John Howard Hates the HSC English Syllabus (1 Viewer)

[chelzmalee]

The english syllabus sucks, in my opinion. Mainly cos im never ever going to apply a critical analysis of King Lear to everyday life.

 

[The_Apprentice]

Ive met Melina Marchetta before.
She was nice

She used to teach at my high school .

Yeah, i think the syllabus asks too much of students. Its skims over many topics and expects them to have a deep understanding of every text. Its stupid, it would be more sensible to focus on a couple of texts instead and really pick at them. I just remember having to memorise quotes for dozens of books (core and supplementary material) and it felt insane. No wonder so many students just regurgitate memorised essays or notes from class.

 

[Kabeio]

I see what Howard did there.

I didnt mind doing journeys though.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I hate it too. It's so incredibly irrelevant and it's trying to hard to push one particular politically correct agenda. I wish the BoS would actually go back to basics and teach useful things again - it's really sad when I see people in Year 11 who in formal writing cannot structure a sentence or use correct tense. Yet these same people can regurgitate cliched stuff about feminism and Marxism and whatever else...

The VCE is bad too... last year students had to compare a bloody SMS message to a Keats love letter. Somehow people still think our syllabi haven't been dumbed down - but why have comic books, movies and websites replaced classic literature?

I wrote an essay on this topic for my Education course only a couple of weeks ago.

I totally agree with you. My Japanese teacher hated the fact that we hadn't been taught formal aspects of language - what a verb is, how English sentences are structured, etc. Our class would have progressed so much faster if we had been taught about them.

Learning formal things like spelling, aspect vs tense, passive vs intransitive, sentence mechanics, and vocab helps you so much when it comes to writing in an academic environment.

This bullshit with 'a CD case *can* be a text!' should be left alone. I'd prefer to hire someone that could tell me about Shakespeare over someone that could analyse my neck-tie as an English text.

 

[ur_inner_child]

There are a few people talking about preferring to study classics only ?

Anything that engages an audience, both ancient and a modern audience, is worth delving into a bit. Understanding context and changing values is very worthwhile.

Think about it. I admit that the syllabus lacks a few vital things, but to have a syllabus entirely of classics and high art literature lacks also.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I totally agree with you. My Japanese teacher hated the fact that we hadn't been taught formal aspects of language - what a verb is, how English sentences are structured, etc. Our class would have progressed so much faster if we had been taught about them.

Learning formal things like spelling, aspect vs tense, passive vs intransitive, sentence mechanics, and vocab helps you so much when it comes to writing in an academic environment.

Perhaps. I agree with you. Seems to be more of a fault in a syllabus prior to the HSC syllabus. Hopefully we're all meant to get our verbs and sentence structures down pat by year 12...

By year 12, I don't mind learning about culture, values etc. Seems like genuine year 12 work. I admit journeys was crap but other electives were quite worthwhile.

And in reference to Malfoy, could you explain to me what an effective "english" syllabus contains? During these electives I had mentioned earlier involved writing in particular mediums and constructing essays that justify your argument by using evidence, quotes etc. It seems to be english to me.

 

[walrusbear]

the syllyabus is obviously flawed (about exam - not the education)
but i still think it's the best so far

howard's criticism is irrelevant on any front; let alone on matters of education
he can't tell the direct truth about the economy - less anything he knows dick about

 

[walrusbear]

Ok it's as simple as this:

The HSC is not meant to teach you English. It is about critical thinking. Cultural studies of texts is good.

English should be taught at a much greater level in the years leading up to the School Certificate. If you cannot cope with HSC English, you shouldn't be doing the HSC. Too many people are doing the HSC because of stupid ideas of university = $$$ (plumbers, anyone).

If less people do the HSC, less dumb texts will be included. If people have greater command of the English language, more intelligent texts will be promoted and more complex theoretical analysis will be undertaken.

The reality is, most people don't understand Shakespeare. Rather than dumbing down to their level, we need to fix high school English. Fucking get these stupid cunts out of the system before the HSC. Teach them to read and write and then go on with their lives.

