The New Framework for English
The original Framework for English was published in 2001, to what – at best – might be termed a mixed reception from English teachers and departments. Its 'unique selling point', one might say, and the key point to underline to student teachers, is that the Framework is the first government document to outline not simply what to teach, but how to teach it. Even though it is shortly to disappear, it is useful to let student teachers engage with this original Framework, currently available at http://www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/secondary/keystage3/respub/englishframework/foreword/, partly as it is interesting to see how new entrants to the profession respond to the array of objectives and the Word, Sentence, Text Level organisation. Interestingly, I've found it is not uncommon for a significant number of student teachers to view the Framework as a supportive document as it offers so much detail. It is important too, that student teachers get some sense of the theory that undoubtedly underpins the original Framework. An interesting document in this respect is Colin Harrison's Key Stage 3 English - Roots and Research, available to download at http://www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/secondary/keystage3/all/respub/en_roots which is the Strategy's official version of the research bases for the approaches recommended within the Framework. To further explore the background, we ensure that student teachers are given an introduction to the ideas around functional grammar and the work of the Australian genre theorists, notably Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis (Cope and Kalantzis, 1993), as it is clear that their work has influenced – perhaps via other writers – the approach to grammar and writing taken in the Framework (see Gibbons, 2004 for a personal view of the theoretical roots of the original Framework). The tension between genre and process approaches is pursued later in the course when our student teachers look more closely at approaches to the teaching of writing and grammar, but it is helpful to begin this exploration in considering theoretical foundations of the Framework.
As student teachers now enter training they will be faced with the new Framework for English. This is only available online at http://www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/secondary/framework/english/fwse. Interestingly, the Strategy insists that this is not a 'new', but a 'renewed' Framework; however, an exploration of the renewed version reveals that it is in many ways radically different to its predecessor – certainly more different, for example, than the new National Curriculum in comparison to its former version (see Gibbons, 2008 for a fuller account of changes in the Renewed Framework).
The Renewed Framework has dispensed completely with the 'Word, Sentence, Text' organisation and opted for four sections (Speaking and Listening, Reading, Writing and Language). Within these, there are ten strands, with each strand being broken into a number of 'substrands', totalling twenty-seven in all. Each substrand then has a statement outling what student teachers 'will learn' in each of the years 7-11 (notably, the Framework now covers the whole of secondary age range, not merely Key Stage 3). This is strikingly different to the vast array of objectives in the first Framework, and there are a number of important consequences.
Firstly, the ditching of the 'word, sentence, text' organisation, coupled with the slimming down, means that almost all of the detail relating to grammar and linguistics – which put the wind up many an English teacher in 2001 – has disappeared. The Strategy's argument is that this detail is implicit, but such an argument lacks real credibility when one considers that the vast majority of student teachers come to the course without the level of explicit grammatical/linguistic study that would enable them to see behind the general statements to the level of detail that was formerly supplied.
However, what the rewrite of the Framework does do, is greatly enhance the links between it and the National Curriculum. Previously the two documents appeared to be two very different beasts, but in the rewrites the parallels are clear. For example, within 'The author's craft section' of the National Curriculum, the final bullet reads, 'how texts relate to the social, historical and cultural context in which they were written'. Substrand 6.1 of the renewed Framework is 'relating texts to the social, historical and cultural contexts in which they were written'. The third bullet in the National Curriculum is 'how writers' uses of language and rhetorical, grammatical and literary features influence the reader'. Substrand 6.2 of the renewed Framework reads 'analysing how writers' use of language, grammatical and literary features shapes and influence meaning'. Such parallels run throughout the two documents and certainly give support to the claim that there is genuine coherence, though they do invite a more pointed question: why is it necessary to have two documents if there are such close parallels? The previous Framework was so different to the National Curriculum that an argument could be put for its existence as – almost – an alternative model of English. The similarities between the language and content of the two documents now begs the question as to whether there is any need for them both to exist.
There are, too, serious questions to be asked about the ways in which the year-related statements within the Renewed Framework relate to the National Curriculum Level Descriptors, the Functional Skills Descriptors, and the materials provided as part of the Assessing Pupils' Progress project. One view would be that there is quite a serious mismatch between the age-related achievement in the National Curriculum, and that suggested by the Framework statements, perhaps indicating a move towards a two-year Key Stage 3.
