IS THE OCR
RACIST?
A Cautionary Tale
Imagine our
delight when the OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) Examining Board expressed
an interest in putting the poetry in our book, Moving Voices: Black Performance
Poetry (Hansib 2002), on their GCSE English Literature syllabus. After
six months of discussions they agreed to 'endorse' the book as part of
their 'Opening Minds to Different Cultures' rationale and we set to work
selecting the first 16 poems to be an option on their GCSE syllabus from
September 2003.
The final meeting
to agree the poems was due to take place in Cambridge on 12 February 2003.
A few days before, they rang up to say that they were no longer prepared
to include this poetry. They had consulted six English teachers (all white)
and along with the senior examiners (all white), they had concluded that
the poems were not acceptable. When we asked if any black teachers had
been consulted, there was a silence and then the answer came, 'No.'
In particular
they objected to a poem about menstruation - 'it would be difficult to
teach it in a mixed class'. When I (Martin) said I had been an English
teacher in east London secondary schools for ten years and that such issues
were regularly dealt with in the English classroom, the reply came: 'I
have never been a teacher, but I have been a journalist, and just think
what the Sun would make of it when they found out.' Even if this poem
were left out, they were still not prepared to go ahead with the other
poetry.
So there we
have it. An 'Opening Minds to Other Cultures' initiative has been judged
by an all white jury and found wanting, and the GCSE English syllabus
for our children has been determined by the possible reaction of a tabloid
newspaper!
Breaking through
is hard to do!
Timetable
of Events
18 July 2002
We are invited to an OCR English Action Group meeting to discuss their
interest in work 'reflecting multicultural Britain'.
1 August
They say: 'we are very keen to meet with you to discuss your work - we
are definitely looking to promote literary cultural diversity as part
of our Opening Minds rationale for the new GCSEs in English and English
Literature'. We are invited to a meeting in Birmingham on 19 September.
5 August
They write: 'Great news that you may well be able to attend our meeting;
we're like kids waiting for Christmas - very excited!'
20 September
After Martin attended the meeting: 'It was good to meet you yesterday
- and to be introduced to Moving Voices, which we were all very impressed
with and excited by.'
They suggest endorsing the book, after it is seen by a consultant, as
a set text for GCSE English Literature. Two clean texts for the exams
would then be printed, each with 16 poems. The book would be promoted
on their web-site and they 'would be keen to run conferences/workshops
relating to Moving Voices and the teaching of Different Cultures open
to teachers/students/others with an interest'.
22 October
After sending them reviews of the book, they write: 'Excellent reviews.
I managed to access your web-site: very impressive poets section, plus
audio.'
3 December
We receive the report of the senior examiner who says 'arising from several
hours of reading and listening to the poems' that 'Moving Voices would
be a valuable addition' to the OCR's GCSE texts and suggests 'possible
pairings' of the poems. Some will be difficult to include 'on the grounds
of length', but it would be 'possible to overcome such difficulties'.
He concludes: 'Moving Voices offers an interesting alternative to OCR's
present texts. It includes poems with strong rhythms dealing with contemporary
issues, and should have an appeal to candidates unlikely to be attracted
by "traditional" poetry. I suspect that, if adopted, it might
best be used in English (1900) where study of poems, rather than comparison
of poems, is required; and where it would provide a powerful stimulus
to Speaking and Listening activities.'
10 December
We are told that the endorsement has been 'agreed at the last English
Action Group meeting' and they set out their reasons for 'wanting it in
English Literature', rather than English: 'A further reason for wanting
it in Literature is so that we can say we are actively encouraging a multicultural
education, rather than just responding to a QCA directive for Different
Cultures in English. This latter point is, for me, particularly important
because we are being pro-active rather than re-active and sits well with
our Opening Minds ethos.'
11 December
'The timeframe we are hoping to work to for this revised Moving Voices
text is to set it for examination from June 2005. This means that it would
be available for teaching from September 2003.'
20 January
After we suggested that we would divide the poems into 2 volumes of eight
pairs of poems in each (for setting exam questions asking students to
compare two poems), we are told: 'I look forward to seeing how you have
gone about dividing up the poems into two sets - rather you than me!'
