Response to the Draft English 3-6 Syllabus, April 2022

Joanne Rossbridge & Kathy Rushton

Online survey can be completed at https://www.nsw.gov.au/have-your-say/english-and-mathematics-3–10-syllabuses

Questions are numbered according to the NESA survey.

2. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the outcomes and content?

The outcomes are explicit and clear statements of the essential knowledge, understanding and skills. Strongly disagree

The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Strongly disagree

The headings used to group the content are clear and appropriate. Disagree

The outcomes and content cater for the diversity of learners. Strongly disagree

There is a clear progression of learning between Stage 2 and Stage 3. Strongly disagree

3. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

The draft outcomes and content appropriately reflect recommendation 1.1 Strongly disagree      

The draft outcomes and content appropriately reflect recommendation 1.2 Strongly disagree                   

The draft outcomes and content appropriately reflect recommendation 3.2 Strongly disagree                

The draft outcomes and content appropriately reflect recommendation 4.1 Disagree                  

The draft outcomes and content appropriately reflect recommendation 4.2 Strongly disagree                                

4. How will the Stage 2 creating written text outcomes support student development of writing?

A particular ‘evidence base’ isn’t clear for the design of the outcomes and content. Changes from the previous syllabus have neither clarified or strengthened the writing content and in fact, it is less coherent in terms of teaching writing in both English and other subject areas. There is little continuity between Stage 2 and 3 writing outcomes and content (and K-2 / 7-10)

• It is unclear as to why the Stage 2 creating written texts contains three separate, yet similar outcomes with variations from imaginative, informative to persuasive texts. Reference to genre would help avoid these categories and the limitations they create.
• Use of edit and publish has been removed and the general process of writing is implied in the outcomes but not evident in content.  Surely these are still important skills.
• Stage 2 has a heavy emphasis on text structure which is positive but has limitations particularly if this is the major emphasis for the stage. Other content does little to look at choices across other levels of text in a systematic way. This indicates a linear, hierarchical, decontextualised approach to language and literacy. Learning about writing and learning to write is not a linear progression of skills but rather consideration of choices in context.
• It is unclear which ‘evidence base’ promotes focus on sentence and word level grammar rather than clause and group level.
• Content focuses on sentences: simple, compound and complex but there is no mention of clauses or types of clauses. Declarative, exclamatory ?, interrogative and imperative sentences form much of the sentence level content for Stage 2. This was previously in the early years and really doesn’t seem rigorous enough for S2 let alone provide continuity with Stage 3.
• The focus on language for writing has been separated from vocabulary again rather than connected to writing and reading.
• Stage 3 no longer has the dominant, explicit focus on text structure as in Stage 2 nor the segregation of imaginative, informative and persuasive texts into the three outcomes. This is not necessarily problematic but seems to show a lack of continuity across the stages and again relies on the idea that what been ‘taught’ is no longer relevant in the next Stage. This doesn’t account for the complexities of writing when moving into Stage 3 and beyond.
• Overall choices reveal a lack of knowledge about how language works in context. That is, text structure and other language features are determined by context rather than a list of skills to be mastered at a point in time.

5. How will the Stage 3 creating written text outcomes support student development of writing?

A particular ‘evidence base’ isn’t clear for the design of the outcomes and content. Changes from the previous syllabus have neither clarified or strengthened the writing content and in fact, is far less coherent in terms of teaching writing in both English and other subject areas. There is little continuity between Stage 2 and 3 writing outcomes and content (and K-2 / 7-10).

