Do any teachers on here support Michael Gove's education policies?

[SummerExhibition]

Just wondering. Everything related to curriculum changes, academies, free schools etc gets a bashing on here and just wondering if there's another side to the argument really.

Pointythings said: However, we need to look beyond a narrow range of what is considered 'worthy' literature. Why for instance Dryden and not T.S Eliot, or Gerard Manley Hopkins? Why Shakespeare but not Marlow or Webster? And what about modern poetry and literature? We need to get away from this belief that everything that is old is inherently better and cast our net more widely. Inspire pupils with literary texts by all means, but there is so much more out there.
This. Why not Aphra Behn, or Emily Dickinson, or Rabindranath Tagore, or Derek Walcott? Why stick to a stuffy curriculum dimly remembered from the days of one's own childhood? You can say all sorts of things about the teaching of literature in schools, but one thing you can't say is that it hasn't responded to the way the last couple of decades of research by literary scholars in Universities have changed the subject.

Pointy I wonder if you are taking an extreme view of all of this?

I admit that my knowledge of KS1 is limited. Are you a teacher or do have a link to the new proposals because your grasp of detail is something which eldues me.

Having said that, I cannot see anything wrong in having a level set as a goal. yes, some children will not reach it- just as 20% do not achieve level 4 in Sats each year now.

This does not brand them as "failures"- these are your rather emotive and inflammatory expressions. But having no goals surely means that more children risk underachieving?

Are you suggesting that this will be any different to what happens now- that children with special needs and/or dyslexic etc, will not be flagged up, and therefore allowances made for their achievements?

And I don't agree with you about poetry. The other suggestions you make can all be added-in along with learning poetry- has anyone said that by learning and appreciating poetry all other forms of verbal expression will be off the menu? I don't think so.

I think you are lumping lots of things together. Verbal expression in reading is one skill, appreciating poetry and its rhythm, structure , langauge and content is another, learning to enhance memory skills is another.

niminy your last sentence seems contradictory?

Are you saying that schools do or do not offer a wide range of literature?

Your actual words- you can't say that it hasn't responded- means yes, they have responded.

GCSE English Lit includes mainly contemporary poets- in fact the pre 1918 section is the one that "suffers" the most in terms of volume.

And at A level there is a huge range of options which include many contemporary writers in all genres.

I deliberatelly used a double negative to refer to, and distance myself from, charges that the school syllabus should conform more closely to what some Russell group universities apparently require. (I teach at a top university that is not in the RG.)
I'm saying that 'English literature' as taught in both schools and universities now includes a vastly wider range of texts, from a wider chronological period and a larger geographical area than it used to. 20 years ago contemporary literature was rarely taught in universities (even modern literature is a relatively recent entrant onto the syllabus as some exalted places).
School curricula have changed because teachers have studied at universities and have had their views of what counts as 'English literature' formed by that experience. That's great: it's what should be happening.
As a specialist in pre-C20th literature, and in an ideal world, I'd like to see pre-C20th literature given more weight earlier on in the curriculum. But as language and culture changes those works just become less accessible. The Victorian period is now nearly two centuries ago. By all means, let's encourage people to read and to teach Dickens. But let us not underestimate what a huge challenge it is -- and I do speak from experience here.

I like some of the ideas he has, e.g. a good grounding in basic numeracy, I am making sure myself that DS (7) gets that as I don't think he is a maths whizz.

Teaching a good standard of one MFL at KS2 where children should be able to express simple ideas in full, grammatically correct sentences, spoken and written.

The problem though is, he didn't say how this is going to be done. Or is that written down somewhere else? Who on earth is going to teach MFL to a good standard? Is it all these young teachers who now have not even a language GCSE and cannot put togehter a sentence in a foreign language themselves?

We've moved too far away from 'old is inherently better' I think that's part of the problem. Classic texts have been seen as too difficult in full etc. We threw the baby out with the bath water when we went 'creative' IMHO. Most I know want emphasis placed on correct spelling and grammar etc.

"The Victorian period is now nearly two centuries ago. By all means, let's encourage people to read and to teach Dickens. But let us not underestimate what a huge challenge it is -- and I do speak from experience here."

I agree very much with this - unless a hell of a lot of groundwork has been done to introduce DCs to classic literature in the primary years, it is incredibly difficult for them to enjoy Dickens, Austen, Shakespeare etc in their teens.

I don't know much about the English side of things but correct spelling and grammar are important, at the same time you don't want to squash a 6 yo's enthusiasm for writing. I think I can see another problem there.

He talks about the curriculum for 5-11 year olds. Does he include R? In my opinion pushing very young children is wrong, you can't 'make' a 5 year old read or do maths to a certain standard if they are not ready. KS2 is different I find.

Many classic texts are really difficult. This is the opening of Dickens's 'A Tale of Two Cities':

'It was the best of times,
it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom,
it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief,
it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light,
it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair,

we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way? in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

There were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a plain face, on the throne of England; there were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a fair face, on the throne of France. In both countries it was clearer than crystal to the lords of the State preserves of loaves and fishes, that things in general were settled for ever. '

That is truly wonderful. But I reckon it would take a good teacher, and a willing class at GCSE level a good couple of hours to tease out what it all meant, and its signficance. And you would still only be on page one.

