bluephoenix36
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 15
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2006
This interesting article was taken from: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-expectations-are-far-too-great/2006/04/28/1146198346149.html
The expectations are far too great
By Adele Horin
April 29, 2006
NOT SO long ago it was Bob Carr leading the pack in his denunciation of a "dumbed down" school curriculum and "vegie" courses. Now John Howard has taken up the cudgels, focusing on senior school English. He felt "very, very strongly" about its "dumbing down", he said, declaring the English curriculum had fallen victim to postmodernism and political correctness.
Let me reassure the Prime Minister, who doubtless lacked time to investigate the syllabus with the same rigour a parent of an HSC English student applies to the task, that dumb it ain't. Not in NSW, at least.
There is a problem with HSC English in NSW, I believe. It is too hard. It is too hard for many willing and able students, and too hard for the average teacher. It demands a high level of sophistication, and intellectual agility. It is infinitely more difficult than the English that Howard studied at Canterbury Boys High, and more complex than the English I studied at university.
It is the equivalent of taking the course we oldies remember, with its close reading (over and over) of a Shakespeare play, a novel by Thomas Hardy, and a romantic poet, and doubling or tripling the workload. Students today also closely read traditional texts - but that is just the start. In the more academic English courses they are expected to display more insightful and critical discernment than we did. They must be literate, not only in written texts, but in film as well, and be able to critically assess aspects of popular culture, too.
And not only must they master the formal art of essay writing, but turn their hand to writing speeches, editorials, and newspaper feature articles in a highly sophisticated style. It is too much.
All that talk about "dumbed down" curriculum in the 1990s inspired an overhaul of the English syllabus. There were two perceived problems at the time. Canny students were indeed flocking to the "vegie" English course. Arcane score scaling rewarded them for doing so. That is no longer possible. Brighter students now are rewarded for tackling the harder English units.
Second, boys, in particular, were fleeing higher-level English, and politicians were alarmed. "Disadvantaged boys" was becoming a favourite theme of conservatives, the same people who liked their English "traditional". They demanded the rot be stopped so that boys would be as literate as those clever, sharp-tongued girls pouring into law schools.
More girls than boys were comfortable with the novels, plays and poems on offer, and the way of teaching them that was unchanged in 20 years. Boys were deserting literature for computer games, and websites.
So English was overhauled. Just as economics students now study globalisation - not a hot topic in Howard's schools days; and extension history students now examine historiography - the process of writing history, including changing interpretations of events and sources - so the study of English was modernised. For a start the syllabus acknowledges that texts are shaped by their context and open to a range of interpretations.
But too much is asked of students - not too little. A challenging course that could occupy two years is crammed into 2½ terms (during which time school assessments, accounting for 50 per cent of the HSC mark, must be completed).
Take the study of King Lear, a subject of controversy since it was revealed the Sydney girls school SCEGGS asked students to examine the play through the prism of Marxist critical theory. If that were all!
The syllabus requires students to have a sophisticated understanding of two ways of interpreting the text. It is useful in a student's education to understand how different ideological stances can shape a theatrical production. But it is a big challenge to master the "isms" if teachers go that route.
In addition students must also be able to articulate their own critical response to King Lear from a close reading of the text (which is all we oldies had to master). And they must study the text's provenance - how and why it was changed over hundreds of years. Then it is possible the 45-minute exam could require students to write in the style of a feature article (that no real journalist would ever have to write), or perhaps as a conversation between people holding two different critical perspectives of the play.
Students also can study Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and the movie Blade Runner together but under a highly prescribed theme of In the Wild. The answer to an exam question may have to be in the form of a speech, say, to potential investors in an imaginary Blade Runner 2 (only don't waste time on things real investors want to know, such as return on investment).
Coleridge is studied closely under the prescribed theme of the Imaginary Journey, along with several other texts students can choose (paintings, websites, movies, short stories, etc). And the television series Frontline, along with other texts, is examined for satire and the idea of truth.
In theory it is a stimulating and challenging blend of the traditional, modern and popular that should appeal to boys as well as girls. In theory it encourages critical thinking and wide reading. But in practice, except under the tutelage of the cleverest, most exam-focused teachers, it can turn into a muddle and a struggle. It can destroy the love of English.
