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?

Lower Attainers, may not do English lit as a seep rate subject, but there are set books in language too.

I think DD1 used of mice and men for both, which a lot of why it's pointless.

Taking one very dull book, learning it inside out and parroting the answers out if the revision text book on to your exam script does not teach you to love or value literature or encourage you to want to read more.

They did Romeo and Juliet in Y9 and for their exams too. She was delighted, she loves it.

However, given she's a strange child who actually likes Shakespeare, surely they should do two or three different ones.

Sheep rate ??? Separate !

Well if it's their stronger subject perhaps with good teaching and given time they'll cope with the books. The implication is that they are low achievers who are not good at Eng Lit.
My DH who employes a couple of kids each yr considered to be low achievers will tell you it's life skills they need more than anything else.

I didn't think that was the implication.

There are plenty of people who are better at English Lit than other things, and would still find it touch and go to get a C.

Now maybe these books are great for them, but I do think they sound an odd choice.

I don't think doing GCSEs means you can't learn life skills, either. They could be compatible, even mutually reinforcing.

We read Great Expectations in class when I was 11. I don't see that any of the books mentioned are especially "difficult." Jane Eyre is a great read.

"My DH who employes a couple of kids each yr considered to be low achievers will tell you it's life skills they need more than anything else."

Yeah, well. Tell that to the government that judges both kids and schools on academic, rather than practical measures.

Elephant here lies the problem with GCSEs, you immediately think a book needs to be learned rather than understanding and analysing.
Also a 'dull' book can surprise you because the pleasures are there even if they are not easily accessible initially.
Hakluyt Winchester does n't do GCSE English Lit just Language but a lot of literature is included, why could n't 'low attainers' do the same?

"We read Great Expectations in class when I was 11. I don't see that any of the books mentioned are especially "difficult." Jane Eyre is a great read."

Yep. Perfect for a 13 year old boy working at 4c.

Because English lit is set and taught along side English language, it doesn't get a separate timetable slot.

You might have a few pupils who love books and reading, despite their basic written English being poor in a class, but you still have to choose set books the whole class can cope with.

I'm not sure why the allocated time for English can't be used more flexibly as long as the language syllabus is covered. English teachers have creative skills in abundance so between them a department could fix on a few books suitable for low attainers without needing a GCSE exam at the end of it.

I find it difficult to say anything terribly exciting about Jane Eyre and Great Expectations. But that is because I find them dull.

Honestly, they must be tough for a lot of children.

The War of the Worlds is a fantastic story - and there are some amazing resources to support it. The Jeff Wayne album (1978!!!) is really powerful - and I am pretty sure that most secondary kids would have seen at least one of the film versions. The language may be relatively complex but the issues are involved are cracking topics for teenagers to discuss. I would have loved having this as a set text!

"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."

I would say in the last decade Jekyll and Hyde has been the subject of a boom in literary criticism -- there are tons of new approaches to it as a novel which could make it very good to teach even to 'lower sets' (hate that term). If teachers have studied English literature at university in the last 15 years or so they stand a very high chance of already having studied the gothic and done either or both of Frankenstein (a difficult read but fascinating) and Jekyll and Hyde.

I have studied English Lit at university in the last 15 years. But, I may be being pessimistic and/or biased.

I can kind of understand why they feel they should leave school having read a 19th century novel but I can't see why it has to be for GCSE. I also hated Jane Eyre. I'm annoyed by Austen. I'm not a fan of Dickens. I have nothing against H G Wells.

"even to 'lower sets' (hate that term)."

What shall we say instead?

As I'm a specialist in C19th literature I'm always glad to think that these great novels are being read more widely.

I do think Great Expectations is hard, but in the hands of a skilled teacher there is a lot there for 'level 4c boys' -- fear and loneliness, domestic abuse, sexual humiliation, friendship, love... those are themes that speak to adolescents regardless of the fact that the book was written in 1860.

Yeah, it's when he grows up and it all starts being about bloody indentures and stuff that the interest might start to drift.... . Wemmick: what on earth is the point of him?

Oh, I love Wemmick, and the castle!

And Jaggers, always washing his hands so sinister! And the friendship between Pip and Herbert Pocket, not to mention Joe looking after Pip, and Pip caring for Magwitch there's been loads of really exciting new criticism recently on Dickens and homosexuality/homosociality a great book called 'Queer Dickens' bet that would get their interest!

Maybe... but 18 year olds struggle enough with queer theory that I wouldn't want to be the one to explain it to 14 year olds!

I'm not suggesting 14 year olds should tackle Eve Sedgewick! But you can introduce the ideas, can't you?

I don't know, I'm an academic not a secondary school teacher. But I find it a bit depressing to think that the exciting stuff that goes on in literary studies at degree level doesn't make it in some form into what goes on in schools.

Yep, I'm with theoriginal.

I get that it could be really fun, but I don't envy teachers trying to teach that. I think it could be pretty hard.

Teaching queer theory would be fun. The problem is that due to the Gradgrindian nature of the new GCSE syllabus we do not have time to go off-piste in any way. We now have to teach two novels (or a novel and a play), a Shakespeare play and a collection of poetry for two closed-book exams which will require a very specific and limited set of responses. In addition, we have to prepare pupils for two language exams which will require a different, but equally specific and limited set of skills. We will do this with our managers breathing down our necks to ensure that all pupils reach their 'excellent progress target grades' which are plucked out of thin air by some inexplicable process and then set in stone and used to measure our performance.
In no circumstances will allowances be made for the children being, you know, human. Or that fact that despite the 5B they got in Y6,which resulted in them having an excellent progress grade of A at GCSE, their true level on entering secondary school was actully more like a 4B and the C that they are working very hard for actually represents a good outcome for them and we should be celebrating it and not making them feel like shit because there is no hope in the wide world that they will ever make an A.
As English teachers we do our absolute best to open our pupils' minds to the enjoyment of English literature, but the new syllabus allows us very little freedom to do it.

niminy I am also an academic (or should I say I teach in a university, as per the other thread ), and yes, it would be great to think that some of the exciting stuff we do is available earlier and sooner. In a lot of situations, though, and especially the context the OP describes, and given the horror on some faces when we start getting queer with the old binaries, I would have to be cautious with recommending it!

That said, I do think the English syllabus at GCSE and A level could do with a radical overhaul - I think the teachers do great work, have no problem with them, but it is all more limited and neither as exciting nor as exacting as I think it could/should be.