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 love all the novels mentioned but Great Expectations is a terrible choice for GCSE, it's not only complex but psychologically twisted as well! Fantastic choice for A Level though! And definitely second Northanger Abbey!
I think any top set students will be fine with most of the texts listed apart from Great Expectations. I do think there should be more flexibility for other students, not necessarily to avoid the Victorians altogether but to choose short stories, such as ghost stories, as a gentler introduction to Dickens or Gaskell, for example.

We're also all remembering our experiences as, I would hazard a guess, "top set" children. The pushing 40% "low attainers" at our school are a completely different cohort.

Of course.

But we are talking about people who have chosen to do literature at GCSE, not the entire population of 15 year olds.

And at some levels I think education has to take people out of what they feel comfortable with. One of the important things I do as a teacher is to help people see that they can be interested in, even inspired by things they didn't initially like.

But there's a huge range of texts here Hak, so that (as I understand it) teachers can choose texts manageable for their specific cohorts.

I think it would be a rare 14 year old who actually "enjoyed" Great Expectations, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth offering it as an option for children who are likely to be moving on to A Level. I loathed Hard Times when I did it for O Level (top set English) but I did learn a fair amount about the Victorian novel from studying it, and it stood me in good stead when I did Little Dorrit at A Level (I also hated that, but it was a useful book to study anyway - IME the books you love are often the ones which are most difficult to do a good essay on).

Niminy is right. I do wonder though if the list of texts couldn't have been broader for exactly the reasons Hakluyt mentions. Also we need to be realistic about the length of some of the novels that have been suggested given that students at this age are taking a range of GCSEs so the number of texts and the length need to take this into account. Is there any difference for foundation tier students or do they have to study the same texts and the same number of them as higher tier? If they do, I understand the concern about attaining grade C. Or does it mean more schools will dissuade students from taking literature as a GCSE at all?

OP, it no wonder nearly half your children struggle to get a C with the low expectations you have of them - there is plenty of research that shows your attitude helps them fail.

Not a huge fan of many of the recent reforms, but I think this one's a good idea. The list possibly isn't as inspiring as it could be, but I don't think the texts are prohibitively difficult. Schools have always been tactical in their choice of set texts for exams, and there are enough 'easier' ones here to prevent weaker cohorts of pupils from being faced with Great Expectations and the like. Plus I think it will benefit brighter pupils who will welcome the challenge of a meaty C19 novel - my GCSE class (way back in 1996!) found some of the previous 20th century favourites (notably Of Mice and Men) deathly dull.

Many of these have TV/film adaptations which could be exploited to pique pupils' interest - loads for Pride and Prejudice, and Sherlock Holmes is huge at the moment, which could be a great way into The Sign of Four.

Agree about Northanger Abbey, by the way - I chose to write about it for my GCSE extended essay as I loved it so much. And the intention to read the whole text rather than extracts out of context is long overdue imo.

Oh, and we did War of the Worlds in Year 8, so definitely not too hard for GCSE imo.

Need to put Thomas Hardy in there too. Far from the madding crowd is fab, and a pretty easy read.

Another vote for Northanger Abbey and definitely for The Sign of Four!

Dd did Jane Eyre at school and I read it alongside her for moral support, having tried and failed to read it several times in the past. I can honestly say that it is one of the dullest books I have ever struggled through. I wanted Jane to die so the book could end, she could stop being so annoyingly worthy and the ridiculous coincidences could stop. So many opportunities were missed to kill her, why did she not just starve to death or die of consumption? If I had been forced to read it at school I would have been in despair (our set books were Catcher in the Rye, Portrait of the Artist as A Young Man and The Power and the Glory; we had a slightly eccentric teacher). I love all of Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy and lots of the other 19th century novels mentioned here, but lord preserve the young from the dirge that is Jane Eyre.

OfficerVanHelsing - I find that is so often the case with teens and fictional death
Curley's wife = utterly unmoved. Candy's dog = outrage.
Same with Private Peaceful.

I reread Jane Eyre last year and thought it was horribly tedious too.

