EIS tells Mike Russell to drop Scots question

By CHRIS MARSHALL

EDUCATION secretary Mike Russell was urged yesterday to reverse a controversial decision to include a compulsory question on Scottish texts in the Higher English examination taken every year by thousands of schoolchildren.

Under plans put forward by the Scottish Government and endorsed by the Makar (Scotland's poet laureate Liz Lochhead, every pupil sitting the exam from 2014 "will answer at least one question" on a Scottish novel, play or poem.

But teachers meeting at the annual meeting of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS in Dundee yesterday backed a motion calling for the idea to be scrapped, describing the plans as "nothing to do with education".

The vote by Scotland's largest teaching union comes just days before a crucial meeting of the Scottish Qualifications Authority to discuss which Scottish texts would be on an official list. A list of more than 160 texts drawn up by Alan Riach, professor of Scottish Literature at Glasgow University, is also about to be published.

Allan Crosbie, an English teacher from Edinburgh, said that although the profession had no issue with teaching Scottish texts, the government's plans were restrictive.

He said: "The problem, and where most English teachers would disagree with Liz Lochhead and Mike Russell, is the diktat that it will now be a requirement to answer an exam question on at least one of these texts.

"The diktat has flawed educational thinking at its heart and is completely contrary to the spirit of the new curriculum. Rather than trusting teachers to be creative, risk-taking and autonomous, this diktat sought to impose what [former EIS general secretary] Ronnie Smith said at the time was a political direction on what is taught in our schools and that will result in limiting and narrowing what teachers do.

"I want to believe that Mike Russell's decision was made for the best of motives, but it will end up doing the opposite of what was intended. Instead of opening up diversity, enriching children's learning, it will close it off and narrow it. If only Mike Russell had talked to English teachers, this situation could have been avoided. "

Alan Janeczko, a science teacher from East Dunbartonshire, added: "This idea has nothing to do with education and more to do with someone in the Scottish Government being carried along on a wave of nationalistic fervour. I'm not sure this is being done for sound educational reasons."

The EIS motion, which was backed overwhelmingly, called on the Scottish Government, SQA and Education Scotland to revoke the decision.

Currently students have the option of answering a question on a Scottish text, however the new measure will make it compulsory. The announcement, made in January to coincide with Burns Night, confirmed the government's acceptance of the recommendation from the Scottish Studies Working Group, which was aimed at ensuring future generations of Scots grow up with an understanding of their culture and literary heritage. At the time, Russell said: "Our country has a rich and world-renowned literary tradition. Scotland's contribution to literature is marked down the generations and we want our children and young people to have the chance to learn about our literary tradition and to inspire the future generations of Scottish writers. "

The list compiled by Riach, and to be published by Perspectives magazine, includes well-known Scottish writers and more obscure texts dating back centuries. Riach says the list is necessary because Scottish literature has been so neglected. "Until recently, fine teachers might introduce Scottish literature to schoolchildren with deep knowledge and contagious enthusiasm but the provision in schools was entirely optional. Many other teachers might have no interest in teaching the literature of the country and have not been required to do so.

"The new directive could thus be welcomed as a wonderful opportunity or it might be resisted as an imposition."

In compiling the list, Riach claims "literary quality comes first. Then, aye, indeed, I'd want to say that the experience of women as much as that of men should be there, and that there should obviously be full acknowledgement of the languages in which Scottish literature has been composed – pre-eminently Gaelic, Scots and English. "

James Robertson, twice-winner of the Saltire Prize for Literature, praised Riach's list, saying: "This kind of narrative has been mostly lacking in the teaching of Scottish literature and it's a highly commendable corrective to the notion that occasionally, as if by accident, we produce a world-class writer like Burns or Scott or Spark. The Riach 'open canon' provides a context for those famous names. It is both comprehensive and open to challenge. It disputes negative attitudes to our culture but itself demands discussion and argument."

• Email to a friend
• Print this page

Comments

There are 68 comments to this article

Now – I currently give my vote to the party of government. I am also a supporter of Democratic Left Scotland who, I believe, are behind Alan Riach’s ‘Perspectives’ magazine. And I am a great believer in Scottish literature: it can stand up with the best of them and should be promoted more.

*But* I am not sure that I approve of the way this list is being used. Should my daughter be penalised if, in her Higher, she concentrates on Bulgakov, Fitzgerald, Wilde, Achebe, Baudillaire, Atwood (random, list from her bookshelf? I’ve been trying to get her to read Grey, McDiarmid and McCaig – well, I’m sure she’ll get around to them. No hurry.

Compare and contrast England. What do we think of a nation in which an Education Secretary believes, amongst other bonkers ramblings, that the history syllabus can be used to – he actually says this – ‘Promote British Identity’?