There is a problem with English. It is not political correctness. It is not that it is dumbed down. It is too hard.
So English was overhauled. Just as economics students now study globalisation - not a hot topic in Howard's schools days; and extension history students now examine historiography - the process of writing history, including changing interpretations of events and sources - so the study of English was modernised. For a start the syllabus acknowledges that texts are shaped by their context and open to a range of interpretations.
But too much is asked of students - not too little. A challenging course that could occupy two years is crammed into 2½ terms (during which time school assessments, accounting for 50 per cent of the HSC mark, must be completed).
Take the study of King Lear, a subject of controversy since it was revealed the Sydney girls school SCEGGS asked students to examine the play through the prism of Marxist critical theory. If that were all!
The syllabus requires students to have a sophisticated understanding of two ways of interpreting the text. It is useful in a student's education to understand how different ideological stances can shape a theatrical production. But it is a big challenge to master the "isms" if teachers go that route.
In addition students must also be able to articulate their own critical response to King Lear from a close reading of the text (which is all we oldies had to master). And they must study the text's provenance - how and why it was changed over hundreds of years. Then it is possible the 45-minute exam could require students to write in the style of a feature article (that no real journalist would ever have to write), or perhaps as a conversation between people holding two different critical perspectives of the play.
Students also can study Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and the movie Blade Runner together but under a highly prescribed theme of In the Wild. The answer to an exam question may have to be in the form of a speech, say, to potential investors in an imaginary Blade Runner 2 (only don't waste time on things real investors want to know, such as return on investment).
Coleridge is studied closely under the prescribed theme of the Imaginary Journey, along with several other texts students can choose (paintings, websites, movies, short stories, etc). And the television series Frontline, along with other texts, is examined for satire and the idea of truth.
In theory it is a stimulating and challenging blend of the traditional, modern and popular that should appeal to boys as well as girls. In theory it encourages critical thinking and wide reading. But in practice, except under the tutelage of the cleverest, most exam-focused teachers, it can turn into a muddle and a struggle. It can destroy the love of English.
There is a problem with English. It is not political correctness. It is not that it is dumbed down. It is too hard.
[/SIZE]
The expectations are far too great
By Adele Horin
April 29, 2006
NOT SO long ago it was Bob Carr leading the pack in his denunciation of a "dumbed down" school curriculum and "vegie" courses. Now John Howard has taken up the cudgels, focusing on senior school English. He felt "very, very strongly" about its "dumbing down", he said, declaring the English curriculum had fallen victim to postmodernism and political correctness.
Let me reassure the Prime Minister, who doubtless lacked time to investigate the syllabus with the same rigour a parent of an HSC English student applies to the task, that dumb it ain't. Not in NSW, at least.
There is a problem with HSC English in NSW, I believe. It is too hard. It is too hard for many willing and able students, and too hard for the average teacher. It demands a high level of sophistication, and intellectual agility. It is infinitely more difficult than the English that Howard studied at Canterbury Boys High, and more complex than the English I studied at university.
It is the equivalent of taking the course we oldies remember, with its close reading (over and over) of a Shakespeare play, a novel by Thomas Hardy, and a romantic poet, and doubling or tripling the workload. Students today also closely read traditional texts - but that is just the start. In the more academic English courses they are expected to display more insightful and critical discernment than we did. They must be literate, not only in written texts, but in film as well, and be able to critically assess aspects of popular culture, too.
And not only must they master the formal art of essay writing, but turn their hand to writing speeches, editorials, and newspaper feature articles in a highly sophisticated style. It is too much.
All that talk about "dumbed down" curriculum in the 1990s inspired an overhaul of the English syllabus. There were two perceived problems at the time. Canny students were indeed flocking to the "vegie" English course. Arcane score scaling rewarded them for doing so. That is no longer possible. Brighter students now are rewarded for tackling the harder English units.
Second, boys, in particular, were fleeing higher-level English, and politicians were alarmed. "Disadvantaged boys" was becoming a favourite theme of conservatives, the same people who liked their English "traditional". They demanded the rot be stopped so that boys would be as literate as those clever, sharp-tongued girls pouring into law schools.
