Michael Gove 'Axes' To Kill A Mockingbird & Other American Works From GCSE Syllabus

[tumbleweed]

To this day - 30 years on - , I still detest Shakespeare, due to one fat, smelly, teacher who insisted we should all love it, just because ' it's the greatest thing ever written'.

Ditto Mockingbird, which came across as a party political broadcast by the 'all white people are arseholes' party.

BUT, of M&M - struck a cord, and maybe would do now more than ever, with about a quarter of the kids in Europe unable to find work.

[Ephelyon]

Hahaha do spill./

 

In his case, it's Liverpool.

[Roberto]

My 16 year old daughter is a fabulous student and she holds a very low opinion of Shakespeare - often wondering why students are force fed 'classics' when there are far better Author of modern times who would make much more useful and interesting case studies.

 

Now I loved shakespeare as a student and still do now, but I absolutely think that more modern and yes, American why not, authors should be there too. In fact I'd like to see there being a point made of picking one classic and one more contemporary piece to study and comparing and contrasting the different writing styles in the two. That would be an interesting and educational case study imho.

 

In any case, strangling the life out of English Lit for students cannot be a good thing in the long term.

 

As to Gove - why can't this man stop interfering all the time. He is gong to go down in history as the Secretary of State for a education who did the most damage to UK education ever. About time Cameron sacked the guy and replaced him with someone who can implement their so called party policy of leaving teachers to teach etc.

 

Gove really does appear to be an awful, dreadful halfwit. I can't remember a single recent education minister I didn't feel that way about, to be fair, but he is almost certainly the worst for some time.

[6Foot2]

Michael Gove has written a reply in The Telegraph defending his position on this matter:

 

Link: Michael Gove: Kill a Mockingbird? I'd never dream of it - Telegraph

 

...Last year the Department for Education set out new requirements around which exam boards would frame their specifications. The new subject content for all GCSEs is broader and deeper than before – reflecting a higher level of ambition for children. In English literature, we emphasised that students must read a wide range of texts. We also set out a core that had to be covered – specifically a whole Shakespeare play, poetry from 1789 including the romantics, a 19th-century novel and some fiction or drama written in the British Isles since 1914.

 

Beyond this, exam boards have the freedom to design specifications so that they are stretching and interesting, and include any number of other texts from which teachers can then choose...

[JJonas]

So once the core texts that have to be covered have been studied how much time will be left to study To Kill a Mockingbird and Of mice and men?

[unixman_again]

Shakespeare needs to be seen, not read.

You read the sonnets but ideally you see the plays. When I was at school in the 1970s, the only things that we read in EngLit I liked was The Secret Agent (which is quite prophetic) and Shakespeare. It's such a shame Bill isn't putting out new material! I absolutely hated (and still do) Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Jude the Obscure, Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, The Yearling and Nineteen Eighty-Four which we "brainy" kids had to read. The lower stream students had Sword In The Stone, Robin Hood and Robbery Under Arms, which I do lilke. I have always believed that we got the same novels as our parents and grandparents had when they were at school. Give kids interesting books (not those considered "classics") and they will read.

 

BTW, here is a good lesson about Shakespeare Horrible Histories William Shakespeare Song - YouTube

[pcstru]

So once the core texts that have to be covered have been studied how much time will be left to study To Kill a Mockingbird and Of mice and men?

I really don't understand all the fuss. Sure, of mice and men and TKAMB are good books, but it's not as if " fiction or drama written in the British Isles since 1914" leaves exam boards with a paucity of choice for high quality writing.

[MikeGilbert]

As Helen Mirren said recently (and has said before), forcing kids to read Shakespeare is pretty well guaranteed to put most of them off. Especially if it's being taught by someone with no empathy, understanding or connection to the plays. Having read, watched, performed and directed Shakespeare (pretentious little sod, ain't I), I'm quite happy that the plays are bloody amazing, the language is a piece of cake and the stories flow like a dream. BUT, if you suffered under some poor sod who had to try and force an understanding of the texts into a relentless sequence of teens over an interminable number of years, with any interest s/he might have had in the task atrophied to nothing under the yawning disinterest of said teens, then it's not surprising nothing connected.

Some kids will connect, though. Like my daughter, all by herself. Which is great.

