The year 1919 saw the publication of The Teaching of English in Schools, the proceedings from perhaps the then largest ever gathering of English teachers in England who met at a conference in Reading organised by the English Association (EA). Coming just after the end of the Great War that ravaged Europe, the consensus is that the 'creative spirit' (Sharwood Smith in EA, 1919: 30) is fundamental both for the growth of 'the true self of the child' (ibid) and the common good. It argues that an English education comprising an empathetic reading of literature, encouragement to enjoy experimenting with language, and the development of their written and spoken expression, enables pupils to 'develop humanity' (Chairman in EA, 1919:3): accordingly, English was viewed as the primary means of ultimately maintaining the peace. Further, it was recognised that English had been voted the world language by the Northern Peace Union after World War I (Newbolt: 1921) and thus English educators had responsibilities on an international level as well as a national.
Seventy years later, in 1989, the first English National Curriculum (NC) was launched (Cox, 1989). The English orders are prefaced with a rich discussion on what English education is for and of what it should consist. Prominent within this is the importance of English 'in a European context' (1989: 58), with reference both to English as an international language of commerce and the role of English in fostering 'inter-cultural contact within the European community' (ibid) through celebrating language within this 'richer linguistic and cultural context' (ibid). In parallel with the EA publication, the NC argues that the two complementary purposes of English are, first to develop the individual child and, second, to prepare her for the adult world. It promotes an English education in which creative approaches are used to support the development of knowledge and skills, facility with and enjoyment of language, empathy and understanding.
Now, in 2019, we have the seventh iteration of the NC (QCA, 2014). Within the English orders can be found absolutely no reference to the role of language in international relations. In a narrowing of literary options, the English literary heritage is promoted at the expense of texts written by international authors (whether in English or in translation). There is a heavy emphasis on acquiring knowledge and on grammar and accuracy; all references to creativity (and any word containing the 'create' root) have disappeared. At the time of writing, Britain is torn with debates about Brexit and its place in the wider world: in tune with the theme of this conference, it is a time of national risk.
This paper examines the three documents summarised above in depth, focusing on their explicit and implicit messages about the role of school English. It explores to what extent there is a correlation between how the various English curricula position the role of English in an international context and how they value creativity. Without wishing to over-simplify complex issues, it questions whether what happens in English classrooms contributes to English politics.
As an erstwhile English teacher and now English teacher educator working with early-career and established English teachers, and in addition being active within the National Association for the Teaching of English and promoting the work of the National Writing Project (NWP) through running the regional Teachers as Writers group, the paper builds upon my PhD thesis. Understanding the curricula of the past (particularly their positions on English within the international context) may help the English teachers of the future consider the type of English they wish to teach and how they wish to teach it.
