Curriculum to enforce standard English

AN EXTENSIVE review of the national curriculum for English will tighten up requirements on the teaching of reading, grammar, and spelling, and the study of classic literature.

The National Curriculum Council proposed yesterday that primary school teachers be legally required to use phonics and graded reading schemes, to ensure a balanced mix of methods for pupils learning to read.

The council will also either prescribe a list of set works or authors to which all school pupils should be introduced, or provide examples of periods and genres - as in the art and music curriculum - to guide teachers on the range of works which should be covered.

David Pascall, chairman, insisted that the council was not attempting to swing English teaching in either a more traditional or progressive direction: it wanted to build on improvements made since the national curriculum was implemented three years ago. Changes would concentrate on make the curriculum more 'explicit and rigorous'.

One of the most controversial proposals is that there should be a statutory definition of 'standard English' - which Mr Pascall summarised as 'grammatically correct English spoken in any accent'.

Many teachers consider the notion of 'correctness' in English to be offensive to regional dialect speakers and ethnic minorities. Mr Pascall accepted that many teachers want a settled period after their

efforts to

introduce the English curriculum. But John Patten, Secretary of State for Education, immediately endorsed the council's review proposals. 'The sooner children master the basic skills and become confident users of standard English, the sooner they can benefit from the other subjects taught in the curriculum, and the sooner too they can start . . . to enjoy the pleasures and rewards of our literature,' he said.

He said the review should be completed by next February, followed by consultation. The revised English curriculum for 5 to 14-year-olds would be introduced in September 1994, and a year later for 14 to 16-year-olds.

Anne Barnes, the general secretary of the National Association for the Teaching of English, said: 'Teachers will feel confused and disappointed that changes are going to be made and the ground will shift from under their feet again.' Professor Brian Cox, chairman of the working party which mapped out the curriculum and Professor of English Literature at Manchester University, thought a major review was unnecessary: changes would lose the goodwill of teachers. He feared the review was more politically than educationally motivated.

David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, commented: 'I think the National Curriculum Council should seriously ask itself how it can face the teaching profession and parents. The council is becoming more and more the poodle of a centralised government.'