HOME ABOUT BLOG PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PUBLICATIONS RESOURCES CONTACT

Response to the K-2 English Draft Syllabus Review

Joanne Rossbridge & Kathy Rushton

 

Responses have been placed in order of survey questions on NESA site. Please scroll down and read responses to Q29 & 40 in order to understand the context for the responses below.

 

Q3. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Oral Language outcomes and content?

1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Disagree

2.The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Disagree

3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree

4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree

5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Disagree

 

Q4. Please explain your answers.

ES1

  • Acknowledgement of both speaking and listening within the outcome heading and outcome is needed.
  • As oral language is the basis for literacy learning their needs to be more explicit reference to the use of home language/s for learning beyond understanding that others may use another language.
  • Use of the sub-heading “spoken grammar” is confusing as the grammatical features of English apply to all texts: visual, written or spoken – context driven.
  • Use of the word “sentence” when referring to oral language is incorrect as a sentence can only be defined by punctuation, perhaps “clause complex” might be a more suitable description.
  • The expectation that irregular verbs will be correctly used by the end of Early Stage 1, especially for students speaking a dialect of English or another language is not helpful nor is the use of the term “irregular words” as opposed to “irregular verbs”.
  • Revision of the terms “decode” and “encode” relating to reading and writing should also include “recode” to incorporate the recoding of oral language as an aspect of the process of reading (Emmit, Hornsby & Wilson, 2014).

S1

  • Acknowledgement of both speaking and listening within the outcome heading and outcome.
  • As oral language is the basis for literacy learning their needs to be more explicit reference to the use of home language/s for learning beyond understanding that others may use another language.
  • Use of the sub-heading “spoken grammar” is confusing as the grammatical features of English apply to all texts: visual, written or spoken – context driven.
  • Use of the word “sentence” when referring to oral language is incorrect as a sentence can only be defined by punctuation, perhaps “clause complex” might be a more suitable description.
  • Referring to “correct” use of tense and generalising as if there were only three tenses is not helpful or a realistic expectation for all Stage 1 students.
  • Revision of the terms “decode” and “encode” relating to reading and writing should also include “recode” to incorporate the recoding of oral language as an aspect of the process of reading (Emmit, Hornsby & Wilson, 2014)

 

Q5. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Vocabulary outcomes and content?

  1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Strongly Disagree
  2. The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Strongly Disagree
  3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree
  4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree
  5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Strongly Disagree

 

Q6. Please explain your answers.

ES1

  • A focus on developing language to name and describe is suitable for Early Stage 1 but for all students at this stage especially EAL/D students, a more helpful focus would include grammatical items particularly prepositions “to, on, from, above, at”, as well as lexical items. As part of adverbial prepositional phrases of place, these will help to develop the language needed in Mathematics to describe position or in English to describe, for instance, a setting in a narrative.
  • A focus on common high frequency lexical and grammatical items like “you, the, they” and a range of processes/verbs which are key to meaning making at this Stage such as material/action; sensing/mental and most importantly relational/linking such as “to go; to like; to be & to have” would also be very helpful especially as the latter form the auxiliary verbs used to indicate tense.

 

S1

  • Use of the terms Tier 2 and 3 within the outcome limits to one view of teaching vocabulary – often results in not accounting for the lexico-grammar within context.
  • More guidance is needed about the concept of “Tiers” of vocabulary, as although exemplified, the texts from which teachers are to select words and the contexts in which they can then be used with students both need clarification. The omission of any reference to morphology or etymology in the identification of tier words is also confusing as Stage 1 students are to “understand and use morphological patterns” but this aspect is not addressed in the selection of words for Early Stage 1.

 

Q7. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Phonological awareness outcomes and content?

  1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Strongly Disagree
  2. The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Strongly Disagree
  3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree
  4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree
  5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Strongly Disagree

 

Q8. Please explain your answers.