• Use of edit and publish has been removed and the general process of writing is implied in the outcomes but not evident in content.  Surely these are still important skills.
• Content does little to look at choices across all levels of text in a systematic way. This indicates a linear, hierarchical, decontextualised approach to language and literacy. Learning about writing and learning to write is not a linear progression of skills but rather consideration of choices in context.
• It is unclear which ‘evidence base’ promotes the focus on sentence and word level grammar rather than clause and group level.
• Content focuses on sentences: simple, compound and complex but there is no mention of clauses or types of clauses, except adjectival. Declarative, exclamatory ?, interrogative and imperative sentences are in the content. This was previously in the early years and really doesn’t seem rigorous enough for Stage 2 let alone Stage 3. It’s unclear as to why this focus is given such a high priority when so much else should be included in Stage 3 content. There is some reference to the group level within sentence level grammar, but knowledge has not been developed sufficiently in earlier stages.
• The focus on language for writing has been separated from vocabulary again rather than connected to writing and reading.
• Overall choices reveal a lack of knowledge about how language works in context. That is, text structure and other language features are determined by context rather than a list of skills to be mastered.

6. Please provide any additional feedback.

It is difficult to give feedback on this syllabus as the survey questions do not seek valid feedback about the poor processes around its development nor the demonstrated lack of expertise involved in its creation.

The new syllabus is sadly a fragmented and reductive document which will no doubt increase the workload for teachers rather than streamline content, especially as there is a lack of continuity across K-10. This fact alone makes it very difficult for teachers to differentiate and track students who are achieving below or beyond the expected outcomes for their stage.  

An overview of all outcomes (K-10) should be included at the beginning of each syllabus document, especially for 3-6 which straddles two very different syllabus documents. In fact, the structure of the syllabus presented through the diagram implies a linear progression and an incorrect linear notion about the nature of language, literacy and the subject area English which is inappropriate in a context which recognises the individual needs of students and encourages differentiation.

The ideas which underpin the notion of a linear progression reflect outdated mid-century understandings rather than drawing on current 21^st century pedagogical research. It’s difficult to understand why this approach has been taken and again raises questions about the process and expertise involved in its production. There is a glaring omission of research to support the ‘evidence base’ with many examples being both unreliable in terms of peer review and rigour. Reference to handbooks and undergraduate texts does not equate to research nor provide a theoretical framework for a syllabus. This is especially so when points from listed texts have either been decontextualised or totally misrepresented.

Generally, all content needs to be edited as it is often incoherent and unclear. The design of the content continually shifts without clear reason. The document is not professionally presented as it is littered with wordy footnotes that are difficult to follow, frequently incorrect and sometimes nonsensical. The result is a syllabus without a clear vision or framework with limited connections between the course overview, aim, rationale and actual syllabus content. It is difficult to see how this syllabus can align with the Australian Curriculum.

Key observations: 

• The 3-6 syllabus is impacted by the mechanistic, outdated approach to reading embraced in K-2. Assumptions are made about the nature of reading and how it is taught which do not relate to classroom situations, especially those with students learning English as an additional language or dialect.
• For instance, outcomes relating to Reading Fluency end in Stage 2, surely a misunderstanding about the impact of vocabulary development, comprehension and complexity of texts on fluent reading.
• The separation of vocabulary from reading and the decontextualised use of the Tier 1,2,3 framework for selecting and foregrounding vocabulary, demonstrate very little understanding of the repetitive cycle of talking, listening reading and writing i.e. using vocabulary, that is necessary to support student learning.
• The importance of language is made explicit in the introduction to the syllabus, but without a clear model for language, the result is fragmentation, language out of context and poor use of metalanguage. For instance, there is more language/grammar content in 3-6 than K-2 but there is a disconnect. It is unclear which ‘evidence base’ promotes focus on sentence and word level grammar rather than clause and group level.
• Reliance on ‘concepts’ for ‘Understanding and Responding to Literature’ … is not connected to any of the research/evidence base. Where is the emphasis on rich literature? Both the Stage 2 and Stage 3 outcomes do not seem to flow coherently, and the Stage 3 outcome doesn’t make sense due to the content and wording.
• Outcomes and content for Handwriting and Digital Technologies is limited and dated with little focus on meaningful composition of digital texts and the omission of terms like ‘edit’ and ‘publish’.