Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The UK Education Secretary has deemed that only British texts are worth studying, dropping classics like 'Of Mice and Men' because it is taught too much and is American

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-27563466

English literature should apply to all books etc written in the English language, should it not? I'm all for a shake up but to dismiss books written overseas is just stupid, discounting a lot of great literature for the sake of patriotism is just stupid imho. What does dakka think?

I find this rather amusing.

I would understand if it was about some of the more recent American texts like the Twilight series but older literature? Wut? Seems really narrow-minded to me, looks like someone's forgotten that the British Empire died quite a few decades ago...

Michael Gove is an idiot. You won't find many in the UK who think otherwise, save for Toby "How to lose friends and alienate people" Young who wants to have Gove's babies.

I dunno what to make of this really. I mean, it's not exactly a bad thing to say, "lets have more books being discussed that are about more local issues by more local authors."

On the other hand, can you really get better than To Kill a Mockingbird for discussing so many different issues in the same book?


I'm Scottish, so a fairly huge part of our curriculum was based very much around Scottish literature. - It helped that Robert Burns had very strong ties to the local area.

It's not quite how its represented in the article.

Under the previous regime there was a move to eliminate much of the schools indigenous literary content with exception of a mandatory nod to Shakespeare . This was alongside a dumbing down and selective attention of the history curriculum.

Studying the UK's past and works from those times was seen as 'colonial' or just failing to be multi-cultural enough.
Including American classics instead of the likes of Dickens helped with the policy of de-anglicisation, which in turn aided long term government goals.

 Compel wrote:

I'm Scottish, so a fairly huge part of our curriculum was based very much around Scottish literature. - It helped that Robert Burns had very strong ties to the local area.

There is a wide gulf between New Labour's approach to Scottish and English identity and culture. One was to be actively encouraged, the other passively discouraged.
Scotland wont be affected by the reforms, because Scotland wasn't subjected to the same style of dogmatisation.

 Flashman wrote:
Michael Gove is an idiot. You won't find many in the UK who think otherwise, save for Toby "How to lose friends and alienate people" Young who wants to have Gove's babies.

Actually I find it funny I totally got your quote as a joke on 'how to win friends and influence people'. Bits of it seem really good too and very helpful.

What comes to mind when I hear this is the same I felt when I heard the Nazis from world war II considered there to be Jew Science and considered it inferior to their own science. The problem with this is of course that they're so arrogant that they're only relying on their own ideas instead of all forms of thought which is really restricting. Their rival nations instead were relying on all forms of thought and that put them at a disadvantage. In my physics class I heard the top scientists that had been captured from the Nazis were in disbelief that we actually developed nukes and managed to use them on japan. This is something they themselves thought they could not do.

This will only have the effect of hurting british people if this person wishes to restrict them so much.

 Orlanth wrote:
Under the previous regime there was a move to eliminate much of the schools indigenous literary content with exception of a mandatory nod to Shakespeare . This was alongside a dumbing down and selective attention of the history curriculum.

Studying the UK's past and works from those times was seen as 'colonial' or just failing to be multi-cultural enough.
Including American classics instead of the likes of Dickens helped with the policy of de-anglicisation, which in turn aided long term government goals.

Why does this sound like a UKIP talking point?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Under the previous regime there was a move to eliminate much of the schools indigenous literary content with exception of a mandatory nod to Shakespeare . This was alongside a dumbing down and selective attention of the history curriculum.

Studying the UK's past and works from those times was seen as 'colonial' or just failing to be multi-cultural enough.
Including American classics instead of the likes of Dickens helped with the policy of de-anglicisation, which in turn aided long term government goals.

Why does this sound like a UKIP talking point?

It isn't, perhaps it should be. Actually fixing this is clear Tory policy.

The main changes are coming with the history curriculum which are to be announced in August. We know little about what is changing but teachers have already been told that history curricula will have to cover at least 200 years. This is to counter the current curricula which encourages schools to only teach modern history, again it is believed this was so as to not foster a sense of historical national cultural identity to get in the way of a modern trendy one.

