19th century novels for GCSE English....

[Hakluyt]

What do people think about this? In the new GCSE English syllabus, students will have to study a 19th Century novel. I think the choice is Great Expectations, The War of the Worlds, Jane Eyre, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Pride and Prejudice. (I might have missed a couple)

I suspect this is really going to stymie our school and our kids- they really need the C (or equivalent) for all sorts of things, but for the lower end of the ability range- which most of our kids are- are really going to struggle with the language.

I think studying whole books, rather than extracts is a fantastic idea, but there are so many wonderful books that are much more accessible. What's so special about the 19th century anyway?

I understand that about half the texts were A level texts before. This makes I'd more worrying for the students who find it more of a challenge to access the curriculum.

Jekyll and Hyde is only about 60 pages long. I did that and Great Expectations at GCSE.

I don't think not allowing access to more difficult or old fashioned texts is really the answer, but I don't know what is sorry

None of those texts have difficult language and some of them are pretty short. It's not like they're being forced to read Chaucer or even Middlemarch. Do you really think a C for English should be attainable without having a level of literacy sufficient to read Pride and Prejudice?

I predict a lot of Jekyll and Hyde! Which, to be fair, is not a difficult text.

I think Great Expectations and Pride and Prejudice would be difficult to teach lower sets, though - don't envy them that at all.

Soloman - interesting: why do you think Middlemarch would be harder? I'd say GE is probably the toughest of those, because of all the umpteen tedious minor characters and subplots.

Kids in Italy have to do all of those and more. In English.

And then go on to do Virginia Woolf, Joyce, TS Eliot and other writers and poets that even I can't make head nor tail of.

But that's a whole other thread about the UK education system

The govt document just says "a 19th C novel", so it's up to the exam boards.

AQA spec says The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, A Christmas Carol, Great Expectations, Jane Eyre, Frankenstein, Pride and Prejudice, The Sign of Four

Edexcel have swapped The Sign of Four for Silas Marner, the other 6 are the same.

Your list is the OCR choices :)

I think there'll be an awful lot of schools doing Jekyll and Hyde! And not many doing Great Expectations or Silas Marner. My son is in this first lot - will be interested to hear more about it when they do their option-choosing this year.

That's pretty similar to the list I had for O level in 1981 . I did P&P , Chaucers general prologue and Taming of the Shrew . Lower set did Oliver Twist I think .

"Kids in Italy have to do all of those and more. In English. "

Really? For the equivalent of GCSE?

All children?

They certainly don't in France or Spain- is Italy particularly rigorous in it's approach to 19th century English Literature?

My year 10s in Germany were reading Dickens and Emily Bronte. My year 11s were reading Shakespeare. Their English would put many a Brit to shame, although it is worth pointing out that this was a grammar school equivalent.

I stunned that these books are considered too hard for children aspiring to a C. When I was at school (non selective school) all those books or their equivalents were read by all classes except those who had significant learning disabilities.
Are all your kids really in the lower ability range? I understand that the grammar schools take the "top 25%" therefore the remaining 75% are in the remaining non selective schools are you saying that this does not apply to your school? That most of your kids are in say the bottom 25%? Why? I can see that Chaucer might be a bridge to far, but P and P surely with time and good teaching a child could grasp the major points? This is after all what they're being asked to do not analyse the syntax of every sentence. Is is any more complex than grasping some historical points or geographical terminology or chemical equations?
This isn't a criticism BTW I just genuinely interested.

dd (now y9) did Frankenstein & Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde last year (comp, top set). I guess that means her set won't be doing either for GCSE but I expect if they could manage it in y8 then most will be able to by y11. dd's school do AQA English lit with Cambridge English Lang iGCSE.

I'm sure I did P&P for GCSE eons ago (& hated it!). From the list I think GE is most challenging - can't imagine many picking that.

I surprised they don't have to do any Shakespeare tbh. Do they get free choices on top of the set texts still?

They do have to do Shakespeare. However, I think Shakespeare is actually much more "get-able" than much other literature.

There will be two papers on the new English Literature spec. For AQA, which is the most popular exam board, in addition to the 19th century novels listed below, Paper 1 will also examine Shakespeare - AQA specifies one of the following: Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, The Tempest, The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About Nothing, Julius Caesar.
Paper 2 will examine modern literature (either a play or a novel from a choice of six of each) and a selection of poetry from a specified anthology - they will also have to write about an unseen poem in the exam.

Why must a book be old to be 'good'.
Why is learning to dissect one book and one play in minuscule detail more important than reading lots of books, plays, poems and widening your experience of the world.

It seemed a pointless subject at 16 and it having seen DD1 wade through Of Mice and Men it still does.

Elephant I think one of the points in education is learning to persist, go outside a comfort zone and attempting to surmount difficulties.
A slightly harder (as not modern English) full length novel will contribute to acquiring those skills. Those skills should also help tackling other reading material even if the book per se does not catch their imagination.
My DCs by studying much harder books than he would have been naturally drawn to are emboldened in their own choice of reading.

Secondly why must these low attainers have Eng Lit GCSE I accept they need Eng Lang but not Lit. Why should the exam boards lower the standards to suit those who are clearly not suited to the subject. I was crap at chemistry at school I didn't expect the exam board to lower the standard so that I could get a C.
My DH is frequently approached by our local college to employ low attainers he's not in the slightest bit interested in their GCSE grades and certainly wouldn't insist on GCSE Eng Lit he looks for a hard working give it a go ethos. The best employee he ever had didn't have a single GCSE and could barely read, he is much in demand in the industry and is currently earning 40k+ the worst had 14 GCSE's all grade A -C and could barely think his way out of a paper bag, many of his employees have GCSE's, A levels and even degrees only about 20% are actually really any good at the job, their paper qualifications mean nothing.

I agree with you, summerends- but it's a big ask for the 40% of our pupils who are low attainers. And a C is more vital for them than an A* is for our children.

Not suggesting lowering the standards. But having a wider choice of books and not insisting on a 19th century novel would give the lower sets a fighting chance. No reason why the higher sets couldn't do one.

Halk you haven't answered my question why do low achievers need Eng Lit GCSE?

I don't find that a wildly inspiring choice, TBH.

It's not that they're nineteenth century - it's that they're a mix of long and complex (Jane Eyre) or, well, frankly, quite hard to do decent lit crit on (Jekyll and Hyde). It'd be nicer to do books that had a better chance of getting them at least reasonably interested.

But what do I know? Maybe someone is passionate about these texts and will make them come alive with sparkly magic for GCSE students who are finding English tough. I just wouldn't want to be asked to do it!

I agree that it is important to think of those students who are struggling, as well as those who are able. It's cruel not to. It needn't involve lowering standards.

sandi - you don't happen to remember what edition the Chaucer was, do you? I'm just curious how much it was modernized (I know that's a language isue, not to do with the other complexities of the text).

happy - what if Eng Lit is one of their stronger subjects?

Why wouldn't they?