[witch]

Shakespeare is too dependent on the teacher teaching it and I am OK with it staying out of the syllabus until A level

But such books as TKAMB are well loved - my 25 year-old did it at school and although he doesnt read much except thrillers now, he remembers it with fondness. And his girlfriend loved OMAM

Dickens can be great - Oliver Twist brings in all sort of concepts and can be used to spark discussions about child labour, workhouses, and all sorts - but some Dickens is not at all relevant for young people today and very hard for them to get a lot out of.

It is the sweeping statements that upset everyone - why should we only study British texts? What advantage or relevance does that have in the real world?

[Ephelyon]

On that basis I'd argue Great Expectations introduces some decent talking points as well; particularly in areas of the country where the class divide is more pronounced than others, for example. Though I'm not sure it's considered "done" to actually talk about that to the kids who can be very much subject to it!

[witch]

On that basis I'd argue Great Expectations introduces some decent talking points as well; particularly in areas of the country where the class divide is more pronounced than others, for example. Though I'm not sure it's considered "done" to actually talk about that to the kids who can be very much subject to it!

It does, if it is taught properly. Much of Dickens does, as I said, but some of the more obscure ones such as "The Old Curiosity Shop" are more difficult

[MikeGilbert]

Having listened to an interview with the guy who actually formulated the concept on PM yesterday, wasn't entirely surprised to discover that the whole "it's Michael Gove's fault and he hates " wasn't the case at all. The core of the policy is that teachers can choose to teach books they want to teach, within the constraints given as to period and type. Professor Bate's (or it might have been Bale) suggested replacement for the "modern" strand represented by Harper Lee and Steinbeck was Zadie Smith's White Teeth, on the basis that books from the first half of the last century aren't actually that relevant to kids' experience. Which is fair enough, really. We did Steinbeck 40 years ago, and it felt archaic then. Mind you, I was more into Larry Niven and JG Ballard and John Wyndham and Michael Moorcock and...

[JJonas]

I really don't understand all the fuss. Sure, of mice and men and TKAMB are good books, but it's not as if " fiction or drama written in the British Isles since 1914" leaves exam boards with a paucity of choice for high quality writing.

 

 

I think it is about choice, it looks to me as if so many core texts are to be required reading there simply will not be time to study other texts. Therefore limiting the teachers choice by the back door.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2014 by JJonas

[pcstru]

I think it is about choice, it looks to me as if so many core texts are to be required reading there simply will not be time to study other texts. Therefore limiting the teachers choice by the back door.

So how many texts are "so many"? I see four; one Shakespeare play, poetry from 1789 on including the Romantics and a 19th century novel, as well as a work of fiction or drama originating from the British isles since 1914. So that's three books and a poem being mandated. I would think in four years of English at secondary school, there would be reasonable opportunity for a few more books. Is it really limiting teachers by the back door?

[localzuk]

So how many texts are "so many"? I see four; one Shakespeare play, poetry from 1789 on including the Romantics and a 19th century novel, as well as a work of fiction or drama originating from the British isles since 1914. So that's three books and a poem being mandated. I would think in four years of English at secondary school, there would be reasonable opportunity for a few more books. Is it really limiting teachers by the back door?

 

GCSE isn't taught over 4 years, and KS3 has its own curriculum to follow. You're talking about 4 specific texts over 2 years. Not to mention, not everyone attends a secondary school like that, there are still many middle schools so their secondary education is split between 2 schools.

[Stone_Charli]

I was personally gutted to hear this because I read To Kill a Mockingbird at school and it's still one of my favourite books - I think there's some really important themes in it and it's still really relevant today (particularly the stuff about prejudice).

[Gatt]

Fortunately, possibly due to the virtues of being educated in Scotland, Shakespeare and alike were only a requirement if you took Higher English (A-Levels?)

As I only took Standard Grade (GCSE) it wasn't - though it was touched on.

 

I had a right good mix of book and subjects during school and have grown up to love reading.

 

We had a Recommended reading list that included a range of genres ( I recall "The Hobbit" and "The Colour Of Magic / Light Fantastic" being on them)

 

I think if I had had the "classics" forced on me I wouldn't have the love for books that I do now, and my grasp of spelling, grammar, and punctuation^* would be terrible.

 

*Note the use of the "Oxford Comma" there