“poetry is happening but i don't exactly know how”: literacy subject leaders’ perceptions...

Literacy Volume 00 Number 0 xxx 2012 1

“Poetry is happening but I don’t exactlyknow how”: Literacy Subject Leaders’perceptions of poetry in their primaryschoolsAndrew Lambirth, Sarah Smith and Susanna Steele

Abstract

Evidence suggests (Ofsted, 2007) that the role of theSubject Leader is crucial in how well poetry is taughtin schools. This paper attempts to provide some in-sights on “what it is like” to coordinate poetry teach-ing in a primary school. Some of the data confirm ele-ments of the findings from earlier research on the stateof poetry in schools, particularly concerning space inthe curriculum, teacher subject knowledge and per-sonal interest in poetry. However, we attempt to showthat, much to the surprise of some of the Subject Lead-ers, where poetry teaching in the participants’ schoolswas perceived to be successful it was often nourishedby the combined enthusiasm and ‘zeal’ of the teach-ers and children experiencing poetry together, whichin turn was maintained by an empowering synergy ofprofessional/personal pleasure and engagement withpoetic texts experienced by some of the teachers whilein school.

Key words: teaching poetry, personal and professionalpleasures, social dimensions of poetry, Literacy SubjectLeaders

Introduction

In many ways, it could be argued that it is almostmiraculous that good poetry teaching can be found inmodern state primary schools in England, as researchindicates that the pressure on teachers from high stakestesting at the end of Key Stage 2 (Benton, 2000);dwindling curriculum time for poetry (Ofsted, 2007);perceived low self-confidence in teachers to teach it(Benton, 1986) and the poor knowledge of poems andpoets possessed by teachers (Cremin et al., 2008) makesthe prospect of good quality poetry teaching unlikely.Yet, for most of the Subject Leaders who were parti-cipants in a small-scale research project undertaken insouth-east London, good poetry teaching is happen-ing despite all the odds. This paper reports on theperceptions of a group of Literacy Subject Leaders ofpoetry teaching in their schools. The Ofsted (2007) re-port into the teaching of poetry in England namedLiteracy Subject Leaders as a crucial influence on thequality of poetry teaching in primary schools and so

we wished to talk to some about their perception ofthe poetry in schools where they worked and abouttheir role in its provision. While accepting the limita-tions of this small-scale study, we found that poetryteaching in the participants’ schools was often seen tobe nourished by the combined enthusiasm and ‘zeal’of the teachers and children experiencing poetry to-gether, which in turn was maintained by an empow-ering synergy of professional/personal pleasure andengagement with poetic texts experienced by some ofthe teachers while in school; all of which, one could ar-gue, helped mitigate against issues of lack of personalhome interest in poetry and the negative and aesthet-ically dulling pressures arguably found in contempo-rary primary schools.

Subject Leaders: who they are and whatthey do

The participants in this research were all Subject Lead-ers for literacy. All primary schools in England ap-point a teacher in this role. Subject Leadership of somekind is not a new concept in primary education. Therole goes back to ‘consultant teachers’ of the 1960s, butafter the introduction of the National Curriculum inthe United Kingdom and the emphasis on teachingspecific subjects, schools were made to assume moreaccountability for the work of individual teachers andschools and the quality of subject provision. All of thisneeded to be managed by a teacher and the role of theSubject Leader began to change.

Hammersley-Fletcher’s (2002) work on the role ofthe modern Subject Leader in primary schools in theUnited Kingdom developed a series of categories thatencompassed the various tasks with which they wereengaged:

� Resources – organisation, development, adminis-tration, movement and purchasing of information,equipment or human resources.

� Documentation – planning writing, developmentand reviewing of policies.

Copyright C© 2012 UKLA. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Literacy

2 Perceptions of poetry in primary schools

� Influencing practice – teaching other classes, advis-ing individual colleagues, demonstrating good prac-tice and preparing for staff meetings.

� Monitoring – assessment procedures and standards,subject display, checking work, lesson observation.

� Staff training – developing their own subject knowl-edge and that of other members of staff.

