English Language GCSE may be scrapped to help the "forgotten third" of teenagers "disheartened" by its difficulties
There are though calls for a rather more mainstream subject to scrapped, with suggestions that English Language GCSE should be removed, in order to `end the misery` that classifies more than a third of 16 year old pupils as failures.
There are some subjects I can understand being withdrawn from the school curriculum - philosophy and psychology are still offered at university for those pupils passionate about studying them - but I never thought I would see they day though when English Language was called to be removed from the classroom. When I first heard of this proposal I believed it to have been some kind of `twitter storm` or Facebook viral event, something put in motion by a disparate mass of people, using technology I couldn`t understand.
When I read however that it was a headteachers union suggesting this course of action I was astounded. Their reasoning seems to be that an excessive number of pupils are being disheartened by the English Language GCSE course, and that it`s `not fit for purpose` because it focusses on literary analysis, rather than more relevant and contemporary features of the subject. My own analysis of this is a large number of pupils are finding the books they are studying to be overly difficult. If this is the case then the quality of their education up to this point must be questioned - but what a retrograde step it would be, to restrict the study of great literature because it is too difficult.
Roy Blatchford, chair of the Forgotten Third Commission is adamant that the current GCSE english language course is at fault, saying `It cannot be right or sensible that we continue to operate a system that is designed to `fail` one-third of young people every year in order for two-thirds to succeed`
`The third who we consign to this fate are left utterly dejected and with reduced chances for progression in education and careers.`
The proposed solution is to replace GCSE English with a `passport in English.` This qualification, devised by the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), will apparently be of a more practical nature, focusing on skills required by employers.
My concern is that if pupils are finding it difficult to read and study the assigned literature, then there must be a problem with their English education prior to this point. It is of course upsetting to learn that many 16 years olds are `disheartened` by the trials of academia; but it would not be wise to assuage their despondency by removing obstacles and simplifying their studies. To do that would be to diminish their education.
By making examinations and courses easier for pupils we may be making their studies less onerous in the short term, but this will not help them face hardships and challenges later in life. They will still have to face the exigencies of the jobs market. I can`t imagine any company will drastically alter their work routine to accommodate an individual employee`s limitations. They will be more likely to simply look for another candidate who is up to the task.
This `passport in English` qualification is proposed to be taken by students when they are ready, at any time between the ages of 15 and 19. It seems students will also be able to break up the examination into more palatable chunks, allowing them to build up their marks over a long period.
The headteachers` union have said English Language GCSE is `not fit for purpose` because it focuses on literary analysis rather than `contemporary English` - but to suggest literary analysis, the reading of English itself, is anything but a core component of the subject, seems to me very much mistaken. If it is the case that a third of 16 year olds are failing to attain a grade C in English, then there is indeed a problem; but the solution to this problem cannot be modifying the exam, claiming a grading system that has been in place since 1988 is suddenly `not fit for purpose.`
Add a Comment