I read today that Michael Gove has decided to cut such classics as To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice and Men and The Crucible from the GCSE syllabus from next year. According to the exam board OCR the works have been removed because the Department of Education wishes the exams to be more "based on tradition". By this they mean that students will now study at least one Shakespeare play, the Romantic poets, a 19th century novel from anywhere (US, European,British), a selection of post 1850 poetry and a British 20th century novel or drama. According to Paul Dodd, the OCR's head of GCSE and A Level reform another reason was because Michael Gove, who studied English at Oxford, had "a particular dislike of Of Mice and Men".
I am sitting here at my laptop somewhat lost for words ... I understand that change is inevitable and necessary. The education system has to change and move with the times, but the changes being made here seem, at the least, short sighted. To remove such inspiring classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men and replace them with a narrower choice of work just seems ... wrong.
I remember reading To Kill a Mockingbird when I studied for my O Levels and I have re-read it several times. It inspired me. I have always enjoyed reading and devour books at a rate of knots. My degree was, for the most part, English Literature, and we covered a broad range of work - from the 19th century novel to Aphra Behn,from Shakespeare to Children's Literature. By the time I started my degree I had followed a path that led me from Black Beauty to The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, from Treasure Island to The Count of Monte Cristo and from To Kill a Mockingbird to Our Mutual Friend.
I was fortunate that our house was full of books and I had access to them all. For many students their first brush with classic literature is through their GCSE. Therefore GCSE English Literature needs to be inspiring, moving, exciting. It is the gateway to the world of literature for many.
Bethan Marshall, chair of The National Association for the Teaching of English and a Senior Lecturer in English at Kings College, London, has said that the new curriculum is far from inspiring. She, in fact, goes as far as to say that the choice of work will "grind children down". Rather than being forward thinking, imaginative and modern the syllabus ( rumoured to have been designed by Gove himself) is like something "out of the 40's" according to Marshall.
If you are studying a course that "grinds you down" how can you be inspired? And how many will continue on to A Level and Degree English Literature if they are uninspired by their GCSE? Gove wants students to study Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens, Keats and, of course, I would say that yes these works should be studied, but the GCSE needs to be tailored to suit and to inspire today's 16 year olds. It is a gateway to literature and if they are crushed by a dry diet of heavy duty classics will they want to carry on to A Level?
There needs to be a balance of work that appeals to the students. The new curriculum is heavily biased towards British writers and because of the focus on "tradition" there is little scope for inclusion of more modern work such as those of Harper Lee, Steinbeck or, indeed, Arthur Miller's The Crucible.
The thing that shocks me the most about all of this is the fact that one man, Michael Gove the Education Secretary, can have so much power. His "particular dislike" of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men means that he can arrange for its removal from the syllabus. His desire for "tradition" means that GCSE students are given a syllabus "from the 40's" which will "grind them down". His desire for "tradition" means that there will be no course work, but instead two exams at the end of the two year period.
There is a place for tradition. I love tradition. But there is also a place for understanding that GCSE should inspire students to further study. Literature does not rest solely at the feet of Dickens and Shakespeare. The US classics are equally as important and in many ways are far more accessible to teenagers. When faced with Our Mutual Friend or To Kill a Mockingbird which one is going to inspire a teenager to study and enjoy literature? Of course both are incredible books, but Harper Lee's classic is, in my opinion, the one that will touch a nerve, light the flame of love for literature. And when that flame is lit there will be no stopping a student.
I fear that Gove's obsession with an age gone by, an old fashioned ideal of education where children sit in rows of desks chanting " amo, amas, amat" and learning Shelley by rote, is an obsession that is both dangerous and wrong. It is an obsession that will result in fewer students being inspired by a love of literature and more and more turning away from something they consider dull and dry.
I still cannot help the tears springing to my eyes when I recall excerpts from To Kill a Mockingbird and it planted the seed in me that I should always do the right thing. The right thing is to fight this decision and to fight Michael Gove's narrow minded destruction of our education system.
Update:
Since writing this I feel the need to clarify. Michael Gove's new syllabus, in my opinion, narrows the choice of books eligible for study. It seems a shame that there are no fresh voices. The only chance for any literature from overseas is if it is a 19th century novel. Anything more modern has to be British. I don't understand why To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men are to be removed and yet not replaced by books which cover themes which will appeal to teenagers, themes which are immediately relevant in today's world. It will be interesting to see the choice of 20th century work chosen for the syllabus. I am not against change at all and I agree with one commenter that a rotation of work would be a good idea so we don't get bogged down with the same books for 30 years. I think that Gove's syllabus seems to be based very much on works that are pre 20th century, very traditionalist and I wonder if there should not be more scope for the study of more modern work. We shall see.
