Classic challenge?

Civitas, 16 February 2007

‘Class war over classics’ is the Times Education Supplement’s front-page headline. Following the Government’s list of books in their Key Stage 3 reforms, the TES reports that staff are planning to simply disregard the diktat: ‘They said it was misjudged, politically motivated and “will not be taught”’. Whilst education secretary Alan Johnson describes the texts in question [for example, Austen’s Pride and Prejudice] as “untouchables”, critics such as the English Association secondary committee’s is quoted as saying: “I would be stunned if any of these writers are taught.” Although anti-elitism has been referred to in the argument for dropping texts like Coleridge’s Kubla Khan, the main objection to keeping these texts on the syllabus is that they are too difficult – rather than too irrelevant – for Year 7 and 8 pupils. The TES quotes one teacher as saying: “ Is whoever chose these writers prepared to come and teach them to my bottom set Year 7s?”
But are the educational community underestimating pupils, and perhaps thinking about the test levels they must get their pupils to reach? The ‘classics clash’ coincides with new research from London University’s Institute of Education, which throws into question both teachers’ expectations and the ability sets pupils are put into. The research, which shows that ‘many secondary school pupils in England find their school work too easy and want harder lessons,’ found that between 18% and 25% of 13 and 14 year-old pupils want to be in a higher ability set in order to do harder work. According to Professor Susan Hallam who led the research: “It seems highly likely that what is happening is that teachers’ expectations are not sufficiently high for quite a lot of students.”
Does this mean then, that the Government’s push for more challenging classic texts will benefit pupils? Probably not. The trouble is, that with the pressures put upon teachers to achieve targets in the Key Stage 3 assessments, harder texts won’t equate with more of a challenge for pupils. As Dr Bethan Marshall from King’s College London predicts, “teachers will pick a few short stories or excerpts to get around it.” One clear lesson from the debate, an increasingly old lesson, is that all these central diktats – on what’s taught and what’s tested – are doing little for learning. Were schools allowed to respond a little more to their pupils, rather than just Whitehall, the curriculum might become more ‘fit for purpose’ [that is, learning – though it’s easy to forget].