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

And back to what has already been said... OFSTED would consider a lesson in which the text is read aloud and then discussed as "inadequate". Teachers can't win.

Of course teachers can't win for so long as the whole exam system is so ridiculous. Also, some people want an academic education for their children, others just want their children to be employable. There's a colossal difference between the two.

I totally agree with you that the exam system is ridiculous. Possibly for different reasons

So, if you aren't reading anything out loud and cannot prepare a lesson where you assume anyone has read anything beforehand, how are you handling your lessons? Are the children reading silently to themselves in class what you are discussing? Or is everyone pretending they read something they didn't and then commenting on something that nobody has read?

rabbit, you really need to have a look at how teaching works today. There are hundreds of strategies that English teachers use to develop skills and engage kids in Literature AND LANGUAGE which is 50% of the English curriculum.

As has been said repeatedly simply reading and then discussing what you've read was never good teaching.

I don't believe I've said simply reading and then discussing what you've read IS good teaching. I'm just incredulous that this apparently doesn't happen at all.

As has been said repeatedly simply reading and then discussing what you've read was never good teaching.

This is the most hilarious comment I've ever read about the teaching of English.

The way you describe English literature teaching it just sounds like English language teaching. I don't see where the "literature" bit comes in, except that you are supposed to know there is a whole book out there if you ever should choose to read it (but don't bust a gut, it won't help with the exam).

Really, Lazy?

Here are a few reasons why it's bad:

1. Not everyone will understand. If they don't tell the teacher, then they might go through the whole lesson (or lessons) never understanding if.

1. Not everyone will contribute. This might be to do with lack of confidence, or lack of understanding,

1. For children who need to be more active when they're learning, it can be boring and therefore they will turn off completely.

1. Whole class discussion does not allow for adequate differentiation. Refer back to point 1.

1. Able children may not need things explained to them and will get frustrated.

1. Much as we teachers would love to believe that we can get Dead Poets Society type responses from a whole class of kids, inspiring them by just talking with passion and enthusiasm about the wonders of literature, it doesn't work like that.

Reading and discussing it, as I've said before, is "inadequate" by OFSTED standards.

Nobody said it didn't happen at all.

Here's a link to a lesson plan on Dickens www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/A%20Christmas%20Carol_lesson%20plan_0.pdf

I'm not holiding it up as a good or bad model, just showing you what a lesson plan might look like today and the range of activities you might expect to complete.

Yup, that looks like a good English language lesson.

And a KS3 lesson on Much Ado www.bbc.co.uk/schools/teachers/ks3bitesize/english/muchado_beat_benedick.shtml

You are talking to some of us as if we have never taught English.

You are making it sound as if it's possible to pass the exam never having read the book(s).

You are giving extreme examples and looks a bit as if you are taking the p.....TBH.

I don't think anyone here has said there has to be a whole lesson of silent reading or class reading followed by discussion.

But following your logic that some children can't read a book at home they have to read the bloody thing sometime, somewhere- in school perhaps?

rabbit, you just keep showing how little you understand the English curriculum.

English teachers prepare kids for English Literature AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The two are inextricably linked for example kids need to be able to analyse the language, form and structure of an unseen poem to even get a D grade for Eng Lit while the new Language exam requires detailed analysis of an unseen literary text.

There are not separate lessons for Eng Lit and Eng Lang and the exams do not make clear distinctions either, the new exams even less so.

You might use a literary text from the Eng Lit exam as the basis for a piece of creative writing for the Eng Lang exam currently.

Lazy, I'm not sure to whom that post is addressed or really what it means.

It is and will be possible to pass the exam without having read the book. It will be hard but possible for a clever kid to get top grades without having read the book.

Reading the book is only the first part.

Just like learning the dates is only part of being a good student of history or learning your tables is only part of maths.

In the literature exams you are tested on your ability to write a good essay in response to a particular question. For the nineteenth century novel and Shakespeare exam the first part of the exam is based on an extract which is reproduced for you.

The other part of the question (for which you only have 20 minutes) is on the whole text in relation to a particular character or theme.

Not everyone will understand. If they don't tell the teacher, then they might go through the whole lesson (or lessons) never understanding if.

So you would never discuss what you are reading or ask questions or expect the pupils to analyse what they are reading or make explicit links with previous learning or provide shared goals or personalised learning or peer tutoring?

Some people are just being deliberately obtuse to make a point.

Nobody is saying that reading isn't important or that no reading ever takes place in and English lesson.

English teaching for a good few decades has been expected to have consisted of rather more than turning up with a book and reading it with a bit of discussion.

You might do that at university level (although have you seen the stats on student satisifaction with university teaching) but you would only ever look at a couple of extracts or quotations.

As a parent you would expect your teachers to teach your kids something.

"The two are inextricably linked"

My daughter is about to sit her English language exam in Year 10. Next year she will do English literature. I don't think they necessarily are inextricably linked.

Yes they are kesstrel.

You look at the LANGUAGE of literary texts.

The new Eng Lang paper 1 is based entirely on a LITERARY text.

Literature consists of language.

Your daughter will have written an extended reading controlled assessment (possibly on Of Mice and Men). This is for the English LANGUAGE GCSE.

Some people are asking how you can study literature if you aren't reading the literature ... it's a straightforward question

Argh, of course you read literature.

You just don't spend whole lessons reading. And you can't necessarily expect all kids to read at home.

Ideally, all the kids will read the whole novel but realisitcally not every kid will.

This is particularly the case with 19th century novels and Shakespeare.

Mrz - yes I would! I was responding to posters who seemed to be suggesting that reading the book and discussing it was enough. It's not.

I do think that texts should be read in school. Everything has got very muddled now.

My points are:

The students should read the whole text.
They should also be taught how to analyse and explore it.

BUT

Teachers cannot guarantee that ALL students will read set texts in their own time.

AND

OFSTED think that reading/discussing in lessons is an example if inadequate teaching.

In any English lesson you would expect a starter, main and plenary. You would expect a balance of teacher talk and independent work, individual, paired and group work. You would expect a balance of reading and writing. Kids need to be active in their own learning. Reading with a bit of discussion only ticks a couple of skills boxes.