Also nowhere in the DfE changes is Steinbeck or Harper Lee taken off any lists of approved literature, the OCR examination board did this themselves. DfE guidelines call for UK based authors to be included as part of the mandatory curricula, taking American authors off is not quite the same thing. It certainly isn't a ban. The BBC are being typically dishonest about this, but then its still New Labour at the core so no surprise there.
The DfE under the current government are trying to deprogram the literature and history curricula. The changes are intended to include British culture and history that is often 'overlooked'.

I can understand your incredulity Ahtman, in the US if a school didn teach US culture and history let alone not fly the stars and stripes people would quickly see something is wrong. The UK has many schools that do the equivalent, and people react with disbelief when it is mentioned, or think it extremism to do so.
Youmay want to vist the link in the Op and read some of the comments, some came from recent students giving witness that they didn't study UK literature and history at schools and wished they had the opportunity to do so.

 Orlanth wrote:
It's not quite how its represented in the article.

Under the previous regime there was a move to eliminate much of the schools indigenous literary content with exception of a mandatory nod to Shakespeare . This was alongside a dumbing down and selective attention of the history curriculum.

Studying the UK's past and works from those times was seen as 'colonial' or just failing to be multi-cultural enough.
Including American classics instead of the likes of Dickens helped with the policy of de-anglicisation, which in turn aided long term government goals.

In california we recently had a push to get rid of half the white teachers in all schools so Latin kids can learn better.
wel also tried to include Ebonics in the SAT.

The schools I've worked in/attended have always drawn a distinction between British and American literature, but it's always been a muddy dividing line. It's never been clear if they meant authors who were born in the respective nation, who were immigrants who just wrote there, or who emigrated elsewhere. Or all of the above, which means there are several authors who are eligible for inclusion in either class.

I think that if you've got a British literature class, then you might justify excluding authors who haven't been involved in the UK at all. But in a general English class, then I think all works in the English language (or by English speaking authors) should be eligible for inclusion.

I went through the English schooling system a decade or so ago. We did Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet pre-GCSE, and then for GCSE did Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men', and Friel's 'Translations'.

Nothing wrong with either, although the fact that we did the slave trade in history at the same time as 'Translations' and the way both were taught gave you the most peculiar feeling that you were meant to be ashamed to be English.

There's nothing wrong with American literature in essence, although I can't say I've ever read any that particularly stood out to me as magnificent, be it Steinbeck or Fitzgerald. Would be nice to see some Wilde or something else interesting in the curriculum though.

I did my GCSE on 'Mice and Men' and 'A View from the Bridge' both of them will probably be stuck with me for my lifetime.

I hate the way you guys spell things.

Books I remember from School, Scottish Higher and Standard Grades:

Of Mice And Men, with of course, a focus on the references to Robert Burns 'To a Mouse.' - It makes sense, really.
Macbeth (Well, duh)
Romeo and Juliet
Othello
To Kill a Mockingbird
A Catcher in the Rye

And possibly a few odd choices...
Flour Babies
Brighton Rock(!)
Flowers for Algernon


Plus, of course, plenty of Scots poetry, mostly by Burns but some more recent ones too. I also remember doing 'Dulce Et Decorum Est' and other related poems.

 poppa G wrote:
I hate the way you guys spell things.

You mean like doughnut?

I did the Red Pony and Grapes of Wrath but I went to school during the eighties
Romeo and Juliet in 10th
Couple more books I can't remember

I'm Scottish and went to school in Scotland (funnily that, eh?) and we never really covered Burns poetry all that much. I'm quite glad as I can't stand it. We did go through about 3 or 4 Shakespeare plays though. I'd also like to state for our international audience that the Scottish Education system isn't a nationalist hotbed.

I don't think this is a bad idea as such. It really depends on what they choose to go with. More Orwell i'd say! Covered Animal Farm, but I think that's done in quite a few schools. I don't really remember enjoying "Of Mice and Men" that much, certainly enjoyed "To kill a mockingbird".

 poppa G wrote:
I hate the way you guys spell things.

Correctly, aye?