What puzzles me re. English is this:

when I was a pupil in grammar school, many years back, we read Great Expectations, in what would be Year 8. It was our class reader, and we read it for months and discussed it.

I taught A Tale of Two Cities to a GCE class in the 1970s- and they loved it with many obtaining grade As.

Now, for some reason, entire novels of this period are considered too " difficult".

Why?

Perhaps because popular culture took over, 'video killed the radio star'? Now realistically children are watching TV and playing video games for hours on end. Back then, in the dark ages :), we often had to read for entertainment. We got good, we did it for hours sometimes. Now no one really reads for pleasure in the way they once did. Kaye Webb (of Puffin Club fame) wrote about this, will try to find it, I thought it was interesting.

I am not a teacher, just a parent, but I wholly agree with Hamish's point.

As parents, we all want different things for our children. For me, it is really important that my children get the chance to have a rounded, classical, academic education. I think it is the bedrock of so much of modern thought and I have a traditional view that discipline in learning is a valuable end in itself, as it provides you with the ability to access new areas equipped with the tools you need to get to grips with them. I also think that, on a practical level, basic grammar, spelling and punctuation are crucial in the workplace and that it is appalling that kids who can't get support in this area at home are being denied the chance even to understand how off putting poor command of language is to prospective employers, for example.

I don't see why the fact that I can't afford to send my kids to a private school should mean that it is impossible for me to get the kind of education that I received from the state sector for them? I think Gove is right to recognise that there are people like me who want that rigour, and who have been very disappointed with the current system in terms of its ability to suppply it.

I am a fan of Gove - I know he is hated on Mumsnet and I have read what people say about him here, but I do think that a lot of you approach the debate with very fixed ideas beofre the guy even opens his mouth. He is not a demon, and some of us think he is doing a decent job.

I'm with FerryGirl.

Especially para 3. Why does a state education have to be all about not offending those who are less able? And even if a child is less able, or average even, it doesn't mean that they should be patronised and not given opportunities that those with deeper pockets can access.

I remember slinking off from MN a while back when a teacher was stridently arguing against rote learning of tables - because some children had poor memories. I was trying to say that even if a child leaves school with not much else, times tables embedded in their brain will stay with them for a lifetime. But no, this poster argued on that some children had no memory at all, therefore times tables should not be taught to anyone . Streuth.

well, having started out as the lone voice supporting Gove, it's nice to see that I am not really alone :)

You only have to ask why some parents fork out £30K a year for a type of education- and look at what they get- to see why more is needed in the state sector.

Not all state education is poor, not all teachers are poor- most are doing a great job with their hands tied behind their backs due to political intervention.

I would never work in the state system again, having taught in both, because in the private sector I was allowed to be more creative.

Gove is actually echoing what the majority of sensible, caring parents want for their kids. He is not some loony who is trying to turn the clock back 60 years- but he is right to take the best of those years and incorporate it into the best of 2012.

I'm not a teacher, and my son is only in reception so I no nothing really about education. And this is a bit off topic, sorry. But I'm really interested in what everyone is saying about English teaching - I have a degree in Eng Lit (from an - ooh - Russell Group university, though it was back in the mists of time before that even existed).

Do they really only read parts of books now? How soul destroying for the teachers. How can you get someone interested in a chapter? Or if they are, do you then say, "sorry, that's enough"?

I was also interested to hear that universities think there should be more critical analysis in English A-level. What is there if there's no critical analysis?

Just catching up a bit - re the not reading texts, this is not quite true in DDs case - she is reading whole books. They spent a whole term on Great Expectations earlier this year. She is at a state comp.

I too did Great Expectations, in what would now be year 9 (as an O level set text, which I took a year early) at my comprehensive school.

We read the whole book, and went through it chapter by chapter, and I absolutely hated it. I was bored rigid by it. I failed my O level English literature and refused to re-take.

I now have a Phd in English literature and teach it at university, and love Great Expectations. But that owes absolutely nothing to being made to read it at school.

I think what is meant by 'critical analysis' is proably 'practical criticism', close focus on language and form without reference to context (as opposed to historicist methods which look at the text in relation to its context - linguistic and generic contexts, contexts of production and reception, cultural and social contexts). I think most academics teaching English probably want there to be both things at all levels.

re. English there was some commentary o n Radio 4 Today this morning- or the news around 9am- saying that too many pupils were writing about their "feelings" in response to A level texts and not enough critical analysis.

Re. reading whole books- many syllabuses now only require pupils to look in depth at say the first 8 chapters of a "classic" although teachers often show then the whole story by watching the film.

Criminal.

Given that grades continue to rise, yet the actual content of the courses is easier in some cases- what does that say?

Alice - Where is the info that too few students are taking maths A level, which then impacts on them studying something at degree level? I have not heard anything about low uptake of maths A level being an issue with uni entrance requirements.

