The English Teachers' Association (NSW) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Board of Studies English 7-10 Draft Writing Brief 2001. The ETA(NSW) is the largest subject teaching association in New South Wales and has 20 regional branches across the state.
This ETA (NSW) developed this submission by compiling data and responses from ETA members and branches through:
While this response represents the views of ETA members, teachers throughout the state perceived the consultation period to be extremely short. This has limited the number of teachers who would have otherwise engaged with the consultation process. The English Teachers' Association (NSW) strongly advises the NSW Board of Studies to design consultation periods around school development days, usually held at the start of terms. This would allow English faculties to meet and discuss draft curriculum documents. The current situation represented a disregard for teachers' workloads surrounding half yearly assessment periods.
The short consultation period caused anger and frustration amongst ETA members both in the metropolitan and in regional NSW. A longer consultation period is needed when the Draft English Years 7 - 10 Syllabus is released.
Despite these, ETA NSW has found a great deal to commend in this writing brief and recommends that the Board of Studies addresses the various concerns raised throughout its response in the development of the Syllabus.
The Rationale for English
The Rationale essentially does reflect the purpose and principles of the draft 7 - 10 Curriculum Framework but not the K - 10 one.
The nature of Years 7 to 10 English is adequately described.
Strengths
The rationale provides a comprehensive overview that has high expectation of students.
Weaknesses
ETA members have questioned the nature of the 'rhetorical approach', which is sprinkled throughout the document. Does the term mean 'eclectic'? While the study of language implied is grounded in lived experience and the consequent suggestion of language learning structured around problem posing and problem solving situations, is valuable and consistent with the results of current research (Luke et al., 2001), the meaning of the term is not clear. Teachers abhor another term being created to herald a new syllabus document. This term is not included in the glossary nor does it appear in the Stage 6 English Syllabus. Given the broad level of confusion and unease this has caused ETA(NSW) strongly recommends its removal and that any constructive aspects of the approach be inferred in syllabus content.
Further comment
We request that 'sexuality' is also included in the issues that shape meaning in this Rationale. This conservative removal of sexuality (which is dealt with such an increasing profusion and depth in a great number of texts used in Years 7 - 10 English) is negligent on behalf of the Board and shows a degree of kowtowing to conservative forces which once again does not reflect a contemporary view of English, given the current emphasis on the education of boys and the pastoral care we have for all students in our classrooms. This request has been evident in responses from both metropolitan and regional NSW ETA members/branches.
Aim
The proposed Aim adequately describes the overall purpose of English in Years 7 to 10.
Strengths
We applaud the Board for retaining 'enjoyment' when studying texts.
Weaknesses
The succinctness of the aim can be read by teachers as a motherhood statement
Further comment
For consistency with Stage 6, there should be an explicit balance between 'understanding' texts and composing texts.
The Objectives
The proposed objectives do not fully demonstrate the intention of the English 7 to 10 Syllabus, nor do they provide direction to teachers on the teaching/learning process.
Strengths
General consistency of terminology.
Weaknesses
The ETA(NSW) recommends the removal of the term the 'resources' of English. This generic term has no place within this context and teachers are at a loss as to its function/meaning.
ETA(NSW) members feel there should be some mention of written, spoken and visual texts and the manner in which they are interwoven in contemporary texts.
Whilst teachers will always use literary texts, the exclusive position it enjoys in the fourth bullet point in 'Values and Attitudes' is problematic and should be addressed to include a wider definition of texts, as one finds elsewhere in the document.
Further comment
'Self growth' should be inserted in the last bullet point as one of the gains from critical and imaginative thinking.
Content Organisation
The proposed Content Organisation assists the understanding of the way in which the English Years 7 to 10 Syllabus content will be organised. However, this promise is not fulfilled as the actual content of the brief (commencing on p.20) is not organised in the manner which is flagged in this section.
Strengths
This section of the brief provides a clear understanding of the nature of the study of English at Stage 4 and Stage 5 with the relationships between language and meaning as central and its emphasis on the integration of reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing and representing as they occur in life and contemporary texts such as multimedia and film.
Weaknesses
The relationship between the content for Stage 4 and 5 is not clearly differentiated.
