Norwood (1943)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Membership, Contents, Introduction

Part I Secondary education
Chapter 1 Nature of secondary education
Chapter 2 Secondary education as it is
Chapter 3 Secondary education as it might be

Part II Examinations
Chapter 4 Existing examinations
Chapter 5 The reorganisation of examinations (i)
Chapter 6 The reorganisation of examinations (ii)
Chapter 7 The Inspectorate

Part III Curriculum
Chapter 8 The curriculum in general
Chapter 9 Physical education
Chapter 10 Religious education
Chapter 11 English
Chapter 12 History
Chapter 13 Geography
Chapter 14 Mathematics
Chapter 15 Natural science
Chapter 16 Modern languages
Chapter 17 Classics
Chapter 18 Art, music, handicrafts
Chapter 19 Domestic subjects
Chapter 20 Education for commerce
Chapter 21 Wales and the teaching of Welsh

Conclusions and recommendations
Appendix A Note on the Central Welsh Board
Appendix B List of witnesses
Index

Report of the Committee of the Secondary School Examinations Council appointed by the President of the Board of Education in 1941

London: HM Stationery Office 1943

Chapter 11 English
[pages 91 - 98. In the printed version this is Part III Chapter IV]

In an earlier section the supreme importance of English has been stressed: it has been regarded as an element of education which is of vital importance to all subjects and should be the concern of all teachers. In this section we develop our views upon English, and we shall begin by distinguishing two senses in which we shall use the word.

(i) By English we mean in the first instance training in the comprehension and arrangement and expression of ideas, and the chief objective of the training is clarity - clarity in presenting the idea to oneself, and in presenting it to others and in arranging it in relation to other ideas similarly presented. English in this sense lies behind all subjects, for in them the logical arrangement and the clear expression of ideas are demanded, in them and through them such training is given. For the most part such training properly takes place through the medium of the mother tongue, and English in the broad sense lies behind the exchange of question and answer in any lesson conducted orally, behind the history essay, the geography note, the description of a scientific experiment, the oral or written translation of a foreign language, behind acting and repetition, the reading of the lesson and the debating and literary societies. The usual subjects of the curriculum offer ample material and opportunity for training in English in this sense, even if further and special opportunities were not provided in English lessons.

(ii) In addition, as a specific subject in the curriculum, English involves

(a) further training in the use of the English language, usually undertaken by means of exercises in composition and essay writing, the teaching of formal grammar, and the study of prose passages;

(b) the study of English literature.

As has been said in an earlier section, in the course of our enquiries we have been furnished with much evidence on results of English teaching in Secondary Schools and the varying competence of the Secondary School pupil in English. This evidence comes from many varied quarters; it is backed with authority and experience, and is entitled to very serious consideration. It frequently pays tribute to the efforts of English teachers, and yet it contains severe criticism of the way in which the Secondary School pupil uses his own language. Briefly the criticism is this, that too many boys and girls after leaving the Secondary School show themselves deficient in ability to master the thought of a passage or chapter and to express their ideas in writing or orally with precision and clarity.

Now it is easy to expect too much from the 16 or 17 year old boy or girl, to generalise from a few instances and to forget or minimise what actually is being accomplished. Yet, after making all allowances and recognising the efforts of the schools, we are impressed with the weight and volume of the indictment, and we have searched for the causes and the remedies; for, if true, the criticism exposes a severe weakness in education which cannot be suffered to persist. We put forward the following reflections on the causes of this weakness.

(i) There has been a very marked tendency for the teaching of each subject to be placed in the hands of specialists devoting all or most of their time to that subject. This tendency, combined with the increased emphasis placed upon English in the curriculum, has led to the appointment of English teachers devoting all or most of their time to the subject in periods specially set aside for that purpose. Now this tendency has brought certain gains: English has won recognition in the curriculum: close attention has been paid to the purposes of its teaching and much thought given to method. But it may also have brought disadvantages; teachers of other subjects have been tempted to feel that, since English was now the responsibility of others more skilled than themselves, their obligation in this respect now lay more lightly upon them and they were free to devote themselves to the special needs of their own subject and the examination requirements. A pupil might then well feel that, since English was the special province of the English teacher, he was not called upon to expend the same effort upon the English of work submitted to other teachers. The further result has been a disposition to regard attention to English as something to be turned on when a specific limited purpose was in view, as, for example, an English essay, or the satisfaction of particular teachers who happened to be 'faddy' about English. English then becomes something to be added or withheld at will and not regarded as inherent and of the greatest moment in all expression of ideas, no matter what the subject.

(ii) In the second place English has come to be too closely associated with (a) the study of literary texts and (b) the essay.