22 January
The Principal Examiner is brought in to comment on the selection: 'I think
the revised 16-poem collection will work for the life of a poetry text
(3 years?).' He suggests 13 poems, permitting 'questions on a range of
topics: race/culture, women, humour and poetry itself', adding: 'Yes,
I know there are less than 16 here, but the others are up to you!'
23 January
The original consultant examiner writes: 'There's some overlap between
Asher and Martin's suggestions and Lionel's that should prove most helpful.
Asher and Martin's choice of poems that are linked, and their comments
on their common ties are also very helpful from a question-setting viewpoint.'
He has an 'occasional reservation' about length, but says that 'this needn't
be an obstacle'.
24 January
OCR say they need to discuss 'arrangements for publication'.
29 January
Discussing a date for a meeting to make the final decision on the poems,
they write: 'As we need to move quite fast on this, I think the sooner
the better - Wednesday February 12.'
8 February
Phone-call to say they are no longer interested in using the poetry for
the GCSE syllabus (see above).
11 February
We ask the Principal Examiner why this has happened and he replies: 'No
idea, sorry, it's news to me.'
11 February
Phone-call from OCR saying it's still off, but they are prepared to put
the book on their web-site, link up with our web-site and offer us a fee!
They promise to put all this in writing in an email the next day. (Incidentally,
up to this point they had offered no money, even though we had sent them
10 copies of the book, worth £170, and they had not offered to pay
any travelling expenses to Birmingham - not even a free lunch! They also
expected us to pay the £150 fee for the consultant.)
12 February
Apologies that the letter has not been sent, but it has to be 'on official
letterhead' so will be sent by post. It will be posted first class the
next day.
18 February
The letter still has not arrived!
19 February
3-page letter arrives from Dr Paul Norgate, OCR Qualifications Manager
- English, Arts and Performance Studies, confirming that they are not
going ahead with the Moving Voices collection of poems, and stressing
again that 'menstruation' is a matter 'unsuitable for the classroom'.
The letter contains no word of apology, nor any explanation as to why
the book was officially 'endorsed' and recommended by a senior examiner,
principal examiner and the English Action Group.
Dear Dr Norgate
Thank you for
your letter of 18 February. We are astonished, however, to discover that
you have not addressed any of the key issues:
· Why
did the OCR officially 'endorse' our book Moving Voices: Black Performance
Poetry for their GCSE English Literature syllabus (10 Dec email - 'agreed
at the last English Action Group meeting')?
· Why did the consultant say, 'arising from several hours of reading
and listening to the poems' that 'Moving Voices would be a valuable addition
to the OCR's GCSE texts' and suggest 'possible pairings'? (3 Dec email)
· Why did the Principal Examiner, brought in to comment on our
selection of pairings, suggest 13 poems and then add: 'Yes, I know there
are less than 16 here, but the others are up to you!'? (22 Jan email)
· Why did the original consultant say our suggestions 'should prove
most helpful' and 'very helpful from a question-setting viewpoint'? (23
Jan email)
· Why did you say you needed to discuss 'arrangements for publication'
of the clean text? (24 Jan email)
· Why were you keen to finalise the selection of poems: 'As we
need to move quite fast on this, I think the sooner the better - Wednesday
February 12.'? (29 Jan email)
· Why did you phone to call the whole project off, saying that
6 English teachers (all white) and the senior examiners (all white) had
decided they could not include a poem about menstruation for fear of what
the Sun newspaper might say? (8 Feb phone-call)
· Why were no black teachers consulted?
· When we consulted the Principal Examiner about this rejection,
why did he say, 'No idea, sorry, it's news to me.'? (11 Feb email)
· When we were phoned on 11 Feb to be told that, even without the
poem on menstruation, the project was still off, why were we offered a
fee to put our book on your web-site (when up to this point we had not
been offered a penny, despite giving you 10 copies of the book, worth
£170, receiving no travel expenses for the trip to Birmingham, and
being expected to pay £150 for the consultant's fee)?
· When you were asked to put the gist of the phone-calls in writing,
why did that take 10 days?
· When you eventually wrote to us, why did your letter contain
not one word of apology for leading us up the garden path for 6 months?
We would appreciate
a proper answer to all these questions.
Yours sincerely
Asher & Martin Hoyles
|