ASPECTS OF CHILDREN'S LANGUAGE IN NATIONAL CURRICULUM ENGLISH JOHN WILLIAMSON Doctor of Philosophy Department of Education , University of Newcastle upon Tyne 1997 NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ---------------------------- 097 Si I iS 5 ---------------------------- DECLARATION I declare that all the material in this thesis which is not my own has, to the best of my ability, been acknowledged. The material in the thesis has not been submitted previously by the author for a degree at this or any other university. Signed: /i.? .. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Tony Edwards for his wise advice on the preparation of this submission and Frank Hardman and Clare Woodall for being such excellent colleagues. A special thanks goes to Chris for her support, encouragement and gaffing. CONTENTS PAGES DOCTORAL STATEMENT 1-19 PAPERS A Vision for English: rethinking the revised National 20-30 Curriculum in the light of contemporary critical theory' English for the Twenty-first Century: 31-39 meeting the training needs of teachers Student Teachers and Models of English 40-54 Abridged Too Far: evidence from teachers against 55-69 the case for revising the Cox curriculum Time for Refilling the Rath?: a study of primary 70-88 student-teachers' grammatical knowledge Canny Writers: Tyneside dialect and the writing 89-99 of secondary school students Those Terrible Marks of the Beast: non-standard 100-113 dialect and children's writing To Purify the Dialect of the Tribe: children's use 114-126 of non-standard dialect grammar in writing LIST OF SUBMITTED PUBLICATIONS 127-128 CO-AUTHORSHIP FORMS 129-143 EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO PUBLISH 144-148 WORKS IN PRESS APPENDIX 1: "Divven't Write That, Man": the influence of 149-159 Tyneside dialect forms on children's free writing APPENDIX 2: An Extra Radiator? Teachers'views of support 160-172 teaching and withdrawal in developing the English of bilingual pupils DOCTORALSTATEMENT Introduction No subject in the National Curriculum has been the source of more controversy than English. It has been at the heart of fierce debates in the political arena, amongst the policy makers responsible for the National Curriculum, in the academic world and in the media. Underlying these arguments have been, on the one hand, an agreement that English is a subject of special importance in the curriculum and, on the other, often profound disagreements about what the nature of that subject ought to be. At the same time, there has been a tendency for policy to be made without referenceto evidence about the necessity,the feasibility or even the desirability of the proposals being put forward. In the main, the work presented in this submission provides evidence relevant to the National Curriculum for English as it has developed over the last six years. The coherence of this submission springs from two sources. There is, first, an overarching concern with the subject English and with what that subject might consist of. This has involved both exploring the underlying bases of National Curriculum English and also providing a knowledge base relevant to testing the often unsubstantiated assertions about the more linguistic ally oriented elements of the curriculum, particularly in relation to standard English and the teaching of grammar. Secondly, underlying all the work is a firmly held belief in the importance of language as a field of study worthy of engagement because of its centrality to human experience. As Descartes noted in 1637, 'It is a very remarkable fact that there are none so depraved and stupid, without even excepting idiots, that they cannot arrange different words together, forming of them a statement by which they make known their thoughts; while. on the other hand, there is no animal, however perfect 1 and fortunately circumstancedit May be, which can do the same.' Underlying all the work presentedhere is the conviction that it is of the utmost importance that the pupils in our schools are provided with appropriate opportunities to develop to the greatestextent possible their understanding of the language which will be an integral part of so much of their experienceof life. The original version of the National Curriculum for English met with general approv: il amongst teachers of English for reasons which are well encapsulated by Minns and Dombey (1988) in their commentary on it (DES, 1988). They found the report 'reassuringbecause it'recognises and builds on existing takes issues good practice ... a clear stand on multicultural ...puts good literature heart English teaching dialects at the of ...respects non-standard and non-standard dialect users...reconciles the role of education in promoting personal development with its function in preparing children for living and in democracy to drama, working a ...pays significant attention media studies and information technology. 'Not all of these points of commendation are literature uncontroversial in themselves - in particular the emphasis on 'good' being at the heart of English is challenged by papers in the present submission (for a fuller discussion of the extensive literature on this topic than is possible here see Davies, 1989 and 1992). Yet the National Curriculum Council, even when arguing the case for revision concedes that'the English Order has made a significant contribution to English teaching and that it is supported by "Wny teachers'(NCC, 1992, p2) (my italics). The same document (p4) iterates a view of the importance of standard English wl-dch is central to much of the researchpresented here: 2 'The phrase'standard English'refers to the grammatically correct language used in formal communication throughout the world. To become competent users of standard English, pupils need to be taught to recogniseits characteristicsand the rules which govern its usage. The one explicit referenceto standard English in the statementsof attainment [in the original National Curriculum] focuseson the need to develop'an awarenessof grammatical differences býtween spoken standard English and a non-standard variety' (level 6). This is not the same thing as being able to use standard English in conversation and will not necessarilyencourage pupils to speak clearly, accurately and confidently. There is a case,therefore, for strengthening the references to the mastery of standard English in the statementsof attainment and programmes of study, and, more specifically, for requiring children to use standard English before level 5. Theserequirements need to be based on a clear definition of standard English.' I have quoted this paragraph in its entirety becauseit exemplifies some of the woolly thinking and misinformation which were current at the time it was published. The equation of standard English with 'grammatically correct language',the assumption that there is one world-wide standard English, the idea that explicit knowledge of the grammatical rules of a dialect is a prerequisite for speaking or writing in that dialect, the linking of speaking in standard English with'speaking clearly, accurately and confidently' - all these throw into doubt the writers' level of sociolinguistic knowledge. The paragraph was taken from the section on speaking and listening; in contrast,the sectionson writing and 'Knowledge about language and the teaching of spelling and grammar' (pp 6-7 and 7-8) are surprisingly reticent about standard English. There may be two reasonsfor this. In the first place, 3 the National Curriculum Council is concernedhere to proffer the casefor National Curriculum for English revising the original and that curriculum English in in gave much more emphasis to standard writing than speechand so may not have been felt to be in great need of change. Further, the paper doesstress the importance of writing grammatically (NCC, 1992,pp 6,7,8and 12) and since writing in standard English and writing grammatically were taken to be one and the same thing, it appeared that no more need be said. By Septemberof the following year, it was clear that there was a need to spell out the place of standard English more explicitly. The National Curriculum Council's Consultation Report (NCC, 1993) devotes a whole page to it as a preamble to attainment targets and programmes of study: 'All pupils need to be able to speak, write and read standard English fluently and accurately (NCC, 1993,p 15).' It is not explained why pupils can get by without listening to standard English. Although the Note on Standard English (p16) shows someawareness of such factors as linguistic change over time, differences between spoken and written language and the distinction between accent and dialect, there is still a tendency to view standard English from a highly prescriptive viewpoint: 'Core grammatical features of Standard English include subject verb agreement,correct and consistentuse of verb tenses,correct use of pronouns, adverbs and adjectives.In spoken Standard English significant features are standard forms of irregular verbs; agreement between person, caseand number (especially with the verb 'to be'); the correct use of pronouns' (NCC, 1993,p 16). Apart from the naivet6 implicit in, for example, the assumption that non- standard dialects do not feature subject-verbconcord, the recurrent 4 associationof 'standard' and 'correct' makes for a very narrow view of what constitutes English as a languagewhich is not corrected by the arguably tokenistic statement that'The richnessof dialects and languagesin England and Wales can contribute to pupils' understanding and knowledge of language'(p 16). Parallel to