  • Does this need its own outcome given it is a part of reading? Separating aspects of reading is problematic in terms of examples in the “evidence base”. This creates potential pedagogic issues and how reading may be taught in classrooms. Places too much teaching time on one aspect – this should be (as with other outcomes) part of a broader reading outcome.
  • Having two outcomes related to phonological knowledge is redundant as the terms “phonological awareness” and “phonic knowledge” describe knowledge are similar. Phonological knowledge is only one aspect of the relationship between oral and written language. The process of reading also requires knowledge about the structure and grammatical features of texts and morphological and etymological knowledge about words. (Freebody and Luke, 1999; Krashen S., 1981; Frank Smith, 2004).
  • Many students will not need any support in developing phonological awareness or the ability to manipulate sounds in words, and some may also be able to succeed with these tasks and not comprehend the text they are reading. The complexity of these issues is further clouded by suggestions such as:
  • While still learning about sound letter correspondence, Stage 1 students should know about the Schwa vowel sound and identify a media vowel. This is quite confusing as familiar words like “teacher” and “mother” both have schwa as may students’ names like “Richard; Jason and Robert” but all the “schwa” sounds are graphically represented in very different ways.
  • The concept of text “Including decodable texts”, needs to be defined as the word “decodable” obviously refers to the reader’s capability to “decode” the text but this concept is not clear. If a text is “decodable” does this refer to the reader’s ability to predict meaning from the text using graphological, phonological, visual, syntactic or semantic clues and does it include comprehension of the text? Some students learning English may be able to successfully “decode” and read aloud but without any understanding of the text – is this reading?
  • The use of a term like “phonological units” as opposed to “phonemes” seems unnecessary and confusing
  • Exemplify “taught” ie using what strategies or in what contexts would anything be considered as “taught” as opposed to learnt?
  • Again, the use of the word “sentence” when referring to oral language is incorrect as a sentence can only be defined by punctuation, perhaps “clause complex” might be a more suitable description
  • The meaning of this statement is very unclear “Orally blend and segment syllables”. In what context would this take place? How can a syllable be segmented or blended should the reference be to sounds/letters in a syllable?
  • In the “Phonemes “sub-heading these actions were listed “provide a word; indicate words; listen; orally blend; identify: say the new word when asked; understand”. The use of the imperative mood is suggestive of a test not descriptors of what a student might achieve. The context in which these actions might take place is not at all clear.

 

Q9. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Print Conventions and content?

  1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Disagree
  2. The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Disagree
  3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree
  4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree
  5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Disagree

 

10. Please explain your answers.

ES1

  • Does this need its own outcome given it is a part of reading? Separating aspects of reading is problematic in terms of examples of the “evidence base”. This creates potential pedagogic issues and how reading may be taught in classrooms. Places too much teaching time on one aspect – this should (as with other outcomes) be part of a broader reading outcome.

  

Q11. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Phonic Knowledge outcomes and content?

  1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Strongly Disagree
  2. The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Strongly Disagree
  3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree
  4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree
  5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Strongly Disagree

 

12. Please explain your answers.

  • Does this need its own outcome given it is a part of reading? Separating aspects of reading is problematic in terms of examples of the “evidence base”. This creates potential pedagogic issues and how reading may be taught in classrooms. Places too much teaching time on one aspect – this should be (as with other outcomes) part of a broader reading outcome.
  • Having two outcomes related to phonological knowledge/awareness is confusing especially as the terms “phonological awareness” and “phonic knowledge” describe knowledge of the same thing, one aspect of the relationship between oral and written language.
  • “understand that in written English there can be multiple ways to represent a phoneme” needs to be considered in context.
  • Revision of the statement “decode and encode words when reading and creating texts” to acknowledge that students need to “recode” from oral language in the process of reading
  • “taught single letter graphemes”- again “taught” is a problematic description.
  • “trigraphs, quadgraphs” – these terms seem to be less than useful in devising a sequence of learning.

 

Q13. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Creating Texts outcomes and content?

  1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Strongly Disagree
  2. The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Strongly Disagree
  3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree
  4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree
  5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Strongly Disagree

 

14. Please explain your answers.

There seems to be no explicit reference to the structure, audience and purpose of a range of texts. Levels of texts are mentioned but not Group level, which is particularly important for these stages when students need to learn about and use verbal groups/processes; participants realised as noun groups and adverbial prepositional phrases/circumstances use to build the field in texts. For instance “know the function of and recognise a noun, a verb a pronoun and an article in written text” infers that students will be reading, writing and developing metalanguage. This is not explicitly referenced as ‘text’ and ‘decodable text’ and “literature” need to be defined to support the development of literacy.

