Naomi Sutherland

What a refreshing read first thing on a Sunday morning. It is heartening to know that someone in a position of influence recognises the shortcomings of GCSE English Language. I agree wholeheartedly.

Having tutored students from 11+ through to university level, I see the same issues repeated year after year. By the time students reach GCSE, many lack a secure grasp of the fundamentals of grammar and rhetoric, and studying literary analysis alone does little to address that gap. I often struggle to justify why analysing a contemporary article is treated as equivalent to dissecting an excerpt from a nineteenth-century novel in a language paper. Too often, GCSE English feels like an exercise in testing rather than an education of genuine value.

We need to begin with first principles: what, precisely, are we trying to achieve with GCSE English? If the goal is confident, articulate communication, then there are far more dynamic ways to teach it. Real-world texts, integrated with explicit grammar instruction and deliberate vocabulary building, would offer far greater long-term benefit than the current model.

Two fundamental weaknesses stand out. First, many students cannot construct clean, coherent sentences. They do not recognise that a sentence requires a main clause built around an active verb. They begin with conjunctions and trail off into subordinate clauses without resolution. This problem persists not only throughout the GCSE years but well into higher education.

Second, students are rarely taught that communication—especially writing—is an art. Instead, it is treated as a mechanical or even accidental process. A Liberal Arts approach explicitly teaches the craft of communication; it is difficult to understand why this dimension is largely absent from the present syllabus.

There are practical improvements we could make. Technology, for instance, can be a powerful ally. Students naturally acquire new vocabulary through gaming—engaging with words in context, problem-solving, and learning language that feels current and relevant.

Syntax, too, must be taught explicitly. Many students have never been asked to consider what a sentence is, why sentences are arranged into paragraphs, or how structure shapes meaning. They are more than willing to understand the “why” behind their learning; too often, we simply fail to provide it.

We should also make better use of contemporary news. Students enjoy being challenged and forming their own viewpoints. They respond well to current, thought-provoking material—even when it is demanding. Yet GCSE texts often rely on dated or uninspiring topics. If we instead used relevant, engaging content and encouraged students to develop their own arguments, they would gain a deeper understanding of how language works—of the force of strong verbs, the precision of conjunctions, and the architecture of a persuasive sentence.

Finally, discussion must play a greater role in schools. The UK tends to privilege the written word, but spoken articulation sharpens thought and fosters intellectual confidence. The ability to express ideas clearly and spontaneously is essential for life and, too often, marks a dividing line between state and independent education.

It is time to rethink GCSE English. Doing so would not only improve examination outcomes but, far more importantly, cultivate articulate, thoughtful communicators.