Creative English, Creative Curriculum

New Perspectives for Key Stage 2

Paul Gardner

• Publisher: David Fulton Publishers
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317834199
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Combining theory with practical examples, Creative English, Creative Curriculum will stimulate students and teachers to be adventurous and creative in their teaching, while covering the mains strands of the Primary National Strategy for English: narrative, non-fiction and poetry.

This book:

• reflects the new emphases on speaking and listening
• contextualises recent changes to the English curriculum, reviewing models of best practice
• provides practical examples and research evidence of creative approaches to the teaching of English
• considers the cross-curricular aspects in creating a thematic approach to teaching and learning.

This book will appeal to both students and practising teachers in the primary school who either wish to implement creative approaches to their English teaching, or are undertaking extended study for a Masters Degree.

CHAPTER
1
	Janus Looking at English past and future

I know tomorrow for I have seen yesterday.
(Heathcote 1978)

THIS CHAPTER DEALS WITH the following:

• the way in which the possible future direction of English mirrors aspects of the past;

• changing views of English from the early twentieth century up to the Primary National Strategy (PNS);

• the politicisation of English as subject.

For those of us who have more than twenty years experience as educational practitioners, there is something of a recursive feel about the way the primary curriculum is changing. Continual change in English, brought about by amendments to the National Curriculum and successive literacy frameworks, along with parallel, albeit often contradictory, discourses around what constitutes good practice, has taken its toll on some, leading to the denting of self-confidence and loss of direction. In the main though, teachers are highly creative people who either adapt to external pressures by accommodating change, or else subvert them by applying a deeply held philosophy and vision of teaching and learning. Changes to the way the curriculum was organised following the publication of the Primary National Framework (DfES 2006) may have made some colleagues feel a little like Janus, the Roman God of doors and gateways who, with his two heads, was able to see in opposite directions simultaneously. This distinctive characteristic enabled him to reflect on the past and see into the future. Senior teachers will reflect on the time when, prior to the National Curriculum, they set about the collegial process of medium and long term curriculum planning, using specific themes rather than subjects as their starting points. A brief survey of schools in the University of Bedfordshire Schools Partnership, conducted in July 2008, showed that 60 per cent of schools either had or were returning to this mode of curriculum delivery for whole or part of the curriculum. As Heathcote says above, ‘I know tomorrow for I have seen yesterday’. Except the future is never quite an exact mirror image of the past; it is always modified in some way by the ideas through which it has passed.

As stated above, before the introduction of the National Curriculum (DES 1988), many primary schools taught through a thematic approach. Wherever possible subjects were integrated, but care was taken not to contrive integration. The National Curriculum tended to bring to an end such an approach in favour of a subject based model of curriculum delivery, more commonly found in secondary, or upper, schools. It was not that cross-curricular integration was negated by the National Curriculum. Indeed, advice was available to suggest that integration and cross-curricular links continued to be a strong possibility (DES 1989: 4.1; SCAA 1995: 27; QCA 1998: 6). However, educational change is often accompanied by dominant discourses that tend to overshadow alternatives and the documentation often contained contradictory messages. The corollary is that many teachers felt their creativity stifled by a subject-based curriculum, accompanied, as it was, by testing arrangements at the end of each key stage (Woods and Jeffrey 1997: 66). In some quarters, the introduction of the National Literacy Strategy (NLS) (DfEE 1998), which was seen as definitive guidance on the teaching of reading and writing, could be said to have further reduced opportunities for innovation and creative teaching. This is a point noted by Marshall (2000) who recognised that teachers of English were constantly required to redefine the subject to meet changing policy demands.