 

The heading “Creating Texts” assumes this means written texts only. If Derewianka and Jones are the “evidence based” then the model of language has not been understood. need to capture the relationship between oral and written language. No reference to context and purpose in outcomes or content is problematic.

 

Headings are organised from top down although purpose and audience is again ignored. This is more appropriate organisation but contracts with organisation of headings for reading comprehension.

 

ES1

  • “… creating texts for different purposes” included in outcome for Spelling is positive but why not in Creating Texts outcome.
  • Heading “Text-level grammar” is incorrect.
  • Use “personal vocabulary”- is possibly not English so this concept is not helpful.
  • Word Level: “expressive words” – does this refer to verbs in particular? Where are students to encounter these words?
  • “use noun groups to add detail in a clause” when and in what context were students to learn about clauses?
  • “at least 4 clearly connected ideas and include correct simple sentences” is restrictive and very unhelpful as is not descriptive of the type of writing of which some students might be capable.
  • There seems to be no explicit or consistent reference to the structure, audience and purpose of a range of texts. Levels of texts are mentioned but not Group or Clause level, which is particularly important for these stages when students need to learn about and use verbal groups/processes; participants realised as noun groups and adverbial prepositional phrases/circumstances use to build the field in texts.
  • Early Stage 1 “at least 4 clearly connected ideas and include correct simple sentences”, seems unclear/contradictory. What is expected in terms of ‘connected’ when there is a focus on simple sentences?
  • “Know the function of and recognise a noun, a verb a pronoun and an article in written text” infers that students will be reading, writing and developing metalanguage but does not mention function. The article and noun should be discussed as a noun group, hence focusing at the group level.
  • Sentence level: focus on simple/compound sentence but no specific content about what a clause is.
  • Definition of compound sentence should say 2 ‘independent’ clauses.
  • Need to talk about the function of clauses beyond just punctuation, eg statement, question, command, exclamation.

 

S1

  • “… creating texts for different purposes” included in outcome for Spelling is positive but why not in Creating Texts outcome
  • No reference to context and purpose in outcome.
  • Heading “Text-level grammar” is incorrect.
  • Text level: “select and use a broad range of conjunctions” – this is completely dependent on context and purpose. We don’t want teachers thinking such conjunctions need to be in every text.
  • Text level: Focus on cohesive devices such as pronouns, repetition, lexical cohesion (eg synonyms/antonyms, class/sub class etc) would be more appropriate.
  • Sentence level: the example for “record ideas separated by commas in a sentence”, is actually the separation of words, ideas would imply separating clauses with commas.
  • Sentence level: identifying sentence types and types of clauses implies students know what a clause is – shouldn’t the clause as a unit of meaning and therefore a verb be addressed in ES1?
  • Use of simple, compound and complex sentence in a text may not be appropriate given the purpose and context.
  • Word level” use “personal vocabulary”- is possibly not English so this concept is not helpful.
  • Word Level: “expressive words” – does this refer to verbs etc? Where are students to encounter these words and what is their purpose given a specific context?
  • Word level: “use noun groups to add detail in a clause” when and in what context were students to learn about clauses and their constituents? This is group not word level. Also need to articulate what is in the noun group eg – article, adjective, noun, adjectival phrase – for teacher support and to show expectation re expansion of the noun group although there is a lack of background Knowledge on the noun group coming from ES1.
  • There seems to be no explicit or consistent reference to the structure, audience and purpose of a range of texts. Levels of texts are mentioned but not Group or Clause level, which is particularly important for these stages when students need to learn about and use verbal groups/processes; participants realised as noun groups and adverbial prepositional phrases/circumstances use to build the field in texts.
  • Only time context is mentioned is in “ select and use contextually precise prepositions …” but this seems to be a strange use of the term.
  • Also lack of content related to textual and interpersonal language choices.

 

Q15. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Spelling outcomes and content?

