PM blasts 'rubbish' books in schools (1 Viewer)

[Frigid]

PM blasts 'rubbish' books in schools

The English syllabus taught in Australian schools is being dumbed down by "rubbish" postmodern literature, Prime Minister John Howard says.

Mr Howard today said he questioned some of the decisions made by state government education authorities about literacy promoted to students.

"I feel very, very strongly about the criticism that many people are making that we are dumbing down the English syllabus," Mr Howard told ABC Radio in Brisbane.

"I think there's evidence of that in different parts of the country ... when the, what I might call the traditional texts, are treated no differently from pop cultural commentary, as appears to be the case in some syllabuses."

Mr Howard said authorities seemed too willing to succumb to political correctness at the expense of quality traditional literature.

"I share the views of many people about the so-called postmodernism ... I just wish that independent education authority didn't succumb on occasions to the political correctness that it appears to succumb to," he said.

"We all understand that it's necessary to be able to be literate and coherent in the English language, we understand that it's necessary to be numerate and we also understand that there's high-quality literature and there's rubbish.

"We need a curriculum that encourages an understanding of the high-quality literature and not the rubbish."

When asked about the West Australian Government's "outcome-based" education program, Mr Howard replied: "That is gobbledegook - what does that mean?"

my personal opinion: the English syllabus is pretty bullshit, but at least it allows for a whole range of 'texts', not just your standard Shakespearean fare. at least the Advanced English syllabus strengthened my understanding of multiple viewpoints.

i don't see how the Prime Minister can validly comment on something in which he has had no experience.

 

[kami]

Its nice see the prime minister appealing to popular opinion in order to insult the state government. I wonder how he can not know what outcomes are? I also wonder how much he really has to say on the topic when postmodernism seems to be the only thing he's commenting on, especially when its the least of the flaws of the current system.

 

[A l]

I'm not surprised. I mean, former Education Minister Brendan Nelson even had a go at the English syllabus as well in regards to the lack of "literary classics". Ever since it officially began in 2001, the HSC English syllabus has been criticised by students and teachers alike. With the students of today being heavily shaped and influenced by modern society and a media full of pop culture, these postmodern texts are probably there to keep these people interested in the course for such a modern/postmodern context.

 

[Rafy]

I completely agree on the point of the dumbing down of the english course.

http://community.boredofstudies.org...aper-2-modules/89619/1972-english-papers.html

^ Thats the 1972 HSC English paper. I doubt many students today would go too well.

 

[glitterfairy]

bahahahahaha

*actually reads links*

Oooh... you know, this looks kinda pre-uni level english.


I'm kinda torn on this issue. On one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that the current system is flawed. They are cramming SO many texts and SO many concepts and SO much terminology down your throats that you barely have time to breathe, let alone have time to go in-depth enough to actually understand what you're talking about.

On the other hand, it can get boring as a student to study less texts over a longer period. Additionally, the 1972 paper looks highly subjective and would be difficult to mark - to a certain extent current english papers can be marked by ticking down a specific list of criteria (easier to teach, easier to mark, easier on all students who don't like/love english).

 

[santaslayer]

I thought the English syllabus was quite Ok once you got to understand what the markers wanted.

The texts we studied weren't exactly crap. We did a wide variety of texts, some archaic crap (which very few seem to understand),some popular film and novel cross comparative study, and half a dozen poems. I thought it was very thoughtful of the school/BOS to be providing us with a range of text types or else it would of been hell-a boring.

It also allows an indepth study/knowledge of CONTEXT. Something that was drummed into us from the beginning of year 11.

 

[Danm999]

A few months ago Mr. Howard blasted Australian history in schools in almost exactly the same way. He felt the fundamentals of history, memorising dates and knowing about the greatness of Australia and Western society were being diluted by postmodernism.

I think he hopes to return to a simplier time of Empiricism, where the only dates learned were 1066, 1215 and 1588 (Pro-European English history) and the only texts studied were Shakespeare, Keats and selected literature. Just because something is young, does not deny it's value.

 

[Ellie_Belly]

Jeez, why bother calling Howard a moron when he does it to himself?
The syllabus is not fantastic, but it's okay. And we get Shakespeare and "rubbish", as he calls it, not just the classics. There is ultimately going to be both types of literature in the world, so why not become familiarised with both at school?

