GCSE English Literature Exams 4.30 pm Helen Jones (Warrington
North) (Lab) I beg to move, That this House has
considered e-petition 172405 relating to GCSE English Literature
exams. It is a great pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mrs Main, for the last Petitions Committee debate of
this...Request free trial
GCSE English Literature Exams
4.30 pm
-
(Warrington North)
(Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 172405 relating
to GCSE English Literature exams.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mrs Main, for the last Petitions Committee debate of this
Parliament. I must confess that when I saw the petition, I
had mixed feelings. English is my subject: it was what I
was most interested in at school, I read English at
university and my first job was teaching English. Being of
my generation, my head is stuffed full of quotations from
Shakespeare to Keats to D. H. Lawrence. My colleagues know
that my party piece around this time of year is reciting
the opening of the general prologue to “The Canterbury
Tales” in middle English, but I will not inflict that on
people here.
That knowledge of literature has hugely enriched my life,
and I hope that it has enriched my students’ lives too;
when they get back in touch with me after I have been in
the papers, they say so. But—this is a big “but”—as the
great cultural commentator Raymond Williams said, we are
all prone to value the kind of education that we received
over and above any other kind, but what we choose to teach,
and how we choose to teach it, is a selection from what is
available. He talked about
“what is thought of as an education being in fact a
particular selection, a set of emphases and omissions”.
When we consider examinations, the question is what
children should learn and how they should learn in order to
be fitted for the world in which they will grow up, which
will be very different from the one in which we grew up. In
my experience, that question is seldom asked by
Governments. We are normally subject to the whims of
various Secretaries of State; some, perhaps, have had more
than others. For instance, we heard about the need to teach
“our island story”; then an English baccalaureate
certificate was proposed and later abandoned. It is no
wonder that teachers often find themselves in a whirlwind.
No sooner have they got used to one set of instructions
than they must get used to another. In all this, the
fundamental questions about what we need to teach our
children for the future are not dealt with.
Before I go on, I must say clearly that I think that the
study of literature is enormously important for an
understanding of oneself and society. Think of Chaucer’s
pilgrims, chattering away down the centuries. Their jobs
might not exist anymore, but the people can still be met,
with all their strengths and weaknesses, in any street in
any town. Nor do I believe that much literature is
intrinsically too difficult for our children. I have taught
Shakespeare to 11-year-olds. I got teenage boys to read
Jane Austen by pointing out that her brothers read the
books aloud to the officers of Nelson’s Navy, not notable
for being a set of wimps. If Shakespeare’s groundlings
could follow his plays, I see no reason why our children
cannot—provided, of course, that it is a good juicy murder;
there is nothing more boring than having to explain
500-year-old jokes to a class.
Although the choice of text is always one for teachers, it
makes my blood boil when I hear people say that some things
are too difficult for working-class children, because I was
one myself. I say that because when people criticise the
exam system, they are often accused of wanting to dumb
things down. Nothing could be further from the truth in my
case. It is true that the Government have changed the GCSE
English literature syllabus so that it is now a linear
subject with exams at the end of the course. A new grading
system will be introduced this year, and coursework has
been abandoned. That is consistent with this Government’s
approach to examinations in most subjects.
I grew up with that system, and I was fortunate enough to
be good at it, because I was blessed with a good memory,
but I am not sure that I agree entirely with Ofqual when it
says:
“We do not believe there are any skills in the draft
content for English literature that could not be validly
assessed by written exam, set and marked by the exam
board.”
I might agree that the skills in the syllabus can be tested
by an examination at the end, but whether those are the
right skills is a different question. There is a place for
a more extended and in-depth response to texts, especially
those dealing with complex subjects and emotions.
That is where open-book exams can be important. The
Government have abandoned the idea of coursework, although
it might have been better to change the guidance and the
time limits, but I believe that open-book exams can ask far
more stretching and difficult questions of our children.
The Government rightly said:
“Students should not be misled into believing that they
will get good marks simply by memorising and writing out
the poems or texts they have studied.”
That has always been the case, as any teacher knows, but
the Government also said:
“Students will not need to learn and remember the exact
words of poems or texts by heart.”
Moreover, the former chief regulator said in a blog post:
“Assessment is about learning and understanding, not
memory.”
