Universities and Spelling
As an English literature graduate who is currently working as an English-specific teaching assistant and writing in their spare time, it’s safe to say that sometimes, my life feels as though it revolves around spelling, punctuation, and grammar. In fact, I’d say a solid 50% of my time at work is spent teaching and correcting grammar, whilst an approximate 40% of my down time is spent thinking on it.
Due to this, I may have instantly recoiled in horror when I first learnt that some British universities would be asking their staff not to dock marks for spelling errors. As it might with anyone who spends their days teaching children how to spell ‘ambitious vocabulary’ that could rival Moira-Rose’s vernacular, or how to understand the differences between dashes and brackets (which I’m still not sure of myself, to be honest), this news instantly conjured up images of lengthy essays packed to the brim with mistaken homophones and comma splices.
However, as I usually am, it turns out I was jumping to conclusions. There seems to be genuine, reasonable (and rather convincing) logic behind the scrapping of spelling penalties, one that aims to fight elitism in British universities. However, will overlooking clear literacy blunders truly help to ‘remove barriers to learning’, as the University of Hull has claimed, or is it just another way for universities to avoid assisting their students beyond their basic services?
Hull University were, reportedly, the first to make this decision – a decision that is proving to be incredibly contentious across different media outlets. The Yorkshire institution said it would be encouraging tutors not to dock marks for spelling to help three main groups: those who attended underperforming schools, those with SEN needs and those who speak English as a second language. Supposedly, a lack of spelling and grammar assessment will encourage such groups to undertake university level study as they “may have been discouraged or disadvantaged [from doing so] when technical proficiency in written English is assessed.” Instead of having marks docked for standard English mishaps, Hull’s students will now be encouraged to develop “a more authentic academic voice – a voice that can communicate complex ideas with rigour and integrity.”
Other universities have since followed suit. The University of the Arts London, for example, has issued new guidelines to staff that they should accept spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes where they do not “impede communication”, with similar decisions being made by Nottingham Trent and Worcester. It is worth mentioning that for each of these universities, these new rules will only apply to subjects were no external body insists on good written English (so it’s probably safe to assume that no English Language student will be getting away with adding in an unnecessary apostrophe or missing out the first ‘n’ in government). Ultimately, all four of these universities have good intentions; their aim is to reduce the huge disparity that continues to exist within the British higher education system.
However, it’s easy to see why many academics believe this isn’t the right path to take.
Personally, I wholeheartedly agree that no student who is either from a disadvantaged educational background, has a learning disability or speaks language as their second (maybe even third or fourth) language should be expected to have the same written English skills as, for instance, a privately educated, non-SEN and native English-speaking student. To believe that they should wouldn’t just be elitist, but downright cruel. Despite this, it seems a little negligent to paint all these groups with the same brush. The issues that might be faced by a non-native speaker, for example, could be very different to those faced by a student with dyslexia. Shouldn’t we begin expecting these world-class educational establishments – which charge everyone a hefty fee for their services – to be doing much more than simply making marking easier for tutors to ensure that students don’t leave with the same educational disparities they had upon entering?
When looking at the ways in which Hull, UAL, Nottingham Trent and Worcester are already attempting to diversify their student base, it’s evident that they aim to provide substantial support to students with learning disabilities. Provisions such as DSA funded assistance, screening and diagnosis, and reasonable adjustments are available to students at all the above-mentioned universities. Therefore, it appears this decision is aimed more at those who simply might not have had access to the same standard of English language education as other students. Without a doubt, more needs to be done to help such students.
Britain continues to have a substantial educational gap: in 2019-20, Office for Students statistics show that only 17% of domestic university entrants were 18–21-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, compared to 44.2% from more advantaged backgrounds. Despite this, I don’t believe that dropping academic standards in higher education will have the desired effect of closing this gap. Whilst it might encourage students who struggle with their spelling and grammar, surely simply allowing mistakes to go unchecked will only widen these stark educational gaps post-graduation? Universities should not be minimising the support they’re providing to such students but increasing it.
In April, the UK Universities Minister Michelle Donelan said that she felt these moves would impede disadvantaged students and that "instead, the answer is to lift up standards and provide high quality education." For once, I’ve found myself agreeing with a Tory minister. Instead of dropping English standards – which would almost certainly affect graduates in the world of employment – universities should be looking for new ways to support all their students to ensure they leave their educational establishments with the same written language skills as their peers.
Look at it like this: there is a difference between equality and equity. In a year ten class I assisted with this last week, the teacher illustrated this difference by having two students stand up whilst he read out statements applying to their imaginary lives, each of which would allow them to either take a step forward or stay where they were. A good education or extra tuition, for instance, would allow them to move forwards. Essentially, the exercise highlighted how, if a student had a particularly advantaged start in life, then equal opportunities would still fail to achieve equality, as the disadvantaged student would always remain a few paces behind. Instead, to reach equality, the student from the disadvantaged background needs to be treated with equitability; they must be given something extra. This exemplifies the issue with this proposal: it will do nothing to help reach equality between disadvantaged students and their non-disadvantaged peers. Instead, it will allow students’ issues with spelling, grammar and punctuation to go unchecked at university, only to impede them post-graduation.
Until the rest of the working world is willing to stop placing a significant importance on written English, universities making changes like this simply isn’t enough to close Britain’s educational gap. Ultimately, it’s a nuanced issue that requires a nuanced approach – and allowing bad spelling and grammar just isn’t that.
Written by Erin Lister
Erin is a recent English graduate, currently living in Manchester and working as a teaching assistant. She's obsessed with all things music, theatre and television and hopes to one day write about them for a living.