� Professional development (PD) and liaison – discus-sions with the head teacher, informal subject-relatedconversations with colleagues, parents, pupils, gov-ernors, visitors and other schools (Hammersley-Fletcher, 2002).

It was found (Hammersley-Fletcher, 2002) that consid-erably more time was spent on resourcing than otherduties.

The Subject Leaders in Hammersley-Fletcher’s studysubscribed to the view that leadership of a subjectrequired “open communication, support and liaisonwith colleagues” (2002, p. 418).

Poetry in school

In 2007, the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted)published a report on the teaching of poetry in pri-mary and secondary schools in England. It drew onevidence from 86 English subject inspections from arange of schools. Its conclusions included the notionthat “the National Curriculum ensures that poetry isa common element of all pupils experience in Englishand, as a result, pupils read a range of poems as theymove through school” (p. 4). The authors seemed satis-fied that children experienced poetry throughout theirtime in school from primary to secondary and that:

“The most effective Subject Leaders were highly influen-tial. Their leadership broadened the range of poems stud-ied, enhanced the quality of teaching, and provided pupilswith a varied and rich experience of poetry. These lead-ers were also instrumental in enhancing the poetry cur-riculum and making good use of activities such as com-petitions and cross-curricular work to develop poetry”(p. 5).

Overall:

“Provision for poetry was at least satisfactory in all theschools visited and good or very good in around twothirds. However, it was weaker than the other aspectsof English inspected, suggesting that poetry remains anarea for development in many of the survey schools”(p. 5).

This report found weaknesses in the subject knowl-edge of the teachers who taught poetry. This led topoor marking as they were unsure how to respond totheir children’s work. The authors comment that:

“There is an understandable sensitivity about comment-ing on writing that might be intensely personal. How-ever, the inadequate feedback given by many teachers onpupils’ poetry often reflected weaknesses in their subjectknowledge and their lack of confidence in opening up adialogue with pupils about their writing” (p. 15).

Teachers’ lack of subject knowledge was also reported(Ofsted, 2007) as being responsible for the limitedrange of poems and poets used in lessons. In addition,the authors note that many of the poems used werenot deemed to be challenging enough for the childrento whom they were shown. This Ofsted report refers towork carried out by members of the United KingdomLiteracy Association (UKLA, 2007), which showed thatfrom a sample of 1,200 teachers only 10 per cent couldname six poets and 58 per cent could name one, twoor none. Among those poets the teachers could name,few were woman or black and most were also noted inother literary categories outside poetry. The authors ofthe UKLA research conclude in a later paper (Creminet al., 2008) that “it could be argued that the markedlack of knowledge of poets of primary practitioners isrestricting children’s access to poetic voices in all theirdiversity” (p. 16).

Teachers’ personal interests and literacy behavioursare often allied to teachers’ professional subject knowl-edge and their ability to relay it to children. There iswork that indicates (Applegate and Applegate, 2004;Bisplinghoff, 2003; Commeyras et al., 2003; Dreher,2003; Morrison et al., 1999) the apparent link betweenthe interest of teachers in reading and children’s in-terest and self-motivation as readers. Dreher (2003)suggests that there is a correlation between teacherswho enjoy reading themselves and the classroom in-teractions that occur between them and their children:“teachers who are readers convey their love for read-ing to their students, that this love for reading providesa role model, and that it makes a difference in class-room practice” (Dreher, 2003, p. 1). This leads to thechildren’s greater engagement as readers, suggestingthat teachers’ personal interest and motivation to read“frames reading teachers” (Cox and Schaetzel, 2007, p.338) and enables teachers to offer guidance and en-couragement. Cremin et al. (2008) point out that inRummel and Quintero’s (1997) case studies of teach-ers, it was clear that the teachers’ lives and classroompractices were strongly influenced by their pleasure inliterature, which nurtured both them and in turn theirpupils. As a consequence, Cremin et al.’s (2007) re-search sought to establish the personal reading habitsof the 1,200 teachers from whom they collected data, asthey believed this was significant.