I would be convinced by that if not for one thing: in
literature, the exact words are important. A great writer
chooses words with precision. An approximation of what they
said might not have the same force or convey the same
sentiments.
The Minister might, like me, be old enough to remember the
Morecambe and Wise sketch in which Shakespeare is writing
rubbish and the milkman keeps coming in and helping him.
Shakespeare writes, “It’s very cold, I said to Yorkie,” and
the milkman suggests, “How about, ‘Now is the winter of our
discontent’?” [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for
South Shields (Mrs Lewell- Buck) is laughing because she is
definitely not old enough to remember it.
The Minister will also remember George Orwell’s strictures
on people who use “petite” when they mean “little” and then
say that it means “dainty”, or his way of curing people of
using the construction “not un-”:
“A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across
a not ungreen field.”
Words matter. Words, like facts, are stubborn things. One
must remember a great deal to be able to answer some of the
question in our GCSE exams properly.
The Government, and certainly Ofqual, might argue that
extended and more difficult questions can be asked about
the unseen texts in the exam. However, strangely, Ofqual
prohibits people from having a whole text in front of them,
saying:
“We do not expect an awarding organisation to provide a
whole text as Stimulus Materials for an assessment for a
GCSE Qualification in English Literature.”
I might believe that Ofqual understood what it was talking
about if it did not switch from singular to plural in the
same sentence and put totally unnecessary capital letters
on “stimulus materials”.
I must admit that I am a bit of a sceptic about unseen
texts in exams. I used to tell my students, “This is a
completely useless exercise, but we will now learn to
outwit the examiners,” and they did. We do not actually
read literature like that. We do not read extracts; we read
plays, novels or poems. It is Leavisite literary critical
theory taken to its ultimate. It is a prime example of
doing things because we have always done them like that.
The answer to the central question of whether open-book
exams are better than exams without the text is that, as
always, it depends what we want to test. Whatever Ofqual
says, an exam that students take without the text in front
of them depends to a large extent on memory. It is
impossible to comment properly on a text, for instance to
show how an author deals with characterisation, without
being able to remember large parts of it. It is impossible
to compare two poems without being able to remember large
parts of them. Remembering, in itself, does not get a
student good marks, but it is an essential prerequisite to
answering many of the questions, as a number of the
teachers who responded to our consultation pointed out. One
said:
“Students must remember lines off by heart, as they are
required to analyse them… It is a minimum requirement for
the modern text question, as there is no extract.”
As a test of memory, that is not bad, but is that all we
want to test? Many people would argue that open-book exams,
on the other hand, allow more searching questions to be
asked of students. They allow students to do more analysis
and evaluation and to synthesise knowledge rather than
repeat it. In other words, open-book exams are higher up
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, which teachers
know about because they learn about it in training. It is
also true that the skills required in an open-book exam are
more like those that we use in real life—it is very seldom
that we have to produce a piece of work in a rigid time
limit, without recourse to any resources. It all depends on
the examination being designed properly.
Open-book examinations have disadvantages, too. For
instance, it is much more difficult to ensure that students
have a clean text in front of them, without notes. There is
also an argument that they may deter students from getting
fully involved in the literature that they have to study,
because they rely on having the book in front of them. It
is often said that having the book makes the exams easier,
although I am afraid that I disagree. I did open-book exams
at university for some of my subjects—the Chaucer and
Shakespeare unseen papers, which in those days were six
hours long—and we had to know the texts very well to know
where to look for quotations in the first place. I confess
that I have not found a lot of evidence—it may exist, but
other pressures have arisen—but the research that I have
been able to find, from Washington University in St Louis,
found that both sorts of tests enhanced retention of
information.
The other issue that we ought to think about carefully is
that our children are growing up in an age of information
overload. They probably need to learn much more than we did
about how to access information, assess its value, organise
it and apply it. That may be done in other examinations,
but it could also be part of our English literature
examination. As I said at the beginning, my head is stuffed
full of quotations, and I believe that to really engage
with a piece of literature, a reader has to memorise some
of it and make sure that they have internalised it.
However, I also think that open-book exams can ask more
testing questions. They can achieve what the Government say
they want, which is to ensure that the brightest pupils can
show what they are capable of.