'Mode' is used differently here than it is in Stage 6. This inconsistency should be addressed.
Treating each point differently will result in a cumbersome checklist and will obstruct teachers and students from engaging in real learning which will see students being sufficiently challenged.
Further comment
Terminology should be consistent between all English Syllabus documents. The variation causes confusion across the teaching profession and will ultimately confuse students in the context of learning.
The relationship between English and literacy
Strengths
The rationale provides a comprehensive overview which has high expectations of students.
Weaknesses
See point regarding "rhetorical approach" in Section 1 of the ETA's response.
The content and outcomes suggest the potential for a narrowing of the definition of Literacy such as the view that is represented in English K-6. English Teachers' Association (NSW) members would be concerned to see any approach that narrows literacy in English 7-10. Any changes to the view of literacy as stated in the Draft Writing Brief would need to be negotiated with the ETA(NSW).
Further comment
ETA(NSW) recommends that 'sexuality' is included in the issues that shape meaning in this Rationale. The conservative removal of sexuality is problematic for a course that endeavours to give students the opportunity to develop. The continued omission denies students the right to read a variety of texts that treat an issue that is critical to many adolescents. The Board of Studies needs to clearly address this "gap" or "silence" it is no longer appropriate to hide behind "gender". The BOS symposium made it clear that students needed to work with texts that gave them the opportunity to explore openly the concept of "becoming".
The outcomes in section 4.6
The outcomes listed for Stages 4 and 5 are appropriate and essential for every student, with notable exceptions (students struggling with English will require further assistance).
Strengths
The continuum between Stages 4 - 6 is seen by ETA members as a positive step and one to be applauded.
The reduction of outcomes in both Stages is a sound decision
The outcomes described imply that students moving from Stages 4 to 5 are to be seen as more outward looking, which is pedagogically sound.
The affirmation of the imaginative and affective domains is a pleasing reflection of the results of recent research on the middle years of schooling.
Weaknesses
A problem exists with the continuum between Stages 3 and 4. The Stage 3 outcomes are reported in a non-integrated manner, which is highly problematic when one considers how different modes of meaning-making are interwoven in contemporary texts such as multimedia texts, film and other contemporary texts.
ETA strongly recommends that the outcomes in English K-6 be reviewed and rewritten integrating the different modes of communication. The current situation creates an artificial division and the creation of far too many outcomes.
The notion of critiquing and analysis, which is present in Stage 3, seems to be absent from Stage 4. The kind of engagement of texts that is elaborated at indicator level is taking place and being further developed in classrooms in Years 7 & 8 across NSW. These standards should be maintained.
Further comment
There is considerable confusion in terminology across the K - 12 syllabuses particularly regarding such terms as 'critical analysis', 'critique' and 'evaluation'. This confusion undermines the notion of a continuum of learning particularly in the transition from Stage 3 to Stage 4. The terms 'critical analysis' and 'evaluation' used at Stage 3 do not denote the kind of thinking and activity that is understood and expected by high school English teachers. A consistent terminology needs to be developed so that student learning can be accurately gauged from the outcome statements rather than needing to refer to indicators (as with Stage 3) to understand what students, in fact, can do. ETA recommends that K-6 English be reviewed so that its terminology reflects the actual continuum of learning that takes place in English in NSW.
The flexibility of the outcomes combined with the ESL scales should cater to the needs of ESL students, making an ESL-tailored course in English 7 - 10 unnecessary.
However, a special support course for students in English and the literacy demands of other subject areas would be useful for students at this stage of their development. Such a course would give students the opportunity to further improve their literacy skills so they can undertake more challenging courses.
The outcomes listed are essential for all students as long as the concepts and nature of texts studied are inclusive providing them with opportunities to make sense of themselves and the world.
The Content
There is no clear relationship between the objectives, the outcomes and the content due to the manner in which the content is laid out in the document. Outcomes are embedded in the content section. Logistically, it would make sense to organise this section in a table format so that the objectives appear next to the outcomes and the content. This will avoid the confusion across these three categories.
Certainly suggested examples 'content samples' are sound in themselves but are left floating. These need to be clearly grounded within objectives and outcomes.