As will be shown, the majority of Subject Leaders inthe study on which this present paper reports didindeed enjoy reading themselves; however most didnot ever choose to read poetry at home. This, mostSubject Leaders stated, was also true of other mem-bers of staff. Yet, this perceived negative deficit in

Copyright C© 2012 UKLA


their personal pleasure of reading poetry at homewas said by some of the Subject Leaders to be ofteneclipsed at school. This apparent personal lack of in-terest in poetry (evidenced from home behaviours),some leaders reported, was challenged as teachersdelighted in reading poetry at school with the chil-dren. The personal/professional life binary distinc-tion, often made by researchers, may need to be re-examined. The Subject Leaders described the immensepersonal/professional pleasure of reading poetry withchildren, as part of a social act – more on this later.

The study

This study was concerned with exploring the percep-tions of poetry teaching of 10 Literacy Subject Leadersin primary schools. The purpose of the research wasto probe as deeply and as intensively as possible intothe perceptions of poetry teaching of the subjects of thestudy with a view to begin to understand more broadlythe rewards, advantages, tensions and challenges thatmay be prevalent.

A purposive sampling method was used. Ten Liter-acy Subject Leaders were chosen to be asked to par-ticipate in the study. The Subject Leaders asked toparticipate were chosen from the research team’sknowledge of the schools and the individual LiteracySubject Leaders. The schools’ geographical position inrelation to other partnership schools and their socio-economic population was taken into account in orderto collect data from schools in a variety of situationsand with similar and dissimilar issues and priorities.The ‘Leading Poetry’ research funding came from uni-versity coffers and so the Subject Leaders were all fromschools that were part of the partnership with the Uni-versity School of Education for the Initial Teacher Ed-ucation programmes provided.

The size of the sample is small. Although a smallsample is “quite in keeping with qualitative data”(Denscombe, 1998, p. 28) collection, we make no claimfor the sample being representative of Subject Lead-ers in general. A larger and more in-depth study couldhave included, for example, observations of the SubjectLeader at work and interviewed teachers about howpoetry teaching is organised in schools. However, theinterviews with Subject Leaders were in-depth enoughto capture a snapshot of the nature of the perceptionsof Literacy Subject Leaders as to their role in the teach-ing of poetry. The data aim to be able to contributeto knowledge in the field of poetry teaching and maysuggest and help define the nature of future largerstudies.

All the participants received a full project informa-tion sheet in advance of the interviews that explainedthe aims and purposes of the study and all the teach-ers provided informed consent for their participation.The participants were assured of confidentiality; no

names would be used in reporting the work and alldata would be kept securely by the research team. EachLiteracy Subject Leader was given one in-depth semi-structured interview that explored their perceptions ofthe teaching of poetry in their school. All the inter-views were dyadic with one member of the researchteam and the literacy leader present. The interviewswere organised at times of convenience for the teach-ers – in most cases after school – although some ofthe teachers chose to use time assigned for their liter-acy leader’s work or time for general planning. In con-structing the interview schedule, we identified specificissues that we wished to explore. These were their ownprofessional overview of poetry’s place in the curricu-lum in their school; their own and other teachers’ con-fidence to teach poetry; the role of the Subject Leader incoordinating the teaching of poetry and their perspec-tives on the issues concerning poetry in their school.Drawing on best practice on the use of semi-structuredinterviews, we wished the Subject Leaders to discussthe topic of poetry with as little prompting from theinterviewer as possible (Smith and Osborn, 2008) andindeed many of the issues the research team were in-terested in were raised by the Subject Leaders with lit-tle or no prompting. All but one of the Subject Leaderswas female and all had been teaching in their schoolsfor over 10 years. Half had been the Literacy SubjectLeader for over 10 years. All the participants had a de-clared interest in literature and the teaching of literacy.For most, this interest had been nurtured by study ofliterature and language at university either in a first de-gree in English or on education degrees or at Masterslevel. Two specifically mentioned their experiences onTeacher Education courses inspiring an interest in chil-dren’s literature.