For Standard Grades I remember doing MacBeth (For the Play) and Of Mice and Men
In 4th year We did The Crucible and Frankenstein and I remember for Poetry doing "The Road Less Travelled" by Robert Frost
In Higher wed did "The Butcher Boy" and "A Doll's House"

So a mix of of English, American with some Irish and Danish mixed in

For History for Int 2 we did: Birth of the Welfare state, Immigrants and Exiles (Scottish & Irish emigration around the world) and the Road to WW2, out teacher also wanted to do the Race Equality stuff (Like Martin Luther King Jr) But the department head shot it down as we didn't have enough time to cover it enough for it to be useful in our exam
The higher course my school offered revolved around Road to War (again) and the Reunification of Germany

 Flashman wrote:
Michael Gove is an idiot.

Never a truer word was spoken.

Apparently he used to be a wargamer...

Do you want to play a game?

 Orlanth wrote:
[ The changes are intended to include British culture and history that is often 'overlooked'.

I did history up to higher and we were taught far more English history than Scottish history. In fact the only Scottish history that I remember was the second Jacobite rebellion and a bit about Malcolm Canmore and even that was only a handful of lessons before standard grade (which wasn't even examined).

I would really like to see a definition of 'British' culture, after all in order to teach something it really needs to be defined.

 Ketara wrote:
I went through the English schooling system a decade or so ago. We did Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet pre-GCSE, and then for GCSE did Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men', and Friel's 'Translations'.

Nothing wrong with either, although the fact that we did the slave trade in history at the same time as 'Translations' and the way both were taught gave you the most peculiar feeling that you were meant to be ashamed to be English.

That pretty much sums up the indoctrination. Makes you want to be part of the New Britain that eschews its past.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I'm Scottish and went to school in Scotland (funnily that, eh?) and we never really covered Burns poetry all that much. I'm quite glad as I can't stand it. We did go through about 3 or 4 Shakespeare plays though. I'd also like to state for our international audience that the Scottish Education system isn't a nationalist hotbed.

The distinction is designed to foster devolution not seperatism. For New Britain to work, English culture has to be trod on, in favour of multi-culturalism, Scottish culture doesnt as its already multicultural enough by espcousing a distinction. This appears to be working, I read last week in the press that of the schools that had held debates on Scottish independence every one had chosen to stay with the UK. I am not sure about the sourcing of the aforementioned comment, and thus cant comment further on that. However Wee Eck reduced the vioting age to 16 because he believes he will get a vibrant youth movement that is easy to instill nationalist fervour in, I wonder if he likes what he gets.

English culture trod on? Can you explain that further?

Alex Salmond is a horrible little man that really would drive Scotland to independence regardless of the outcome. He just wants his name down in History. In the event that it does happen, hopefully the SNP and himself will be a footnote. I hope his reduction of the voting age for the referendum does bite him in the arse because it's a devious move. He should have lowered the voting age entirely, rather than for this one issue.

 Medium of Death wrote:
He should have lowered the voting age entirely, rather than for this one issue.

I don't think he can, I believe it is up to the electoral commission to do things like that and they are under Westminster control.

I would take Alex Salmond over 'Dave' any day of the week for any task.

Interesting that Gove focuses particular criticism on Of Mice and Men, a book about inequality and prejudice set in a period of depression and unemployment.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
He should have lowered the voting age entirely, rather than for this one issue.

I don't think he can, I believe it is up to the electoral commission to do things like that and they are under Westminster control.

I would take Alex Salmond over 'Dave' any day of the week for any task.

It's might be difficult but I doubt it would be outwith the realms of possibility.

I'd choose him over Mr Cameron. Doesn't mean I like him though!

I've voted for the SNP before as I like alot of the stuff they are doing, I just don't particularly like their leadership and the path they've taken us on with independence.

The re-joining the EU/having some connections with Britain farce that is still to be properly clarified is a source of major annoyance to me. I wouldn't mind if they said we are going to join Europe and take on the Euro. I really wouldn't care. Britain had to bail out European countries anyway, despite not being part of the Currency Union so I doubt it will make much difference.

Thank goodness. The reason why is stupid but stupid people have tried worse things.

Salmond may not be that great an option but he's definitely a better option than Lamont, Davidson or Rennie. and definitely better than David "I don't have a vote so I won't debate anybody but let me lecture you about it" Cameron

Completely agree. Best of a bad bunch. To be fair I think Alex Salmond should be debating the leader of the No campaign not the PM. This shouldn't be a case of Scotland vs The ConservativeS (which it kind of is anyway).