The list is doubtless well intentioned. Scottish literature – the Scottish literary identity, even – should be promoted. But the curriculum is not the place do it. Why? Because culture is a smorgasbord that we free to pile onto our plates any way we damn well please. Put Scottish books before us and we will *choose* to read them.

Just another example of the vested interests of the EIS. It seems they have no care for their members or their pupils just the Labour party. God help us all.

#65 – what ‘great’ literature is being ‘pushed out’? Aren’t kids incapable of learning about the literature of many nations including Scotland?

Walter Scott for example would be on the list come what may given his role in the development of the historical novel. However, pushing out great literature on grounds of not being Scottish enough simply so Liz Lochhead can get her books on school reading lists is very narrow.

Ensuring that Scottish schoolchildren get to study Scottish writers brings Scottish schools into line with English, Welsh and Northern Irish schools, where pupils have to study writers from their respective countries. Just like every other country on the planet. This level of hysteria does the Unionist cause no good whatsoever. Is it really to be believed that the only thing preserving the integrity of the UK is an institutionalised ignorance of Scottish literature? That if Scottish pupils ever read «The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie» or «The Testament of Gideon Mack» or «The Beach at Falesa», or the poetry of Carol Anne Duffy or Jackie Kay or John Burnside or Douglas Dunn, they’ll rush off and join the SNP? Get a grip. This is about letting school pupils see that their homes and communities and voices can produce literature, that they are allowed to take part. The EIS’s frankly disgraceful motion is an attempt to politicise good educational practice. They are the Scottish Cringe made flesh.

Reminds me of the indoctrination of Hitler Youth or the set texts of the early Chinese Communist revolution. Brrrr scary! !

A rich literary tradition doesn’t include such embarrassments as Liz Lochhead, who is so ingrained in the fabric of the establishment that she has now been sponsored by two political parties, and now gets a say in educational diktat for her subservience to whatever class struggle, or nationalistic struggle asked of her by the government. Tolstoy, Orwell, Dostayevski, Fritzgerald, Bulgakov, Shakespeare, Burns, et al would be laughing their bums off at her=————————————–Well Said Tin MAn

Surely it’s about the balance of the curriculum. Our young people should have thechance to study the literature of Scotland, literature from the English speaking world and other world literature as part of a broad and general education. Surely 25% weighting on a mandatory Scottish question is entirely reasonable. There’s already a compulsory Scottish dimension in the history syllabus (and most countries worldwide will have similar weighting of at least 25% In a modern national curriculum I think 25% compulsory study is very enlightened. Teachers down south would give their eye teeth to work in such a minimally prescriptive context when they have Michael Gove imposing all sorts of dubious curricular schemes on learners and teachers. Teachers should be very careful what they wish for and support and champion the distinctiveness of Scottish education because the Gove alternative is neither optional nor educationally sound.

Aye, even Homebase at Robroyston is full of signs showing some dead language or other!

Part of the nauseating SNP agenda to tartanise everything. Almost annoying as arriving at Haymarket to see it in Gaelic. Russell is an oaf and the public should be very worried about a curriculum that has to self declare itself as excellent!

Wardog wrote: deny their students the opportunity to learn from Scotland’s rich literary heritage

No where in this article does it say or infer this!

The usual kneejerk reaction when anybody critisises the sycophant members of Salmonds One Man One Vision party!

Scottish Teachers of today have never been in a more prominent, influential role where their students are concerned. Therefore, to hear that they, collectively are so closed in their approach as to deny their students the opportunity to learn from Scotland’s rich literary heritage. I am appalled! Could it be that they are so comfortable that having to learn and teach something DIFFERENT is too much like hard work.

The problem with compulsory teaching of » scottishness» in any part of the curriculum, not just English, is a worry for all teachers in Scottish schools. Our job is to educate and open minds to free thinking. When our politicians get carried away by their nationalist fervour, they are blind to the dangers of forcing a narrower view of the world that Scotland will always be part of. CfE is supposed to give teachers the freedom to deliver their subject without unneccessary constraints. Let teachers decide whether they would like their students to study the work of artists, writers, scientists et al, regardless of nationality. Teachers are capable of doing this. Education quickly becomes indoctrination if politicians, of any hue, are allowed to meddle. Education is always with us. Politicians, thankfully, are not.

#50 – if you can do better, why are you posting here then?

– As someone who got his fill of anything but Scotland’s history and literature, its high time we gave kids our own. Pupils can easily handle learning Scots stuff and that of other nations, its just those with political axes to grind who see it otherwise.

Tin Man #16 ,,,,,,,Thanks for remndindng me of the enforced Scottsh Country Dancing……I was in therapy for years after that.

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.

<!

Читать полностью или написать коммент.. Про установку спутниковых тарелок в Московской областиhttp://tarelka-tv.ru/