  1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Disagree
  2. The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Disagree
  3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree
  4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree
  5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Disagree

 

16. Please explain your answers.

English is a language that has borrowed many of its words from other languages and the spelling of those families of words reflect their derivation eg.“television, telephone” or “romance, sympathy, beef, nuance” (Adoniou, 2016). For example, in Early Stage 1 to successfully “spell their own name” all these Australian children will need to employ all four aspects of spelling knowledge to know how their names have been recoded from spoken to written English. “Mohammed, Georgia, Jihad, Ciwa, Juanita, Jason Ng, Gwenllian and Meurig” all need to employ etymological knowledge as it is not just an important aspect of spelling knowledge it also makes strong links to morphological , phonological and graphological knowledge  as it the organising principle of spelling knowledge in English.

Taken together these statements from the draft K-2 syllabus indicate that students in Early Stage 1 “Understand that Standard Australian English spelling involves combining knowledge of speech sounds, conventional letter patterns and word meaning “and in Stage 1 “Understand that Standard Australian English spelling involves combining knowledge of speech sounds, conventional letter patterns, word meaning and etymology” summarise the four aspects of spelling knowledge. However, to understand English spelling, phonological, orthographic, morphological and etymological knowledge is only useful when it is applied in context. For instance, the context is the only way to know whether to spell “ðȧr” as “there, their” or “they’re”. From the earliest years all four aspects of spelling knowledge are not only helpful but necessary. More guidance on how to teach spelling is needed as the frequent references to “taught” words and to Tiers of words “ Tier 1 and ‘taught’ Tier 2 words” need further elaboration for instance:

ES1

  • No headings to organise content – content could be grouped based on spelling knowledge, which would more clearly show progression.
  • “… creating texts for different purposes” included in outcome for Spelling is positive but why not in Creating Texts outcome.
  • “taught familiar and high-frequency words” and “taught” digraphs, contractions, nouns with “er” – the adjective “taught” indicates a pedagogical stance that is in contradiction to the national curriculum and to the concept of differentiation in any classroom.
  • “segment phonemes” – meaning is unclear

 

S1

  • Do Tier 1 and 2 vocabulary need to be within the wording of the outcome? No headings to organise content - content could be grouped based on spelling knowledge. which would more clearly show progression.
  • “… creating texts for different purposes” included in outcome for Spelling is positive but why not in Creating Texts outcome.
  • Good to see etymology in S1 first dot point but needs to be developed through additional content.
  • What is meant by “extended codes”?

  

Q17.To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Handwriting and Digital Technologies outcomes and content?

 

  1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Agree
  2. The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Disagree
  3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree
  4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree
  5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Agree

 

18. Please explain your answers.

ES1/S1

  • No headings/grouping of content.
  • Could further develop content for use of technology skills for a purpose.

 

Q19. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Text - reading Fluency outcomes and content?

  1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Strongly Disagree
  2. The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Strongly Disagree
  3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree
  4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree
  5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Disagree

 

 

20. Please explain your answers.

  • Does this need its own outcome given it is a part of reading? Separating aspects of reading is problematic in terms of examples of the “evidence base”. This creates potential pedagogic issues and how reading may be taught in classrooms. Places too much teaching time on one aspect – this should (as with other outcomes) be part of a broader reading outcome.

 

ES1

  • Doesn’t sound like an outcome as too specific. Reads more like content.
  • Where does the term “easy speech rhythm” come from?
  • Why say short and decodable texts in outcomes – should be short/simple texts? Reading fluency should not be considered in terms of decodable texts only. This is a dangerous way of showing what is valued in reading. Intro says the syllabus focus remains on literature however this seems contradictory based on this outcome and content.
  • Why for the “first time” – is this assessment?
  • What is meant by ‘taught’’ in “taught grapheme–phoneme correspondences and “taught high-frequency words’. Does this imply these aspects are ‘taught’ out of context or is this assessment rather than teaching?

 

S1

  • Doesn’t sound like an outcome too specific. Readsmore like content.
  • Where does the term “easy speech rhythm” come from?
  • Why for the “first time” – is this assessment?
  • How do we know “grapheme-phoneme correspondence” is applied for “automaticity”?

 

Q21. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Reading Comprehension outcomes and content?

