The canon of English literature - and what is taught in English classrooms - is always the stuff of fierce debate and news headlines.

A new TES article claims schools 'need support to break away from An Inspector Calls'. So, we should ask the question, should it be scrapped, what should change in the curriculum, and why that might prove so difficult and not offer the results we may hope for?

Are teachers struck with a strange case of excessive Inspector Calls, or are more complex factors at play when it comes to what is being taught? The TES article poses that budget constraints and a lack of resources are important reasons why relatively few texts being taught over and over again in English literature.

The article also argues that time and professional development are a necessity for any curriculum change to English literature. This is no doubt true too. I think they are both vital to build the confidence of teachers so they are willing to experiment with a new text for a qualification that can mean so much to their students.

An excellent 'Lit in Colour' report is cited by the TES article. 'The effect of studying a text by an author of colour: The Lit in Colour Pioneers Pilot', reveals the crucial point that any change of texts in English literature requires "time, money, subject knowledge and confidence", but also "a high level of effort and commitment" to "make change happen".

Final call on the inspector?

I think it is also helpful to try and understand the effort and commitment invested by English teachers which likely accounts for the enduring popularity of 'An Inspector Calls'.

First, why is the inspector calling to 84% of students sitting English AQA English literature?

In pragmatic terms, people do have copies of the text and resources. Perhaps more so, the play is also short and relatively accessible to students - many of whom can struggle with other more complex texts on the specification. When curriculum time feels thin, and students struggle, picking the most amenable text makes sense and it proves helpful to many students.

I first taught 'An Inpector Calls' in my fourteenth year of teaching. I had written it off myself (for no good reason in truth). And yet, upon giving it a go, for a change, I was happily surprised just how much my year 10s enjoyed reading it.

Did they enjoy the essays and the revision? Probably not. Did they enjoy the pressure of translating the play into exam speak? Not so much. But such is the way go all examined texts who are brokered for annual exams.

They did enjoy the exploration of power and privilege, and gender and violence, of billionaires and benefactors. Though the text can commonly be written off as stale and pale, there is something pressingly contemporary about a rich patriarch ignoring his responsibilities and making daft comments about war and wealth. The book offers an interesting mirror on the contemporary world students are submerged in.

Seeing it dismissed by many has made me think of why English teachers do, year-in and year-out, teach the same texts. It is not merely laziness, or boredom, or just cold hard pragmatism.

Literary texts are also taught because they are familiar. This breeds confidence, which can make a teacher feel safe and creative with their truculent year 10s on a Tuesday afternoon. Though I do believe these traditions can stall the introduction of even better texts, we should take care not to write off the hard-won habits and routines of lots of hard working teachers.

There is also some emotional investment in having been taught a text in school, then going on to teach it yourself. Like Alan Bennett's 'The History Boys' the urge to 'pass it on' can prove compelling. This likely isn't merely inertia from English teachers, nor do I think it is simply a rejection of change or diversity.

As the new curriculum assessment review looms into view, I am sure the English literature qualification will see a timely evolution. Practicalities like text length and teacher training will rightfully be raised. Contemporary, diverse texts should be introduced alongside the familiar classics. But we must ensure teachers have the time, training and resources to support them to do it confidently and well.

Calling for change and support

It is vital that when we call for curriculum change, that it is balanced with the necessary supports to enact that change.

As curriculum expert, Lawrence Stenhouse, put it well over half a century ago,“The central problem of curriculum study is the gap between our ideas and aspirations and our attempt to operationalise them.”

If we do choose to move on from An Inspector Calls, or place it alongside contemporary, new texts, we need to understand the support needed for busy teachers. Curriculum development depends on teacher development.

One of my favourite quotes about teaching is from Vivianne Robinson. It is from her book on reducing change to increase improvement (and yes, that is a counterintuitive statement):

“Instead of taking for granted that change will lead to improvement, we should do the opposite – that is, believe that change will not deliver our intended improvement unless there are structures and processes in place for ensuring that all involved can learn how to turn change into intended improvement.”

I think all the contributors writing in the TES article - whether they like 'An Inspector Calls' or not - recognise the reality that changing literary texts is tricky and it requires sensitive handling. As already stated, it requires subject expertise, time, training, resources, and sustained support.

Maybe it is time for the inspector to make a final call. If it is, then it will require a chain of events that sustains support for teachers, even when the headlines have faded and the classroom doors close on another GCSE cycle.