The rewritten and much delayed syllabuses for English and English Literature, which the exam boards will release in response to the new criteria from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, are patiently - if not exactly keenly - awaited. It would seem that few English teachers were clamouring for change.

The new exam requirements will not be “syllabuses” but “specifications”. Apart from this freshly minted jargon it is not possible to be sure how the exam boards will reinterpret the new criteria, although it is clear that “clean texts” (not annotated rather than not smutty) and only board-approved editions will be allowed in the exam room; literary non-fiction will qualify for study as Literature and pre-1914 prose will no longer be required reading for English but will remain for Literature.

If the new specifications were to represent teachers’ preferences, what would they contain? English teachers with long memories still speak fondly of the golden days of 100 per cent coursework when thorough assessment coincided with effective teaching.

I think most English teachers know we shall not see those days again; and most also accept that many aspects of our teaching, especially regarding non-fiction texts, are now more rigorous than they were then.

Many teachers would welcome a choice between specifications geared to terminal exams and those based on a modular structure, so they can opt for the format most likely to motivate their particular pupils. It would also be interesting to see a media GCSE developed to run alongside an English GCSE and to allow for dovetailing of the courses and overlap of coursework.

Most teachers have developed their media analysis skills considerably over recent years and it is probably now time to study a moving image text.

When it comes to coursework, teachers like me dream of assignments that avoid being hugely demanding of class time while only carrying a couple of marks out of the total. It would be sensible to ditch the requirement for a hand-written assignment, which has resulted in bizarre requests to students to copy out word-processed documents by hand. Finally, I think the new literary non-fiction strand would best be studied as coursework, offering teachers the widest choice of texts.

The main changes:

* “clean texts” (not annotated) with only board-approved editions allowed in the exam room

* literary non-fiction to qualify for study as Literature

* pre-1914 prose no longer required for English Language, but remains for Literature.

See web: www.qca.org.uk

News in brief, p13

Elspeth Bain is head of English at Boldon School, South Tyneside. The views expressed are personal