For forty years or more, much of the discourse about poetry in education has constructed poetry teaching and learning as an especially difficult professional problem to be solved. The problem has been analysed in many different ways: as a product of inadequate teacher subject knowledge and pedagogical fear; as an inherent problem with poetry and a perception of its methods of meaning-making as elitist and alienating; as a problem of curriculum development, predicated on an inadequate selection of poems in relation to different ideas about relevance; and, in England, perhaps above all, as a problem of National Curriculum prescription. The problem with “the problem with poetry” is that the influential idea channelled research into what the cultural anthropologist Michel-Rolph Trouillot termed a “cultural slot”. In this space, he argued, the research domain becomes self-replicating, anatomising the problem within established terms, the roots of which are rendered opaque over time and historical agency overlooked. By this process, new research can only contribute to “morosely preserving the empty slot itself” (Trouillot 1991, 40). One might argue that the standard conception of the function of a literature review contributes to this dynamic. That is not to dismiss any of the excellent work that has been done to anatomise the challenges (and joys) of teaching poetry in different contexts, not least Margaret Mathieson’s article “The problem of poetry” () and Richard Andrews’ later book The Problem with Poetry (1991). Nor is it to question the ethical commitment of many researchers to developing first rate professional practice. Indeed, we have both written in different ways about “the problem of poetry” (Snapper 2013; Blake and Shortis 2010). For this special edition, however, we were keen to advance a research agenda that goes beyond this slot. We build, of course, on important work by others in our field. The ESRC funded Poetry Matters seminar series (2011–2012), led by Sue Dymoke, Anthony Wilson and Andrew Lambirth, resulted in two excellent books, Making Poetry Matter: international Research in Poetry Pedagogy (Dymoke, Lambirth, and Wilson 2013) and its companion volume Making Poetry Happen: Transforming the Poetry Classroom (Dymoke et al. 2014). These comprehensively re-articulate “the problem with poetry” in relation to contemporary contexts, but also crucially move on the debate by presenting examples of excellent imaginative practice in teaching poetry as reading, writing, and speaking and listening, and exploring what might constitute “transformative poetry cultures”. In the second volume, the editors argue for “a broader cultural vision, a more creative, artistic and engaged approach to literature learning”. They call for practices that connect poetry in the classroom with the renaissance of poetry in public spaces beyond the school, and for a shared experience of poetry that is about creative playfulness, joy and empathy, and which settles with uncertainty and divergent ways of seeing the world. In choosing papers for this special edition of English in Education we hope we have built on the powerful and positive concluding vision of Making Poetry Happen. ENGLISH IN EDUCATION 2022, VOL. 56, NO. 1, 1–4 https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2022.2030974

The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided:

Teaching English Literature 16 – 19 is an essential new resource that is suitable for use both as an introductory guide for those new to teaching literature and also as an aid to reflection and renewal for more experienced teachers. Using the central philosophy that students will learn best when actively engaged in discussion and encouraged to apply what they have learnt independently, this highly practical new text contains: discussion of the principles behind the teaching of literature at this level; guidelines on course planning, pedagogy, content and subject knowledge; advice on teaching literature taking into account a range of broader contexts, such as literary criticism, literary theory, performance, publishing, creative writing and journalism; examples of practical activities, worksheets and suggestions for texts; guides to available resources. Aimed at English teachers, teacher trainees, teacher trainers and advisors, this resource is packed full of new and workable ideas for teaching all English literature courses.

The story so far The introduction of new A Level specifications in all subjects in 2008 represented the second major re-thinking of A Level in a decade. Major reforms took place in 2000, under the label Curriculum 2000, which were intended to align A Levels more effectively in a context of widening participation and to modernise syllabuses and subject content. There were some successful aspects to this change, but on the whole Curriculum 2000 was considered a disappointment, creating as many problems as it solved, particularly in the area of assessment (see, for instance, Hodgson and Spours, 2003). In English, attempts to modernise the subject were considered half-hearted by some and rashly radical by others, but most agreed that some aspects of the new specifications were problematic, again especially in the area of assessment (Atherton 2003, 2004)

This paper presents data from a doctoral study of the relationships between A Level English Literature and university English, a study which examines the experiences of one class of first year university English students. It argues that, whilst the socio-cultural emphases of literary study in the university have the potential to offer a great deal to students, full attention to the interplay between curriculum and pedagogy, and an understanding of the values and assumptions which students and lecturers bring to the literature classroom, are vital if students are to be genuinely engaged in the theoretical aspects of the discipline.

ABSTRACT This paper discusses and compares post-16 English Literature curricula in Australia and the UK, and the International Baccalaureate diploma, in the context of issues about breadth and depth in post-16 education, reflecting on the different structures and philosophies which have influenced approaches to teaching and learning at this level. It argues that, if A Level English students are to manage the transition to higher education effectively, and/or develop a broad, contemporary understanding of literature and literary studies, the post-16 literature curriculum in the United Kingdom needs to develop further in progressive directions informed by contemporary developments in higher education English, and by notions of critical literacy and cultural pluralism, as in the other systems described. It suggests that the effect of central government reforms in the United Kingdom, and the consequent weakening of professional networks at national and regional levels, as well as conflicts within the profession about the nature of literature teaching, are responsible for lack of progress in this regard.

This paper examines current developments in A Level English Literature in the context of a long‐running debate about the role of context and interpretation in the course, and explores the influence of university English on this debate. Following discussion of developments around Curriculum 2000, I trace the debate back to the ‘theory wars’ of the 1970s and 1980s, examining the influence of voices from universities on discourses about the nature of literary study at A Level, and drawing out tensions within the secondary community among traditionalists, liberals and radicals. I suggest that there is now a strong move to bring A Level Literature closer to university English, and link this with similar movements in Australia and the US, where sympathetic curricula and pedagogies, underpinned by critical theory, have been developed.

This book argues that A level English does not provide an appropriate curriculum for its students. Although specifications in English Language and English Language and Literature are available, many institutions still offer only English Literature. This course is largely uninformed by the radical changes that have transformed the subject in higher education. Where students do have a choice of A level English subject, it is often between two courses - Language and Literature - with little common conceptual basis or content. It is time then to reconsider English courses at this level. Even when taken together, the specifications available represent (rather like the AS/A2 curricular structure itself) a patchwork of older and newer elements that fails to provide a coherent vision of thesubject English. Crucially, they do not provide a focused means by which students can become creative and critical workers in language, citizens in a world of globalised digital communication. We make this argument in detailed and specific ways in the pages that follow.