Strengths
There are examples of sound explicit content. Teachers found the examples useful in assisting them to make sense of the content. The BOS will need to follow this up with a support document suggesting examples when the syllabus is developed.
Weaknesses
The manner in which content is organised is not in keeping with how this was flagged in the organisation of content in the earlier part of the document. The earlier section on content organisation actually describes the nature of the study of English, an important component of the syllabus as seen at Stage 6.
Confusion stems from what is an outcome and what constitutes content. This relationship needs to be refined in the preparation of the Draft Syllabus.
Further comment
The language used in describing the content is certainly patronising given that teachers and not junior students are the audience of this syllabus. The language and layout needs to reflect the real audience of this document.
ETA proposes that this section be rewritten following the model in stage 6, which clearly identifies objectives, outcomes, and content in an accessible and integrated manner. This is crucial since teachers are becoming increasingly familiar with this model in Stage 6.
Texts
Students in Stage 4 and 5 should be required to study specified types of texts with emphasis on the range of types of texts.
Strengths
The wider definition of texts is to be applauded and adequately reflects what is currently studied in NSW classrooms to varying degrees.
Weaknesses
The Draft Syllabus should indicate that 'from literature from other countries and times' could be in translation, not simply composed originally in England. This is in keeping with Stage 6 where prescribed texts are in translation (eg Medea, Life is Beautiful).
The recommendations for students to 'study and explore' should also contain 'compose'.
The last bullet point stating, 'texts which offer different social, gender and cultural experiences and perspectives' implies that there exists a 'norm' or an ideological 'status quo' reflected in texts. ETA(NSW) hopes that this was not the intention of the Brief and suggests that 'different' is replaced with 'various'.
The statement that students in 'Stage 4 will read widely for pleasure and appreciation' implies that students in years 7 & 8 are not involved in the close study of texts which is unrepresentative of what is currently happening in NSW classrooms and would be seen by some teachers as 'dumbing down'.
The boundaries between 'fiction' and 'non-fiction' have blurred and a more contemporary view of English would refer to both specified types of texts as 'prose'
The inclusion of 'other related texts' within a list specifying types of text is inappropriate.
Further comment
The inclusion of video should be added alongside film in the list of specified texts
'Texts produced by electronic media' should be replaces with 'multi-media texts'.
The inclusion of 'other related texts' is a pedagogical decision that a teacher makes and does not adequately describe a distinct type of texts.
Any 'emerging' potent textual forms can be included in a future revision of the Syllabus.
A list of recommended texts needs to be developed in collaboration with the ETA(NSW) to provide guidance to teachers and others selecting texts.
Cross Curriculum Content
ETA strongly disagrees that the proposed cross curriculum content is appropriate for inclusion in the English Years 7 - 10 Syllabus.
Strengths
Some aspects of the so-called 'cross-curriculum content' constitute an integral part of English programming across the State. eg Literacy, Difference and Diversity, Gender, Indigenous, Multicultural
Weaknesses
The content areas listed are confusing at best. Some of these are clearly perspectives and paradigms which are part of a professional English teacher's methodology and teaching repertoire whilst others are clearly defined skills which no doubt permeate the teaching style across the curriculum.
Any attempt to mandate this 'mish-mash' of perspectives, paradigms, content areas and mandatory policies and initiatives as part of the English Syllabus in Years 7 - 10 will both crowd the English Syllabus and question its very integrity.
Further comment
This needs to be revisited in preparing the Draft Syllabus since some of the so called 'cross curriculum areas' are best suited to various teaching modules and electives within English programming and not seen as essential content areas for all students.
The K - 12 Continuum Overview
The proposed K - 12 continuum overview does not provide a useful description of the continuum of learning. There is a disjuncture between Stage 3 and Stage 4. The description of Stages 4-6 is useful in depicting a natural progression of student learning in English.
Strengths
The continuum between Stages 4-6 appears to be seamless. Stages 4-6 reflect a natural progression where students can be provided with learning experiences that will indeed challenge them.
Weaknesses
There is a disjuncture between Stage 3 and Stage 4. Terminology is inconsistent across these two stages.
The outcomes and content in Stage 3 are already out of date since it does not include viewing, the prescription of film as a textual form to be studied and makes no mention of 'representing' as an essential mode of communication.