There is a case for both kinds of examination, and the
Government should think seriously about making at least
some English literature exams open-book in future, but the
real issue is that for a long time we have not thought
seriously about what our children should learn and how they
should learn it. I know that the Minister has a genuine
interest in providing the best possible education for young
people in this country; he and I may sometimes disagree
about methods, but I do not doubt his commitment. Since
this Parliament is coming to its end, little can be done at
the moment, but I hope that in future he will apply his
mind to what exactly we want to test through different
types of examination. There is no getting away from the
fact that being good at English literature requires some
feats of memory, but that is not all we should try to test.
I hope that we will think about that, and about what the
petition asks for, in future.
4.45 pm
-
Mrs (South Shields)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main. I thank
my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen
Jones), the Chair of the Petitions Committee, who was on
top form this afternoon, as always, for introducing this
debate. I also thank all those, including my own
constituents, who signed the petition.
Although sadly it is too late to change things for this
year’s entrants, it is not too late for the next
Government—whoever they may be—to change their mind for
future pupils. The new structure of the GCSE English
literature closed-book exams poses numerous serious issues
for students and teachers. It is not simply about the
subject being made more difficult than it needs to be; it
is about the very reason our schools teach English
literature in the first place.
English literature enlightens us. A popular quote says:
“Life depends on science but the arts make it worth
living”.
English literature is not an exact science. It makes no
sense to test it in a way that basically amounts to a
glorified memory test. Studying literature is a way of
understanding our world and learning skills to engage in it
by learning to express ourselves and by learning critical
thinking, research and writing skills and independent
thought. It teaches us to build arguments, analyse, probe
and read between the lines. It also teaches us eloquence,
which my hon. Friend displayed finely this afternoon, as I
hope the Minister noticed.
I have noticed that many of us in this place often do not
memorise our speeches. We carefully craft our arguments in
prose, and if we need to check the validity of a piece of
information, we have a whole host of organisations on hand,
inside and outside Parliament, to equip us with briefings
and facts. We are not expected to memorise every word we
say in here. If it is not expected of MPs, why are we
placing that burden of expectation on pupils in our
schools? Why do we want students to remember up to 250
quotes? What purpose does that serve, other than displaying
a student’s ability to learn parrot-fashion?
Closed-book examinations for GCSE English literature
encourage the business of learning by rote, not meaningful
learning. That is not the best way of assessing learning
outcomes or the acquisition of skills for any child. Can
the Minister explain how remembering quotes is the best way
of showcasing a student’s true ability in a small window of
time? It is simply not. It is a test not of content but of
exam technique, which of course privileges those who can
afford private tutors and the like. It is also worth saying
that many universities do not examine their literature
students in that way, because they know that rote learning
is not a sign of intelligence or original thought. It is
robust analysis and understanding that count and that
undergraduates are rightly tested on, so why on earth do we
expect our children to learn lines?
Just as we have seen the Government take our education
policy back to the 1950s with the forced reintroduction of
grammar schools, so we see them applying a very
old-fashioned and traditionalist mentality to GCSE
literature examinations. Such a mentality distorts the
emphasis of teaching towards drumming quotes into students,
rather than analysis and context—what a quote means and why
it may be significant. Additionally, under exam pressure
even the most capable students may not be able to recall
the details of a critical quote. It is absurd that that may
prevent them from achieving top marks, or that they may
devote all their revision time to learning quotes rather
than practising arguments, essay technique and narrative.
In this age of technology, we need to be purposefully
teaching students and pupils how to access, organise and
apply information, and not simply to memorise it.
There is an abundance of thought out there, and thousands
of teachers are saying, that this way of testing does not
achieve anything positive. One teacher has said:
“I teach students who are capable, intelligent, articulate
people with excellent appreciation and critical
faculties—in short, brilliant literature students—but who
don’t have great memories. I myself can’t quote from films
or songs that I’ve heard 100 times. These students will
gain average-poor grades despite their deep knowledge of,
appreciation of and critical analysis of these texts,
simply because they cannot remember the precise wording
from the text. Either we’re testing memory or skill and in
a literature exam. I believe that a critical appreciation
is more important than an ability to memorise quotations.”
Surely the Minister cannot go on ignoring teachers when
they tell him that this way of examining pupils is not fit
for purpose. Why will he not listen to teachers or industry
experts who say that closed-book exams place a premium on
accurate and extensive recall, with students’ knowledge
dominated by that ability, whereas open-book exams place
the emphasis on higher-level learning, whereby students can
focus on analysing, evaluating and synthesising knowledge?
