Toby Young’s curriculum confusion
February 11, 2012
In case you didn’t know, Toby Young has set up a school. You’d think, then, that he’d have a good idea of how GCSE syllabuses work. But his latest broadside against the ‘dumbing down’ of secondary education suggests not.
‘It’s a truth generally acknowledged in the state education sector that children aged 16 and under cannot cope with the novels of Charles Dickens,’ despairs Young on the Spectator site today. He then goes on to explain – quite correctly in my view – why children are perfectly able to cope with Dickens.
Then it all gets a bit bizarre. Young claims – having been tipped off by an ‘education campaigner’ called Joseph Reynolds – that ‘instead of Dickens’ children following Edexcel’s syllabus study the ITV1 homepage of Britain’s Got Talent and the front cover of Heat magazine.
Young – and Tim Walker, who dutifully recycles the story for The Telegraph – seems to be under the impression that these are alternatives to Oliver Twist and Great Expectations (to use his own examples).
But the syllabus that Young refers to is very obviously that of Edexcel’s English Language GCSE, which is concerned with critically analysing the written and spoken language as it is used today – in advertising and magazines, for example.
English Literature, on the other hand, develops skills in responding to poetry, fiction and drama.
And what’s on Edexcel’s English Literature syllabus? Well, in addition to a compulsory Shakespeare play, there’s a choice of great literary works including Animal Farm, Pride and Prejudice and … Great Expectations.
Topics, individuals and organisations mentioned in this article:
dickens • edexcel • english • english literature • gcse • spectator • toby young
They are set texts.
They’re not set texts on English Lit GCSE though, are they? They’re not being studied ‘instead of Dickens’.
That’s clearly what Young was suggesting.
They are set texts in English Language. Set. Texts. English. Language. GCSE. I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Of Mice and Men is also a set text in English Language. Edexcel chooses the texts. They could choose Dickens, they could choose Anne Frank. They could choose the fall of the Berlin Wall as reported by the BBC. Instead, this is what they choose.
It is an inescapable fact that these ‘texts’ are not of high quality as required by the National Curriculum.
And Young specifically states English Language GCSE.
The point I am making, Mr Reynolds, is that English Language and English Literature are separate subjects with different aims and objects of study.
Young does not ‘specifically state’ English Language at all. Have a read of the article again – http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/7637588/status-anxiety.thtml. He says that Heat magazine and the Britain’s Got Talent website are studied ‘instead of Dickens’.
And what percentage of state school pupils are entered for Eng Lit GCSE?
Thanks for commenting Toby. As far as I can work out (I’ve just done some very quick googling, so please correct me if I’m wrong) 347,000 comprehensive pupils sat English Literature GCSE and 434,000 sat English last year.
But that is a separate point. Do you accept your article was misleading?
I am well aware of the different subjects, Mr Gray. I could have written them all by this time. Your English Language/English Literature complaint is a red herring, though. The English Language syllabus is devised and marketed by Edexcel. In the syllabus the kids are reading Of Mice and Men, which is also a literature text.
The implication is always, ‘We can dish out some crap here because we have some stuff that is less crap over there.’
There is no reason in the world that Edexcel could not fulfil their responsibilities (indeed it is a requirement that they do this, though no one pays attention) by delivering content of ‘high quality’ as stated in the National Curriculum. Heat magazine is not of high quality.
For instance, if they wanted to use texts of high quality for the portion of ‘English Today’ they could use transcripts from the Today programme, the BBCs reportage of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Guardian podcasts of Arab Spring; compare John Updike’s report on 9/11 to Christopher Hitchens essay, perhaps. You and I could come up with dozens of ‘high quality’ texts that would fulfil the ‘English Today’ portion of the GCSE.
It used to be that these ‘hooks’ like Heat magazine, would be employed to draw pupils in to stronger content (Why not do a fake magazine cover delivering news of Oedipus Rex?) But now the hook IS the content. Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, they are reading up to 12 works of literature in Year 10 (not including poetry and textbooks) and also fulfilling their writing obligations. Shame we can’t do that here.
And really. Do you want to take a hard look at the English Lit syllabus? We could do that if you like.
We have a saying in the US, Mr Gray: when you are in a hole….stop digging.
And no. I’m not upset. I am trying to bring you over to my side and convince you. It isn’t just a matter of convincing everyone — with very little time I have managed to convince almost everyone of how reasonable my requests are — it’s that there is a bureaucratic mountain in the way. A mountain that is pretty much immoveable.
As I’ve explained, my complaint is that Toby Young’s article was misleading. It implied that Edexcel had replaced Dickens with Heat and Britain’s Got Talent – that’s obviously not the case.
You may have well-founded concerns about British education, but you won’t bring people over to your side with exaggeration and hyperbole.
You could absolutely replace it with Dickens. You could compare a Dickens essay on child labour or America and compare it with a writer today (Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan); I’m sure that would legitimately satisfy all the requirements.
Or you could take Tale of Two Cities and compare the style to Imperial Life in the Emerald City. The ideas are pretty much limitless.
How about another two books, non-fiction works, for English Today:
Palestinian Walks by Shehadeh, and The Case against Israel’s Enemies by Dershowitz.