It may be argued that the NLS (DfEE 1998) was viewed from two opposing points of view. Those who advocated it may have seen it as a clearly defined and tightly structured ‘life-belt’ for the non-English specialist. It was a means of ensuring full and detailed coverage of the Programmes of Study, established in the revised National Curriculum (DES 1995). It established termly literacy objectives and gave teachers a framework for conducting individual lessons that included whole class, group and individual work; and the term plenary became part of teachers' everyday lexicon. Although the strategy was not statutory, a significant number of schools felt that their provision for literacy was best suited to the model proposed by the framework's literacy hour because it appeared to be part of a dominant discourse that was subject to scrutiny by Ofsted. The counter-view was of a didactic pedagogy that ‘straitjacketed’ the teaching of English, making it aridly formulaic, dry and uninteresting. Indeed, in the dominant discourse, the term English was superseded by the more fashionable term literacy. Not surprisingly, therefore, critics noted the absence of objectives for speaking and listening and the lack of time for extended reading and writing. For some, the English curriculum in primary schools became fragments of discrete word, sentence and text level work, without children being guided through a full exploration of whole texts, as either readers or writers. To avoid this approach some schools applied the literacy hour four days a week and devoted the fifth to extended writing. However, some took a more balanced view and acknowledged the possibility of creativity within the structure provided (Martin et al. 2007: 1). Others observed teachers being creative by resisting what they saw as a technicist approach that endangered their professional autonomy (Woods and Jeffrey 1997). Alongside dominant models of curriculum delivery in schools, it may be argued that for at least a decade, student teachers have been trained in how to teach literacy in accordance with the hegemonic perspective of what English was. Although, many English tutors in Schools of Education have shown the same forms of resistance noted by Woods and Jeffrey, thus perpetuating bipolar perspectives in the teaching of English.

In the period of my career to date, which spans some thirty years, education has been in a state of almost permanent transition; change has been the order of the day. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, to see concurrent with the publication of Excellence and Enjoyment (DfES 2003) and the new Primary National Strategy for Literacy (DfES 2006) a move away from the subject oriented curriculum to a more thematic mode of delivery. One might be tempted to say we have gone full circle, but that would be to negate positive attributes acquired in the process of change. New ways of working with language have emerged in the intervening years. These innovations have added to the pedagogic repertoire available to teachers. However, the discourse of official curriculum guidance has tended to privilege certain pedagogic approaches over others. Approaches to the teaching of writing have been heavily influenced by the pedagogy of the genre theorists. While close analysis of textual genre, as recommended by both the NLS and PNS, provide pupils and teachers with a useful means of deconstructing texts, in order to identify textual structures, word choices and syntactic conventions associated with different genre, if overused as a strategy, could lead to formulaic and stultifying teaching and learning, which is ultimately demotivating for teachers and pupils and is, therefore, likely to prove counterproductive. Shared and guided reading sessions have also been seen as useful supportive mechanisms for developing young readers and writers by helping them to develop strategies for understanding texts. These approaches to reading move us beyond simple decoding skills and comprehension exercises and offer opportunities for readers to engage affective and critical responses to texts.

If continual change characterises education in general, and English in particular, teachers need a strong vision of their pedagogy and philosophy in order to make critical judgements about top-down innovation, and they need the confidence to adapt and modify curricular guidance. Having an historical perspective of the development of the subject, combined with a knowledge of different approaches to the teaching of English, provide a platform from which to critically view innovation. Let us now turn briefly to a review of the changing nature of English in the curriculum.

A brief overview of thinking about English

In their concise and informative overview of the history of English as a subject in the primary curriculum, Wyse and Jones (2008) reflect on the progressive nature of the Hadow Reports of the 1920s and 1930s. With reference to the second report, covering the 7–11 age group, (Board of Education 1931), they note that it made a number of recommendations which influenced the teaching of English through-out most of the Twentieth Century. The reports signalled the beginning of what came to be known as ‘child-centred’ education and replaced more mechanistic approaches to teaching, based on rote learning methods. The Hadow Reports consolidated the work begun in the Newbolt Report (Board of Education 1921), which had created the subject of English by synthesising under one heading a disparate set of skills, previously taught in an isolated manner across the curriculum. Furthermore, as Protherough and Atkinson (1994: 7 cited in Wyse and Jones 2008: 8) point out, Newbolt initiated a vision of English that was much broader than the teaching of grammar. English was to be a ‘fine art’ combining literacy, children's self-expression, the study of literature and the development of ‘mind and character’. This broader view of English resonates strongly with official reports towards the end of the century, notably the Cox Report (1989) discussed more fully below. The Hadow Reports gave further substance to English as a subject. The following recommendations from the reports, extrapolated by Wyse and Jones, are indicative of thinking at the time:

• The privileging of practical activity and experience over the acquisition of knowledge and facts;

• Oral work around subjects of interest to the child;

• Class libraries;

• Silent reading and an emphasis on reading for pleasure and information;

• Oracy as the basis for writing, again based on topics of interest to the child;

• The learning of spellings related to the reading and writing of the child;

• A rejection of formal, decontextualised grammar teaching.