In analysing the data, the research team began to fo-cus on emerging themes. As has been documentedelsewhere (Holliday, 2007), themes can emerge dur-ing the data collection itself in the minds of thoseinvolved and this was true in the process of the col-lection of data in this small study. Themes began to de-velop and through conversations between the three re-searchers involved, these emerging themes were testedand checked for consistency and agreed upon. Thethemes were inevitably influenced by the questions weasked. These themes were leading poetry – the role ofthe Subject Leader; planning; finding ways forward;sources of inspiration – professional and personalpleasures.

Leading poetry – the role of the SubjectLeader

The Subject Leaders were considerably knowledge-able about the teaching of poetry within their schools.Most noted the limits to their influence on how po-etry was being taught within classrooms. As we willdescribe later, most teachers drew on plans that came



directly from the Primary National Strategy (PNS) that,since the inception of its similar predecessor, The Na-tional Literacy Strategy (NLS: DfEE, 1998) has con-tinued to be the main source for schemes of workfor literacy. The PNS advocates teaching poetry andother forms of writing within defined ‘units of work’with which children engage for periods of time rang-ing from a week to 3 weeks. Despite the PNS’ role inensuring that poetry is included in planning, it hasbeen criticised for creating the opportunity for isolat-ing poetry to specific weeks in the year and conse-quently ignoring it at other times. As a Subject Leadercommented:

“Children may experience poetry in the first term butthen not come across any poems for the rest of the year”.

Another insisted that:

“If we had our own choice we would do poetry more oftenthan we do . . . but because we are following the PNS wedo it when we are told”.

Reflecting Hammersley-Fletcher’s (2002) findings, or-ganising resources for teaching poetry was given mostattention by the Subject Leaders. Despite the limitedbudget available for the whole of the subject area,there was an allocation for buying poetry books forall classes in all of the schools. Here is an example ofcomments:

“We have a reasonable collection of poetry books – notextensive – but the budget has been small for the last fewyears”.

“When we budget we keep some for poetry books . . . wehave guided readers as poetry books”.

“We do have a lot of poetry books . . . I bought a lot morefor the new library”.

“Each class has a book corner; we aim for 30 poetry booksso that each class can have access”.

Arguably, resourcing too is influenced by the PNS andits demand that teachers use a range of texts that mustinclude poetry. For most Subject Leaders with whomwe spoke, buying poetry for all ages was a normal androutine part of their job. There was an expectation fromall the Subject Leaders that part of their budget neededto be spent on poetry books. The Literacy Strategies(NLS and PNS) had made this a clear requirement. Po-etry was considered a necessary resource for the teach-ing of literacy. Although none of the teachers referredto specific poetry collections, one teacher emphasisedthat the box of poetry books the school had for KeyStage 1 (KS1) were “all proper poetry books”. We inter-pret this comment as meaning that this Subject Leaderconsciously avoided books that aim to provide exem-plars of poetic form. The popularity of books provid-ing specific types of poems reflects the way in which

the form-driven approach taken by the NLS (Wilson,2005) and later the PNS puts the emphasis on cover-age of forms rather than more in-depth and rich explo-ration of the work of poets. The Subject Leader in thisexample wanted books in classes that are collections ofpoems that have been anthologised for reasons otherthan facilitating coverage.

Overall, the poetry activity discussed by most SubjectLeaders was the writing of poetry. Some Subject Lead-ers specifically developed poetry resources for writ-ing. These included collections of artefacts; paintings;experiences; links to other subject areas; and, in oneschool, a collection of books for staff to help withideas and approaches. In another school, where theSubject Leader did have a particular interest in po-etry, each class was supported during a special po-etry day (held annually) by the production and dis-tribution of poetry bags: each bag was labelled with atheme and was full of objects to inspire. A lesson planwas also included with a set of poems and other visualaids.

Planning

Despite the limited size of the sample, there was a dis-tinct difference in the approaches taken to planningfor poetry in the schools. In three of the schools, theSubject Leaders outlined how the work on poetry wasbased entirely around units of work and that they wereoften reduced or dropped altogether because of moreimportant priorities. However, a number voiced con-cerns that if poetry is studied uniquely for 2 weeks,the children become bored. It was also observed thatpoetry was more evident in the Early Years and KeyStage 1, and as one moved through the school, poetrygot “squashed a little bit” because of the time spent onother genres.

