Malorje Blackman GCSE

[flexiblebenefit]

DD has just told me that the first text they're studying for GCSE English Lit in Sept is "Boys don't cry" by Malorie Blackman. She's a bit surprised. Like most teen girls she went through a Malorie Blackman phase in year 8 and read everything, but was very surprised to be studying it in year 10. I've just read it (I have a degree in English - admittedly 30 years ago!) It's a good book. Engaging. Lots of issues to talk about- but it's honestly not great in a literary sense. I'm hugely supportive of studying non white authors, expanding the range of books etc but there are a lot of really great lnon white authors published today who are a lot more "literary" than Malorie Blackman. It's a book designed to hammer home "issues" in a relatively unsubtle way.

What am I missing here?

So we dumb down then? I went to university from a background where I was the first in my family to go. Although horrifically socially unprepared for university, academically O and A levels (even at a pretty rubbish comp) allowed me to be at a level at which I could hold my own. Malorie Blackman wouldn't have prepared me for this, and won't prepare DD.

My nephew (year older, grammar school) did "An Inspector Calls". It's not a difficult play. Brilliant for discussing issues (consent, assault, women, capitalism etc) but also something with some literary merit and cultural capital.

Presumably if your dd wants to do English at uni she'll be doing A levels where she can be more challenged and better prepared for degree level study?

Whilst I don't want to justify what is clearly a dumbed down curriculum for brighter kids, you have to remember that GCSEs are for all, not just smart kids, and therefore have to use texts that are accessible for all.

As I said - if tiered exams were still available there would not be a problem.

Most people with teens who went to uni were first in family btw - simply because very few went then! Not wishing to piss on anyones chips but we were all first in family.

But it's about privilege (or the lack of) it isn't it? I came from a family where neither parent read books or saw much point in education. (No shade here- were a happy family and they are really pleased for me) However, we had no books in the house, but the state education I received allowed me to compete with children from different backgrounds.

In fairness I will help DD. She'll read and discuss the books she needs to know with me and she will be fine. But the child who is in the same position as I was 30 odd years ago might not be.

I work in HR (recruitment) for a big media/ creative company. I'm sick of seeing the same type of candidate year after year. They're lovely. Smart. Cultured and educated- AND ALL SO MIDDLE/ UPPER CLASS. We are ethnically diverse but not in terms of class any more. These's a reason so many pop stars and actors and creative types are so posh. It's because we let down bright non middle class children who want to work creatively. It's all "be a doctor" or "work in IT" and everything else is just about passing an exam.

Pearson Edexcel have added four diverse texts to their modern prose/play section, and this is one of them in

Apologies. I went off on a bit of a left wing tangent - but too much for for Sat night Mumsnet!

Back to the book. It's just not literature and you can't persuade me otherwise. However I've found the page in the Edexcel website that talks about it.

They're looking for assessment objectives

AO1: Read, understand and respond to texts.
AO3: Show understanding of the relationships between texts and the contexts in which they were written
AO4: Use a range of vocabulary and sentence structures for clarity, purpose and effect, with accurate spelling and punctuation

They're not looking for:

AO2. Analyse the language, form and structure used by a writer to. create meanings and effects, using relevant subject. terminology where appropriate.

So- a personal response to issues, with good spelling and grammar.

I think your literature/ populist dichotomy is a false one. You can analyse any novel to see how an effect is produced and how language is used. Plenty of literature academics write about pop culture works.

They won't just study one text for GCSE either. I have a masters in English and am a writer - a "literary" one if you like - I can't see the problem with this as one of a range of texts.

BUT it's a fallacy to say you can analyse any book in the same way. Some books are more literary

Yes, of course. You would analyse them differently. That doesn't mean you can't analyse them at all.

These are the texts for the various exam board - recently updated page

schoolreadinglist.co.uk/tag/gcse/

I think you have to accept it has been chosen to serve the purpose as a study piece - it may not be the greatest book to move their hearts and minds - but that's not the purpose... and that's a separate debate.

If it was me I'd have them read The Bell Jar and discover the life, love and tragedy of Sylvia Path's life.

I agree with PP that one of the issues is the lack of tiering in English Lit papers. They therefore have to find books that are at least vaguely accessible to dyslexic lower ability pupils. Also the books have to be able to be taught in a relatively limited timeframe.
There will be lots of AO2 elsewhere, it doesn't all need to be covered in every text.

I’m sorry but I am delighted that they’ve finally added something like this to the syllabus. The current syllabus is enough to put off the majority of kids from English and reading forever. I’ve a bright child, she’ll likely get at least a 7 for English. Possibly an 8 and she hated every second of English gcse and couldn’t see the point of it. Same as my eldest who got 88 but constantly lamented the “boring” books: I absolutely think that some Shakespeare and a 19th century novel is right but equally something they’ll enjoy and can relate to and my inspire them to read more of that genre is well overdue

I know I'm a super bad reader, but what alternative novels has any PP specifically named should be studied instead?

Suppose that we allow that ticking diversity boxes is a good thing, that the text should be relatively modern, and keeps the "must be British" author requirement.

Deathly Hallows?
L-Shaped Room?
One of these?

I read a YA book a few years ago about a (black young British) lad who suddenly has to look after his baby with support of all-male household. It was very funny & poignant, but I can't find link right now.

From what DD has told me about kids at her indie 6th form, some were hugely spoonfed to get their high grades. Their high results truly didn't arise from reading better quality texts for GCSE.

ps: i find Sylvia Plath very boring. As a young person I found her, her life, her work, totally uninteresting & unrelatable. I often wonder why other people find her interesting.

Looks like they’ve taken The Sign of Four off then. Thank goodness.

Oh hang on, still on AQA. Dammit.