My grasp of grammar is non existant because of the fucking lovey-dovey BoardOfStudies. I struggle every day to make coherent sentences because of it. Teaching people grammar by context doesn't work because WE ARE STUDYING THE WORKS OF WRITERS WHO CAN'T WRITE PROPER ENGLISH. The incomprehensible filth that is the standard at university these days is horrifying.

edit: I scored 720 on a practice GRE verbal test I just took. That scares me. I'm really bad with English.

for once i agree
i know people who scored bands 5-6 without reading ANY of the HSC english texts

 

[walrusbear]

Nice work, wiki.

Cultural studies is valid, but people (and by people I mean the BoS) need to recognise it's completely separate from English.

I definitely hear your point on university English, and also your one on grammar. A long while ago, my grandfather gave me his English textbooks and they had grammatical exercises several times a week. Sure, it may not fit the 'let's make English EXCITING!' mode of thought - the BoS does however seem to think that by including absolute shit in the syllabus that English is 'accessible' when it's really just irrelevant. However, it'd be completely useful.

I wish I'd been taught the basics of grammar, because while I read a hell of a lot, I still have to double and triple check that my grammar is OK if I'm doing a serious piece of work.

what do you deem irrelevant??

i've noticed a willingness on the insane right (thinking devine and waf) who collude postmodernism and the extreme left/cultural worthlessness
obviously these people know nothing - but i think a good balance can be reached
this current syllabus needs more essential english skills. most attacks on cultural studies i've seen are just from retards who don't understand its value

 

[walrusbear]

Way to distort the subject and turn it into Howard-bashing.

How about you expound upon the reasons you think the exam is flawed, and the reasons you think the education is relevant/'the best so far'? Since most of us have been reasonably critical of the syllabus, it'd be nice to hear from someone who doesn't have the same reservations.

i think teaching the subjects with idea critical frameworks/interpretation is very good
it's a higher order approach to the subject
i still think fundamentals of grammar and textual detail are valuable though
they should also play a core part

howard's criticism, i think, is more in line with his conservative politics - not any appreciation of english or language
i have no reason to believe he cares for such things

 

[walrusbear]

i think the willingness to separate cultural theory and english is a backward step

you calling clueless trash means nothing; many canonised texts were slinged by critics/people in their day
i'm not saying it's a classic; but of course it has cultural value
particularly for teaching principles of postmodernism - the most recent discourse

 

[walrusbear]

you're just attacking a teacher
not any ideas

that doesn't mean anything

 

[ur_inner_child]

My model is:

Cultural or media studies
Self-explanatory

2u English = basics/fundamentals
3 modules (NO AoS)
mostly classics/poetry/etc

3u English
Literary theory
higher-order stuff
more in depth

And critical interpretation is only valuable if you're encouraged to formulate your own opinions. I'm still very bitter about the way so-called critical interpretation was taught to me last year, because I felt that the only way to gain the marks was to parrot.

EDIT: I'm ignoring your attacks on Howard because I know we're not ever going to agree on that, and while I respect that. there's no point continuing a slinging match when I'm actually really interested about the discussion at hand.

no need for 4u english?

 

[ccmariners4life]

maybe jonny should do what hitler did. rite an biography and make it part of the sylabus. i wouldnt put it past him either

 

[Bractune]

John Howard Hates the HSC English Syllabus...?
Finally we agree on something.
I dont know...actually yeah i do. I really do hate the current Adv. English Syllabus.... infact the only thing that i have remotely enjoyed was skryznecki poetry.
Different floats for different boats eh?
Bractune commenting on the 2006 Adv. English syllabus:" It will never eat.... it will never sleep... it will haunt you eternally unless you destroy it first".

 

[xeuyrawp]

Perhaps. I agree with you. Seems to be more of a fault in a syllabus prior to the HSC syllabus. Hopefully we're all meant to get our verbs and sentence structures down pat by year 12...

No, I think it has more to do with our era's education being artsie and over-PC. They're trying to bring back formalised teaching, I hear, with grammar classes and such.

By year 12, I don't mind learning about culture, values etc. Seems like genuine year 12 work. I admit journeys was crap but other electives were quite worthwhile.

But for me, the values and cultural aspects seemed so contrived.

Eg, Gwen Harwood's values: reflecting on old age... Um, how is that poignant or at all relvant?

Even the Shakespearean texts' syllabuses were dumbed down, due to Shakespeare having to take on a new modern neo-hippy feel.