We found that with the pressures on teachers fromtesting and the need to regularly assess writing, po-etry was often said to be the unit that was ‘left out’or shortened. As one Subject Leader put it: “It’s theunit that gets reduced or dropped”. It was felt byone participant that the priority in their school wason “writing a story or doing a report or doing non-fiction aspects of literacy”. Some of the Subject Lead-ers perceived their schools to be ‘results driven’ anddeclared that poetry “is not the easiest medium withwhich to measure progress”. This was supported byanother participant who stated that poetry was an areathat

“will get pushed to the side to make time for otherthings . . . it is much easier to assess writing from othergenres you have done”.

It was considered that schools were generally moreorientated towards the tests and therefore focused on



writing that children may encounter in them. A Sub-ject Leader from a school classified as outstanding byOfsted stated:

“other narrative and non-fiction writing does take prece-dence especially as you go up the school, when it comesto doing the SATs I don’t think that there has been anywriting that has been related recently to poetry”.

Ofsted (2007) has highlighted how “Poetry featuredless in the English curriculum in Years 6 and 9 in theschools visited because too many teachers focused onpreparing pupils for the tests” (p. 3), but our dataseem to suggest that poetry in some primary schoolsis thought dispensable in Key Stage 2 before childrenreach Year 6. A ‘testing culture’s’ impact extends muchfurther. Ofsted’s confidence that “The National Cur-riculum ensures that poetry is a common element ofall pupils’ experience” (p. 3) may be too optimistic inthe case of some schools.

Finding ways forward

A distinctly different response to the current prac-tice in school was reported by one Subject Leaderwhere the school had transformed its approach tothe teaching of English. This school actively movedaway from the atomised objective-led approach of theNLS and PNS to a more integrated approach that putengagement with texts, both literary and visual, atthe centre of work in English. This approach createdmore opportunities for teachers to include poetry intheir planning that went beyond units of work. Con-sequently the school, with the support of the headteacher, had broadened its approach to the teaching ofpoetry.

Two of the Subject Leaders interviewed had been ona continuing professional development (CPD) coursefunded by the local borough. Although this did not fo-cus solely on poetry, it introduced ways of workingthat created a broader curriculum context for litera-ture. The teachers involved commented on the impactof CPD on the practice in their schools:

“We’ve tried to be a little wider in our approach to po-etry . . . we’ve started linking poetry to texts, or a picture,making cross curricular links . . . or we link to visits”.

“We’ve tried to incorporate the teaching of poetry into thetheme or topic for that term . . . and making links betweenpoems . . . making it much more lively and practical”.

“Dissemination at staff meetings meant that the CPDhad an influence on practice throughout the school andteachers grew in confidence and felt more comfortablewith poetry and thought this is really doable”.

In these schools, units of work were replaced withwhat one Subject Leader referred to as a ‘Strand ap-

proach’. This way, the requirements of the PrimaryFramework may overlap with the strand that linksliteracy with cross-curricular work. Before this, theschools studied poetry as a block; now the teachers in-clude poetry alongside other texts. For example, whilereading Carrie’s War by Nina Bawden, responses to thisstory and its historical setting were enriched by the in-troduction of poems written about the experience ofthe blitz and of war more generally. James Fenton’s‘Blood and Lead’ or Miroslav Holub’s ‘Five Minutesafter the Air Raid’ are examples of poems that mightbe used with older children to enrich the reading of thenovel. One Subject Leader explained that introducingpoetry like this means that “it seems more real and thechildren get more out of it”.

We think there are two points that are significant tonote. First, in both schools attendance at CPD and thesubsequent changes in practice were supported by thehead teacher. In one of the schools, when there was avisiting poet, the teachers all wrote poetry because theimpetus came from the head.

“She [the head teacher] said, ‘you will all do some poetry’and we moaned about it – it was good though. We couldjust have had a passive day”.