OP Plenty of bog standard comprehensives study An Inspector Calls as well as your nephew's grammar school FWIW. It's a great play and I love it but it is by a dead white man (I'll forgive him because he is a leftie) like so much studied in Eng Lit, sadly. I absolutely reject the idea that grammar and private schools will choose more literary texts - nor should they if that means only Dickens and Priestley.

Your DD will also study Shakespeare and a 19th century text like some literary Dickens alongside a poetry anthology and will have to talk about unseen poems as well. So all is not lost. Some of the poems will be modern but many will be old as well.

I don't think that older texts are the only ones that are literary and I am sure you don't either, but it does come across a bit that way.

DD took Eng lit to degree level and only then did she study anything by someone living and non white (tho Anita and Me is also on the GCSE list). It;s a shame and can't be helpful in encouraging non-white female students when they don't see themselves in the books they are reading and studying.

Yes, Sign of Four is on the 19th century list. I imagine the idea is to appeal to boys who may not enjoy Jane Austen or Charlotte Bronte. In fact most schools choose Christmas Carol as the shortest and most accessible text. DD at least did Frankenstein (by a woman! yay!).

Can you tell I feel strongly about this? I very much agree with PPs saying that Eng lit should be tiered (as should Eng lang) and then perhaps we could have two different lists of textx, with maybe excerpts of Shakespeare at foundation, and some more accessible novels from the last 100 years.

What would help is if they didn't spent 2 years (in some cases 3), studying the same very few works absolutely to death. I've tutored pupils who've started reading the book in Year 9, and never moved on from it. Of course they hate it (whichever book it is!), particularly the low achievers who aren't really understanding it that well anyway.

Tiered exams is a possibility; also different sets where the books are chosen differently perhaps.

DD's teacher told them that their year 10 unit on autobiography was the only opportunity they had to study something that wasn't by a dead white male. I checked the exam board syllabus, and that wasn't true. Although the exam boards do try to diversify the syllabus a bit, schools do tend to stick with the same tried-and-tested texts, year in, year out. Part of it is that there are plenty of resources available. I wonder if there's also a copyright issue, given that DD's school did not require them to have copies of the texts.

I know cost of texts was an issue. Dd's English teacher told them that top set were going to study Pride & Prejudice & Inspector Calls and lower set Christmas Carol & Blood Brothers but they all ended up doing Christmas Carol because they couldn't afford to buy new books.

I kind of see what you mean. Her stories are amazing, great characters and she’s a decent writer but not exactly brilliant in terms of dialogue and general language and prose. It’s hard to strike a balance though. Great language and prose doesn’t equate a great and engaging book. Many classics are over-rated I think because they sound ‘flowery’ but actually are understandably very dull for the majority of teenagers to read and hard for them to relate to.

This has annoyed me for years! Granted, I did O level and we only had 3 texts but we didn't start them until the 2nd half of the summer term of year 10.

Before that we read Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Lord of the Flies, lots of weird short stories (it was the late 70s!), Great Expectations (didn't read all of it - the teacher summarised bits and we skipped ahead), as well as some of the war poets and a bit of Chaucer's Prologue. I wasn't keen on most of them but at least I wasn't going over and over them.

I would have loved to have done something like Malorie Blackman - far more interesting and relatable as would many of my classmates (I was set 4 out of 12 at a fairly good comprehensive).

I think it sounds like a great step OP.

GCSEs need to be accessible for even below average students. Especially in English and maths.

But you also want it to be engaging. Adding more books like this will hopefully keep students more interested which I imagine would help them grade and revision wise!

These books certainly help with high grades because they are too easy for some. We did Silas Marner for O level. Also Macbeth. Not many got the top grades back then! We also studied Chaucer. O level was more like A level now. Other DC did CSE.

I don’t know why we cannot admit some DC are brighter than others and need more challenge. Not reading the same texts for 3 years should be required and breadth of literature is important. It doesn’t have to be classic literature but, judging by the CVs DH receives from grads, good English isn’t very highly valued. It’s possible to get good grades without having having a good education. A narrow unchallenging education gets the grades and then DC are considered bright. Not sure they all are?!

1. O level was only taken by 20% of the student body, GCSEs are designed for all students.
2. Given that grades have returned to being given on a curve the easyness of the books doesn't impact the % of higher grades
3. Schools don't have to teach the same books for 3 years. If brighter DC aren't studying more variety in y7-y9 that is on the school not the exams. DD didn't start set texts until y10, and they spent around 1 term per text.
4. Pupils can always read ore books in their own time if they or their parents want to.
5. GCSEs are really not narrow or unchallenging. The very brightest may find them easy, but that is what A levels and Degrees and extra curricular interests fill.

@TizerorFizz We read the exact same books as you. Chaucer was a A'Level though. We also read Murder In the Cathedral by T.S Eliott.

These books certainly help with high grades because they are too easy for some. We did Silas Marner for O level. Also Macbeth. Not many got the top grades back then! We also studied Chaucer. O level was more like A level now. Other DC did CSE.

This is a very basic and not particularly educated view on how English Literature study works. It’s not about the ‘difficulty’ of the text. English Literature lessons are not simple reading comprehension sessions. You can do a degree in English Lit degree and complete a dissertation on a set of children’s books if you wanted, it’s about what you get out of the text, your interpretations, and critical thinking around the themes.
Incidentally, you can teach MacBeth at primary level. You can also study it for a Master’s degree. Obviously the teaching, learning and the response will be different - but the text is same.
Having read Silas Marner and Chaucer does not give you the edge over someone who has read ‘Naughts and Crosses.’ You could read Chaucer, understand it well and still write a very bland essay on its basic themes - while someone could read Blackman and come up with engaging and original explorations and responses to her writing. That’s what distinguishes the ‘brighter DCs’ as you like to call them.