Gove: Put Down the Chainsaw and Listen.

All this talk about Michael Gove banning “Foreign Literature” from the GCSE syllabus has had me absolutely steaming, but after an hour of the Insanity Workout, I don’t have the energy to be angry and irrational. In fact, my initial views on the subject have changed.

Wait – what?

No, that doesn’t mean that I now think that Gove is right to remove texts from the GCSE syllabus. Allow me to explain.

My initial response was, “HEY, I love To Kill a Mockingbird! The syllabus should not have been changed!”

My current response is, “To Kill a Mockingbird was why I went on to take English Literature at A-Level, and subsequently, as a degree. However, the syllabus needs to change.”

Gove cited that 90% of GCSE students study the extremely popular text, Of Mice and Men. Unfortunately, I must have fallen into the lonely 10% who did not study this text, but I remember being jealous of my sister because she read it and loved it. However, at the age of 15, I was not jealous enough to seek out the book and read it for myself. Rest assured though, with all this noise caused by Gove, the text is most certainly going on my reading list.

Now, I’ll admit that 90% of students studying the text doesn’t suggest that the syllabus is varied. Yet, could it possibly be that this text is actually the right level to challenge and stimulate British 14-16 year olds? Or is a text that Gove “really didn’t like” unlikely to have such an effect on our young people? 

Gove argues that the literature now offered will be more challenging for pupils, but I think he is mistaken in his definition of the word “challenge.” To Gove, the challenge seems to exist only on a comprehensive level: How difficult will it be for a child to read this text? How complex is the language? Yes, Gove is probably correct in assuming that pre-19^th century literature will be a challenge. Why? Because before the 19^th century, writers were paid by word, so throwing in complex sentences and excessive description earned more money, but does not maintain the interest of modern readers.

I’m sorry Mr. Gove, but the word “challenge” in terms of literature is incredibly multifaceted. Classics such as Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird are not all that challenging in terms of surface reading, that much is true. What’s challenging about these texts is the representation of cultural and social structures. Such texts are not meant to be complicated to read and understand; they were written to expose injustices and make a difference.

Literature movements have exposed trends and changes in society. This is not about reading; this is about politics. This is about human rights and equality. By limiting our students to texts that do not offer this face of the word “challenge”, we are hindering the social development of our children. If not through the arts, how are our children expected to analyse and understand different cultures and societies? We need to talk about negative issues like racism and sexism. We need to expose our young people to the horrors of the world, and of our past, in a safe environment.

As a female reader and writer, my biggest question is: Which female writer will take the place of Harper Lee? With a syllabus skewed towards pre-19^th century literature, I’m fairly certain that the representation of female writers will be heavily lacking.

Gove needs to realise that literature is not the mere subject of reading what is on the page in front of you. Literature goes much deeper and further than that. It is about developing analytical and reasoning skills, about applying criticism, and most of all, about acknowledging cultural and historical similarities and differences.  Children can only develop these skills if they are stimulated and passionate, thus we need to cultivate a love of reading in our children so that they are confident in independently educating and challenging themselves.

Pre-19^th century literature is not going to capture that passion for majority of our teenagers.

The thing that shocks me the most about Gove’s decision isn’t the fact that it appears to be obviously elitist and biased, but actually, it’s that in removing “foreign” literature from the syllabus, Gove is removing a very important part of world history and culture from our education system.

As a black female with SLD, I demand that world history is acknowledged. I demand that books that examine racism and slavery are included in educating our young people. I want that awkward silence in the classroom when students and teachers reach the word “nigger” in To Kill a Mockingbird. I demand that pupils examine the theme of sexism, and I want our children to understand why feminism was created and continues to exist. I demand that we recognise Lennie’s learning difficulty in Of Mice and Men, and the problems that causes of him.

Most of all, I demand that we teach texts from our former colonies. How dare Gove call these texts “foreign” literature. How dare he suggest that British students should only read British texts. When a country shatters another for its own personal gain, they are forever linked – I don’t care how long it’s been. The history of America, of our African and Indian colonies, is also the history of Britain, and our “conquests” are not to be ignored. Such cultures deserve to be acknowledged, just as the mistake of our past do.

So yes, I condemn Gove’s decision to axe “foreign” literature from the syllabus. At the same time, I call on him to change the syllabus further. Since Britain is not alone in the world, I urge the study of English Literature to be changed to World Literature, so that we examine and understand different cultures – particularly those of our past colonies. I would go one step forward to suggest that the British curriculum include texts translated from other languages – because we don’t only learn scientific theories proposed by British scientists, do we?

So go on Gove, I’m sorry to disturb you while you hack away at our GCSE syllabus, but I’d like to request that you put down the chainsaw and think about how to truly challenge and educate our children, rather than making life that little bit more difficult/miserable for them.