Gove kills the mockingbird with ban on US classic novels ...what do you think?

[mrz]

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1414764.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_05_24

Looking at the new spec/book list for AQA now.

It's not awful, although the list of set books isn't wildly inspiring...

I've got it as a pdf but can't see how to post it as a link.

(sorry - only skimmed last page of thread if anyone's already figured out how to post it!).

Unsurprisingly, the exam format seems to focus quite heavily on the analysis of extracts - bit like current 'Exploring Cultures' question.

Oh hang on...specimen papers here.

www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/english/gcse/english-literature-8702/supporting-resources/specimen-papers-and-mark-schemes

Lots of similarities between this and the OCR list.

I don't get it, they're going to tell you what chapter/act of the 19th century novel and Shakespeare play will be on the exam. So where's the incentive to read the whole thing?

Hadn't seen that bit noble!

Yeah, that's a complete cop out. Might as well just blow the dust off ye olde Sattes Papers for year 9 if we're drudging through set scenes.

whereas atm you can be asked about any part of the modern texts.

Interesting article in the Guardian here called "GCSE Literature Row: Don't Blame Gove, Blame Me"

www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/may/30/gcse-literature-row-gove-blame-me-english-literature-syllabus#comment-36329662

Have you seen the crazy timing too? Only 1 hr 30 to answer both questions but since they're both split into two that means you have a maximum of 25 minutes to write about the whole text which does make the whole thing pointless. I would have thought most schools won't bother except maybe with top sets. Have you seen the Eng Lang papers though? They are significantly more difficult that the current ones and weaker students won't have a chance. The unseen text on paper 1 is by Daphne du Maurier, written in 1936. The vocab is much more difficult than anything on the current paper and there's no glossary. 'Mizzling' anybody?

But why do DCs need to study 19th century novels.

Why is literature only worthy if it's full of long sleep inducing descriptions?

Isn't there interesting, challenging, engaging modern stuff?

Why don't DCs study modern booker prize winners etc?

I just don't understand the point of English lit. Beyond getting another GCSE to put on your CV and put you off reading for life.

What I do get is that there always WAS a list of alternative modern texts e.g. Mr Pip BUT teachers almost universally still opted for OM&M. I therefore get that the powers that be thought the only way to get more variety on to the curriculum was by getting rid of it. Of course, the other PoV is how lovely that so many teachers and kids get enthusiastic about the SAME text EACH year - the one failsafe in a sea of change....

Oh and DD1 total agrees with the article about mice and men, dull as dishwater and very thin on plot.

Flowery description (didn't bother to read), Mice die, dog shot, nameless wife dies, Lenny is shot, flowery description (same as at beginning, certainly can't be bothered to read). The end. At least it was short!

I think I may just have marked your dd's exam response, Nocomet .

Others, of course, have found more to understand & admire.

Although if I manage to convince my HOD to let me at 'Lord of the Flies' with top set next year, I shall take it all back AND snog Gove.

(OK, maybe not quite).

Why is literature only worthy if it's full of long sleep inducing descriptions?

It isn't.

And one person's long sleep inducing description is another's challenging and engaging 'stuff'.

It's a matter of opinion. Why does modern have to = best and 19thC have to = boring?

Seems a very closed mindset if that is the best argument on offer.

Nocomet Maybe your comment 'I just don't understand the point of English Lit' says it all.

I feel terribly sorry for you if you've never enjoyed decent literature - and for some kids the only time they will ever have the chance to read it, including 19thC, is at school, if their parents all think like you do.

"Mizzling" is lovely and I use it fairly often. Seriously. It's the soft rain that is half way between drizzle and mist.

I'm now wondering if it's a word that's hung around in the North : "The weather was outside was mizzling, and a soft dampness mithered at the edges of the warm reach of the fire."

(I love "mithering" too.)

I'm in the (former English teacher) Pullman camp i.e. suspicious of putting anything between the art and the audience.

What we haven't heard that much of in this 'debate' is the distinction between engaging with a book, reading for pleasure and learning those Eng Lit. 'skills'.

My Y6 DD reads for pleasure now and has even read two of the new AQA GCSE texts, one 19th century and one modern (longer novel rather than the conveniently short drama adaptation in AQA). What will writing essays about how an author presents this-or-that add to her enjoyment?

There is a big difference between reading a book for pleasure and studying it. I've read Crime and Punishment for pleasure but I'm sure I would have got far more out of it if I had been required to think critically about it and read around it as I went along.

Which is the AQA text which is "conveniently shorter" as a play rather than novel? Genuine question - that has confused me!

What will writing essays about how an author presents this-or-that add to her enjoyment?

But surely you could apply that to any subject? Why write up experiments in science, why do lots of maths questions in exams, why write history and geography essays...the list is endless.

As a former English teacher too, I'd say there is huge value in analysing texts- it's why adults join book/ reading clubs, Radio 4 has a Bookclub programme- because readers like to discuss novels and how there can be different interpretations of characters, plot, language, etc.

You cannot do this orally with 150 kids each year for GCSE so they have to write it down. Exams test understanding. Some kids might be turned off having to 'read to order' but equally others might just find something they enjoy and become lifelong readers.

GCSE Lit is the basis for A level English, so are you also saying that it should cease to exist- and BA/MA/PhD English too- because that's the logic of your argument it seems.

I haven't looked EvilTwins but I'm reliably told the AQA exam doesn't require candidates to read a single whole text

Really? That's quite shocking.

My question was really in response to the pp who says her dd has read the "full novel" rather than the "conveniently shorter" script - I couldn't see a play on the list that was originally a novel.

I have read somewhere that some of the texts will be presented in script form ... I'll see if I can find it again.

Our texts include
An Inspector Calls
Lord of the Flies
Play script of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the
Night-Time
Anita and Me
Frankenstein
Macbeth
Romeo and Juliet
Great Expectations
Pigeon English
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

Oh... That's odd. I mean, seriously. The novel is great. The play is amazing but in production, which is not what the lit exam expects is it?

I think the actual full list is released mid June

The AQA questions are of the format:

'Starting with this extract, how does Dickens present Scrooge as a lonely character?

Write about:

• how Dickens presents Scrooge in this extract
• how Dickens presents Scrooge as a lonely character in the novel as a whole.
[30 marks]'

Each band of the MS above band 2 (of 6) requires the response to engage with the the whole text, so you certainly couldn't achieve a pass without being familiar with it.

store.aqa.org.uk/resources/AQA-87021-SMS.PDF - page 9-11.

Of course, you could possibly blag your way through the task at band 3-4 by means of having seen a good screen adaptation...