Carol Ann Duffy: How Does Duffy Approach The Topic of Education in Her Poetry?

Both Duffy and Pugh are extremely sceptical of the British education system, arguing that its set up is not fit for purpose and is steeped in inappropriate archaic mechanisms.

In ‘Education for Leisure’, the persona claims that he “did” a subject at school, rather than ’studied’ or ‘learnt about’, a lexical choice that certainly suggests that scholarship has been reduced in education. This is an opinion that Pugh echoes in ‘Geography was peculiarly taught’, also stating that she “did” rather than ’studied’. However, the persona of ‘Education for Leisure’ retains some rote knowledge, reflecting on studies of “Shakespeare”, although it is meaningless to the person who says it was “in another language”, incomprehensible. Instead of the academic language associated with the study of Shakespeare, the persona commands a colloquial lexical set, using the concrete noun “bog”. This shows that despite “[doing]” Shakespeare “at school”, the persona has failed to be impacted by it, and that colloquial English is the only “language” he can comprehend.

However, this is not to say that the person’s education has not affected him/her; the opening line of ‘Education for Leisure’, “Today, I am going to…”, echoes a teacher’s introduction to lesson objectives. However, as it is the persona’s intent to “kill”, an inherently destructive act, it is suggested by Duffy that these formal objectives are harmful to education and therefore to society, as the persona ultimately “touch[es] your arm.”

Despite this intent on teaching and attempts at teaching traditional academia such as Shakespeare, the persona of ‘Education for Leisure’, feels disadvantaged by his schooling: he craves “half a chance” to enhance himself, suggesting that his education has failed to be a machine for social engineering and is not a distributor of equal opportunities for children. Indeed, the title ‘Education for Leisure’ suggests that facts learnt at school are purely for “fun”, and are completely non-functional, the ultimate consequence being that the persona must “sign… on” with a lack of “appreciat[ion]” from the tax-payer. Pugh agrees with this idea; in ‘Geography was peculiarly taught’ she describes the curriculum as “[not] complicated”, insinuating that education is not stimulating and thus does not give children a chance to excel and better themselves.

Criticism of the British curriculum is continued in ‘Head of English’; the patronisation of the ‘real live poet’ by the commanding persona (who constantly uses the imperative sentence mood when addressing her class, e.g. “sit up straight”), reduces the legitimacy of modern poetry in schools, relying on archaic literature for study, such as “Kipling”, instead. There is an atmosphere of control in this manner; the curriculum and therefore the pupils must fit a certain mould, influenced by the imperatives of the persona and the educational establishment’s preferences. The persona laments that “not all poems, sadly, rhyme these days”, where the adjective “sadly” expresses discontent with modern poetry and thus its place in the curriculum, evidenced by the fact that the modern poet’s visit is purely for “today”. However, the lexis “today” can refer to modern times as well as one particular day – in this way, the persona may be acknowledging modern literature’s place in education, although simultaneously discrediting it. Indeed, the persona sees modern poetry as an “outside view”, excluded from the school’s premises. Similarly, Pugh views the composition of the curriculum in ‘Geography was peculiarly taught’ as a product of the preferences of the establishment; the persona states that the topic studied was “popular with examiners” yet “[not] complicated”, suggesting that the subjects students study are for the ease of teachers and examiners rather than for the benefit of the pupil.