In addition, the final report (Board of Education 1933), which focused on ‘infant education’, stated that young children should be free to develop reading and writing when they felt ready to do so. The report went on to advocate that writing should be on subjects that interested children and that early writing involved the child communicating by imitating the environmental print they saw around them. This sounds strikingly like a precursor to the concept of ‘emergent writing’ in which children's initial writing appears as random marks on paper. As they progress, the marks adhere more closely to conventional forms of print, culminating in more fluent grapho-phonic representations and syntax, capable of being read in the absence of the writer. At the heart of this approach to children's early writing is the theory of the child as an active agent in their own learning. The child is seen as a sentient and creative being who is primarily driven to express meaning through mark marking because they recognise that language can be represented visually, as well as aurally. The conventions of writing are socially situated; that is, they are agreed or accepted at a social level, rather than being random hieroglyphs. In the act of writing, therefore, the child, although engaged in individual pursuit of communicating what is in their head, is enculturating him or herself into a society where literature and literacy are valued. The ‘voice’ of the final Hadow Report resonates in early years practice even to the present day. Current non-statutory guidance for early years practitioners sets out indicative stages of children's mark marking from birth to the age of five and provides advice on practical strategies that adults can make to facilitate children's early writing (DfES 2007: 57–58).

The final Hadow Report also emphasised the importance of play and of children's language developing out of practical experience. Not surprisingly, therefore, it recognised the role of drama as a means of language development. In addition, its recommendation for the teaching of reading appear remarkably similar to the ‘searchlights’ model (DfEE 1998: 4), which has since been replaced by the ‘simple model of reading’ (DfES 2006: 8) and the systematic teaching of synthetic phonics. The report advocated that reading should be based on three methods: a look and say approach (word recognition and graphic knowledge); phonics; and contextual cues located in an understanding of syntax and meaning (knowledge of context and grammatical knowledge). Finally, the report highlighted the importance of children being read to and of them hearing stories (Wyse and Jones 2008: 9–10). This was a practice that was once so common in primary classrooms, but tended to wane under the constraints of the National Literacy Strategy. I return to the importance of story in the chapter that deals exclusively with the subject later in the book.

The consensus falls apart

The recommendations of the Hadow Reports had resounding influences on primary education, to the extent that both the Plowden Report (DES 1967) and the Bullock Report (DES 1975) echoed much of what their predecessor had advocated (Wyse and Jones 2008: 10–11). The centrality of the child's interests and the embedding of language development in contexts that are meaningful to the child characterised official views of good practice in English. However, this consensus began to fragment in the latter part of the twentieth century, when opposing views of good practice created pedagogic and philosophical tensions. The fault lines of dissent were drawn between, on the one hand, politically driven imperatives to raise standards and, on the other, evidence based practice founded upon research and scholarly thought. During the late 1980s two reports published recommendations on the teaching of English (The Kingman Report 1988; The Cox Report 1989). Neither report was in accord with the highly politicised educational doctrine of the Conservative Government, which favoured a return to traditional grammar teaching. The Kingman Report introduced a view of knowledge about language that differed significantly from previous models which focused solely on grammar, whilst The Cox Report proposed five models of English teaching. In his review of the Cox Report, Goodwyn (2009 online) identifies these as:

Personal growth – this model placed the child at the centre of learning and emphasised the relationship of language and learning for the child. Literature was seen as essential to the development of the child's aesthetic and imaginative attributes.

Cross-curricular – this model posits that all teachers are teachers of English and that language development is the responsibility of the whole school. It recognises that each subject makes different language demands of the learner and that explicit attention needs to be given to equipping the learner with the necessary linguistic competence to be able to fully access the subject. The distinction between English as a subject and a medium of learning in other subjects is evident in this model.

Adult needs – this model views English in a wider context beyond school and beyond the immediate needs of the child and the curriculum. It recognises the learner requires a language for life; one that will equip them for the demands of adult life, both as a life skill and as means of earning a living. The child as an effective communicator in both literacy and oracy is an essential outcome. Cox also included media education in his report and we might speculate on the likelihood that if he were writing the report today, critical analysis of media would also be an essential feature of this model.

Cultural heritage – this model emphasises the importance of the learner having a knowledge and appreci...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction: Q8 rules, OK?
• 1 Janus: looking at English past and future
• 2 English as a creative process
• 3 Who's talking now?
• 4 ‘The play's the thing ...’
• 5 Scene one, take two
• 6 Story, story, story
• 7 Reading outside the box
• 8 Poetry
• 9 Reading for meaning: exploring non-fiction
• References
• Index