More girls than boys were comfortable with the novels, plays and poems on offer, and the way of teaching them that was unchanged in 20 years. Boys were deserting literature for computer games, and websites.
So English was overhauled. Just as economics students now study globalisation - not a hot topic in Howard's schools days; and extension history students now examine historiography - the process of writing history, including changing interpretations of events and sources - so the study of English was modernised. For a start the syllabus acknowledges that texts are shaped by their context and open to a range of interpretations.
But too much is asked of students - not too little. A challenging course that could occupy two years is crammed into 2½ terms (during which time school assessments, accounting for 50 per cent of the HSC mark, must be completed).
Take the study of King Lear, a subject of controversy since it was revealed the Sydney girls school SCEGGS asked students to examine the play through the prism of Marxist critical theory. If that were all!
The syllabus requires students to have a sophisticated understanding of two ways of interpreting the text. It is useful in a student's education to understand how different ideological stances can shape a theatrical production. But it is a big challenge to master the "isms" if teachers go that route.
In addition students must also be able to articulate their own critical response to King Lear from a close reading of the text (which is all we oldies had to master). And they must study the text's provenance - how and why it was changed over hundreds of years. Then it is possible the 45-minute exam could require students to write in the style of a feature article (that no real journalist would ever have to write), or perhaps as a conversation between people holding two different critical perspectives of the play.
Students also can study Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and the movie Blade Runner together but under a highly prescribed theme of In the Wild. The answer to an exam question may have to be in the form of a speech, say, to potential investors in an imaginary Blade Runner 2 (only don't waste time on things real investors want to know, such as return on investment).
Coleridge is studied closely under the prescribed theme of the Imaginary Journey, along with several other texts students can choose (paintings, websites, movies, short stories, etc). And the television series Frontline, along with other texts, is examined for satire and the idea of truth.
In theory it is a stimulating and challenging blend of the traditional, modern and popular that should appeal to boys as well as girls. In theory it encourages critical thinking and wide reading. But in practice, except under the tutelage of the cleverest, most exam-focused teachers, it can turn into a muddle and a struggle. It can destroy the love of English.
There is a problem with English. It is not political correctness. It is not that it is dumbed down. It is too hard.
So English was overhauled. Just as economics students now study globalisation - not a hot topic in Howard's schools days; and extension history students now examine historiography - the process of writing history, including changing interpretations of events and sources - so the study of English was modernised. For a start the syllabus acknowledges that texts are shaped by their context and open to a range of interpretations.
But too much is asked of students - not too little. A challenging course that could occupy two years is crammed into 2½ terms (during which time school assessments, accounting for 50 per cent of the HSC mark, must be completed).
Take the study of King Lear, a subject of controversy since it was revealed the Sydney girls school SCEGGS asked students to examine the play through the prism of Marxist critical theory. If that were all!
The syllabus requires students to have a sophisticated understanding of two ways of interpreting the text. It is useful in a student's education to understand how different ideological stances can shape a theatrical production. But it is a big challenge to master the "isms" if teachers go that route.
In addition students must also be able to articulate their own critical response to King Lear from a close reading of the text (which is all we oldies had to master). And they must study the text's provenance - how and why it was changed over hundreds of years. Then it is possible the 45-minute exam could require students to write in the style of a feature article (that no real journalist would ever have to write), or perhaps as a conversation between people holding two different critical perspectives of the play.
Students also can study Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and the movie Blade Runner together but under a highly prescribed theme of In the Wild. The answer to an exam question may have to be in the form of a speech, say, to potential investors in an imaginary Blade Runner 2 (only don't waste time on things real investors want to know, such as return on investment).
Coleridge is studied closely under the prescribed theme of the Imaginary Journey, along with several other texts students can choose (paintings, websites, movies, short stories, etc). And the television series Frontline, along with other texts, is examined for satire and the idea of truth.
In theory it is a stimulating and challenging blend of the traditional, modern and popular that should appeal to boys as well as girls. In theory it encourages critical thinking and wide reading. But in practice, except under the tutelage of the cleverest, most exam-focused teachers, it can turn into a muddle and a struggle. It can destroy the love of English.
There is a problem with English. It is not political correctness. It is not that it is dumbed down. It is too hard.
[/SIZE]
