PRESS RELEASE
Senior academics back the idea of studying
Russell Brand and Dizzee Rascal at English Alevel
Much has been made in the UK’s national newspapers over the last week of the OCR exam board’s
announcement that its new A-level English Language and Literature curriculum will require
students to study the words of Russell Brand and Dizzy Rascal alongside those of Shakespeare
and Blake. The Department for Education has dismissed the OCR’s new offering as ‘rubbish’ that
threatens to displace ‘proper A-levels’, and which will likely hinder rather than facilitate access to
higher education for any young people who take it.
The Committee for Linguistics in Education (CLiE) strongly disagrees with the opinion expressed
by the DfE. CLiE, a joint committee of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain and the British
Association for Applied Linguistics, is a bridge between university-level linguistics and language
education at school. As such, it is well placed to comment on the question of what kinds of
language schools should study. CLiE supports the principle of studying a wide range of material
rather than a limited canon of 'good literature', for reasons which are set out below.
What texts can be studied?
Within linguistics, any text has the potential to become a legitimate object of serious study. The
value of the research depends on the questions asked and the conclusions drawn, rather than on
the intrinsic value of the texts studied. Research based on this principle is pursued in linguistics
departments in most of our universities, and is recognised and supported by bodies such as the
British Academy and the major research-funding councils. Indeed, such an approach underpins
undergraduate degree programmes in Linguistics and English Language at universities
throughout the United Kingdom. It is also reflected in the national curriculum, where KS4 pupils
are currently required to compare written and spoken language, offering detailed linguistic
analysis of linguistic data.
What are the educational benefits of studying texts?
Studying texts has been at the heart of education since the beginnings in Ancient Greece, so the
basic principle is well established and uncontested. However, two different models should be
clearly separated:
1.
2.
text as good practice: the text is a model to be emulated by the learner
text as data: the text is an example to be understood by the learner.
Each of these rationales has a place in modern education. Seen as good practice, a text gives the
learner examples of ‘good writing’ which can help them to achieve particular goals in their own
writing. More recently, however, educationalists have recognized the need to prepare children
for a complex world in which a great variety of communicative demands are placed upon the
individual. Viewed this way, the study of English is characterized by a variety of aims, different
aims requiring different models. Provided the aim is clear and legitimate, any relevant text is also
legitimate as an object of study.
In contrast, the text-as-data model does not aim directly at improving the learner's skill with
language. Rather, its purpose is to enable the student to gain a deeper understanding of how
language works. The main question here is whether the text is relevant to the general issue about
language which is under investigation.
Both models contrast with the simpler model of half a century ago, where education recognised a
limited range of good writers as examples of good practice and a limited range of communicative
aims, and made very little attempt to explain how language works.
Such an approach undoubtedly remains appealing to many people, possibly because it seems to
offer simplicity and permanence in a world defined by complexity and rapid change in
communicative practices. However, it is the view of CLiE that an approach to the study of English
language based exclusively on the study of culturally venerated texts is simply not fit for purpose.
Any A-level syllabus designed in accordance with this principle risks failing adequately to
prepare young people both for university and for the world of work where they will ultimately
seek employment.
In support of an innovative and relevant A-Level syllabus
In recent years, A-level English Language has followed academic linguistics in treating any kind
of text (not just literary texts) as grist for its mill. Indeed, one of the main attractions of this
subject for both pupils and teachers is the opportunity to juxtapose and compare dramatically
different types of text - a seventeenth-century recipe with one from the twentieth century, a
child's account of an incident with a newspaper account. This approach is fully in line with what
pupils will encounter in a university department of Linguistics or English Language, and
guarantees at least a conscious awareness of the richness of language variation and the ability to
talk about it.
Note to Editors
CLiE is a joint committee of the British Linguistics Society and the British Association for Applied
Linguistics. Its members include a number of prominent English language and education
academics based at universities across the UK. The Committee aims to explore and evaluate ways
in which linguistics and applied linguistics might contribute towards the school curriculum and
the professional training of teachers.
Contact
Dr. Esther Daborn, University of Glasgow:
esther.daborn@glasgow.ac.uk
Tel: 0141 3303421
Dr. Tony Fisher, University of Nottingham:
anthony.fisher@nottingham.ac.uk
Tel: 0754 0445296