That's probably because you've never looked into it. Your link to an article saying that uptake of maths A-level has increased - hence problem solved! just serves to illustrate that. The Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education has done some research into the area - report here. Quote "We estimate that of those entering higher education in any year, some 330,000 would benefit from recent experience of studying some mathematics (including statistics) at a level beyond GCSE, but fewer than 125,000 have done so. This places those responsible for many university courses in an impossible position. They cannot require an appropriate level of mathematics of their applicants and hope to fill their places, and in many cases they are unable to design courses with the level of quantitative demand that would be appropriate for their disciplines. " More detail in Chapter 4.

Further to what I was saying about Gove's intention to make A-level maths harder being a disastrous idea that would lead to a drop in people taking maths and worsen the situation for universities, I also found an open letter from ACME to Gove which pretty much outlines the same concerns that I have listed. It also points out that university maths heavy courses should be concentrating on Further Maths rather than Maths in their requirements.

So, a body of expert who have conducted research into Post-16 maths provision have seen fit to openly warn Gove that his plans to change A-levels run a real risk of being a disaster for mathematics education.

And Gove knows this yet appears to still be going ahead with it.

Not a teacher, and not read all of the thread. Just enough to think that much of what has been expressed could have been said by most professionals to their own Secretary of State. And has been, and will be, ignored.

While every newly elected Government will be embarking on an experiment to some extent, we surely expected this one would be stretching the boundaries considerably more, and taking almost no notice of views unless they were electorally sensitive. I can't help feeling that the poor state of the economy is a very useful way of cloaking the current lot's experimental fervour.

Out of interest, for a long time now I've noticed more non-UK teachers taking up post, on their own volition rather than as part of a household relocation. Likewise for other professions. Has that continued or are some returning to their "motherland"? I ask because there has been no pattern of leaving the UK that I can see, which implies either a shortage of home grown, at least at current "prices".

Ferry Girl, I couldn't agree more, great post.

Coming back on Kaye Webb. Kaye Webb at the Puffin Club said she never found any shortage of literature, articulate readers (whilst at the helm in the 70s) and said parents should read aloud to their children long after they can read for themselves - 'if only families would read together as they watch TV together. It would give them shared references and stories and bywords - and laughter'.

Kaye felt her library of high quality writing (Puffin books) was threatened by the changing times, the obsession with the real world, violent crimes, broken marriages, social evils etc also the inexorable rise of the computer. The old 'Puffineers' were apparently poets, playwrights and senior executives on The Times and the new Observer editor and all were first published in Puffin Post.

By 1994 Puffins had changed. The catalogue that year was about violent crime and murder, apparently that's what the 'Gameboy' generation wanted.

Kaye quoted a letter she had recently received: 'Me and my friend Larissa are interested in writing books. We are ten years old and Larissa has already wrote a book and sent it to the publisher and they have not wrote back yet. The book Larrisa wrote was named Pure Madness. I started a book called Tabatha Tallulah'

Kaye was aghast and felt that standards were rapidly deteriorating. I feel we'd think this was well written for an average ten year old today.

Sorry meant 'literate, articulate readers' above.

This is an interesting read but you lot are scaring the crap out of me.

Can I ask, I know teaching unions are reasonably well supported, is there any way you can effectively harness all of this opposition to stop some or all of what you plainly regard as at best, ineffective, at worst, seriously damaging?

Also, what can parents do, except vote them out next time. I had a list of questions and points when my sons school announced academy status but really the consultation was a joke, going ahead was totally inevitable.

Where are the Lib Dems in all of this? Don't tell me they are somehow having a taming influence, could it get more radical? Will they reintroduce corporal punishment and compulsory fagging?

I don't want to read any more but I can't stop myself, it's like reading about a particularly grim car crash.

Just looked out my A'level English questions - past papers from the 80s. Out of interest how do they compare to those today? Bearing in mind no texts were allowed in the exams. Here are the choices for The Importance of Being Earnest:

'It is exquisitely trivial, a delicate bubble of fancy and it has it's philosophy.' Is this an accurate description of 'The Importance of Being Earnest'"

The Importance of Being Earnest has been described as 'a play in which artificiality is exploited for artificiality's sake'. How far do you accept this description? Has the the play anything else to offer?

We would have to answer 4 questions of this sort of nature, about 4 different texts (novels and plays) in 3 hours.

The other paper which accounted for 50% of the marks was unseen. We had to analyse an unseen poem, play or piece of text. We just had to discuss it or answer a question, no short answer questions etc.

How does this compare to now?

Noble- are youreally thnking about this in any depth?

There could be a multitude of reasons why not as many students study maths at a higher level- despite a 6% increase- which you think is meaningless for some reason.

I understand the point you make- but the solution could be to make maths teaching more exciting, not simply easier- or as easy as it is now. There are more people failing GCSE maths than passing it- by that I mean with a Grade C or higher.

If the teaching of maths was adressed - rather than simply the content- then that might make a difference.