A Brief Critical Analysis of the NSW English K-6 Syllabus

     The curriculum orientations presented by Kemmis et al (1983) contain internally consistent and conceptually distinct ways of viewing education. They address issues such as knowledge, desired student outcomes, learning theory, broad curriculum organisation, assessment, classroom organisation, and the roles of students, teachers, parents, the school and the community. Each orientation describes or defines the approach to curriculum document development, including as in this case syllabus documents, and the way in which particular subject areas such as English (including language and literacy) will be designed. However, in a pluralist society it is usual for the context of formulation to contain competing variables since no document is developed in an historical, political or cultural void. This results in curriculum documents that are not conceptually pure but represent a practical approach to dealing with competing forces (Lundgren 1982).

     Just such a practical approach is evident in the orientations within the English K-6 Syllabus. The result is a document that contains a foundation from the vocational/neo-classical, a rationale from the liberal-progressive and some of the aspirations and rhetoric of the socially-critical (Kemmis et al 1983) as we shall see below. Indeed, the syllabus acknowledges that “it includes different theoretical perspectives” (English K-6 Syllabus 1998, 7).

     Anstey and Bull (1996, 31) have claimed that “teaching and learning cannot be carried out without theory construction”. Indeed, so important is theory to practice, they continue:

Lack of development or articulation of theory by the teacher has the potential to confuse both student and teacher, because both stakeholders need to build up in their minds an interpretation of what is going on in the classroom and how to act and perform successfully in it. (Anstey & Bull 1996, 31)

Given the importance of consistent application of theory and that different theories inform each curriculum orientation, since the syllabus presents a mixture of orientations, there is an inherent risk of confusion for classroom teachers built into the syllabus document. This is unfortunate given the intended role of the syllabus.

     To further inform this analysis a brief discussion of the curriculum orientations is necessary. Literacy is considered a quantifiable commodity according to functional literacy and the systemic linguistic approach of Emmitt and Pollock (1997, 5). Being literate is seen as able to take part in everyday life and to be considered literate one must be able to function (or at least read) to a certain grade level (Anstey & Bull 1996, 39). This corresponds to the vocational/neo-classical curriculum orientation where the skills and information required by the students are prescribed by an outside authority and are considered necessary for the individual to function in the work of society (Kemmis et al 1983).

     According to the liberal/progressive orientation, knowledge and accomplishments are parts of the individual and have meaning and significance in the individual’s life context and culture (Kemmis et al 1983). The outworking of this is through process literacy which relates to psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics (Anstey & Bull 1996; Emmitt & Pollock 1997, 5) and includes Anstey’s and Bull’s (1996) social foundations of language and literacy.

     The socially-critical orientation is more problematic. On the one hand social critical literacy as discussed by authors in the field, such as Anstey and Bull (1996), Freebody (1991, 1992), Freebody and Welch (1993) and Luke (1993), take into consideration access to particular knowledge and social power. This is a change of emphasis from process literacy and includes elements of social action. Anstey and Bull (1996) use the term ‘social critical thinking’ and suggest this requires an understanding of ideology and the ability to criticise the texts and gain access to social power. However, they place no emphasis on social action. Luke (1993) and Freebody (1992) present literacy as a means of gaining social power for the individual but the required emphasis on transforming society and being transformed by society is missing.

     The socially-critical curriculum orientation sees knowledge as being constructed through social interaction and thus located in an historical, cultural, political and economic context. Central value is placed on the role of knowledge in social action and on the emancipatory interests of knowledge (Kemmis et al 1983, 11). Social critical literacy then, does not fit comfortably with the socially-critical curriculum orientation presented by Kemmis et al (1983). Unfortunately, space does not permit a critique of Luke (1993) or an elaboration of the flaws and serious risks in seeking to apply genuine critical social theory in primary education.