In most of the schools in this study lack of confi-dence, knowledge and experience had been identifiedby many of the Literacy Subject Leaders. They sug-gested that poetry is unlikely to thrive in some primaryschools without both CPD opportunities and the sup-port of the head teacher to ensure a whole school ap-proach.

Second, in the examples that arose in this study, thefocus of the CPD extended beyond poetry to includeapproaches to teaching literature as a whole. It is pos-sible that, within primary schools, CPD that seeks todevelop creative approaches to teaching and learningwithin the English literature curriculum generally of-fers ways of changing teachers’ perceptions of poetry.Perhaps this has more purchase on developing practicethan a discrete focus on what many schools perceive asbeing a dispensable area of literacy in the current edu-cational climate.

In schools where poetry was perceived to be in ahealthy condition, the Subject Leaders dealt with initialresistance to poetry in positive and supportive ways.Advice would be given to teachers that enabled themto ‘get started’ with poetry. This often involved findingpoems to read aloud, discuss and perform that wouldbe capable of encouraging excitement and intellectualstimulation. It was stated by two leaders that the teach-ers in their schools did not need to follow set plans butinstead could choose the poems they thought the classwould enjoy. The Subject Leaders were there to adviseon choices and discuss the ways with which these po-ems could be introduced. This ensured that teachersknew they had the freedom to select poems rather than



rely on a narrow range of poetry that did not neces-sarily reflect the needs or interests of the class or theteacher. The poems the teachers chose were personaland professional investments in the practice and thisaesthetic attachment with the texts helped bring teach-ing sessions to life.

Sources of inspiration – personal andprofessional pleasures

As has already been mentioned, the Subject Lead-ers were intensely aware of the problem of teacherslacking knowledge in the teaching of poetry. Theirperceptions contribute to confirmation of the find-ings in the Ofsted (2007) report on poetry that high-lighted this as an issue. One Subject Leader describedan informal encounter she had had with a youngcolleague:

“I spent about an hour with one of our teachers yesterdaywho would be described as ‘good’ and she said ‘I can’tdo this – I can’t teach poetry – I hate it – I don’t knowabout it and I can’t teach it . . . it’s so dry and boring’. . . .Really she doesn’t know poetry, she doesn’t read it herself.‘It’s not my thing!’”

The disjunction between personal interests and theprofessional responsibilities of teachers is somethingoften mentioned by the interviewees. A minority ofthe Subject Leaders declared a love for poetry, butsome empathised with their colleagues in regardsto their personal feelings towards poetry and theirknowledge of the form. One commented on whetherteachers in their school could name a favouritepoem:

“Most staff don’t have a favourite poem, in fact me in-cluded”.

“Teachers have not read poetry for pleasure”.

Yet, to the puzzlement of some, there was generalagreement that teachers can teach poetry well withouthaving a declared personal interest in poetry found inbooks.

“First of all [teachers] need to extend their knowledge ofthe different types of poems so they can choose the rightpoems for their class . . . a poem that does not challengeyour imagination – it’s boring. So I think they need to getup-dated in poems . . . they also need to be aware of howthey introduce poetry”.

The emphasis on the involvement of teachers in thechoice of poems was a persistent theme and was linkedto the importance of, as one Subject Leader suggested,needing “something else – experience and enthusi-asm” – experience of the poems available to be used

and enthusiasm and confidence in their use. As oneSubject Leader said:

“This year the zeal I have shown has made the differencein how the children respond”.

So, despite the perceived difficulties and disadvan-tages of teachers teaching poetry without having a per-sonal interest in it (as measured by what they do out-side of school), good quality poetry teaching is seenas possible. This is accomplished by the application ofa professional knowledge of poems that children willenjoy and with which children can be challenged. Thisbuilds confidence and delight in the teachers when thechildren respond positively.

One Subject Leader working in a challenging schoolexpressed a belief in the role of the children’s responsesto reading and writing poetry in establishing motiva-tion in those that are teaching it.