(a) In the study of great literature, more especially in what is called imaginative literature, too much attention has been paid to aspects which are of secondary importance and the higher values have been obscured. The values with which the teaching of English literature is concerned are final and absolute: they cannot be broken down into constituent parts: they are beyond analysis and wait upon the appreciative powers of the pupil, which are to some extent beyond the help of the teacher. It is true that in literature natural gifts can be trained or strengthened, but they cannot be newly created or enhanced beyond a certain point. Since the values are of this kind, it is impossible, at least at this stage, to test a pupil's appreciation of them by means of an external examination. Hence there is a temptation, difficult to resist, to treat of secondary aspects of the books which are being read. For example, a teacher may study the way in which an author treats his theme in comparison with the way in which other writers treat their theme; he may examine logical structure or interpret passages through consideration of vocabulary and allusions. These are desirable methods in the right circumstances; the danger is that examination in English literature almost inevitably leads to overemphasis on this kind of treatment in circumstances in which it is not suitable. An effect of such emphasis is that pupils tend to regard the study of books within the canon of English literature as a special study of its own, unrelated to English in its other senses, and once this artificial distinction is set up the subject of English literature does not exert the influence which it should upon the pupil's use of English. The right method in a given case depends on the book read, on the teacher and the pupil; different books call for different methods, and different teachers would approach the same book in different ways; a method suitable for one class would not be the best for another. The personality of the teacher is in the last resort a decisive influence, both for the interpretation and for the appreciation of a book. We think therefore that at school English literature can be studied successfully only when there is freedom given for the 'variables' of which we have spoken - the teacher, the book under study and the pupil - to be adjusted to each other in the most appropriate way. And that right adjustment cannot be dictated in advance; it is discovered during the process of teaching and learning.

To sum up, we take the view that from its own nature the teaching of English literature is limited as regards objective and method in a particular way; it is dependent upon special qualities in teacher and pupil and upon a special relation between them; it is concerned often with what is past analysis or explanation, and with values which must be caught rather than taught. If English literature is made the subject of direct frontal attack, the value of the teaching is destroyed. When, in the interest of training in the English language, it is so attacked, the purpose neither of the teaching of English literature nor of training in the English language is achieved.

The case is otherwise with the training in the study and practice of the English language. Opportunities for such training are provided in the teaching of almost every subject and they can be turned to advantage by any teacher. Direct and frontal attack can be made, for no gift other than that possessed by every grammar school pupil need be presupposed. Success in this larger field of the use of English is not dependent upon success within the more definite field of English literature. While it is desirable that enjoyment of English literature should be fostered in as many pupils, as possible, it is essential that every pupil should be trained to understand his own language and to use it with ease and correctness, both in speech and in writing. This training has a wider objective than the study of English literature as such; and for many, if not most, students at the school stage, it is much the more important.

(b) The practice of essay writing, in the form which it often takes, has had a harmful influence on the development of the power to write naturally and effectively. Whatever else is necessary to it, good writing, we feel, must spring from a desire to say something; it must proceed with a superabundance rather than with a dearth of something to say, and it must have within itself a clear purpose other than that of fulfilling an imposed task. But, as we shall show later, these conditions are by no means always satisfied, and there is a danger that the essay may be detached from the circumstances which alone can give it reality and may thus become an artificial exercise. The influence of the essay when so treated has been harmful; it has created in the minds of many pupils an unnatural habit of thought and expression, and this, because it is unnatural, proves of little value for meeting those occasions in later employment or further study on which a plain connected piece of writing for a specific purpose is required.

We pass now to the practical remedies which we propose; they are dictated to us by the distinction which we draw between the purposes and methods of training in the study and use of the English language and the purposes and methods of the reading of English literature.

(i) We would insist once again on the need for every teacher to realise that he is a teacher of English in so far as his subject gives opportunity. It is not only the contribution which he can make by insisting upon correctness and clearness in the written work shown up to him or in the oral replies to his questions that counts; the fact that he, a teacher of natural science or geography, should value these things has a powerful moral effect, and brings home to the pupil that his use of English is of universal concern in any relationship upon which he may enter.

(ii) All subjects offer scope for training of this kind, but some more than others, since they give more frequent opportunity for the writing or speaking of English. We would lay special responsibility in the matter of English upon teachers taking such subjects, and would urge upon them the truism that the values of English are more important in the long run than the specific values of those subjects, though clearly those subjects make their own contribution to English.

(iii) We would go further than this and would urge that, especially in the lower forms, English and one or more subjects, particularly the so-called English subjects, should be in the hands of the same teacher. The direct attack upon English should for the most part spring from the reading of books, read primarily for what they say rather than for the way in which they say it; it does not matter whether these books are taken from the so-called 'subjects' of travel, or natural history, or geography or history or whatever it may be; our point is that training in English needs a subject matter and a motive, and we regard it as essential that part at least of the subject matter and the motive should derive from a source other than a self-contained study of English. For the fourth and fifth forms there are numerous prose books which can be systematically taught and which are not only worth intensive study but cannot properly be treated in any other way; such books therefore offer excellent material for the training necessary at this stage. Whatever else is undertaken, one book of this kind should always be under study; it should be reasonably difficult, its contents should be mastered; it should be the basis of thorough and methodical exercises and tests, and from it should spring much of the work in composition.

We think then that our purpose will best be carried out if the master charged with main responsibility for the training of a form in the study and practice of the English language has in his hands other subjects than English. Besides the intensive study of a text described in a previous paragraph, he should encourage extensive reading in whatever field most appeals to individual pupils; for this purpose he will need the resources of a good library and should study the ways in which its use may be developed.

