Universities and Spelling - Another Take
Universities insist it's elitist to mark down bad spelling (Hull University said it will drop the requirement for a high level of written and spoken English in some subjects) Is this right? Are these assessments 'inclusive' or are they just lowering the standard within universities?
Uh oh, I thought, when I read about the GMB discussion with Christine Hamilton last month. Get ready for the ‘anti-woke’ backlash. Michelle Donelan, the Universities Minister, accused the University of Hull of ‘dumbing down standards’ after it stipulated that students from minority ethnic backgrounds or underperforming schools should not be marked down for spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors. Conservative MP and chairman of the Education Select Committee, Robert Halfon, echoed her disapproval, calling the move ‘patronising and counterproductive’. The university is said to have described the insistence on high standards in English as ‘homogenous, North European, white, male, and elite’.
I googled the subject to find out what was being said about Hull’s policy. Apparently, academics have been informed that insisting on correct spelling, grammar and punctuation disadvantages students from minority ethnic backgrounds, including those who have English as a second language, working class students and students who attended underperforming schools, with the latter being put off by the need to demonstrate a high standard of English.
Both the University of the Arts London and Worcester University are said to have instructed their lecturers to exercise leniency when it comes to marking, unless it is a ‘Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) subject benchmark or stipulated by a Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB)’ (Hull University Inclusive Marking, Assessment and Feedback Policy, September 2020).
Regarding the linguistic ‘free pass’ that is on offer to black, brown and poor students the policy states:
“Inclusive marking sustains academic standards whilst allowing for variants in written expression. Variants in written expression must support the coherence and intelligibility of the work.”
This so-called inclusive marking is problematic for a number of reasons. Among other things, it assumes that if you are working class, have parents who were born overseas or speak a language other than English at home, you are deprived and/or attended an underperforming school. It takes no account of the thousands upon thousands of students, who:
Attended ‘good’ secondary schools, including grammar and (God forbid) independent schools;
Attended underperforming schools but nevertheless did very well;
Attended underperforming schools but received tuition that compensated for any gaps in core subjects like English, or
Were academically able and would have done well at whichever school they attended.
What I do find elitist about this policy is the introduction of a system that says it’s okay not to meet accepted standards of language which have the potential to give you access to opportunities – intellectual, social, professional, and cultural – that might otherwise be out of reach. You could study for between three and six years, believing you are doing well, when unbeknownst to you, your lecturers are artificially inflating your grades, ignoring errors that your middle class peers (who statistically will fare well once they graduate) are not making.
Let’s consider a scenario where a graduate does not have a great command of the English language but is nevertheless awarded a 2:1 based on the new, ‘inclusive’ marking protocol. At some point in their graduate-level career, they will be required to write a letter or report. Do universities think this former student will thank them when, thanks to the errors in their document, they become the laughing stock of the department? I’ve never met a student who believed their well-written essays were elitist, but I have come across young people who have been discouraged by their inability to get to grips with the English language. The feeling of not being good enough is one that, if not addressed, gnaws away at their self-esteem well beyond their days at school or university.
I take issue with the assumption that ethnic minority, working class and non-native English speaking students are the only ones whose written communication skills are lacking. We know graduates from affluent backgrounds will rise with ease through the professional ranks. Their grammatical idiosyncrasies will be laughed off, not laughed at. The reality is that literacy standards in English-speaking countries have been falling for at least twenty years. In 2003, the Guardian lamented a ‘degree of crisis’ among undergraduates due, in part, to the over reliance on spellcheck functions on electronic devices. Please let’s not make this discussion exclusively about race or class.
The initiative introduced by Hull University – and others – is not new: attempts to address institutional disadvantage and discrimination have tended to focus on the people on the receiving end of such discrimination. When I worked in race equality, it was common for councils to set up Black and Asian groups where staff would get together to suggest ways in which management could treat people fairly. And for years, companies have been running mentoring programmes for women to build their confidence and inspire them to apply for senior positions. Such initiatives are not in themselves problematic. What I find troubling is how nobody thinks to run programmes that focus on challenging the gate-keepers of a system that discriminates in the first place! This ‘treat the symptom not the cause’ approach is crude, lazy and does nothing more tinker round the edges.
In 2019, Universities UK and the NUS published a report in which it analysed the causes of the attainment gap between ethnic minority and white students. They identified eight ‘contributory factors’ that determined the attainment of minority ethnic students (reading Dr. Melanie Reynolds’ Guardian article, I have no reason to believe that working class would-be undergraduates do not face the same barriers). Prior attainment (how well you did in your GCSEs) was just one of those eight considerations. However, this factor plays into the deficit model approach which, in the context of education,
“focuses on the attributes and characteristics of the student as the main contributing factors for attainment differentials: it assumes students are lacking skills, knowledge or experience.”
By focusing solely on linguistic imperfections, universities can ignore the unconscious biases that get in the way of a lecturer’s ability to see beyond their own life experiences, or the fact that some university campuses and lecture halls can be hostile and intimidating places. Focusing on literacy – or the lack thereof – offers universities a ‘get out of jail free’ card, allowing them to tick the ‘we take the issue of diversity seriously’ box and pat themselves on the back while ignoring the lack of diversity in the staffroom, or its almost exclusively white male reading list.
Early in 2019, the government published measures designed to tackle inequalities between ethnic groups in higher education. One of the measures involves:
Putting pressure on university league tables to include progress in tackling access and attainment disparities – working with a wide range of experts, stakeholders and league table compilers.
What caught my eye was the bit about tackling access and attainment disparities, and it struck me that ignoring a misplaced comma or overlooking the fact that someone’s written there instead of they’re, isn’t tackling the issue. Tackling the issue could take the form of testing all first years and putting on English language classes for those whose writing skills aren’t up to scratch. This would be the easiest disadvantage to put right.
Insisting on linguistic conformity is not elitist. It is practical and necessary if you want to be understood, taken seriously, listened to and successful in your postgraduate career. I’d bet my last pound that every graduate who the Hull University is seeking to raise up would agree that letting them off the hook grammatically would be anything but inclusive. It’s exclusion by stealth, where the homogeneity of a workforce is covertly maintained, where you’re not selected because you’re brown, instead you’re rejected because your spelling is not up to scratch.
The attainment disparity that exists requires universities to examine its policies and procedures from the ground up. It won’t be resolved by allowing young people to believe ‘a lot’ is one word.
Written by Laurie O’Garro
When the country’s not in semi-lockdown, Laurie works for the Metropolitan Police and pursues a craft called ‘string art’. Her daughter is currently in her final year of university, studying online in London. Laurie also writes poetry and flash fiction.
www.instagram.com/thecatchuptalks