If the Government are determined not to listen to those who
are tasked with teaching the new GCSEs, in the same way
that they will not listen to other experts on divisive
policies such as grammar schools, who will they listen to?
GCSE examinations are a very stressful time in any young
person’s life. At a time when students are more stressed
than ever before, and when teachers and school leaders are
struggling to respond to years of chaotic chopping and
changing in the curriculum, the Government should be asking
serious questions about the impact of any changes to
assessment.
Poor mental health in teenagers is a growing issue, and
child and adolescent mental health services are hugely
overstretched as a result of this Government’s neglect. Has
the Minister assessed the likely impact of the changes on
the wellbeing and achievement of students? The requirement
to learn 15 poems, two plays and one novel could be a
stretch for even the most able students, never mind those
who already struggle academically. A memory test of this
sort is not fair for any student, but it appears that the
Government have failed to acknowledge the difficulties it
could cause for those pupils with special educational
needs. We in this House know that frequently the texts
pupils are expected to read contain, as one teacher put it,
“complex and often ambiguous language”.
The expectation that those with SEN will understand these
texts well enough to analyse them in the first instance,
and then to memorise quotes, is simply unfair.
In an open letter to the then Education Secretary, one
teacher said that the reformed English literature GCSE will
discriminate against pupils with dyslexia and special
needs, because of the Government’s “breathtaking ignorance”
of these conditions. Even if rest breaks and access
arrangements such as extra time can be put in place to
level the playing field, I hope—as that teacher hoped—that
the Minister can see that no amount of extra time will
correct a memory deficit. I would like him to tell us in
his response to this debate what provisions, other than
extra time, his Government have put in place to ensure that
the exam is fair for pupils with SEN.
Once again, this move shows a Government who have no
progressive ideas for education or any understanding of the
curriculum, regarding what works and what does not work for
children; a Government wedded to the educational ideas of
the 1950s of segregation and divisiveness, rather than
inclusivity; and a Government interested in teaching
children how to pass exams and grammar school entry tests,
rather than in creating a level playing field, so that all
children, regardless of background or disability, can reach
their full potential. We should instil in our children a
lifelong love of learning and not reducing a magnificent
subject such as English literature to forcing kids to learn
quotes by rote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, teachers,
students and many others are urging the Government to look
at this issue again and to realise the problems they are
creating for huge numbers of our children and their English
literature education. I will leave the Minister with one
final question: closed-book exams—“To be, or not to be,
that is the question”.
4.54 pm
-
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs
Main. I think it is the first time I have done so, but I
hope that it will not be the last such occasion for either
of us.
I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for South
Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck)—I assume she learned by heart the
quote she just gave. I congratulate the hon. Member for
Warrington North (Helen Jones), who is the Chair of the
Petitions Committee, on opening this debate and on doing so
articulately, with fluency and a strong use of language.
Perhaps that is the consequence of her immersion in the
great canon of English literature. I share her ire about
some people saying that some literature is too difficult
for children from poorer backgrounds.
The hon. Lady cited Morecambe and Wise, and their wonderful
and hilarious use of language. Who can forget Ernie Wise’s
catchphrase about
“The plays what I wrote”?
We remember them fondly.
I am aware of the comments that have been made and the
concerns that have been raised about the new English
literature GCSE, notably the claim that exam boards will
not provide pupils with any extracts from the novels, poems
and plays that they have studied, as well as the
expectation that pupils will have to memorise large amounts
of text. I reassure the hon. Lady and all hon. Members that
that is not the case. Pupils do not have to reproduce word
for word what they have read to pass the GCSE. The
examination is not about testing a pupil’s ability to
recall specific portions of the texts they have read; it is
a test of how they understand and can interpret the
literature they have studied.
It is also not the case that pupils have to memorise “250+
quotes”, as reported in the petition. I am not clear where
that figure has come from, but neither the Department for
Education’s GCSE subject content nor Ofqual’s regulations
contain any requirement that suggest it will be necessary
to learn such a high number of quotes, or indeed any
specific number. Ofqual does not prohibit access to texts
during an exam and exam boards may give pupils extracts
from works, such as an extract from a novel, a scene from a
play or a poem. Such extracts form part of the exam
materials. What is not allowed is for pupils to have copies
of the full play, novel or set of poems to take into the
exam with them.
