Medidas de carácter general

At both Key Stage 3 and 4 teachers of English in England are required to teach literature and to teach texts which will support aspects of pupils’ academic development. Literature is explicitly mentioned at KS3 in:

Cultural understanding: Through English, pupils learn about the

great traditions of English literature and about how modern writers see the world today. Through the study of language and literature, pupils compare texts from different cultures and traditions. They develop understanding of continuity and contrast, and gain an appreciation of the linguistic heritages that contribute to the richness of spoken and written language. Comparing texts helps pupils to explore ideas of cultural excellence and allows them to engage with new ways in which culture develops. This also enables them to explore the culture of their society, the groups in which they participate and questions of local and national identity, for example by exploring regional and global variations in the way English is spoken. (2008, p.63)

Whose culture is not made explicit and whilst the admonition to place literature in the context of the local and national identity indicates a broader social view, nevertheless it is unclear what cultural excellence may mean; neither is the inference of ways in which culture may develop explained in more detail. It appears as though the teacher may make a judgement on this, however there is also institutional constraint ranging from internal interpretations of the curriculum, through statements of ethos, to budgetary restriction on the provision. Alia sunt tempora, alia mores: cultural expectations change across time and, as I demonstrated earlier, these are also reflected in curriculum imperatives.

In international anglophone curricula which include English Literature, the role of the gatekeeper is even more complex. It is only recently that the cultural and social implications of an English Literature syllabus in multicultural, multilingual

52 countries have been put under the spotlight (Dreher, 2003; Prinsloo, Janks, 2002; Locke, 2008; Paterson, 2008; Moumou, 2005; Macken-Horarik, Morgan, 2008; Lovell, 2004). It is a significant issue begging questions of historical colonial and imperial control and disempowerment of those not originally linked to an anglophone power structure; these are the outsiders in a struggle for cultural capital (p.229) referred to by McLean Davies et al (2013). Yandell (2008), Turvey and Yandell (2011) and Shah (2013) give pertinent reminders, important as curriculum iterations are under the spotlight in England, that the multicultural classroom is also a feature of classrooms in England and that the same struggle for cultural capital is being enacted here too. Whilst this debate in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia (Prinsloo, Janks, 2002; Locke, 2008; Paterson, 2008; by McLean Davies et al, 2013) has given rise to curricula which are broader based and less rooted in traditional, imperialist or colonial thinking about literature, this has not happened in new curriculum iterations in England. For example, currently the emphasis in the New Zealand Curriculum for English (2007) is on literature which will be inclusive for the Maori and Pasifika students in school. This is related to current cultural, social and historical concerns within New Zealand society. A similar pattern can be seen in new curriculum developments in Australia (ACARA, 2011). However, as Turvey and Yandell (2011) note, in England multicultural literature appears to have been marginalised into a mainly examination syllabus requirement and based nearly entirely on multicultural poetry.

In the KS3 NC for England, texts which may have influenced culture and thinking are explained as:

texts that are widely known, referred to and quoted, and have become part of the cultural fabric of society through their language and the way in which they present ideas, themes and issues. (p.68)

However, the meaning of the cultural fabric of society is less easy to identify in a diverse and multicultural nation, when injunctions such as these emanate from the policy-makers. On p.71 of the KS3 NC for English in England authors are suggested who represent the soi-disant literary heritage and another tranche of names considered appropriate for KS3 readers (11 – 14 years old). There is a preponderance of what have been termed dead, white (p.153) male authors

53 (Turvey and Yandell, 2011). This idea originated with Knox (1983) and, although somewhat derogatory, is nevertheless an essentially true summary of the coverage of the recommendations. There is no explanation of whence the literary heritage has come, nor of the pedagogic origin of the lists of suggested authors. In terms of the latter list, the authors of books for young people will not change for several years, thus not being responsive to new authors or movements. It is noteworthy that in both the KS3 and the KS4 NC for English, the author’s craft is explained in terms of linguistic use: sentence length, passive and active voice, modal verbs… Any discussion of why these features take precedence over other aspects of author’s craft such as ability to construct a strong narrative, characterisation, dialogue, for example, is absent.

Teachers may also, in the institutional context, be expected to use fiction to explore PSHE issues as part of a cross-curricular programme linked to the Big Picture (2010) in the UK. This may include using issues-based texts to explore aspects of Every Child Matters (ECM). This cross-curricular linking is also an expectation in the USA (Agee, 1999) and in NZ there is an understanding that fiction can be used in the classroom as a cultural reference (Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI), 2009). It is unclear how aspects of literary heritage or recommended authors apply to this aspect of text use.

It is also important to note that publishers and librarians are also key gatekeepers of the reading of young people.