     The English K-6 syllabus is a component of the overall K-6 curriculum. The broad curriculum organisation is based on rigid subject differentiation, hence English K-6, Mathematics K-6, and so on. This approach, while it might be defended as reflecting historical development or practicalities, reflects the vocational/neoclassical orientation (Kemmis 1983, 13). This may be largely mitigated in practice by the extensive integration of teaching language and literacy (English if you will) in other subject areas. Acceptance of this implementation practice by the syllabus framers may be inferred. For example, statements of outcomes and indicators contain references to behaviours that could be found in science, social studies or music, such as: “seeks information from others on school excursions”, “participates in a class debate on a local issue” and “records sound for multimedia…” (English K-6 Syllabus 1998, 21). However, such practice is not otherwise explicitly promoted and the syllabus is confined to English (small references to foreign languages notwithstanding).

     The foundation of the syllabus therefore appears to be vocational/neoclassical. Also consistent with this orientation, for example, are its top-down development (that is, its use is mandatory and it is not a product of school-based development with community involvement), detailed specification of standards for skills and knowledge and inclusion of significant measurable outcomes. Indeed, it is acknowledged that the syllabus adopts a functional approach to language (English K-6 Principal’s Package 1998, 8) which makes it consistent with the vocational/neoclassical orientation. The impetus for this approach comes from the ‘back to the basics’ (Luke 1993) preparation for work. The proponents see themselves as realists and consider that education merely reflects the principles of wider society (Kemmis et al 1983).

     Overlaid on this foundation is the liberal-progressive orientation. It is evident in statements such as the following, taken from the rationale.

Competence in English will enable students to learn about the role of language in their own lives, and in their own and other cultures. They will then be able to communicate their thoughts and feelings, to participate in society, to make informed decisions about personal and social issues, to analyse information and viewpoints, to use their imaginations and to think about the influence of culture on the meanings made with language.

The approach taken in this syllabus is based on the three main interrelated uses of language:

    1          To interact with others;

    2          To create and interpret texts;

    3          To develop understandings about the world and ourselves.

(English K-6 Syllabus 1998, 6)

The learning outcomes from the liberal/progressive orientation are concerned with the practical, the expressive and the cultural for communication, deliberation and refinement (Kemmis et al 1983). Further examples of this orientation may be found throughout the syllabus, including in the Outcomes and Content, Scope and Sequence sections. It is also seen in the Overview of Language and Learning, such as the following for example.

We use language to achieve a variety of social purposes: for example, we use it to entertain, to explain how something works, to provide information, to argue a position, to explore the inner world of imagination. …

Those skills and strategies that contribute to the effective use of talking and listening include interaction skills, oral presentation skills and specific listening skills. Interaction skills are important, for example, in classroom discussions or in group work, where students need to be aware of how to initiate a topic, how to include others, how to change topics, how to repair communication breakdowns, how to deal with those who dominate the conversation, and how to use language to solve problems.

(English K-6 Syllabus 1998, 8)

The concern with personal growth of the liberal-progressive orientation is also expressed in the definition of literacy adopted for the syllabus, where it says literacy “is used to develop knowledge and understanding, to achieve personal growth and to function effectively in our society” (English K-6 Syllabus 1998, 5).

     The syllabus document also asserts that it “emphasises the development of critical literacy” and goes on to explain, or one might say qualify, what this means, as follows.

This involves students in questioning, challenging and evaluating the texts that they listen to, read and view. Critical literacy enables students to perceive how texts position readers to take a particular view of people and events. (English K-6 Syllabus 1998, 5)

There is evidence of this critical orientation in various sections of the syllabus. For example in the Content Overview of Later Stage 3, Learning About Reading, Context and Text, it says: “develop students’ critical and evaluative skills, eg effects of different camera angles, relative effectiveness of two or more related texts, different interpretations of the same text” and at the same place under Learning About Writing it says: “teach students to reflect critically on the effectiveness of their own writing, eg how entertaining their stories are, whether their explanations are clear, how easy it is to retrieve information from their information reports” (English K-6 Syllabus 1998, 63).