I am sitting here at my laptop somewhat lost for words ... I understand that change is inevitable and necessary. The education system has to change and move with the times, but the changes being made here seem, at the least, short sighted. To remove such inspiring classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men and replace them with a narrower choice of work just seems ... wrong.
I remember reading To Kill a Mockingbird when I studied for my O Levels and I have re-read it several times. It inspired me. I have always enjoyed reading and devour books at a rate of knots. My degree was, for the most part, English Literature, and we covered a broad range of work - from the 19th century novel to Aphra Behn,from Shakespeare to Children's Literature. By the time I started my degree I had followed a path that led me from Black Beauty to The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, from Treasure Island to The Count of Monte Cristo and from To Kill a Mockingbird to Our Mutual Friend.
I was fortunate that our house was full of books and I had access to them all. For many students their first brush with classic literature is through their GCSE. Therefore GCSE English Literature needs to be inspiring, moving, exciting. It is the gateway to the world of literature for many.
Bethan Marshall, chair of The National Association for the Teaching of English and a Senior Lecturer in English at Kings College, London, has said that the new curriculum is far from inspiring. She, in fact, goes as far as to say that the choice of work will "grind children down". Rather than being forward thinking, imaginative and modern the syllabus ( rumoured to have been designed by Gove himself) is like something "out of the 40's" according to Marshall.
If you are studying a course that "grinds you down" how can you be inspired? And how many will continue on to A Level and Degree English Literature if they are uninspired by their GCSE? Gove wants students to study Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens, Keats and, of course, I would say that yes these works should be studied, but the GCSE needs to be tailored to suit and to inspire today's 16 year olds. It is a gateway to literature and if they are crushed by a dry diet of heavy duty classics will they want to carry on to A Level?
There needs to be a balance of work that appeals to the students. The new curriculum is heavily biased towards British writers and because of the focus on "tradition" there is little scope for inclusion of more modern work such as those of Harper Lee, Steinbeck or, indeed, Arthur Miller's The Crucible.
The thing that shocks me the most about all of this is the fact that one man, Michael Gove the Education Secretary, can have so much power. His "particular dislike" of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men means that he can arrange for its removal from the syllabus. His desire for "tradition" means that GCSE students are given a syllabus "from the 40's" which will "grind them down". His desire for "tradition" means that there will be no course work, but instead two exams at the end of the two year period.
There is a place for tradition. I love tradition. But there is also a place for understanding that GCSE should inspire students to further study. Literature does not rest solely at the feet of Dickens and Shakespeare. The US classics are equally as important and in many ways are far more accessible to teenagers. When faced with Our Mutual Friend or To Kill a Mockingbird which one is going to inspire a teenager to study and enjoy literature? Of course both are incredible books, but Harper Lee's classic is, in my opinion, the one that will touch a nerve, light the flame of love for literature. And when that flame is lit there will be no stopping a student.
I fear that Gove's obsession with an age gone by, an old fashioned ideal of education where children sit in rows of desks chanting " amo, amas, amat" and learning Shelley by rote, is an obsession that is both dangerous and wrong. It is an obsession that will result in fewer students being inspired by a love of literature and more and more turning away from something they consider dull and dry.
I still cannot help the tears springing to my eyes when I recall excerpts from To Kill a Mockingbird and it planted the seed in me that I should always do the right thing. The right thing is to fight this decision and to fight Michael Gove's narrow minded destruction of our education system.
Update:
Since writing this I feel the need to clarify. Michael Gove's new syllabus, in my opinion, narrows the choice of books eligible for study. It seems a shame that there are no fresh voices. The only chance for any literature from overseas is if it is a 19th century novel. Anything more modern has to be British. I don't understand why To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men are to be removed and yet not replaced by books which cover themes which will appeal to teenagers, themes which are immediately relevant in today's world. It will be interesting to see the choice of 20th century work chosen for the syllabus. I am not against change at all and I agree with one commenter that a rotation of work would be a good idea so we don't get bogged down with the same books for 30 years. I think that Gove's syllabus seems to be based very much on works that are pre 20th century, very traditionalist and I wonder if there should not be more scope for the study of more modern work. We shall see.