 

[Frigid]

another view:

SMH Opinion: HSC English is trapped in a straitjacket

Discussion about the slow response of HSC English teachers to curriculum changes introduced in 2001 overlooks the fact that there is a deeper problem with the syllabus itself. Far from making more options available and challenging students to think about texts in new ways, the syllabus demands conformity to a new orthodoxy which is as insidious as the old.

The cornerstone of the compulsory element of the HSC English syllabus over the past few years has been the study of various set texts using the theme of "the journey", which is a broad theme subdivided into physical, inner and imaginative journeys.

Different texts are set for each type of journey and a Board of Studies booklet provides a selection of texts for the topic. Students are required to master only one of the three types of journey. The syllabus thus dictates how students must read their texts. Shakespeare's The Tempest, it says, involves an imaginative journey, Sally Morgan's My Place an inner journey, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn a physical journey.

Similarly, the poetry of Bruce Dawe is no longer to be studied as the poetry of Bruce Dawe. Rather, it is to be studied under the framework of "consumerism". Bruce Dawe equals consumerism. Simple.

A demarcation of teaching responsibility, where the board delineates themes for study as well as prescribing texts, is a radical departure from the tradition that the board sets the texts but teachers decide how to approach them. The change will have serious long-term consequences for teachers and students.

For instance, this lack of autonomy is surely one factor in the critical shortage of teachers. Students who aim to do well at school generally distrust anything not directly linked to the syllabus. As a result, teachers are reluctant to step beyond it; they are confined to the compartment of their discipline sanctioned by the Board of Studies. Offered such an intellectually stultifying role, is it any wonder so few top graduates pursue careers in secondary education?

...

Broad discussion of poetry, drama, novels, films and other textual forms can cultivate understanding more effectively than the explicit study of consumerism.

Critical theory can inform thinking, but theoretical ideas should be presented as ideas for discussion, not as absolute truth. The old English syllabus was far from perfect. It took a conventional and uninspiring approach to literature and allowed few opportunities to use the ideas which so changed the intellectual climate of the second half of the 20th century. The introduction of theory was one of the great advances of the new syllabus, but it's also the easiest to sideline. Theoretical concepts are often difficult, and the evidence is that teachers are not impressing the importance of theory on students.

And how should the theory be applied given the narrowness of the syllabus? Is a student allowed to think about Dawe from a feminist perspective or to consider The Tempest not only as an imaginative journey but as a discussion of colonialism?

 

[mr_brightside]

Posting without reading article

but about fucken time someone open their fucken eyes and realised how shit the English syllabus is.

 

[wheredanton]

HSC English is quite difficult. The 1972 English paper looks straightforward. It's straight up comprehension without the difficult and slightly sadistic twist of the current HSC.

If HSC is so dumbed down why do people complain about it all the time? Surely if it was so 'dumb' it would be easy.

 

[passion89]

but about fucken time someone open their fuckin eyes an realised how shit the English syllabus is.

Very very very true

 

[silvermoon]

If HSC is so dumbed down why do people complain about it all the time? Surely if it was so 'dumb' it would be easy.

The 'dumbing down' of English in schools is hardly a new issue in education. There have been multiple studies done which look at comparing literacy rates across generations. Most professionals seem to agree that literacy rates having been getting worse over time. As to your point about the realtive difficulty of the HSC English course, look at it this way --> how 'difficult' any one person finds an exam directly relates to the manner and level at which they were taught. A person with a low level of literacy may find an exam difficult. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the exam would have been difficult for someone taught to have a higher level of literacy. So no, the fact that people say the HSC English exams are hard does not mean that they are not 'dumbed down'.

 

[almightyBZZZ]

I don't think that we're 'dumbed down'. Advanced English is bloody hard. And Post Modernism is incredibly relevant to our society...THAT'S why we study it. And I'm guessing that he's referring to Shakespeare when he refers to to 'good quality' texts. That in itself is closed-minded. There are poets and authors that shit on Shakespeare. Look at Gerard Manley Hopkins. I would salivate at the chance of studying Hopkins over Shakespeare. Even Robert Frost was better than him. In my Humble Opinion, of course
God I hate John Howard. He can't even speak coherantly or reasonably 99.9% of the time, so how can it be justified that he pass judgement on the HSC English course? BAH!! The 1970's probably had a harder HSC, but I don't know...maybe that's because of the changing society that we need to learn about..or something? *shrugs and is done with rambling*

 

[P_Dilemma]

I dun think Howard means dumb=easy, but dumb=stupid. I agree with the latter, i.e., the English syllabus is stupid.

