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

Teachers and schools are judged on how many of their students pass exams and so there is teaching to the test. There is a big tension between what ideal teaching might be and the constraints on this which which are a consequence of the way the GCSEs are organised.

Good teachers will also make the text as engaging as possible.

And, in my view, that is always going to be at odds with reading the whole thing round the class for a term!

As an aside, I know of two grammar schools in my area where one lesson a fortnight in KS3 is spent silently reading. Is that unusual?

Hmm.. that's a tricky one Verycold.

I do think there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what the study of literature should be on this thread.

Ultimately it never was and shouldn't be about your understanding of what happens on page 22 and how well you know the text. Even at phD level.

You have to be able to analyse (and now 'evaluate'), select detail, apply knowledge to the question and use an engaging writing style.

I've really not seen anyone argue for spending English lessons reading a whole book and talking about vocabulary outside this thread or a grammar school from 40 years ago.

That's never been good teaching or learning. And would never happen at university.

The onus ought to be on the parents ...

...and back in the real world...

So you think that I, as a teacher, should just shrug and say "ah well, not my fault Chantelle didn't get the A she's capable of - her parents should have provided her with a quiet working environment at home, and I didn't want to disadvantage Clarissa by reading the book in class"?

Being good at history isn't about how well you know your dates either. Again, you need to be able to construct an argument, evaluate and select details as appropriate.

well I still think it's mad to set the bar so low for Lit GCSE that reading the whole book is not required. Friends who are not involved in teaching at all and who have had nothing to do with education since their own school days are shocked, horrified, find it laughable that someone can get GCSE Lit without having actually read an entire book.

Until league tables go and schools are no longer judged on the number of children who achieve certain grades in certain subjects, teaching to the test will continue.

Until the grades go back to being more about the children then about the school, nothing will change, however wrong and depressing that is.

Very, I think that is unusual. I know of an independent school where silent reading was scrapped on the basis that parents weren't getting value for money.

I can see arguments both ways.

I think I've mentioned I'm a big reader but I'm not sure I would have enjoyed being made to read in a class. I'm also not sure that that IS the best use of English lessons given what I said earlier - there's never ever going to be a test that gives the person whose read the most an A or the person who can quote the whole book an A.

That does not mean that reading isn't important and to be encouraged.

I think there's a good case to be made that forcing kids to read (texts they don't enjoy) is unlikely to do that.

Evil- so on the basis of your argument- logically- kids who go to private schools where parents/teachers, we assume, are very involved in their education- should have a different exam because they have more input?

I'm in the real world- your world is social engineering- create an exam to fit the class system.

Odd, I'm being told by other secondary English teachers (and an OFSTED inspector) that it would be odd NOT to see reading in a Literature lesson

'well I still think it's mad to set the bar so low for Lit GCSE that reading the whole book is not required. '

But that's the way the exam is structured and teachers don't write the exams.

Kids who HAVE read the whole book will be at an advantage.

But, once again, Eng Lit doesn't and never has simply tested how well you know the book.

If that was the case it could simply be multi choice!

Isn't there evidence that reading is the one indicator for educational success? I think this is why the grammar schools here are doing it. In those lessons can read any book they want (within reason), but they read.

It was said earlier that knowing the whole book might be a disadvantage in the exam...

I think it's a bit like getting kids just to do running about for fitness in a PE lesson. Yes fitness is important for PE but what are they actually learning?

So being a good reader is important to be good at English but just reading is not really what English lessons are for.

OFSTED, parents, kids, SMT, HoDs increasingly expect progress to be demonstrable in each and every lesson. They are supposed to be able to say what they have learned in that lesson.

As a parent with children who do read I can also see the argument for value for money. My kids read at home. I want them to learn something new and do something they can't do at home in their lessons.

I said that Very, and I was being slightly tongue in cheek. It goes back to being able to apply what they've learned. A teacher who spent a term simply reading the book and talking about the vocabulary would have a class who would be desperately unprepared for the exam.

Knowing the book should be important but it's not enough. Just like knowing your dates is not enough for History.

I'm not talking about the exam itself, I'm talking about the way lessons are taught - responding to the assertion from pp that teachers should expect children to do the reading independently at home.

At my school (not a grammar) ks3 students do 1/2 hour silent reading every day (accelerated reader scheme) but that's different. The issue with a whole class reading a book at the same time, according to ofsted, is that in that situation there is no differentiation and little progress. A child reading a suitable book for their ability, independently, does involve differentiation and progress. Odd then that once they hit ks4, the whole class has to do the same text.

I'm not suggesting silent reading EvilTwins

I know. It's the reading aloud I was criticised for by an inspector. I still think that's ridiculous but she was adamant.

Can you tell me a bit more about the accelerated reader scheme Evil? Is it good and how much does it cost?

Sorry, I think picking isolated sections of text from books which everyone works on for an exam is very far from being the study of English literature. An intelligent, genuinely well educated and interested person would want to read the whole book and argue for themselves which bits are the most relevant and worthy of comment. If they need a longer exam to show they are capable of that, then why are the exams so short? Seems to me, children are given virtually no scope for showing independence of thought, initiative or intelligence in the study of GCSE English literature. Instead, you are expected to ignore anything that might not get you very specific marks for a very silly little exam.

Not sure of the cost. Basically each book in the school library is given an AR rating and each child does a test at the beginning of yr 7 which gives them an initial range of rating from which to select books. When they've read a book, they do an online quiz which tests their comprehension. The quizzes are short and they can build up points by completing quizzes which leads to rewards after a certain time. They are retested regularly and move up the AR range as they make progress. There's a website which explains it better - pretty much every book ever can be/has been given an AR rating so it's not a reading scheme. At my school it works well but there have been threads on here criticising it.

www.renlearn.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ar_4pp_lowres.pdf

'Sorry, I think picking isolated sections of text from books which everyone works on for an exam is very far from being the study of English literature'

Out of interest what do you think happens at university seminars where you might be expected to read 5 books in a week?

I do think some people have a rather bizarre notion of what studying English Literature actually is or should be.

Of course you need to select sections of books to study in class and likewise students need to be able to do this for essays and exams.

I don't think anybody here is arguing that it isn't desirable for kids to read the whole book but what people are arguing is that it is not realistic or a good idea to do this in class and you cannot assume that all kids will do it if they have to do it on their own.