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

MrZ, with every Shakespeare text (and every other text I studied at school for GCSE and A level) yes we did have to read the full text. We read full Shakespeare texts in earlier years too. I remember doing romeo and Juliet In year 9, reading the whole thing (aloud, with different students acting different parts) and then watching some excerpts from the films, not the other way around! However it possibly depends on the school and the teacher and how they want to teach it. My A levels were 10 years ago but I would be surprised if things have changed that drastically since then.

It seems they have ThingsThatShine which is why I'm asking.

OFSTED do not like children reading in lessons. I once got an RI for a lesson because the inspector felt that 15 minutes of reading was too much. It was a drama lesson and we were reading a play.

It is naive to expect that ALL children will read at home. They simply won't. Only a very naive and sheltered MNer would assume it to be possible. And teachers have no way of knowing for sure who will and who won't so what do you do? Assume everyone will read it and plan accordingly? Or not?

I love Dickens, but to read it properly takes time and effort.

How depressing. Surely, if you set for English, you can create a set of students KNOWN to read the books and then cater for them accordingly? If not, then what a waste of time for anyone who loves books. Surely that's not so much narrowing the gap as lowering expectations to the point of letting down the most able and committed, whatever their background?

I agree rabbitstew.

It goes far deeper than that, rabbit - how can you KNOW? Just because a student is bright and committed does not mean that they have a quiet place at home to read.

One of my brightest and most talented students in Yr 10 has not been able to attend Drama Club all term because she has to collect younger siblings from school and look after them until her mum gets home from work.

Even the "most able and committed" have other things that they have to do outside of school.

It's not just a case of the bright kids being able to do it at home and the rest not.

What about EAL students?

Do you suggest that schools set for English based on home situations and the likelihood that they'll get an hour of uninterrupted time to read some of Great Expectations?

I agree it's not ideal, but it is the way it is. I have been teaching since 1997. I have taught in three very different schools, and have taught both English and Drama. There is no magic way of guaranteeing that one child will always do homework/reading/learn lines and that another will not, so setting according to who will read the book would never work.

noble 'Anyway, what is English Lit GCSE for? If it is to teach analysis skills and assessing themes etc, then if kids are barely literate then they could learn the same skills through some sort of Film Studies (is that media studies?).'

No - it's about analysing use of language/structure by a writer. You absolutely can teach analysis of films, but it doesn't make up any part of Eng Lit.

Also, this: 'Can anyone explain why when there is so much English to get through, loads of kids were being entered early?'

Our route through doing both Lang & Lit was Controlled Assessments in year 10, & hopefully (top sets) a preliminary read-through/annotation of OM&M for light relief during the weird Summer 2 term which was always disrupted to buggery by work experience & early entry Maths & Science GCSEs. Lower sets would probably be busy having another crack at Controlled Assessments.

Then Lang teaching all the way to November exam entry. Results in January & a setting re-jig accordingly.

Students who hit their target would crack on with Lit: modern novel (Spring 1), then both set & unseen poetry (Spring 2), then a quick revise of OM&M (Summer 1).

Those who didn't do well would spend probably at least half their remaining lessons honing their Lang exam skills, & more Controlled Assessments, with a rather more cursory approach to the Lit texts, & the option to attend additional after-school classes in Lit.

Further set movements would take place all through year 11 as students were moved between Foundation & Higher tier entry (one good reason why we all teach the same set texts).

It worked very effectively in terms of results, but was really quite joyless of the fair-to-middling students - I'm glad to see the back of early entry tbh.

(sorry if it looks like I'm singling out your posts btw - I wanted to respond to them because they were both jolly good questions...)

I think my image of reading in class must be something different - reading aloud- discussing - checking understanding - building vocabulary - identifying features and structure authors use of language for effect - answering questions and writing. In primary we work on straightforward retrieval, deducing and inferring, exploring and analysing the text obviously you would need a more sophisticated structure for older pupils.

If you ask pupils to read at home obviously some will and some won't (it was the same in 1967 grammar schools even with the cane) but if you start the next lesson with a quick resume then even those who didn't read get more from the text than if you had simply read extracts and ignoring the bits in between.

That would not be considered good teaching today even, especially at primary. Students are expected to be active participants on their learning . They need to apply their learning and have opportunities for writing and independent and collaborative working. But, once again, reading and vocab is only a small part of both Eng Lit and Eng Lang GCSE. You've obviously still not looked at the specs or exams. GCSE Lang is considered the more important of the 2 qualifications and until the specs change only required one response to a literary text as a CA which would double up for Lit anyway usually. Both quals are heavily skills based and needs lots of practice. If you did nothing but read you'd students would be completely unprepared for the exams and as you keep being told OFStED et al would be asking what are they actually learning, how are they applying their learning, how do you know they're learning and that progress is taking place??

