John Howard Hates the HSC English Syllabus (2 Viewers)

[Captain Gh3y]

Opinion piece written by the same guy who wrote this?

That cannot be regarded as a relatively objective article.

OMG AN OPINION PIECE ISN'T OBJECTIVE?

You must have totally studied Frontline to have known that.

But seriously, what was far more subjective and worrying was when Wayne Sawyer, the president of the NSW English Teachers Association and chairman of the NSW Board of Studies English Curriculum Committee claimed that English teachers in Australia had failed their duty because the Howard government was re-elected.

 

[_dhj_]

OMG AN OPINION PIECE ISN'T OBJECTIVE?

You must have totally studied Frontline to have known that.

But seriously, what was far more subjective and worrying was when Wayne Sawyer, the president of the NSW English Teachers Association and chairman of the NSW Board of Studies English Curriculum Committee claimed that English teachers in Australia had failed their duty because the Howard government was re-elected.

That is unsurprising given Howard's populist and anti-intellectual style of politics.

 

[walrusbear]

in defence of postmodernism:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4509

 

[xeuyrawp]

Opinion piece written by the same guy who wrote this?

That cannot be regarded as a relatively objective article.

Jeez, calm down, it wasn't a piece of evidence or anything, I thought the article was just interesting.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

in defence of postmodernism:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4509

Too bad that each of the "privileged white European males" of the Renaissance and Enlightenment did more for humanity each day than the author will in a lifetime.

And,

And should we teach students to analyse pop as well as high culture? Of course - in the postmodern world there is no place for right choices of texts, nor for authoritative and authoritarian “right” readings.

This is not, of course, to say that anything goes: that some readings are not more correct and coherent than others in relation to the content of the text being analysed; that some texts are not more rich in meaning than others; that the choice of text in a syllabus should be chosen because it belongs to the traditional canon rather than because it relates to the world of the young reader. It simply means that texts invite a plurality of readings and approaches, and that texts should be chosen for their appropriateness to the student, linking the world he or she knows to the discovery other worlds.

Given the first paragraph, by what authority can the author claim the second?

AND, he doesn't even have a clue what modernism actually is.

 

[_dhj_]

Too bad that each of the "privileged white European males" of the Renaissance and Enlightenment did more for humanity each day than the author will in a lifetime.

And,



Given the first paragraph, by what authority can the author claim the second?

AND, he doesn't even have a clue what modernism actually is.

The Rationalist, Romanticist, Modernist and Postmodernist eras loosely make up the humanist epoch. It can be said that Western civilisation as a whole is only made up of three epochs - Classical (Greeks and Roman), Medieval (Dark ages onwards), and Humanist (enlightenment onwards). There are some who argue that we have entered a "post humanist" epoch, with the increasing importance of representations and simulations of reality.

Unfortunately, conservatives seem to always fight to preserve the ideological norm of the previous era rather than embrace the inevitable and natural progress of humanity.

 

[walrusbear]

Too bad that each of the "privileged white European males" of the Renaissance and Enlightenment did more for humanity each day than the author will in a lifetime.

her argument isn't suggesting otherwise. merely that it's problematic to assume it as a universal.

AND, he doesn't even have a clue what modernism actually is.

which elements, in her brief allusions to modernism, do you take issue with?

 

[Sewwy]

Personally, I'm struggling with English this year. Despite being in the second class and maintaining a rank of about 20, I'm finding the course incredibly difficult. I have trouble reading and understanding classics (ie: Emma and Antony and Cleopatra) and I have difficulty in analysing contexts and relating them back to the point of the entire module/AOS.

Why? Because I was never taught properly.

There are the select few who manage to understand the concepts of the modules and the AOS perfectly fine because they were the ones who were able to pick up on the ideas and the basis of such things like analysing texts, picking meaning and contexts out of things, and so on. Lets face it: with this Syllabus, if you don't know how to analyse texts and pick meaning and ideas out of it until its basically in pieces, you're not going to do as well in the HSC than if you /can/ do the mentioned.

Because I struggle to understand these ideas and how to do the tasks at hand, I find myself hating the subject. Im sure that if i'd managed to grasps such concepts in a younger grade I could understand the ideas to a greater extent and would therefore be doing better in comparison to what I am doing now.

Then there's the aspect of the course that targets specific areas, such as creative writing or (in the case of assessments) performing speeches. There are some people that literally can /not/ do these tasks. Some people don't have a creative bone in their body. Others, like myself, make themselves sick at the thought of public speaking, let alone speaking infront of people who are assessing you. There are aspects of the course that target certain skills specifically. Forget not being able to spell or use correct grammar: If you can't write a decent narative or speak infront of an audience, there goes near to 15% of your grade.

I really would have preferred it if it was a requirement to be taught in the younger grades specifically how to do exactly what we're required in the HSC. At least then we'd be able to at least expect what was coming when we reached year 12. Maybe then, too, it wouldn't seem like such a "difficult" course.

 

[LynH1326]

Maybe he should actually read the texts that we have to study (for Standard, Advanced AND Extension 1) then actually do the exams we have to do.

