At the end of May, Ofsted published its research review for English.
In it, the inspectorate set out the national context in relation to English, summarised the review of research into factors that can affect the quality of education in English, and considered curriculum progression in English, pedagogy, assessment and the impact of school leaders’ decisions on provision.
Here, English specialists, from across the subject and at different stages of their career, highlight some concerns they have with the document.
Ofsted’s research review for English: teachers’ reactions
‘This report should be withdrawn and rewritten’
Elizabeth Draper, a trustee of the English Association, with contributions from others*, says:
The Ofsted research review for English has, so far, been met with an extremely negative response from right across the subject, in primary, secondary, further and higher education.
The early consensus is that it is a very poor report: poorly written, making poor use of the research, and with poor understanding of the complex issues at stake.
Teachers should feel that any research review has used sound methods and been careful and even-handed in its treatment of research. However, in this case, teachers, advisers and academics have been amazed at the limited range and shallow depth of research.
The section on writing, for example, is based on the work of one US-based researcher, Steve Graham. Other research exists that contradicts his work, and yet this is not reflected in the report.
Other key research is also absent: Lucinda McKnight on the use of PEE (point, evidence, explanation) formulae, the work of Teresa Cremin on teachers as writers, and research by Myra Barrs on “Teaching Bad Writing” to give just a few examples.
The section on special needs is reduced to phonics and lacks attention to the importance of comprehension, composition and oral language development. And while there is a discussion on the influence of reading on writing, the review does not make it explicit that all writing begins with reading.
There is also little said about research on poetry and pedagogy, and practically nothing on the teaching of creative writing or on theories of reading. The section on assessment is thin and offers paltry examples, which reveal limited understanding of what formative assessment might entail.
The report is dominated by opinion and ideological preferences. For example, the section on defining kinds of knowledge in English offers one individual blogger’s approach, presented as a model for use in the classroom, rather than recognising that there are many other ways of representing knowledge in the subject in academic research.
The parameters of the report are set by the 2019 Education Inspection Framework, which means that the report over-emphasises research from cognitive science and psychology rather than recognising a broader set of equally (or perhaps more) important issues in teaching the subject, such as how English teachers develop reading skills of analysis, interpretation and criticism. Such skills are discipline-specific, and do not rely upon a simple model of knowledge reception and retention.
Overall, the report is confusing. The research is cherry-picked, sometimes misunderstood, taken out of context and occasionally drawn from problematic sources.
In our view, the report fails to represent the subject, its research and its development at this level. It does not seem to support the national curriculum and surely cannot lead the discipline.
If this report is to shape teaching, colleagues working across the English discipline should be very concerned. While different bodies and subject associations are preparing extensive responses, the early feedback suggests this report should be withdrawn and rewritten.
*Joe Barber, senior lecturer in English education, secondary PGCE assessment lead and subject pedagogy unit lead at Manchester Metropolitan University; Freddie Baveystock, teacher of English literature, Harris Westminster Sixth Form; Barbara Bleiman, editor of emagazine, education consultant, English and Media Centre; Professor Robert Eaglestone, professor of English at Royal Holloway, University of London, and author of Doing English.
More on teaching and learning:
‘The review shows contempt for students and teachers’
Joseph Minden, an early career teacher, says:
What strikes me most about Ofsted’s research review for English is the contempt for students’ capacity to communicate.
The review suggests that students need to be explicitly taught not only texts and techniques but also the very “structures of language that would allow effective communication”.
It’s as though the writers believe that pupils arrive at school utterly inexpressive, sealed off from the world around them. Their existing language is devalued. Subject knowledge is valuable in every classroom but the review’s insistence on its priority is brutal; it implies that effective communication is impossible without it.
The review argues against teaching texts that relate to students’ lives because it denies them access to canonical texts - it fears the “tyranny of relevance”.
It’s the other way around. English should be a subject in which all students are able to discover how their internal resources and existing knowledge can be brought to bear on any text, no matter how remote from their circumstances.
For this to be possible, the subject must recognise that, aside from disciplinary expertise, students have vast stores of experience that are integral to the work in hand.
The contempt extends to teachers. Educational values are out of the picture. What matters are “the most appropriate pedagogies for learning that particular content”. It feels, to me, like part of a longer-term project to conceal political goals behind the pseudo-neutrality of research; to consolidate reactionary reforms made to the curriculum and assessment with a chokehold on pedagogy. Don’t ask questions: this works.
Things come to a head in this dismal climactic sentence: “Teachers should be aware that novices may be less able to successfully produce their own meaningful responses without guidance.”
This is dripping with disdain - in the condescension of its modal verbs, in the patronising euphemism of “less able” and, above all, in the chilling presumption of that word “meaningful”. Meaningful, for what and for whom?
The review contains palatable shards: don’t teach GCSE texts in key stage 3, read whole books. But these are glimmers within a vision of a subject dulled and obscured, almost beyond recognition, by an overstuffed curriculum and punitive exams.