These are books that could easily be read in Year 10/11 and could satisfy the requirements. If, what we are looking for is making children ‘discerning consumers of content’, according to the school, then I’m sure this would satisfy requirements as well.
These are all excellent ideas, but I’m not sure how they’re relevant to my post.
What is the argument against kids being taught how a magazine or a website communicates with words and images? Why are Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Young opposed to that?
What Young refers to is a unit that makes up 20% of the overall GCSE in English Language. It’s the bit about how language is used in websites and magazines. Other parts of the course look at other kinds of written and spoken language. Nobody is opposed to comparing Dickens and Hitchens. But there are lots of other forms of communication around and it is not clear to me why we would not want to teach young people how to take a critical view of them.
Again, James, your implication is that texts don’t matter. I know you don’t believe that. I know you believe some texts are better than others. And I know that you don’t just abandon your subjective judgment each day, otherwise half the time you wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning. If there is such a thing as high quality, and I assume you believe there is. Then that is what our aim should be. Our aim should not be, ‘Let’s abandon our good judgment because we don’t think kids are good enough.’
I don’t have an argument about how a magazine or a website communicates with words and images. You have set up a straw man here. But why don’t we look at the Economist and the Guardian website, examining the events of Tahrir Square, instead of Britain’s Got Talent and Heat magazine. Our content IS important. And that’s why the National Curriculum requires — I repeat, REQUIRES — the content to be of high quality.
If children learn skills not content then why don’t we teach the History of Manchester United instead of the rise of Hitler. There’s a reason: we don’t think that history is good enough. Knowledge does matter, so does content.
And the ‘only 20% of the overall’ grade. Are we to be bargained with when it comes to my daughter’s education: ‘I’ll give you only 20percent shit this year, Mr R, as long as you lay off,’
Can’t we have 0% shit? Is it that unreasonable to want 100% high quality. The National Curriculum doesn’t seem to think it is. They actually require it to be.
This is what my daughter has had for books in four years of secondary:
Noughts and Crosses (Blackmun) Year 7
Private Peaceful (Morpurgo) Year 8
Stone Cold (Swindell) Year 9
Of Mice and Men (Steinbeck) Year 10
Are our children just village idiots? They are treated as such. In Year 10 of my old high school they are reading up to 12 works of literature including Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, Great Expectations, Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Lord of the Flies, Oedipus Rex, To Kill a Mockingbird, MacBeth. And, mind you, James, this isn’t a ‘choice of’, it is ‘all of the above’.
I can see where you are coming from but I think that you are misconstruing the situation and misunderstanding pedagogy.
Quality of texts is important but is not the only issue. Take your history example: people are taught about Hitler (rather too much as it happens but that is a different issue). Now, that is terrible history. It is an awful, depressing tale of very poor thinking and bad, bad, politics. But we teach it anyway, and don’t just teach tales of heroism and goodness. If people are to learn how to understand, explain and critique the good and bad they need to be shown both the good and the bad. What is true in History is true in English Langauge (and remember, we are talking about the curriculum in English Language not the curriculum for English Literature).
There are lots of kinds of writing and speech in the world. Some of them did not exist when you were at school. People are exposed to all of them and may even end up writing in those ways too. It is vital to teach people about how these work – good and bad – so that they can think about what they read and hear. As you yourself admit, there really is no argument against this.
Now, if that was ALL anybody read then there would be a problem. But it isn’t. It’s one fifth of one of the two GCSES about language and literature. This is not about bargaining. It is about breadth and about teaching people to assess texts of all kinds independently.
Obviously I cannot comment on your daughter’s curriculum. I would simply observe two things.
Firstly, it is odd for a parent to entirely farm out a child’s education to the state, or indeed to a private provider. If there are things you think she should read then you should read them with her and not only rely on someone else doing it for you.
Secondly, in terms of what she has been taught, you should have a word with the school since if that is all she has been set to read then the school is not in fact following the national curriculum or any GCSE curriculum. The KS3 programme specifies a wide range of writers that you would agree are of established quality – in fact, those you list as being taught by your old high school. Either your daughter’s school is breaking the law or you are mistaken.
There are great problems with the teaching and learning of literacy in the UK. The bulk of these problems have nothing to do with the schools. They are to do with our media system (it’s form and it’s content, including the sort of mendacious prose of which Mr. Young’s column was an example). The media promote distraction and illiteracy and they do it for money (which is also why Mr. Young writes what he knows will meet an eager market).
The problems in the schools primarily derive from a combination of under funding and the rigidity imposed by the present system of league tables.I do agree with you that not enough of the history of literature is taught. But this is not because people are being taught about writing in popular media. The two are not mutually exclusive. The problem is the constraint imposed by the endless testing and coursework against a backdrop of Gradgrindian inspection. Our schools should be commended for expanding their teaching of literacy to encompass contemporary forms of writing and their critical analysis, along with the continued teaching of Shakespeare, Jane Austen and more which they have achieved in a hostile environment.
Those who care about improving literacy and literary appreciation should campaign for more funding for schools, a much less constraining system of league tables and, importantly, investment in more adult education. They should also urge journalists and others to themselves write with the highest of aims – honestly, fairly and accurately, and the avoidance of fallacious syllogisms which distract from the real challenges we face.