The new English Lit GCSE

Much of the content of the new GCSE will depend upon how exam boards react to the new official guidance. However, this is what the new guidance actually says the GCSE requires:

 at least one play by Shakespeare
 at least one 19th century novel
 a selection of poetry since 1789, including representative Romantic poetry
 fiction or drama from the British Isles from 1914 onwards.

The Shakespeare requirement is in the existing GCSE and represents no change.

The 19th century novel is not required to be 'British' and names no authors - so all this business about Gove demanding Dickens and Austen is just froth.

The poetry requirement is unlikely materially to affect the balance in composition of poetry anthologies, between 'heritage poetry' (as it is painfully known) and 'contemporary poetry'.

The 20th century drama/prose is required to be 'British Isles' - this could include anything from Scotland and Ireland as well.

It is obviously constructed to exclude mid-20th century American prose. As 90% of pupils study Mice and Men, a novel Gove is known to dislike, it is obvious that Gove is altering requirements to exclude it. But this is no 'narrower' or 'broader' than the present GCSE.

Some other thoughts

I neither endorse nor oppose these changes. I'll work with what I'm required to work with. However, some of the reaction has been quite astonishing.

Labour: 'Michael Gove is putting his own ideological interests ahead of the interests of our children.'

As though Labour were not also motivated by ideology: this is a common trick to depict one's opponents as irrational and oneself as sober and reasonable. Almost every position one could adopt in relation to Education depends upon one's world view, and just as these changes are undoubtedly rooted in ideology, so too are the reasons put forward in opposition.

Labour: 'His vision is backward-looking and preventing the rich, broad and balanced curriculum we need in our schools if our children are to succeed in the future economy.'

This argument derives from economic imperatives, which are not obviously pertinent when it comes to GCSE literature. It has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of different works of literature. It is also unclear why the present situation of three American authors from the mid 20th century is 'forward-looking' or 'broader' than the new requirements which stretch over 200 years and still permit the study of (older) American literature.

As a matter of interest, a book may still exist even if no longer be included on a GCSE syllabus. Schools are still going to be in possession of those books, and will still need something to teach in Year 9. As the new KS3 curriculum requires schools teach 'seminal world literature' it seems likely that these books will still be taught.

This piece from the Guardian is a case study in frenzy, the substance of which is not worthy of engagement. However, the headline is interesting:

To Kill a Mockinbird and Mice and Men axed as Gove orders more Brit Lit

I wonder why To Kill a Mockingbird is receiving equal weight in the reportage? Hardly anyone studies it anymore. Ninety percent of pupils study Steinbeck's novel, not Harper Lee's.

Feelings on a Sunday

It appears my new profession is not teaching, as I had thought, but rather I am going into mechanics, for just like my car I am to be subjected to an MOT.

I cannot tell if this be good or bad policy. A friend of mine who has been teaching a while reckons it might work but until I get some years' experience I shan't be in a position to judge. Any pronouncements I make would be made in audacity, not knowledge.

It worries me that the debate(s) which determine policy – in Parliament and in the media – are conducted in worser ignorance and blacker darkness, yet the advocates have no doubts. Nurses, teachers, doctors (who also now have MOTs), servicemen and women – mark how people may become a battleground. And in this particular field, Hunt is a combatant as much as Gove, and though he be new to the fight, yet he will cause as much collateral ere long. 

Perhaps this is part of the price we pay for democracy?

*

We make them play a charade, then we moan they play charades with us. Rather like the bizarre mating rituals in nature, where birds flick their tails in their mates' faces, one wonders why they can't just get down to it. Politicians have to make claims about themselves which we in turn are supposed not to believe. Primarily, they have to disclaim self-interest. They must constantly assure us that it is for our benefit they seek power for themselves. Naturally we scoff, but would you honestly cast your ballot for the candidate who says 'vote for me, for I seek power, status and influence'?

In other fields, few of us would pretend we had not thought of ourselves in what we do, although some individuals may find it helpful for their self-image if they affect piety and martyrdom. I freely admit one of my motives for going into teaching is to secure my future, pace Tristram Hunt (and others generally) who insist we must all be propelled by passion. (I wonder if The X-Factor have got to Hunt, too?) In making such an admission, those of my motives which are selfless are made more plausible. I may not be accused for admitting I am ambitious for those whom I serve as well as for myself, but woe to him who makes such a confession to a voter (and it is still normally a 'him' in politics).

We are of course very lucky that out of a vast field of competitors and wannabes, the decision on who gets the power is ours. And it is one of the perks of being governed by a professionalised political class that we may grumble about them even as we put them there. But a friend of mine once used an IT term to explain to me how, from such a vast pool as the American electorate, they may dredge up men of such low calibre to choose for the White House: garbage in, garbage out. For is it not true that this charade we make make them play, this dance we make them do, is no more than to demand of them that they lie to us? Is not the man who says 'vote for me that I may become powerful' more honest than he who says 'I am only thinking of you when I ask for your vote'? Yet we will always choose the he that is dishonest, only to wonder why we have such a Parliament of fouls. 

*

I have touched on passion. I doubt I shall ever write a cover letter again that makes no mention of how passionate I am about the matter in hand. It's another charade, of course, another mating ritual. The question which always comes up in a job interview is 'why do you want this job?' and the real answer is normally 'because I have bills to pay.' I suppose an election is basically just a big job interview, for briefly we all of us have to perpetrate the same kind of lie: no one admits they want to work for pay. The correct answer is that you are passionate about pouring pints.

If Hunt include passion in his MOT, then I am in trouble. I am too old fashioned to speak hysteria. I might have to take lessons from the drama teacher in how to choke on my tears of passion during my assessment. Perhaps such a performance would satisfy the next Labour government that I am fit to teach?

Subscribe to this blog by email for automatic updates, or follow me on Google+