young people to a 'taster' of English literature - different authors, styles, periods and political situations, while still getting a sense of regular completion and accomplishment. Of course any student who wanted to could then branch out to longer novels related to things they've enjoyed in class. Sounds like something actually beneficial! I'd like to see that on a GCSE spec honestly

I don't particularly want to defend Gove or the government more generally but not reading the whole book pre-dates Gove. There are a number of posters on here saying it has been an issue for years.

Having looked at the assessment objectives for Eng Lit GCSE I'd have thought it would be difficult to ´read, understand and respond to texts using textual references, including quotations, to support and illustrate interpretations' without reading the whole book. I am not an English teacher though and clearly some teachers are getting good results without their pupils reading whole books.

Whatever the assessment arrangements, I cannot see any excuse for a teacher forbidding a pupil from reading ahead, or refusing to allow them to read the whole book as has happened in the OP's case. I can perfectly well see that some lessons might want to use extracts to illustrate particular points, and there might not be time in class to extend discussions more widely, but why not encourage pupils to read the whole book if they want to, especially with something as short as Animal Farm!

OK, so can you explain how my DS's school has the highest grades of the state secondaries in our town, yet they don't read whole books?

Because they are presumably very good at training students to pass an exam.

YANBU - ds2's has just started this in KS3 (wasnt like that for ds1). It sucks. We get hold of the books so ds2 can finish them and then I talk to him about them.

They just read half "To Kill a Mockingbird " ffs! Didnt even finish the trial! But yeah, showed them the film.

OK, so can you explain how my DS's school has the highest grades of the state secondaries in our town, yet they don't read whole books?

Are you sure they are not reading whole texts for GCSE. I'm distinctly underwhelmed by DS1's English teaching (he's at a different school to my Y8s) but we are asked to buy all the GCSE texts so they can annotate them and read them themselves. As far as I can see, the exam questions do require knowledge of the whole book but of course you can always get away with never reading a word and just going off lesson notes and revision guides. My DS would much rather read the book than a revision guide though. 🙂

Same here. My sons is in S2 (age 13) and they haven't done any books in 2 years of high school.

When I was at high school we did 2 books a term, one Shakespeare and one contemporary Scottish.

It makes me livid. I buy my DS the books and we discuss them at home. We might watch TV/theatre versions and discuss the interpretation. I do what I can to fill in the gaps.

Ps. Regarding OFSTED, not sure how much power they have to change curriculums but they can certainly reward schools for placing an overarching emphasis on literacy (which means encouraging reading whole books!). My Y8s school is outstanding despite being in a very deprived area and I have been really impressed with the emphasis on reading, books, literacy as a strategy for improving grades in all subjects (even Science!). They were all given a book before starting Y7 to read over the summer holidays. For some kids that may be one of very few books they own. For others like mine, it just served to remind to read, read, read! They offer loads of reading rewards and have assemblies for the kids on how reading age is linked to overall attainment. So yes, it can be done in a school which wants to. And yes, OFSTED can reward it.

Is it so hard to just borrow the books from the library or buy them and talk about them over dinner yourself?
That is literally what I do with my kids
I don't have to buy a lot of them as I already own eg Animal Farm, Lord of the Flies, Catcher in the Rye, Of Mice and Men
I guess I would expect that they study aspects in class but that reading books is a leisure activity that can happen outside class. We did used to read whole books around the class in English when I was as a kid but I am not sure it was the most valuable aspect.
In my daughters school they have to read in tutor time. Their own books and read around the class. They were encouraged to read the Carnegie shortlisted books and rate them
It a bog standard state secondary school.

*05CovoidOfAllHumanity

Is it so hard to just borrow the books from the library or buy them and talk about them over dinner yourself?*

Many children will not have parents willing it able to do that. So, yes it is the school's job, particularly the English department's job to encourage a love of reading whole books whilst covering the curriculum. And no, it's not impossible.

Yes, as an 80s child I remember having read To Kill a Mockingbird for fun at home and then finding out we were studying it in English and I had to read the whole thing again!

Definitely read the full books then.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity yes but that's hardly the point. I'm sure if Shakespeare had thought that "Merchant of Venice" was complete after the first act he'd have stopped there. They read the first half of "Of Mice and Men" ffs, it's a short book.

I agree it's a terrible approach to English (I am also a teacher).
IMO literature should be enjoyed, not assessed. It should be compulsory but with no exams!

Nothing to do with Gove. I was at school under Blair and this happened then. I don’t think we read a full book the whole time I was at secondary, we only ever read snippets of books or plays right up to GCSE. I only read the full books during my A levels tbh. I used to buy or get books from the library if I found them interesting at school from the snippets we read, I remember asking my Dad to buy me An Inspector Calls because I enjoyed the bit we read at school so much. So yeah, pretty standard in secondary.

I can't believe the amount of people saying this was their experience at school too. I'm in my 30's and we read 2 books every year from year 7, 1 Shakespear and 1 other. We also read plays and poetry. It seems like madness to me to not read at least 1 whole book in a year.

I'm also in my early 30s and we definitely read the whole book. Lord of The Flies, The Crucible, 1984, Great Expectations - I definitely read all those at GCSE level. At A level we did Tess of the D'Urbervilles, Cold Mountain, Jane Eyre, Go Tell It On The Mountain - definitely read all of those in full.