Before I go on to explain the assessment approaches of the
new English literature GCSE, I will say why English
literature is so important, although the hon. Lady has
already said it. We want all pupils to develop a love of
literature by reading widely for enjoyment. Reading is the
cornerstone of education. Ensuring that all pupils,
whatever their background, are taught to read correctly,
and that they develop a love of literature, is key to
social mobility.
It is important that pupils have access to qualifications
that establish expectations matching those in the
highest-performing countries in the world. The reforms to
the English literature GCSE are part of a wider drive to
restore rigour and confidence in our public exam system.
International tests indicated that the increase in the
proportion of pupils achieving top GCSE grades had
overstated actual performance. That is why we overhauled a
curriculum that was denying pupils the core academic
knowledge, and why we reformed the examination system,
breathing confidence back into our national qualifications.
Previously, English literature GCSE pupils were examined on
four texts at most, and some on only three texts—two texts
and poetry anthologies. There was no requirement for pupils
to be asked questions on texts that they had not previously
studied—what are called “unseen texts”. The remaining texts
were covered through controlled assessment, which is a form
of coursework. Ofqual decided that new English literature
GCSEs would be assessed entirely by exam because that is a
fairer and more reliable method.
The subject content for the new English literature GCSE was
published in 2013, and the rules about open texts were
announced by Ofqual in 2014. Teaching of the new GCSE began
in September 2015, which is why we will see the first exams
in the new subject this summer. The new English literature
GCSE requires pupils to study a range of high-quality,
challenging and substantial texts, including at least one
Shakespeare play, one 19th-century novel, a selection of
poetry since 1789, including representative Romantic
poetry, and fiction or drama from the British Isles since
1914. The specification for poetry and a novel from the
1800s is new, and we believe that it adds more depth and
rigour to the qualification.
There is also a requirement for pupils to study no fewer
than 15 poems by at least five poets, and a minimum of 300
lines of poetry. That element is designed to reward pupils
who have gained a deep understanding of literature and have
read widely enough throughout the course—it is not about
memorising poems word for word. It is interesting to note
that the views of the English subject community are mixed,
with many not agreeing with the views expressed in the
petition. For example, a 2015 blog by the English and Media
Centre’s co-director, Barbara Bleiman, put memorisation and
learning by heart into context. Focusing on poetry, she
wrote:
“It doesn’t seem to us to be unreasonable, in a Literature
exam, to ask pupils to choose one poem to talk about that
isn’t there in front of them, nor does it necessitate rote
learning or wholesale memorisation. Being able to recollect
some details from their chosen poem...and give a few
examples, using quotation or not, doesn’t require learning
by heart or massive taxing of the memory.”
The introduction of closed-book examinations triggered the
debate. What that means in practice is that pupils are not
provided with copies of the novels, plays or poems they
have studied during the course. The expectation is that
pupils read widely and deeply during their studies to
prepare them to answer questions in the exam about the
books and poems they have studied. That means that they
will be able critically to compare and contrast a range of
literature using relevant quotes and text references to
demonstrate the depth of their understanding. Additionally,
pupils need to answer questions about unseen texts—texts
they have not studied and are unlikely to have read before.
These unseen texts might, but do not have to be, by authors
whose works pupils have studied as set books. Pupils may
have to compare an unseen text with one of the texts they
have studied.
We do not expect exam boards to give pupils, or allow them
access to, copies of the whole texts they have studied
during their exams. Boards can, however, provide relevant
extracts, and they are already including examples of such
extracts in their sample assessment materials. Pupils will
therefore be familiar with the types of extract they will
be given. It is important that pupils are not misled into
believing that they will get good marks simply by
memorising and writing out the poems or texts they have
studied. They will not be marked on their ability to learn
and remember the exact words of poems or texts by heart.
They may gain extra marks through the intelligent use of
quotations, but the requirement is about illustrating
pupils’ interpretation and understanding of the text, and
hence demonstrating their understanding of the question.
Quotations can be part of that. Each exam board will have
guidance for its examiners for each specification that
covers expectations of the mark scheme, the aim of which is
to ensure standardisation when examiners are marking. It
may include guidance on how examiners should approach
textual references and quotes.