 

[_dhj_]

No, I think it has more to do with our era's education being artsie and over-PC. They're trying to bring back formalised teaching, I hear, with grammar classes and such.



But for me, the values and cultural aspects seemed so contrived.

Eg, Gwen Harwood's values: reflecting on old age... Um, how is that poignant or at all relvant?

Even the Shakespearean texts' syllabuses were dumbed down, due to Shakespeare having to take on a new modern neo-hippy feel.

It might seem contrived to us but I think to the laystudent, it might well be something new and worth learning about. E.g. We might be well aware of media deception and manipulation of the truth and discourse theory, but Frontline explains it to the rest of the student population.

 

[_dhj_]

For the poster below you, what's the use in teaching kids about all this junk if they haven't mastered the basics?

That is a fair concern, but such a broad claim would have to be backed up by some statistical evidence. It would be interesting to compare our kids' literacy levels with that of the rest of OECD or similar standards. It would be interesting to see how we fare compared to the rest of the world (I don't know, perhaps our literacy levels ARE worse, if you can prove it).

I think it's all well and good to focus on the 'basics', but what exactly do you mean by this? To me, the type of text analysed - whether it is Shakespeare or a magazine article, does not change the level at which the basics are taught. From an educational perspective, the content varies but the form (in other words the 'basics' which I assume you're referring to - grammar, spelling and syntax) remains constant. Perhaps you are suggesting that we should more rigorously inculcate the rules of English similar to what was emphasised through most of primary schooling? If that is what you are suggesting, you need to bear in mind that language is not just constituted by form, but also actual content. A sentence with an incoherent idea is just as bad as an incoherent sentence with a coherent idea. A well written article with a poor argument is just as bad, if not worse, than a poorly written article with a good argument. That is why as outcomes, the ability to critically think and convey ideas is just as important and fundamental.

Of course, in HSC English, the emphasis is placed on the ideas part rather than the form part. The form part however, is sufficiently covered in primary schools and early high school. A student who struggled to excel in grammar throughout junior years is not going to perfect her grammar by dwelling on it for another year.

There are basic levels of grammar and spelling, basic levels of critical thinking ability, as well as higher levels of these abilities. It's not a ladder that you climb from so called 'basics' to higher order skills. It's not a hierachy but a balance that needs to be reached.

I'm not saying that HSC English is perfect, but I don't buy the call for it to go back to 'basics' either.

 

[xeuyrawp]

That is a fair concern, but such a broad claim would have to be backed up by some statistical evidence. It would be interesting to compare our kids' literacy levels with that of the rest of OECD or similar standards. It would be interesting to see how we fare compared to the rest of the world (I don't know, perhaps our literacy levels ARE worse, if you can prove it).

I think it's all well and good to focus on the 'basics', but what exactly do you mean by this? To me, the type of text analysed - whether it is Shakespeare or a magazine article, does not change the level at which the basics are taught. From an educational perspective, the content varies but the form (in other words the 'basics' which I assume you're referring to - grammar, spelling and syntax) remains constant. Perhaps you are suggesting that we should more rigorously inculcate the rules of English similar to what was emphasised through most of primary schooling? If that is what you are suggesting, you need to bear in mind that language is not just constituted by form, but also actual content. A sentence with an incoherent idea is just as bad as an incoherent sentence with a coherent idea. A well written article with a poor argument is just as bad, if not worse, than a poorly written article with a good argument. That is why as outcomes, the ability to critically think and convey ideas is just as important and fundamental.

Of course, in HSC English, the emphasis is placed on the ideas part rather than the form part. The form part however, is sufficiently covered in primary schools and early high school. A student who struggled to excel in grammar throughout junior years is not going to perfect her grammar by dwelling on it for another year.

There are basic levels of grammar and spelling, basic levels of critical thinking ability, as well as higher levels of these abilities. It's not a ladder that you climb from so called 'basics' to higher order skills. It's not a hierachy but a balance that needs to be reached.

I'm not saying that HSC English is perfect, but I don't buy the call for it to go back to 'basics' either.

Have a read of this.

 

[_dhj_]

Have a read of this.

Opinion piece written by the same guy who wrote this?

That cannot be regarded as a relatively objective article.