John Howard Hates the HSC English Syllabus (4 Viewers)

[ur_inner_child]

HSC English is tough and smarter, not dumb and dumber

Critics should look at the syllabus before judging it, writes Melina Marchetta.

The debate surrounding the English syllabus, largely directed by politicians, the media and academics, bears little relevance to the work being done in the classroom. More worrying is that the Prime Minister uses terms such as "dumbed down", "rubbish" and "politically correct" to describe aspects of the syllabus and refers to outcomes-based education as "gobbledegook".

If John Howard's greatest fear is that pop culture is treated no differently to traditional literature, mine is that he is ignoring the real concerns facing teachers and students in the study of senior English.

National debate over the syllabus must focus more on what counts to the students and teachers rather than getting bogged down by the opinions of Howard and his crew of hand-wringers who are lamenting an era long gone.

This new syllabus does bring with it many concerns, the least being that it has been "dumbed down". On the contrary, English teachers in NSW are uneasy about what is expected of Higher School Certificate students. The type of higher-order thinking required under HSC exam conditions can be very challenging. Therefore students are not earning results in the top bands. This, in turn, gives rise to criticism of teaching practices and lamentation over the standard of education. Students today are required to do what most adults, including the Prime Minister, academics, parents, teachers and the writers of the actual texts, would find almost impossible to do, especially under HSC exam conditions.

A class studying King Lear in the Critical Study module, for example, would be required to explore aspects of the play's themes, structure, setting, character and language, as was required in the syllabuses of the 1970s and '80s. Students attempting the new HSC, however, must also analyse different productions of the play and explore the social context of the decisions made by the directors. This analysis of social context might consider how women are represented, how power is used or misused and the impact it has on the wider community.

Many, like myself, would see this study as a sophisticated and legitimate analysis of an enduring classic, one which incorporates what could be described as a traditional study of Shakespeare and then seeks to place the students' understanding of the work into a meaningful and contemporary context.

Some, like the ill-informed detractors of the past week, who seem to believe that such studies of texts are purely focusing on critical theory, might dismissively label this a feminist or Marxist interpretation. Howard chose to glibly label it as "politically correct".

To identify this type of study in such a way is dangerous and ignorant. Howard is one of many who wheel out the term "politically correct" to shut down meaningful debate on issues of inequity based on race, class and gender. God forbid that a syllabus would dare ask the students to look at a novel or film from differing perspectives.

As with his recent attack on the teaching of history, the Prime Minister and his supporters appear to believe in the existence of an educational canon, a comprehensive list of facts to learn, books to read and rewards for those students who commit the necessary facts to memory.

Howard dismisses outcomes-based education skills as "gobbledegook" without really articulating what aspect of this model he is dissatisfied with.

One could argue that he doesn't understand what is required, or, more likely hasn't taken the time to actually look at a syllabus that he is ridiculing.

Outcomes-based education has not been adopted based on it being "trendy" or "left-wing" or to cater to the needs of young people uninterested in traditional teaching and learning. It creates a learning environment that allows students to use their minds well - rationally and creatively.

If the Prime Minister walked into an average classroom he would see students being taught content and, more importantly, valuable skills which allow them to evaluate the many ways meaning is presented to them in the world outside the classroom.

Students will need these skills of comprehension, evaluation and synthesis in order to participate meaningfully in an increasingly complex world.

Melina Marchetta is a teacher and the author of Looking for Alibrandi.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/hsc-english-is-tough-and-smarter/2006/04/30/1146335609488.html

It's kinda funny Johnny saying gobbledegook...

 

[transcendent]

Even though I didn't do great in English I did learn a great many things about interpreting text and that alone helps me to understand other texts better and look at it from more than a singular perspective. I just wasn't able to convey my ideas properly through an essay themed response with evidence supported articles. I really enjoyed learning English and the various media used.

 

[Riewe]

Looking back, english was probably the least relevant subject i did in the HSC. It was all well and good to learn how to write essays and such, but in the real world, i don't have to interpret various texts through several 'lenses'.

A whole module on 'truth' not once since have i had to apply what i learn here to anything i currently do, or am ever going to do.

I think it's a shame its compulsory to learn how to interpret and decifer texts which get you not far in life, but not how to add, subtract and divide which is much more useful in the real world (yes there were some people in my class who graduated without even a basic level of maths)

 

[walrusbear]

english is incredibly valuable in 'the real world'
it sharpens perception, critical & analytical skills
on a more superficial level, are you sure that enhancing your reading and writing skills isn't valuable?

Students will need these skills of comprehension, evaluation and synthesis in order to participate meaningfully in an increasingly complex world.

oh yeah, i think the article is spot on.