(iv) Fourthly, we would invite the earnest attention of all teachers to the importance of giving full opportunity to their pupils to hear English spoken, whether in drama or speeches or in reading aloud by a master in the classroom, and to utter English themselves, whether in acting, or in debating society or discussions or reading aloud, or saying passages learnt by heart, or lectures given by pupils in the classroom or in societies. They must gain experience at school in framing sentences and speaking them, they must get the 'feel' of correct English on their tongue, they must be accustomed to utter in the presence of others and to frame consecutive sentences aloud. To good and constant oral work in the classroom large classes admittedly present an obstacle, but not such as to preclude it altogether. A high standard of reading aloud can be established in a school and can become so powerful a tradition that boys themselves will become the severest critics of slovenly or inaudible reading; inter-form competitions, dramatic performances and debates all contribute to this end; and the important thing is that pupils should hear good reading and should be placed in a position to be sound judges of it.

There has recently been a considerable growth of interest in speech training. But, whether this term is used improperly to denote the treatment of such defects as lisping or lalling [imperfect pronunciation of r] or stammering, or more correctly a training in the controlled use of the breathing and vocal apparatus with a view to producing speech sounds for the highly trained specialist, it is not as yet practicable to propose that every school should have such an expert on its staff, and, if it were, there would be a danger that what should be the concern of every teacher might become the jealously guarded province of one.

We content ourselves with recording our belief that no school is doing its duty by the community which does not do everything in its power to bring its pupils to use such speech that everything they say can be easily apprehended in any part of the country. We have in mind mainly the correction of faulty vowel sounds and slovenly articulation, and we hold that the aim proposed can be achieved without complete stereotyping of the spoken word, and that it does not follow that dialect (whatever may be understood by that word) will be extinguished, even though the man who uses one speech in his native town or family circle may be using another when he is addressing strangers.

There is one further point which must be mentioned here. It is demonstrably easier to train children in certain habits of speech at an early than at a later age. Again it is not clear why only pupils in grammar schools should enjoy such benefits as can be conferred by training in speech. It is not within the scope of the present Report to suggest how responsibility in this matter should be divided between primary and secondary schools, but it seems incontrovertible that the former cannot divest themselves of responsibility.

(v) Fifthly, we would assert our belief that premature external examination of pupils at school in English literature is not only beset with every difficulty but is productive of much harm in its influence on the teaching of English literature and eventually upon English as a whole; and for that reason we would advise against any such form of examination. The teacher's success, we feel, can be gauged by himself or by one of his immediate colleagues who knows him well: but it is difficult, if not impossible, for the outside examiner to measure by standardised question papers anything but the coarse fringe of so sensitive and elusive a thing as successful literary teaching. The external examiner is therefore compelled to give disproportionate attention to what he can measure and to test this measurable element in ways which are readily standardised. The teachers then cannot help turning their attention to matters of secondary importance, such as structural analysis or historical commentary; yet neither analytical nor historical method can reach the heart of a great book, whether poetry, drama, fiction or essay.

Released from the necessity of embarking upon literary study with his pupils in such a way as will yield measurable results, the teacher would be free to revert to his real work, which is, quite simply, the reading of good books with his pupils; indeed we wish that this simple notion of 'reading' could replace in many minds the more pretentious and often harmful idea of 'literature'. He will choose books which are worth reading and he will read them with his pupils because they could not read them without help. Whether results can be measured or not will not concern him; the real test of his success is one which, from its nature, cannot be applied: it is to be found in the desire of the pupil to read more. Moreover the teacher will be free to relate the teaching of composition to his treatment of the books under study and to adjust such teaching to the capacities and interests of his pupils.

(vi) Finally, we come to the equipment of the teacher which will best fit him for the kind of attack upon the subject which we have in view.

It is obvious that a degree in English has certain advantages and many teachers possessing such a degree have been conspicuously successful; they have given special thought to aim and method and have established the subject on a firm footing. Nevertheless we do not regard such a qualification as indispensable. For example, a teacher who has read Classics or modern languages can be and often is an excellent teacher of English.

We emphasise this view because we have been at pains in this chapter to point out the dangers of too technical or specialist approach to the subject and to urge that as regards one part of its field English is of universal concern.

We think that our ends will best be served by fitting more teachers to teach more subjects than English, and for this purpose the general honours degree in three subjects or a degree involving English and advanced work in some other subject should be of great value. Teachers so qualified will be enabled by sympathy and equipment to make those contacts with English through other subjects which give added reality and naturalness to the study of the mother tongue, and through English itself to bring to bear upon other subjects power of comprehension and standards of expression.

Further, we would urge that, in the course of training of teachers in university training departments and in training colleges, the elements and the objectives of the methods of training pupils in the study and practice of the English language should receive at least as much stress as the aims and methods of the specialist subject in which the teacher's main qualification lies. We urge this because our plea, that English in the broad sense is the concern of all teachers, is not likely to result in the revolution in attitude which is essential to better teaching unless their responsibility in the matter is brought home to students in training, and unless they are so equipped as to feel some confidence in undertaking this vital element in their work.