In theory it's all good - challenge, interesting texts and plenty of scope for exploring language and context. However, the reality is (thanks to Progress 8 measures) all children now need to read these texts. For some, they are still learning to read, not reading to learn. They cannot access these texts. I could cry when I think about my lovely Year 8 MLD class. They work so hard but they will fail this exam. And to be honest- that's the least of their worries. The new demands are unnecessarily elitist. People need to get into schools and see exactly what our students are up against.

I'm going against my upbringing, instinct and education here- but why do they need to read "old" books at all? Obviously I think they should, but I am not absolutely sure why. There are so many fabulous, challenging books written in the 20th and 21st century.......

I agree, ilovelamp- it's heartbreaking. But we will be told that we are the problem.......

Niminny - you are wrong. All students will study English Literature. It is certainly not an option. Glad to see lots of us are concerned. This is not about what texts we studied at school. It is about the failure to design a curriculum which is both relevant and accessible- not for some -for all.

My first year students, to a man I think, loathe Northanger Abbey.

Thanks Hakyult. You're right - it will be our fault. I just keep thinking
that if they were my kids, I would rather their teachers spent the time ensuring that they had sufficient literacy skills to function in their
than prepare them for an exam which I know they cannot pass.

Missed out the word 'lives.' Apologies.

I also teach/research (as per other thread) literature at university, although my area is more in the region of Shakespeare than 19thc novels. We have great difficulty getting undergraduates to read lengthy and complexly plotted 19c novels (think Middlemarch or Bleak House). This always makes me laugh as the first week I arrived at university I was confronted with a pile of Dickens novels literally one foot high. It has taken me a long time to get around to Dickens. It's a shame it has to be "English" - The Scarlet Letter would be perfect or some of the longer novellas would also work well (The Lifted Veil? much more fun than Silas Marner); and why nothing comic (Three Men in a Boat). Or Alice in Wonderland. Some Trollope also goodI feel divided about this: I think there is huge value in immersing yourself in a world that is historically distinct, and that this experience gives rise to a series of interesting questions about how literature reflects/responds to its context, but this seems to me an unduly conservative list. Second the point about opening up more radical theoretical interpretations too. At 'O' Level I did P&P, Macbeth and can't remember what else. 'A' Level I did Hamlet, Winter's Tale, Chaucer, Books 1 and 2 of Paradise Lost, 1984 (guess what year it was, ha ha), Jane Eyre and some other stuff which has exited my mind, pursued by bear

Well said lamp. All pupils will now have to study literature as part of the new curriculum. As an English teacher with over 20 year's experience I can say that the choices are dull and devoid of any interest to all but a few teenagers today. There are so many great works that pupils love and enthuse about - Cormier's Heroes, To Kill a Mocking Bird ... That the pupils enjoy and sadly can no longer study. Surely in the age of iPads, computers and X Boxes
We should be encouraging a love of reading not boring people half to death.
Shakespeare wrote so his plays could be watched - not read, Austin, Elliot, Bronte et al wrote for a very different audience.

"I'm going against my upbringing, instinct and education here- but why do they need to read "old" books at all? Obviously I think they should, but I am not absolutely sure why. There are so many fabulous, challenging books written in the 20th and 21st century......."

Hasn't it got something to do with having access to all the treasures of a long tradition? If they read at all, they are more than likely to discover 20th and 21st century literature for themselves (though they are quite unlikely to read really tough cookies like Ulysses and The Waves). But as the time before the C20th recedes its language, literature, ways of thinking and doing and imagining will all come to seem unimaginably strange and boring and distant - unless people are deliberately introduced to it and helped to understand and (heaven forfend) like it.

As someone who teaches pre-twentieth century literature, I see the effects of the presentism of our culture all the time in my students' ignorance and incomprehension.

I agree, though, that the way non-academic pathways in education have been systematically and increasingly devalued is an absolute crime against young people. If only, if only the (Rose?) review into qualifications hadn't been shelved by the then Labour Government. That was a real chance for parity for vocational and academic qualifications and pathways. They completely stuffed it up and opened the way that led to where we are now.