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

It would be quite possible in a lesson which consists entirely of reading and discussion for a kid to learn nothing and the teacher wouldn't even know.

In my A Level history lessons which largely consisted of this approach I frequently nodded off behind my then very long hair and the teacher didn't even notice.

It was beyond dull. I learned nothing.

In my university seminars it was very possible not to have read the whole texts. You could blag your way through the discussion.

In English lessons today kids can't blag it. Lessons have to be so tightly planned and structured that there is evidence every kid has learned something and applied those skills.

To me this is progress. It amazes me that so many posters would rather turn back the clock.

bluestrawhat - you do love to jump in and tell everyone they don't know what they're talking about, don't you? I know perfectly well what I'm talking about - I see so little difference between the English language and English literature exams that I don't see the point in pretending there is such a thing as English literature GCSE. You might as well just call it "English." You seem to be the one working most hard to demonstrate that, so if I don't know what I'm talking about, then neither do you.

Also, repeatedly implying, whether deliberately or accidentally, that you didn't work very hard for your English degree and regularly blagged your way through seminars is not a good advert for the quality of your skillset.

I don't tend to get my knickers in a twist about the Lit/Lang divide.

I suppose the point I'm making about getting through a degree without reading every word of every text is that I had picked up the skills that I needed to do well in the exams i.e. analysis, evaluation, constructing an argument, selecting detail, essay writing, planning etc.

This is key to the debate. Knowing a text is nowhere near enough to get you through although obviously it is important.

I would argue that when I went to school, college and university you weren't taught skills. You either had them or didn't have them. Teachers had an easy life because they did just do reading and talking and you were expected to make the progress in terms of your skills on your own. Feedback on essays was minimal.

Hiding thread now. Too much to do.

No one has said spend a whole lesson reading blustrawhat but why not occasionally? A reading lesson can and does include a balance of teacher talk, independent, paired and group work and writing and it does include pupil talk because we know talk is rooted in thought and we also know that pupils who read for just 12 mins have higher achievement than those who don't.

Well, I was expected to, and did, read four entire books or texts every week in my English degree. Why would you take English if you didn't love books?

I also know of local grammars and independents where the students study up to six whole texts per year in KS3 (ds has done Jekyll and Hyde, Chaucer, Grimms tales and poetry - can't remember who - so far in yr 8) and other schools where they study just one book in extracts only. I'm pleased ds is not at the latter.

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

No and no teacher of ANY subject can guarantee that all children will do their homework out of school which will improve their understanding and final grade.

So what is new and what exactly is the point of saying all that?

That's always been the case and always will be.

I think that was my point, lazy, in response to pp who said the reading for GCSE lit should be done at home and that if we couldn't expect students to do that then it was a sorry state if affairs.

blue No one is suggesting turning back the clock as you describe.

But you appear to be saying that close analysis of some of the text is the way to go at the expense of reading the whole book.

Like you managed with your degree?

I'd like you to put your comments into some kind of timeframe( ie when you did your degree ) because I for one don't recognise the 'no comments' on essays you allude to. Maybe you just had poor teachers at your school? Maybe it's nothing to do with then and now, but simply your own experiences?

Where has anyone said anything about a "sorry state of afairs" EvilTwins?
Is it really that unrealistic to expect pupils to do some reading at home?

It is unreasonable to expect that ALL children will read at home. Surely you've experienced that mrz? Even in primary where parents are often more involved.

Is that any different to written homework?

Surely if they persistently don't do the set homework you put them in detention? It's not like you need any special equipment like a computer or even a table to read a book.

No different to any other homework. And yes, they probably end up in detention. Difference is that if they don't do "write an essay about XXX" for homework, it is unlikely to have as much of an impact on attainment as not reading the set text IF the only place to read the text is at home. It's a case of weighing up the risks.

IMO, more sensible to cover essentials in lessons and make homework things which will extend and enhance learning, not the other way round.

But no one has suggested that they only read the text at home. The suggestion was to fill in the gaps rather than rely on extracts. So cover "important" parts in lesson (and I would include reading) and set the next chapter/s to be read before next lesson and spend 5 mins feeding back on what they have read.

No, earlier in the thread, that was the suggestion - that's where I've been coming from.

So Evil- would you say it was unreasonable to expect any pupil to read anything at home?
I'm talking about other subjects as well.

Why do you persist in making this such a huge deal?

The children who don't read at home are likely to be the same ones who don't do maths, science, and any other type of work at home. But does that mean that their teachers will not expect them to do some homework?

I've never heard anything so silly as to say that a child cannot be expected to read say 10-20 pages as homework, over a week or so.

They might struggle but then that's when the teaching comes in back in the classroom, to summarise and go over it.

Lazy, I really can't be bothered to keep going over this. I think they REALITY is that some kids don't do homework. This might be because they have chaotic homes, it might be because they have other responsibilities after school. It might be because they can't be bothered. It might be because their every waking hour is taken with training for the 2020 Olympics.

A teacher will know his/her class.

It is a risk to give a class a set text and tell them to read it in their own time.

Some will, some won't. If things are summarised in class then those that don't read at home probably won't worry about it as they know that the teacher will go over it in class. Those that do read at home might get frustrated about the fact that things are repeated.

IMO the best way to do it (and I've already said this) is to ensure that ESSENTIALS are covered in class and that homework is used to further develop knowledge and understanding. Not sure what's so controversial about that.

I am acutely aware that exam results are more about schools than individuals and therefore it is more likely that schools teach to the test. Therefore lessons have to be structured in order to ensure that kids get the grades schools expect them to get, regardless of whether this means they develop a life long love of literature.

No, this is not ideal, but it is reality.

If the govt ditched league tables and stopped judging schools by percentage of grades in certain subjects, the nature of GCSE teaching would change.

But no one has suggested giving them a set text and telling them to read it EvilTwin.

Someone did. Early on in the thread.

I've looked and can't find it anywhere on the thread

I don't think anyone suggested giving them Dickens or whatever the set text is and telling them to go away and read it, alone, at home, from start to finish. That would be as silly as saying they can't be expected to read a few pages a day/ week.

Of course your options omit one : some children might enjoy the book so much they go away and read it at home and are then bored that the teacher has to go at such a slow pace for others in the class.

I don't think anyone suggested telling all children to go away and read entire books at home alone, either. You would expect teachers to make the process manageable.

I do believe there was a certain amount of outrage, though, at the implied suggestion that because some children won't read at all at home, you can't expect any children to do any work at home and, since you can't read entire books in school either, that you can't expect children to achieve the astounding feat of reading an entire book.

Mrz, it was you who said it was reasonable to expect them to read it by themselves. 15 mins a day would get the through Great Expectations, you said.

Lots of other posters agreed that kids should be reading set texts at home. This was yesterday evening.