  1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Strongly Disagree
  2. The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Strongly Disagree
  3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree
  4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree
  5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Disagree

 

22. Please explain your answers.

ES1

  • Why only look at comprehending texts read independently? What about shared/guided particularly in ES1? – not inclusive based on statements in intro for EAL/D and Aboriginal students.
  • Reorganise headings to be top down rather than bottom up particularly if looking at comprehension with a focus on meaning. Also, but no/little mention of context, purpose, audience which is key to comprehension. If Derewianka and Jones are the “evidence base” then the model of language has not been understood.
  • What is meant by “a mental model of the content” – where does this come from?
  • Does “recognise how the position of words in a sentence changes meaning” imply that passive voice will be a focus in ES1? The current syllabus looks at this in S3. Doesn’t it mean groups rather than words? Needs clarity.
  • Monitoring comprehension: The sub-headings do not all reflect “monitoring comprehension”.

S1

  • Why only look at comprehending texts read independently, what about shared/guided? – not inclusive based on statements in intro for EAL/D and Aboriginal students.
  • Reorganise headings to be top down rather than bottom up particularly if looking at comprehension with a focus on meaning. Also, but no/little mention of context, purpose, audience which is key to comprehension. If Derewianka and Jones are the “evidence base” then the model of language has not been understood.
  • What is meant by “a mental model of the content” – where does this come from?
  • Understanding and connecting sentences: “recognise how the position of a type of clause in a complex sentence influences the important idea for the reader”. This is very unclear given the type of clause is not made explicit. If a complex sentence, it would be a dependent or independent clause. Examples in footnote 77 :“Through the grassy bush, the kangaroo hops.” This is simple sentence with an adverbial phrase in first position. Is the focus on sentence/clause types or Theme of clause? These are very different grammatical concepts. Syllabus writers would benefit from reading Derewianka (2011) & Humphrey, Droga & Feez (2012).
  • Monitoring comprehension: The sub-headings do not all reflect “monitoring comprehension”?
  • Should be looking at inference based on groups/ideas rather than just words.
  • ­­Need to develop skills before reading, eg prediction/greater focus on background/cultural knowledge.

 

Q23. To what extent do you agree with the following statements for the Respond to and Create Literature outcomes and content?

  1. The outcomes are explicit and clear statement of the essential knowledge and skills. Strongly Disagree
  2. The content is appropriate for the outcomes. Strongly Disagree
  3. The headings used to group the content are useful. Strongly Disagree
  4. The outcomes and content cater for the diverse range of learners. Strongly Disagree
  5. There is a clear progression of learning between Early Stage 1 and Stage 1. Strongly Disagree

 

24. Please explain your answers.

ES1

  • Only outcome that clearly acknowledges the maintenance of literature as key. This focus needs to be embedded across all outcomes given it is an ‘English’ syllabus.
  • Also need to define what is meant by literature. Is the focus on narrative texts only – this seems to be the emphasis. If so, what is guiding this?
  • Why is “viewed” not included in outcome. Only in S1.
  • Headings organising content are random and/or from outdated models. Not all content is reflected in headings. For example, Imagery, symbol and connotation seems barely relevant to content.
  • Why no reference to purpose and audience in outcome in ES1 but only starting in Stage 1?
  • Good inclusion of home lang or dialect.
  • Inconsistent language and build up across ES1/S1.
  • What about the role of oral language and drama?
  • What is meant by symbols/fig lang in ES1 and S1? Needs detail appropriate for the stage.
  • Creating nonsense words and silly sentence is problematic in ES1 particularly for EAL/D students.
  • Unclear as to why here is a shift from “perspective” to “representation” in headings from ES1 to S1.

 

S1

  • Only outcome that clearly acknowledges the maintenance of literature as key. This focus needs to be embedded across all outcomes given it is an ‘English’ syllabus.
  • Also define what is meant by literature. Is the focus on narrative texts only – this seems to be the emphasis. If so, why?
  • Inconsistent language and build up across ES1/S1.
  • Good to see “viewed” included in outcome.
  • Does the word “intentional” need to be in the outcome. Seems redundant.
  • Headings organising content are random and/or from outdated models. Not all content is reflected in headings. Headings are too long and clunky.
  • Unclear as to why there is a shift from “perspective” to “representation” in headings from ES1 to S1.
  • Heavy focus on narrative but how is earlier writing or writing for other purposes used to support and supplement narrative. Narrative does not mean the same as literature. Needs to be clarified.
  • What about the role of oral language and drama?
  • What is meant exactly by symbols/fig lang in ES1 and S1? Needs detail appropriate for the stage.