     It is clear that what is referred to as critical literacy does not reflect what Kemmis et al (1983) consider a socially critical orientation. It may lay a rudimentary (dare one say, primary) foundation for what Luke describes as critical literacy.

A critical literacy entails not only rudimentary control of the linguistic and semiotic codes of written text, but also an understanding of the ways in which literacy has shaped the organisations and values of social life, and of the ways in which the texts of everyday life influence one’s own identity and authority. (Luke 1993, 11)

It may even be consistent with the synthesis of several views on what is social critical thinking offered by Anstey and Bull (1996, 49), where they say students “need to be able to analyse and criticise the texts they read”. However, this all remains individual focused and amounts to little more than sound skills in critical thinking. There is nothing particularly socially critical about it (as the term socially critical is understood from the works of Berger & Luckman, Foucault, Gramsci, Althusser, Marcuse or Habermas).₁

     At a more practical level there are certainly strengths in the syllabus. The document is accessible, clearly expressed, well structured for quick reference by users and includes many detailed and practical guidelines to aide implementation. There is a thematic structure to its design to facilitate a useful overview before plunging into greater detail. The syllabus is supported by numerous additional documents, such as The Principal’s Package, Modules, Recommended Children’s Texts (which incidentally raises a political issue that cannot be discussed as space does not permit) and information for parents.

     The principal weakness in the syllabus is its lack of theoretical integrity. Possibly its architects thought the inclusion of multiple theoretical approaches to be a strength, or perhaps it was accepted as the inevitable result of competing influences on a dynamic document. Some effort has been made to give a unifying conceptual framework in the Overview of Language and Language Learning (English K-6 1998, 7) but this is little more than pragmatic and descriptive rather than theoretical.

     We have considered the strengths and weaknesses of the English K-6 Syllabus (1998) for New South Wales. A critical analysis in terms of the curriculum orientations presented by Kemmiss et al (1983) was undertaken that revealed a vocational/neoclassical foundation, strong liberal-progressive influence and some elements reflective of the rhetoric of the socially-critical. While being a superficially very practical document, great care must be exercised by professional teachers in its implementation to avoid confusion due to its poly-theoretical underpinnings.

__________________________

¹ It appears that in the literature there is some confusion of the term ‘critical’ and the notion of basic critical skills with the more grandiose ‘critical literacy’ and ‘critical social theory’. It is strictly the first two listed that are the concerns of the syllabus in question. However, this does introduce some of the elementary language and ideas of the socially-critical orientation. Back

References

Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (1996). Theories of language and literacy. In The literacy labyrinth. Prentice Hall: Sydney.

Emmitt, M. & Pollock, J. (1997). An overview of language and learning. In Language and learning: An introduction for teaching. (2^nd ed). Oxford University Press: Melbourne.

English K-6 Syllabus (1998). Board of Studies: NSW.

English K-6 Principal’s Package (1998). Board of Studies: NSW.

Freebody, P. (1991). The language of ideology (and vice versa) in school books. Paper presented to the Annual Systemic Linguistic Conference. Brisbane.

Freebody, P. (1992). A socio-cultural approach: Resourcing four roles as a literacy learner. In Watson, A. & Badenhop, A. (eds.) Prevention of reading failure. Ashton Scholastic: Gosford, NSW.

Freebody, P. & Welch, A.R. (1993). (eds). Knowledge, culture and power: International perspectives on literacy policies and practices. Falmer press: London.

Kemmis, S., Cole, P. & Suggett, D. (1983). Orientations to curriculum. Orientations to curriculum and transition: Towards the socially-critical school. Victorian Institute of Secondary Education: Melbourne.

Luke, A. (1993). Social construction of literacy in the primary school. In L. Unsworth (ed.) Literacy, learning and teaching: Language as social practice in the primary school. Macmillan: Melbourne.

Lundgren, U. (1983). Between hope and happening: Text and context in curriculum. Deakin University Press: Geelong.