I'm doing 3 units of English and believe me, there are enough classical text such as Shakespeare and Coleridge so the newer tests like Looking for Alibrandi and Cloudstreet are welcome changes to these that REFLECT AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY AND IDEALS! Maybe he should focus on Australia instead of pandering to outdated and irrelivant things people will never read because they are boring!

 

[Marquis]

Well well well, so it seems Howard and I agree on something after all...
The syllabus is a load of shit - now why would someone want to put kids through the mysery of studying Emma/Antony and Cleo...
Establish who can read in year 12 and who cant, and let them get on with their schooling, noone is ever going to need to analyse god damn John Keats/Gwen Harwood or any of that shit. What makes things worse is sitting there trying to write about things you have absolutely no interest in and whats more, trying to make it sound good so that you're recognised at least within the top 15% etc...
Death to hsc English...

 

[walrusbear]

you won't be needing analytical skills later in life?

it's also funny that you mentioned shakespeare considering the conservative reaction to the syllabus often decries the supposed move away from 'classical' texts

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I would like to see an abandonment of the almost religious-like following of post-modernist garbage in the sylabus, to at least be challenged by a critical realist POV. IMO the modern accademic world has alot more arguments going on about which theoy(ies) makes more sense, but our HSC doesn't represent this... At my school at least there seemed to be no challenge to post-modernism that was given a huff by the teachers, maybe other people went to better schools tho? I'd like to hear about it.

The syllabus isn't that bad tho, I don't support going back to studying classics or whatever, as much as that would give pompus jerks a hard on.

Wikipedia link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism

 

[xeuyrawp]

I would like to see an abandonment of the almost religious-like following of post-modernist garbage in the sylabus, to at least be challenged by a critical realist POV. IMO the modern accademic world has alot more arguments going on about which theoy(ies) makes more sense, but our HSC doesn't represent this... At my school at least there seemed to be no challenge to post-modernism that was given a huff by the teachers, maybe other people went to better schools tho? I'd like to hear about it.

The syllabus isn't that bad tho, I don't support going back to studying classics or whatever, as much as that would give pompus jerks a hard on.

Wikipedia link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism

The problem is that postmodern/poststructural theories are very important in many humanity and social sciences.

In history, postmodern theory is VERY prominent, yet the History Extension syllabus manages to ballance it very well with the study of more traditional and formal theory.

I think the English syllabuses seem to go far overboard with it, which is a shame.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I have no problem with making people learn post-modernism, I just think as you said, in english there's a bit too much of a focus on post-modernism which IMO doesn't serve people the best. However it could just be because of constraints, they focus on post-modernism so that students can get an understanding of at least ONE different way to look at the world.

Still a shame tho because like most social theories there isn't one that appeals to everyone, and some students could be missing out simply because they (for their own reasons) dislike post-modernism, but can't quite express their reasons for arguing against it on their own.

 

[walrusbear]

isn't postmodernism still the dominant discourse of the time though (for studying english).
they haven't arbitrarily decided to focus on an obscure theory
like PwarYeux pointed out, it's important for most arts disciplines and english is no exception

btw, why does everyone hate 'postmodernism' so much anyway?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

As for whether it's the dominant discourse (for english), then I would say yes. However when you teach it in english, you're also teaching somewhat the philosophy and there it is much more contentious.

I know in alot of ways it's probably the right decision (given time constraints), it's probably a bit too much to ask that students (at least those only doing 2 units) be exposed to anything more than post-modernism, but to me it is a shame.

It's not that I hate it, it's that I disagree with some parts of it and think (in a perfect world where schools have the time) that students should be offered an equal chance to disagree with it.

 

[transcendent]

i love post-modernism. it allows freedom of intepretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-modernism

 

[_dhj_]

Yes, but it also creates large logical gaps. The major difficulty of course, (depending on the 'purity' of postmodern thinkers) is that if you argue that meaning is created primarily by someone reading a work, then no meaning exists - language serves no purpose and communication is impossible. Yet quite clearly it is evident that meaning does exist, that communication does occur, and thus that authors have some intent in creating their works.

This means that their arguments are in fact false, since I create whatever meaning I feel like when I read their works. Which of course means that they can't argue anything at all, and thus post-modernism shouldn't exist if it is judged on its merits. Either postmodernist meaning is found in their essays or it isn't and only my meaning is found there.

This is quite a superficial interpretation of postmodernism I must say. Postmodernism isn't one philosophy which is absolute and definative. That would be contrary to what it stands for. Instead it's a loose term for an era of philosophical thought with the general theme of relativism and ambivalence. It's about questioning the concreteness of discourse and reality rather than asserting their absolute indeterminacy.

 

[walrusbear]

it's also incorrect to suggest "postmodernism" interprets language as meaningless

many strains deal entirely with the function of language and meaning

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's about questioning the concreteness of discourse and reality rather than asserting their absolute indeterminacy.

I disagree, I think one of the problems with post-modernism is that it does assert absolute indeterminacy. What you seem to be describing sounds much more like Critical realism.

critical realism refers to any position that maintains that there exists an objectively knowable, mind-independent reality, whilst acknowledging the roles of perception and cognition.