 

Q25 Is the sample teaching advice helpful?

No

 

26. Please explain why.

  • Sadly the “advice does not clarify or provide support and the “evidence” which supposedly underpins this syllabus is not supported by explicit reference to either theory or research. For instance, this statement “it is particularly important to use reliable, standardised/norm-referenced dictation assessments. These should: use error analysis of real words and pseudo-words” seems to suggest that teachers should rely on external programs or “tests” rather than using their knowledge of the syllabus and outcomes and their professional knowledge and observation of students’ progress.
  • Clarify “evidence” eg provide research basis
  • Need greater range

 

Q27. The NSW Govt response to the NSW curriculum review final report recommended that:

  • The early years of school focus on providing every child with solid foundations in the basics
  • Priority learning focusses on oral language skills and early reading and writing skills
  • Core facts, concepts and principles are prioritised, and the volume of content reduced where appropriate.

 

The draft outcomes and content appropriately reflect these recommendations. Disagree

 

 28. Please explain.

  • Somewhat reflective given the constraints particularly in terms of NSW Government Recommendations.

 

 

29. Please provide any additional feedback.

* Really needed a specific section to respond to the Introduction:

 The NSW English K-2 Draft outcomes and content attempts to address the political discourse around “the basics” but its structure and isolation of skills, particularly in the area of reading, has the potential for detrimental implications within classrooms and for a diverse range of learners.

 

“I look at my own two girls … The eldest commenced Kindergarten right after her fifth birthday. Having already read a long list of novels, including her favourite Dahl books a number of times, she had moved onto Harry Potter and arrived at her orientation day with this firmly tucked under her arm… just in case she had time to read a few chapters at some point!... The youngest…started …at five years and six months.  While she could recognise her own name, reading a book herself was of no interest… To teach we must understand. Each of our students comes to us with a variety of knowledge and differing backgrounds, and each has valuable information to share and build upon.” Leaning support teacher. (Dutton et al.,2018, Tell me your story p.122)

 

In the Introduction, the NSW Government recommendation 4.1 states that a top priority is for “children who are less advanced”. It is evident in the organisation and selection of content that there is a strong influence in terms of focusing on students with disability, however, this is the minority of students and not the entire population of students in NSW. This approach is contradictory as the Introduction then goes to say that it is intended to be inclusive of all students including Aboriginal students, students with disability, gifted and talented students and students learning English as an additional language or dialect (EAL/D). Outcomes and content alone cannot do this, and there is no support for teachers built around the outcomes and content and certainly not within the Teaching Advice.

 

The outcomes and content are particularly inappropriate for those children who come to school able to read and the language learning path  EAL/D students has not been considered. This is clearly evident, if the final outcomes and content are to be tagged with the National Literacy and Numeracy Learning Progressions but inclusion of the ESL Scales has been omitted. The ESL Scales have been included in the 1998 and 2012 syllabus documents. This exclusion can be viewed as discrimination as the Progression is based on the path of an English only learner.

 

As the introduction to the draft outcomes states that they are intended “to be inclusive of the learning needs of all students” especially Aboriginal students and students learning English (EAL/D), some explicit reference to the time needed to develop both Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) should be made to acknowledge the 7 (approx.) years needed to develop English (Cummins,2000). This is especially the case considering that approximately one third of students are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) and that the DOE recognises that 25%  of students are identified as in need of EAL/D support. A clear focus on the differences between spoken and written language, the grammatical intricacy and lexical density, would better inform understandings of strategies to make links between the development of oral language and literacy for all students.

 

In this syllabus there is little consideration of the differentiation needed in the early years of schooling when students enter school with a wide range of experiences and up to an 18 months difference in age. While there are many issues that are problematic in this draft syllabus the most challenging is what is not there. As a result, issues such as the organisation of a literacy session or differentiation and scaffolding of learning, especially for target groups, may arise in the application within classrooms. For instance, the very useful assessment of reading, a running record, is not clearly supported as the process of reading and the role of writing in consolidating learning is not explicitly stated.