To gain good marks, pupils will need to show that they are
familiar with the texts they have studied and, in some
questions, that their understanding is sufficiently
developed to compare them either with each other or with
unseen texts that have been given to them in the exam.
Pupils will need to write about a poem they have studied
that is not given to them in the exam, but that will not
require them to reproduce the text in full. Rather, it will
require pupils to recollect aspects about the poem, such as
themes, issues and the way in which language is used to
create particular effects, so as to compare it with one
provided in the exam.
In the past, pupils have been able to take either annotated
or clean copies of the studied texts into the exam, but
that risks undermining the requirement for them to have
studied in detail the whole text as part of their course.
That requirement is important, and it is particularly
relevant in poetry. If pupils know they will be given
access to the whole text of a poem as part of their exam,
they may feel they do not need to study the whole poem, or
the whole array or anthology of poems, as they can do the
reading during the exam. In addition, if pupils had the
text available to them, it would shape the expectations of
the exam. For example, if they can refer to the text, exam
questions and their mark schemes would expect a much more
detailed and extensive use of quotes and references. As it
is, questions and mark schemes for the new qualifications
are written in the knowledge that pupils will not have
access to the text, and the expectations are moderated
accordingly. The same relates to questions in which
extracts are provided. For example, if an extract from a
novel or a Shakespeare play is provided, clear and detailed
references and quotes may be expected, and papers marked
accordingly.
The e-petition notes that pupils
“are expected to remember…themes and context that are
incorporated within these texts”.
That is true, but it is not clear that providing a copy of
the text would represent an advantage to a pupil. If a
pupil is not already aware of, or able to recall, broad
issues such as the themes and context of the texts they
have studied, having a copy of the text with no notes or
annotations will not help them. Indeed, Ofqual has pointed
out that pupils might in fact be disadvantaged if they were
provided with the text. A comparatively short exam does not
give time for pupils who are unfamiliar with, or who have
forgotten, the themes or structure of the text to use the
text in the exam to demonstrate the understanding expected.
Additionally, even if pupils have a good understanding of
the text prior to the assessment, there is a risk that they
might spend significant portions of the exam searching for
quotes or references in the mistaken belief that that will
secure them high marks. Again, unless the text is provided,
the mark schemes for the reformed qualifications do not
expect extensive quotes from memory.
Finally, the practice of pupils taking copies of texts into
the exam creates practical problems for exam boards and
centres. The majority of text editions come with an
introduction, notes and a glossary. These annotated texts
are immensely helpful in the classroom and would be the
most obvious choice for an English department budget.
However, such texts would not be appropriate in the exam
room, and centres would need to purchase an extra set of
texts free of textual additions. Not only is it difficult
and, in some cases, impossible to source text-only
editions, it would also be a major expense.
The hon. Member for South Shields raised the important
issue of children with special educational needs. Students
with disabilities are entitled to reasonable adjustments
and schools will be in touch with the exam boards to
request them. She asked for examples. Typical adjustments
are the use of extra time, scribes and readers and,
depending on the disability, different fonts, coloured
paper, enlarged papers and so on can also be made
available. We consulted specifically on access to texts
last year as part of a wider consultation on the
specifications on the use of reasonable adjustments.
This summer, pupils will not only take the new English and
maths GCSEs but will also receive a new grade. The new
qualifications will be graded from 9 to 1, instead of from
A* to G, with 9 being the highest. The new scale is
intended to recognise better the achievements of
high-attaining pupils and ensure that parents have greater
clarity about how well their child performs in the exams.
It will also clearly distinguish the new, more challenging
GCSEs from their predecessor qualifications.
I hope hon. Members are reassured that passing the new
English Literature GCSE does not require pupils to memorise
vast amounts of texts and that our reformed GCSEs will
provide all pupils with the qualifications they need to
progress to further education and employment.
5.08 pm
-
There is very little for me to say, except to thank my hon.
Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for her
contribution. I listened carefully to the Minister’s detailed
response, and thank him for it. No doubt we will discuss the
matter at length on other occasions. In the meantime, may I
say what a pleasure it has been to chair the Petitions
Committee and that I wish colleagues if not the best of luck,
at least a sunny election campaign, with little rain?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 172405 relating to
GCSE English Literature exams.
|