The overview of Stage 3 neglects to consider how meaning is made. This assumes a basic functional approach to English, which is limited to structuring texts for a social purpose. Little is espoused about the development of the imaginative and affective domains. However, K-6 teachers, appear to be developing students in these areas, which suggests that "good" teachers can see the limitations of syllabus documents and teach skills that their students need.
Furthermore the non-integrated manner in which outcomes and content are presented in Stage3 makes mockery of a K - 12 continuum and resembles a shopping list more than an actual Syllabus.
The focus on an approach to literacy in Stage 3 that is based on the narrowness of text structuring according to social purpose would create tension within both the professional and political domains if it were reflected in Stage 4. While the social view of language is valuable to a point, members recognised the need for something more culturally inclusive to enable the study of certain kinds of literary texts. Stage 4 needs to be more inclusive and build towards a broader approach to literacy as appears in Stages 5 and 6. Such moves would place NSW students at a distinct national disadvantage at a time when other state systems are looking towards the development of challenging curriculum and pedagogical approaches that are relevant to student needs and society's needs. eg Queensland's New Basics and the Productive Pedagogies research.
The BOS is reminded that NSW High School English teachers have invested time, money and good will to implement Stage 6 English. This investment in learning has been valuable to all. It would be useful to the BOS to know that teachers have or are developing appropriate pedagogies for Stages 4 and 5 English that steadily build towards Stage 6 English. Some schools have reported that they have revised their English 7-10 programs to steadily build upon their students' skills and capacities for Stage 6 and focusing on research findings from various middle schools projects. The Board of Studies should work with such schools in developing support materials for NSW schools. It is the expectation of teachers, students, parents and the community that the BOS will deliver a final syllabus package where Stage 4 English must be seen to build towards Stages 5 and 6 as is the case with the current draft writing brief.
Further comment
A revision of K-6 is required.
Overview of the Scope of English K - 12 incorporating Stage Statements for Stage 4 and 5.
The overview of the scope of English K - 12 adequately explains the breadth of student learning in the subject.
Strengths
This provides a sense of the developmental nature of the subject English and because it is useful ETA feels it belongs to an earlier part of the Brief.
It provides specificity for all concerned pertaining to the complexity of texts to be used in all stages.
Weaknesses
An attempt to integrate the modes of communication in Stages 2 and 3 is needed.
The 'rhetorical nature' of English makes yet another unwelcomed appearance and should be removed.
There seems to a huge jump between outcomes between Stage 2 and 3, which needs to be looked at if we are to have a meaningful K - 12 continuum.
Further comment
Nil
Assessment
The information about Assessment does not adequately assist in understanding the ways standards will be assessed because the section is too general.
The information about Reporting is absolutely useless and in no way assists teachers, since it only contains vague promises of support materials that will be provided at some future date.
Strengths
The statement that assessment should be integrated with the curriculum (content) and reflect the variety of learning activities in English across a range of modes.
Weaknesses
No specific details are included
The nature, function and viability of the SC English- literacy Examination are not appraised.
Further comment
There is a strong need for numerous support material in the area of assessment and reporting that need to be developed at the same time as the actual Syllabus itself. Teachers fear that they will be left unsupported in this area.
The SC examination in its present form is totally inappropriate given the nature, scope and spirit of this Brief and the proposed Syllabus. An alternative way of examining the Junior Syllabus is needed. ETA proposes that the submission of a student portfolio that is centrally marked is a more viable method of examining the achievement of students within a standard's framework.
The Board of Studies should negotiate with ETA and systemic Professional Training and Development sectors in organising meaningful support programs to enable the successful implementation of the Years 7 - 10 English Syllabus. Pedagogy and curriculum need to support each other. If new curriculum is being developed which must take into account appropriate pedagogies for middle schooling, teachers need to be trained and developed to teach their students well.
The development of support programs should use the expertise of those schools that are experimenting with pedagogical approaches stemming from middle schools research incorporating approaches that build up student skills for Stage 6 English. The support material would need to be inclusive of all types of schools, regardless of geography and socio-economic support. Again, ETA is prepared to assist the BOS in this endeavour.