“I adore it that my children are engaged with po-etry . . . when my children get into all that: the words,the sounds and all that and the rhythms and things likethat . . . you cannot help but pick up on children’s enthu-siasm, because like I say, I generally wouldn’t choose apoem myself but when you hear kids sitting down in theirquiet reading times and they have chosen a silly little po-etry book and they are whispering to each other poemsand they are laughing then you can’t help but be im-pressed”.

She went on:

“Children’s enthusiasm is reflected in the teachers . . . Idon’t think I’m a good teacher of poetry. It is my chil-dren. They are the inspiring ones. You know how kidstalk to each other and ideas grow. My children definitelydo that for me”.

Another Subject Leader commenting on the constraintson teaching poetry well said: “Poetry is happening butI don’t exactly know how”. There appeared be an elu-sive element that was assisting in overcoming some ofthese constraints. On the one hand teachers often con-fessed to little personal interest in poetry, but given theprofessional support they needed, they could teach itwell. The crucial factor was not so much the teach-ers’ personal engagement in poetry in contexts outsideof school, but much more their professional knowl-edge of the poetry which would interest the childrenin their class. Those teachers who were confident withthe poetry they were using, read and enjoyed the po-ems in school with their children. The professional con-text appeared to be where these teachers genuinely en-joyed poetry – alongside their class of young learners.This pleasure, according to the Subject Leaders, con-tributed to the ‘something else’ they observed to becentral to the teaching of poetry – the zeal and theenthusiasm.



The pleasure found by teachers who felt confident toread poetry with the children was felt to be vital bysome of the Subject Leaders. Although teachers oftenwould not choose to read poetry in other personal con-texts, one could argue, their professional life of readingpoetry counted as making them individual poetry en-thusiasts. This too was reading poetry for pleasure andmay be often overlooked and perhaps unrecognised asa genuine and personal experience. Here, the personaland professional pleasures might be seen to mix andbe taken as a single entity rather than two which aredistinctly separate.

It would appear to us that much of the pleasure andsuccess with poetry in school identified by the Sub-ject Leaders came from a relationship with poems thatwent beyond individual readings (both by teachersand children) and took on a more social and gregar-ious dimension. The teachers and children enjoyedpoems when they were read, recited, performed andexperienced together. The essence of poetry has ar-guably always been most apparent in its ability toexist off the page and among groups of people. OurSubject Leaders did not need to read poetry at hometo be excited by the vibrancy with which the poemsthey shared with the children were received. Literaryhistorians (e.g. Alexander, 2000) have shown that po-etry’s power to engage far pre-dated the advent of thewritten text. Furthermore, poetry’s origins in the oraltradition, as “an art of memorable speech” (Alexander,2000, p. 14) placed it at the heart of social activity. Onemight want to argue that some of the Subject Leadersin this small study recognised the form of interlocu-tion and shared experiences that poetry provided intheir schools, overcoming reticence and fear in teach-ers and the children. Poetry’s social power motivatedteachers to use it in ways that raised questions aboutbeliefs that a teacher who reads poetry at home alwaysmakes the best teacher of poetry. Poetry’s affordancescan also be tasted, experienced and relished in a groupand at school.

Conclusion

Our small study does contribute to confirmation ofsome of the previous research into the teaching of po-etry in primary schools in England and Wales men-tioned at the beginning of this paper. This work of-ten draws bleak conclusions about the general healthand vitality of a most precious form of the languagearts in schools. There is still a ‘problem with poetry’(Andrews, 1991) and it is time for those who have pas-sion for poetry to speak up for its regeneration. Yet,our tiny project also tentatively suggests the poten-tial for primary schools and teachers to make a differ-ence with poetry. The role of the Subject Leader andhead teacher in encouraging time for poetry in theschool day was important in the schools that we vis-ited. The Subject Leaders’ support for teachers by in-troducing the work of interesting poets to teachers and