 

In addition, use of adjectives “known” and taught” throughout imply a particular pedagogical stance. This is where a framework and rationale is required so that the view of both learning and language is outlined and linked to the “evidence base”. From the wording of the outcomes and content it can’t be assumed that a social view of learning underpins the syllabus (Vygotsky, 1978). This needs to be included and made clear up front.

 

For students entering Early Stage 1 able to read and write, this syllabus does not offer a clear path of learning for the first three years of schooling, nor does it allow for the development of the linguistic resources which students bring to school. A clear theoretical framework that both acknowledges oral language development as the basis of literacy and also defines an explicit relationship between reading and writing is not apparent.Rather the development of the syllabus seems to be heavily focussed on one aspect of the reading process at the cost of all other aspects of literacy and language development.

 

It should be assumed that a curriculum framework would be designed and shared before/with the first draft of outcomes and content. This should form the backbone of the syllabus particularly in terms of a detailed rationale which is sadly lacking. Hence, there is a lack of a clear, overall framework, which should the starting point of articulating a strong overall theoretical basis.

 

In addition, this seems to have a focus predominantly on literacy which is appropriate in the early years, however, at the detriment of the “English” subject area. This is a reversal of the shift to the focus on language, literature and literacy in the Australian Curriculum.

 

In regards to the review of the Australian Curriculum it seems inappropriate to make the statement that “NESA anticipates the new syllabus will be aligned to the revised Australian Curriculum”. Surely, NSW should wait to see the revision before making such claims, also given the dramatic movement away from the Australian Curriculum with this draft.

 

As already mentioned the outcomes and content are heavily focused on reading and in particular the constrained skills (Paris, 2005) at the detriment of other aspects of language, literature and literacy. The implication of this is that teaching literacy, especially reading, will become decontextualized with limited focus on meaning, and perhaps the purchase of specific programs that are not ideal for all learners. There is also a danger that some of the specific content will become a checklist which is not usually the intention of a syllabus, but without a rationale it is difficult to know the full intention. This organisation is not only problematic for a diverse range of students and interpretation/implementation in classrooms, but moves away from the modes of language (speaking, listening, reading, viewing, writing and representing). By not grouping outcomes under these modes there is an emphasis in some areas and omissions in others, particularly writing and language. Again, further work is needed for a framework to define what is meant by “reading” in particular, as well as the relationship between modes especially in the early years of learning.

 

“Literature” is another term that needs to be defined as the introduction states that “the importance of literature to the English subject discipline” has been maintained. However, there is little reference to “literature” throughout, particularly in the reading outcomes, although it becomes a focus in the final outcome. However, literature seems to have been interpreted as primarily “narrative”. There needs to be greater consideration of the purposes of texts students will read, view, write, draw, speak and listen to in the early years. This focus needs to be embedded across all outcomes given it is an “English” syllabus.

 

In the need to be transparent, the connections to the “evidence base” need to be made far more explicit. Although four references have been listed it is clear how some have influence content but the interpretation of others is lacking. For instance, Derewianka and Jones, 2016 is the first reference listed, but much of what influences the model of language and learning in this text is vague, misunderstood or lacking. If there is a focus on Tiers of vocabulary, it would be expected that Beck, I. McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002) would be included. A thorough reference list linked to a framework or rationale may assist with transparency and help future reviews of the curriculum.

  

40. Do you have any suggestions about how we can improve our survey?

In the future ease of completion and the ability to address key points would be assisted by:

  • reconsidering the time frame for feedback to avoid the end of a busy term and the holiday period.
  • Include a Word version rather than PDF of the survey. The PDF is not helpful for collating responses.
  • Don’t include questions in the survey if not applicable to all outcomes, eg “The headings used to group the content are useful.”
  • Ensure order of outcomes in survey is in the same order as outcomes in the document.
  • Provide the option to provide written feedback on the introductory sections as these were key to trying to understand the actual outcomes and content. Without providing this option, an inability to easily provide informed feedback is compromised as key statements in the introduction underpin the organisation.