Who else here believes that there's something so WRONG about the syllabus? Before you start pointing and criticising, i've read the syllabus. Reading it makes you feel that the system will work, that it will be "enjoyable" as it is so often stated within the pages.

Nope. Not working.

I'm sure there're a million different criticisms we can all make, but i'll just mention the simpler ones (ie. the one's i've experiences can can have an opinion on )

What's with the first core, Journeys? The most popular by far is Physical Journey (well, not popular amongst students, just the stupid head teachers...). Who else here is thinking "WHAT THE HELL IS THERE TO TALK ABOUT IN A PHYSICAL Journey?!@#". We're forced to run around the question by saying something along the lines of "The physical journey contains an underlying inner journey... blaablabla", which defeats the purpose of talking about physical journeys.

Even then, in what way are we discussing the ideas of these texts? Language Techniques. Good god, everytime i read some of the essays in my class i want to puke. "The technique of onomatopea expressesses the notion of physical journey by/because... blablabla". 5 syllables, guys: double-you-tee-eff.

Even worse, we're not taught how to use these techniques, only to recognises then in terms of how they express the notion of journey. Reminds me of Harry Potter 5 - "Umbridge: I repeat, if you are not expecting to be attacked in class, there is no need for you to USE magic". Well, even so, we'll be attacked in the real world by people asking us to write stuff, ranging from reports to essay to creative writing. Im beginning to understand why Defensive Magical Theory sux...

Now, King Lear. Before i met up with the HSC i saw the movie "Ran", a japanese representation of the play, set in feudal Japan. And I liked it. Before the end of Term 1 the teachers handed out the actual play. I read it. I enjoyed it.

Now, post-modernism. The aforementioned concept defines that any text can have multiple readings and interpretations. Ok... The HSC dictates that it's our job to care about all these readings and interpretations. *repeat 5 syllables here*

Fine, it may open our eyes to the different ways texts are interpreted, but that's IT. The way it's taught, we're not concerned about MEANING at all. You want meaning? "This is a marxist/feminist/christian/etc text" is all the meaning you'll get. 99.99% of the time you be focussing on (*5 syllables here*) techniques.

Yes, we've all heard the saying "it's not whay you say, but how[techniques] you say it". But if all we know is how things are said, where;s the meaning?

 

[snowbunny]

i personally dont like the syllabus...but then again if i had a better teacher and an english brain rather than a maths brain i might think differently

 

[A l]

A major problem in the HSC syllabus is the narrow spectrum of thematic ideas that certain texts are studied in. Texts can be interpreted in various ways including language analysis and contextual investigations. However, the HSC course dictates that these texts have to be studied in a certain perspective thus limiting the richness of ideas and the value of the text to students.
For example, Peter Skrzynecki's "Immigrant Chronicle" poetry can only be studied under the concept of "Physical Journeys" in the HSC course when the poems themselves actually focus on a much larger diversity of issues than simply physical journeying.
Another example is "Emma" by Jane Austen and "Clueless" by Amy Heckerling. These are studied under the "Transformations" elective hence the study of these texts is limited to how differences in context have transformed a classical novel into a modern presentation. This means that students are studying texts in such a way that they distance themselves from the composers' intended purpose and do not focus on the other ideas and issues raised in the texts.
One other example is "Strictly Ballroom" by Baz Luhrmann. This text is studied under the "Image" elective. Therefore the focus is on visual language and how it allows audiences to experience portrayals of certain worlds. There is hardly any focus on the actual issues raised by the film itself but rather the study of this text is limited to how language effectiveness is shown in texts. This means that students would only associate the text to a particular concept which is often far from the composers' intended purpose.
As a result, teachers are reluctant to go beyond the needs of the course. Students are studying texts in a one-dimensional nature and thus the values of the texts that are studied are often unseen. So much depth is placed on the study of a text strictly under a single major idea that students often associate these texts with these ideas and nothing more.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

I agree with you, the problem is not the text tpes (Thanks Prime Minister for another opinion on a subject you know nothing about) but the way we study them. It's not about original though, or a personal response, it's all about seeing who remembers the model essay the best.