It is considered to be good teaching in primaries bluestrawhat and most definitely involves active participation and application of learning in their writing, both independent and collaborative work, analysing texts, exploring writers purpose and intent.

Perhaps you should have read what I actually wrote rather than condem it as "just reading"

So, EvilTwins, you are actually saying that narrowing the gap means not catering for people who have the capacity to read the books at home. I'm amazed you even do drama club, given that you are offering something not everyone can do, there.

And to be entirely frank, why on earth should someone with EAL expect to get the same grades as someone who is a native speaker, without putting in phenomenal amounts of work inside and outside of school??? That's ludicrous. If you can't gain an advantage in English from being a native speaker, then surely something's going wrong with the teaching of the native speakers?

rabbit I don't think you understand what "narrowing the gap" means - you're just throwing it around.

My point is that as a teacher you can't predict who is able to read at home and who isn't - so it's a risk to plan a lesson based on the assumption that everyone has. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's reality for a hell of a lot of teachers.

Perhaps you could tell me what "narrowing the gap" means, then, EvilTwins, and how enabling people who have never read a whole book to get A*-Cs in their English exams genuinely helps with that, rather than covering up the reality? Because to me, it's making a bit of a mockery of the exams (she said putting on her Michael Gove face).

The reality also is that a great deal of nineteenth century novels will be inaccessible to a great many students. It is not simply a question of effort. They might read the words on the page but their understanding may be very limited.

Evil but don't many subjects require preparation outside of school?
My son's IT project involved family helping him solder parts together on the dining room table.

Now of course, some families won't have a table, or soldering equipment, and as there wasn't time to complete the project in class they'd be disadvantaged. Same applied to DDs art and textile projects.

You aren't suggesting that the syllabus is devised around who can do some of the work outside of school and who can't?

If you are, then that has to apply to every subject all of the time- including homework.

But as a teacher you ought to know enough about your pupils to be aware of their home circumstances. And if they can't find peace and quiet at home there are things called libraries- at school and out of school.

"Narrowing the gap" as a political term means not very much. In real terms, gap analysis involves a lot of gaps and as a teacher I put processes in place to try to narrow them - gaps include the difference in achievement between boys and girls, between SEN and non-SEN students, between PP and non-PP students, between G,T&A students and non-G,T&A students. Obviously "the gap" varies in different subject areas and in different schools, depending on cohort and location.

It is far more complex than "giving everyone the same" which seems to be your interpretation of it.

So it could be that an English teacher has to provide a range of opportunities for everyone in the class to read chapter 6 of Great Expectations by next lesson, including sending some home with the book, but also perhaps providing an after school session for those whose home is noisy and chaotic, a lunchtime quiet session for those who have to collect siblings from school or maybe pulling SEN or EAL students out of PE to work with a TA to ensure that they get it. That is time consuming and takes a lot of planning.

Actually, I think that essential parts of the syllabus should be designed to be completed in school - otherwise some students are at an immediate disadvantage. Homework should be for further study and development but no child should be prevented from achieving that of which they are capable because of their home situation.

No child should be prevented from achieving that of which they are capable because of other children's home situation.

My interpretation of closing the gap is most definitely not "giving everyone the same" - that's my interpretation of what YOU are saying.

Evil- maybe you are coming at this from the wrong end?

The onus ought to be on the parents to create the right home environment so their children can learn. That is where the input is needed fundamentally- value of education.

Yes, this might be Utopia, but you cannot devise a syllabus based on some children being disadvantaged by home circumstances surely?

There has always been and always will be a disparity between children's lives out of school - twas ever thus!
But dumbing down to accommodate that isn't the answer.

As you say, a really caring teacher might make provision for these children by giving up lunch times or after school time, but you seem slightly naive to expect an exam to be constructed around children's home lives.

I repeat the exam is designed so that kids will be able to do it without having read the whole text - 20 minutes writing about an extract (from a key chapter or section which has been prepared) and 20 minutes writing about the whole text.

In some ways conscientious kids may be disadvantaged as they may struggle to select material for only 20 minutes.

Good teachers will ensure the kids know the set section inside out, do a lot of work to highlight key material including quotations to suit different questions and ensure their kids have good essay writing skills.

TBH whether you've read the whole text and understood every word is neither here nor there if you can write a good essay, know your set section and apply what you do know to the question.

But is that really what good teaching is? Or is that just good training to pass an exam?

Good teachers have to work within the system whatever they may think about it.

Good teachers have to make sure their kids get the best possible grades they can!

And arguably the ability to write effectively and meet a set of objectives and apply your knowledge and understanding are more useful than whether you understand what 'residuary legatee' means on page 1 of A Christmas Carol.

Imo that's where the whole system falls flat. Good teaching should be about so many other things. I'm not teacher bashing, I am one myself. But what teaching has become is just a joke.