allowing time for discussion between teachers aboutthem was also crucial. Some of the results of this studyhint at the importance of opening up the school dayto poetry in ways that the present trend for the en-capsulation of poetry teaching in units of work doesnot allow. The most successful teachers found a so-cial space for poetry where it flourished. When thishappened, teachers and children witnessed poetry’sancient potential to enthral its listeners communally.Poetry can be experienced and enjoyed as writtenand oral text and, from what our Subject Leaders de-scribed, enjoyed in ways that demonstrated that pro-fessional pleasures and personal pleasures can be syn-ergised. There is more research to be done concerningthe pleasure found in texts shared in professional con-texts. When poetry was given a social space, the gen-eral combined responses from participants that weregenerated produced poetry enthusiasts in the truestsense, defying much of the evidence that contributesto such bleak conclusions about poetry’s health. To thesurprise of many of the Subject Leaders, poetry was‘happening’.

ReferencesALEXANDER, M. (2000) A History of English Literature. Basingstoke:

Palgrave.ANDREWS, R. (1991) The Problem with Poetry. Buckingham: Open

University Press.APPLEGATE, A. J. and APPLEGATE, M. D. (2004) The Peter effect:

reading habits and attitudes of pre-service teachers. The ReadingTeacher, 57.6, pp. 554–563.

BENTON, P. (1986) Pupil, Teacher, Poem. Sevenoaks: Hodder andStoughton Educational.

BENTON, P. (2000) The conveyor belt curriculum? Poetry teachingin secondary school II. Oxford Review of Education, 26.1, pp. 81–93.

BISPLINGHOFF, B. S. (2003) Teachers planning as responsible resis-tance. Language Arts, 80.3, pp. 119–128.

COMMEYRAS, M., BISPLINGHOFF, B. S. and OLSON, J. (2003)Teachers as Readers: Perspectives on the Importance of Reading in Teach-ers’ Classrooms and Lives. Newark, DE: International Reading Asso-ciation.

COX, R. and SCHAETZEL, K. (2007) A preliminary study of pre-service teachers as readers in Singapore: prolific, functional or de-tached. Language Teaching Research, 11.3, pp. 300–316.

CREMIN, T., MOTTRAM, M., BEARNE, E. and GOODWIN, P. (2008)Exploring teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature. CambridgeJournal of Education, 38.4, pp. 449–464.

DENSCOMBE, M. (1998) The Good Research Guide: For Small-ScaleSocial Research Projects, 3rd edn. Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DfEE)(1998) The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for Teaching. Lon-don: DfEE.

DREHER, M. (2003) Motivating teachers to read. The Reading Teacher,56.4, pp. 338–40.

HAMMERSLEY-FLETCHER, L. (2002) Becoming a Subject Leader:what’s in a name? Subject leadership in English primary schools.School Leadership and Management, 22.4, pp. 407–420.

HOLLIDAY, A. (2007) Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. Lon-don: Sage.

MORRISON, T., JACOBS, J. and SWINYARD, W. (1999) Do teach-ers who read personally use 26 recommended literacy practicesin their classrooms? Reading Research and Instruction, 38.2, pp. 81–100.



OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION (OFSTED) (2007) Po-etry in Schools: A Survey of Practice 2006/7. London: Ofsted.

SMITH J. A. and OSBORN, M. (2008) ‘Interpretative phenomenolog-ical analysis’, in J. A. Smith (Ed.) Qualitative Psychology: A PracticalGuide to Research Methods, 2nd edn. London: Sage.

UNITED KINGDOM LITERACY ASSOCIATION (UKLA) (2007)Teachers as Readers: Building Communities of Readers 2007–08 Exec-utive Summary. UKLA/Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.

WILSON, A. (2005) Finding a voice? Do literary forms work cre-atively in teaching poetry writing? Cambridge Journal of Education,37.3, pp. 441–457.

CONTACT THE AUTHORSAndrew Lambirth, Sarah Smith and SusannaSteele, University of Greenwich, School of Educa-tion, Mansion Site, Bexley Road, Eltham, LondonSE9 2PQ, UK.e-mail: [email protected];[email protected]@greenwich.ac.uk


“poetry is happening but i don't exactly know how”: literacy subject leaders’ perceptions...

Documents