 

[transcendent]

they should've learnt Maths in primary school

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The article's being a bit generous there, I mean

A class studying King Lear in the Critical Study module, for example, would be required to explore aspects of the play's themes, structure, setting, character and language, as was required in the syllabuses of the 1970s and '80s. Students attempting the new HSC, however, must also analyse different productions of the play and explore the social context of the decisions made by the directors. This analysis of social context might consider how women are represented, how power is used or misused and the impact it has on the wider community.

But you're actually discouraged from 'exploring the play's themes, structure, setting, character and language' because it's not worth any marks. Look at the English forum, it's all like "omg what production can I use to support a Marxist reading?"

 

[walrusbear]

it's not discouraged at all
you have to synthesise 'themes, structure, setting, character and language' within different critical frameworks

 

[_dhj_]

Kosintzev...

 

[_dhj_]

it's not discouraged at all
you have to synthesise 'themes, structure, setting, character and language' within different critical frameworks

Exactly right. But because it's from the "Marxist" or "Feminist" perspective, people like John Howard cannot see beyond those labels. If we keep mentioning the "aristotelian" or "christian" perspective, it might be misunderstood by some critics aswell.

 

[AntiHyper]

Ah yeah im happy I wont have to face this new harder syllabus.

 

[Jameswilmot2000]

Even though I didn't do great in English I did learn a great many things about interpreting text and that alone helps me to understand other texts better and look at it from more than a singular perspective. I just wasn't able to convey my ideas properly through an essay themed response with evidence supported articles. I really enjoyed learning English and the various media used.

Im not doing all that well in English due to me not being able to support my arguments and use "higher thinking" ... however Adv English has helped me look at other texts in a completely different light - i get more out of said texts and i have a deeper understanding ....

shame my english assessment mark is looking so crap ... :-(

 

[mr_brightside]

Ive met Melina Marchetta before.
She was nice

 

[The_highwayman]

well said, Melina Marchetta.

If the government entrusts syllabus production to a certain body they should leave decision making to that body and not publically criticise the rationale and theoretical support for such decisions.

 

[HotShot]

well said, Melina Marchetta.

If the government entrusts syllabus production to a certain body they should leave decision making to that body and not publically criticise the rationale and theoretical support for such decisions.

fact is there is always room for improvement, if i am correct maybe someone could find out, our english standards are quite poor compared to other countries. I think thats why johnnie wants to make things more tough. fact is a lot teachers just arent doin their job, regardless of how many students per class facilities etc. u teach they learn they pass etc.

 

[_dhj_]

fact is there is always room for improvement, if i am correct maybe someone could find out, our english standards are quite poor compared to other countries. I think thats why johnnie wants to make things more tough. fact is a lot teachers just arent doin their job, regardless of how many students per class facilities etc. u teach they learn they pass etc.

No I don't think that's why Johnie is rubbishing the syllabus. What he means is that education isn't conservative enough for his liking and is monopolised by the international conspiracy of radical feminists and post-modernists. He fears that our future generations will not so easily accept conservative ideals as a result of the alternative perspectives that they have learnt in high school.

 

[Silver Persian]

That journeys essay was horrible.

I wonder how many politicians did English majors at university?

 

[sparkl3z]

That journeys essay was horrible.

I wonder how many politicians did English majors at university?

i reckon. real journeys imaginative etc...ahhh terrible memories...i think it's more like english/training to be a movie director or some crap more than the actual english language itself though, well our one was, we basically studied aspects of films all year, camera angles, themes, values sheesh....! i don't see how they have helped me in my future.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

No I don't think that's why Johnie is rubbishing the syllabus. What he means is that education isn't conservative enough for his liking and is monopolised by the international conspiracy of radical feminists and post-modernists. He fears that our future generations will not so easily accept conservative ideals as a result of the alternative perspectives that they have learnt in high school.

I don't see why he'd hate it for that reason. If anything, the alternative perspectives we must learn would make us more inclined to accept conservative ideals.

 

[goldendawn]

I don't like the syllabus or the pm. It's the ridiculous ridiculing the ridiculous. To be honest, how is cramming analysis of six or more texts into a 45min essay positive learning? The hsc is so exam centred that students are taking whatever shortcuts they can to satisfy a rubric. It's not about learning, it's about a band. It's also ironic, because it teaches you that "relatavism is the only way". Anyone who references Jung instead of Foucault will probably lose some marks. Every critic you study has an opinion, but you aren't truly allowed to express your own. It's the worst aspects of post modernism (meaning only the sophistry, devoid of the better aspects of freedom of thought, feeling and expression), compounded by rigid guidelines that *barely* mask a preeeety traditional approach: "it's my way, or the highway".

 

[kami]

I think alot of that occurs because of a certain UAI oriented mentality in teachers - who both instruct the students on what to write and evaluate it once its been written. There is a lot of good things(and bad) in the syllabus, and if you had teachers willing to explore it with you as well as markers willing to consider these explorations then it could be more than worthwhile.