Response by the Committee for Linguistics in Education to the 1993 Revised Proposals for the English National Curriculum Introduction The Committee for Linguistics in Education is jointly sponsored by the British Association for Applied Linguistics and the Linguistics Association of Great Britain. Its members include representatives from these two bodies, people co-opted for their experience in the field of language in education, and representatives from the following organisations, which between them cover a wide range of aspects of English and language teaching: The Centre for Infonnation on Language Teaching and Research The College of Speech and Language Therapists The National Association of Advisers in English The National Association for the Teaching of English The National Council for Mother Tongue Teaching The United Kingdom Reading Association Members of the Committee prepared written responses to the Revised Curriculum, which were fully and carefully discussed at a meeting of the Committee. The following points very briefly summarise the Committee's views. 1 The revision goes way beyond its terms of reference, which required the identification of 'those aspects of the Order which call for greater precision and clarity' (1993: 72). It is so different that it constitutes a new rather than a revised curriculum. Unlike the Cox Report, it lacks any explicit rationale for its structure and content. 2 In the removal or drastic reduction of material on knowledge about language, media studies, drama, and information technology, and in the failure to acknowledge a multilingual, multicultural dimension within our society, the revised proposals offer a narrowed and impoverished curriculum. 3 Heedless of the Secretary of State's admonition to 'avoid over-prescription' (1993: 72), the proposals are directive in tone and over-prescriptive towards both teachers and pupils. To take just one example from many: Six-year-old pupils "should be taught to distinguish between the essential and less important when speaking" (1993:10) 4 The structure of the existing curriculum has been damaged by .the incorporation of spelling and handwriting into Attainment Target 3 (Writing), which gives these skills undue significance in the determination of a child's achievement in writing. Spelling, handwriting and composition are logically independent abilities which need to be assessed independently if pupils are to be credited with the correct level of achievement in each. 5 The revised proposals reveal no informal sense of the processes of language development in the child. For example, teachers are required to teach children to speak in standard English from the age of five, and to assess their spoken language in terms of the conventions of standard English at the end of Key Stage 1 (age seven). This means that pupils are expected to speak standard English before they are reading or writing fluently, yet the best way for those who speak non-standard English at home to make the forms of standard English their own is by reading and writing extensively. (This developmental principle was made explicit in the Cox Report). A further example can be found in the failure to recognise 'developmental spelling', ie the movement towards correct spelling through increasingly close approximation as successive spelling rules are mastered. In contrast, the existing curriculum allows credit at level 2 for 'good errors'. 6 The revised proposals reveal misunderstandings of the nature of language in a number of respects, egs: (i) The definition of standard English as 'the correct use of vocabulary and grammar' (1993: 9) is circular since 'correctness' here can only be understood by reference to standard English. (ii) The pervasive emphasis in the Speaking and Listening Attainment Target on the conscious manipulation of language forms (eg 'Pupils should be taught: to take account of different audiences... varying structure; to use logical and effective word order; in formal contexts... to use greater precision in language structures') displays the erroneous assumption that the production processes of writing apply to spontaneous speech. (iii) Grammatical features are selected for inclusion in a fairly arbitrary way (eg 'correct plurals', 'adjectives and adverbs'). Some of these features misrepresent the grammar of English; for example, by the end of Key Stage 2 pupils' speech should include 'consistent use of verb tenses'. Use of tenses needs to be appropriate rather than consistent, as it can be perfectly acceptable to use different tenses within the same sentence (eg The train left on time but it is running late and will arrive at 8:00pm). (iv) The heavy focus on some aspects of sentence-level grammar means that insufficient weight is given to other important aspects of language, such as the structure of whole texts. 7 The revised proposals do not take proper account of either the function of language or its social significance. For example: (i) The emphasis in the Speaking and Listening Attainment Target is heavily on language forms rather than on meaning or communicative effectiveness. (ii) The requirement to speak standard English by the end of Key Stage 1 does not recognise the difficulty for those who come from homes and communities where standard English is neither used nor accepted of adopting a different speech style. (iii) Some of the proposals would lead to socially unacceptable interactions between teacher and pupil. For example, at level 2 'pupils should be taught to incorporate relevant detail into what they are saying'. What is relevant to the teacher is not necessarily relevant to the pupil at this age, and vice versa. Conclusion The Committee for Linguistics in Education believes that, in almost every aspect, the revised proposals are less satisfactory than the existing Order. In view of the fact that there is to be a thorough review of the whole National Curriculum, including the framework of levels and the structure of assessment, we urge that the revised proposals be set aside until a full and properly-informed re-evaluation of the whole Curriculum has been completed. . Professor Katharine Perera Department of Linguistics, University of Manchester for The Committee for Linguistics in Education July 1993