HOME ABOUT BLOG PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PUBLICATIONS RESOURCES CONTACT

Response to the K-2 English Draft No 2 Syllabus Review

Joanne Rossbridge & Kathy Rushton

 

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

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

The rationale describes the nature and purpose of English in the curriculum

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not in a position to comment

 

The aim provides a succinct statement of the overall purpose of the syllabus

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not in a position to comment

 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

The content for students who primarily communicate through nonverbal language provides meaningful learning experiences towards the Early Stage 1 and Stage 1 outcomes

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not in a position to comment

 

The content for students who are unable to produce handwriting provides meaningful learning experiences towards the Early Stage 1 outcome

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not in a position to comment

 

To what extent do you agree with the following statement?

The access points provide relevant and meaningful learning opportunities for students with significant intellectual disability

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not in a position to comment

 

Additional teaching advice for English and Mathematics K—2 has been developed. Will this material:

Assist in the teaching of the syllabus?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not in a position to comment

 

Provide a better understanding of the intent of the syllabus?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not in a position to comment

 

To what extent do you agree with the following statement?

The English K—2 draft teaching advice for diverse learners is useful

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not in a position to comment

 

To what extent do you agree with the following statement?

How satisfied are you with the draft English K—2 syllabus

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Not in a position to comment

 

Please provide any additional feedback on English K—2 including on the teaching advice and access points.

  • Draft 2 is a significant improvement on Draft 1 however many contradictions still remain.
  • If the syllabus is meant to be inclusive (p7) then the emphasis on decodable readers is not inclusive for most of the groups listed. There needs to be a greater focus on meaning, after all that is why we learn language.
  • Where is ‘meaning’ on the overview diagram p11 as in the previous syllabus. The term ‘meaning’ is seldom used.
  • The Background section is welcome. In terms of the evidence base there is still contradiction, for eg, the approach within parts of the syllabus in terms of the particular type of focus on phonological awareness and phonic knowledge is in conflict with for eg, Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016) where the focus is on meaning.
  • On p7 ‘strengthened outcomes and content related to writing to highlight the sentence as an engine to propel writing from spoken language to the structures of written language’ – this should be the clause rather than sentence.
  • It is still problematic that the Curriculum Framework is to be released after the development of this syllabus as is ‘NESA anticipates the new syllabuses will be aligned with the revised Australian Curriculum’ as currently this syllabus does not clearly align.
  • The ‘Suggested instructional sequences’ are puzzling. Why focus only on
    • Early Stage 1: Phonic knowledge  
    • Early Stage 1: Spelling
    • Stage 1: Phonic knowledge
    • Stage 1: Spelling.

        What about the relationship between oral and written language and language in context?

  • p13 ‘Decodable texts support beginning readers to use decoding strategies rather than guessing words.’ This implies other texts just involve guessing words which is not true.
  • p13 Good to see this statement ‘Once phonics mastery has been achieved, the use of decodable texts does not need to continue.’
  • p13 The use of the term ‘iterative’ seems problematic when describing writing and again doesn’t reflect the research base.
  • On p13 it is good to see connections between oral and written language and students needing to engage with a variety of texts but this is in conflict with the stance on decodable readers.
  • p14 Good inclusion of the statement ‘Teachers should preview all texts students read.’
  • The richness of ‘English’ in the Rationale and Aim isn’t necessarily reflected throughout the outcomes and content.
  • p18 There is a contradiction between the ES1 Vocabulary outcome  and the note ‘9 Tier 1 words are basic-level words (eg dog, baby, happy, pretty). While we need to teach students how to read and write these words, they rarely require instruction at school in terms of what they mean and how to use them. This isn’t the case for EAL/D students new to learning English and even if it was the case why would it be an outcome.
  • The outcome on Creating Written Texts needs revision to acknowledge context, audience, purpose and text rather than sentences – this does not reflect the ‘evidence base’. It’s strange that context is recognised in spelling outcomes but not in writing.
  • The use of the word ‘taught’ throughout needs to be removed – very limited, unclear and unhelpful.
  • Etymology is relevant in the earlier years but is not in the spelling outcomes and content.
  • It’s great to see inclusion of content for students with disabilities, however, there are also other disadvantaged groups, eg EAL/D and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. This content and access points should be in an Appendix and not within the main syllabus. The ESL Scales have been removed so all additional support should be in an appendix or in the teaching advice. This statement has been repeated throughout the teaching advice ‘For EAL/D students, learning progressions such as the English as an Additional Language or Dialect: Learning Progression and ESL Scales can provide detailed information about the English language development. These resources can be used by teachers to address the specific needs of English language learners in their classes and to assist students to access syllabus outcomes and content.’ It isn’t adequate in terms of support students from diverse backgrounds.
  • Access points and content for students with disability in the main syllabus is also problematic as it assumes teachers have the expertise to diagnose students. This is problematic. It would be terrible to see that an EAL/D student who is not verbal during the ‘silent period’ is placed into this non-verbal category.
  • p23 reference to speaking in sentences is wrong. Sentences are conventions of written language – See the ‘evidence base’ (Derewianka and Jones, 2016).
  • ES1 Reading Fluency outcome is problematic as it only acknowledges the reading of decodable texts. This will turn students off reading and send some backwards especially if they come to school reading already.
  • p44 apply grapheme–phoneme correspondence to read words with automaticity What about the 12% of English words that can be decoded this way? Adoniou,M. (2013). What should teachers know about spelling. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.2017
  • p82 Why would we prepare lists of decontextualised words and then send them home?
  • Limited focus on understanding at whole text level in ES1 Comprehension Outcome. ‘A student comprehends independently read texts using background knowledge, word knowledge and understanding of how sentences connect.’ ??? Understanding whole text - Students understand that informative and imaginative texts have different structures, features, and forms. Why such as strong focus in the outcome on how sentences connect.
  • ESI p142 – Schwa is not in phonic content knowledge for ES1. This assumes students do not independently read these words eg. mother, father, brother, sister or teacher.
  • S1 p156/p.60 Schwa in l- influenced words - bottle, pencil, local, camel. This should be addressed earlier. There is some acknowledgement of home language in ES1 Teaching Advice but this seems to disappear in S1.

Survey problems

Turn around is too quick especially given the Covid context in NSW at the moment. People are very overwhelmed at the currently. An extension of the consultation period would be appropriate.

The targeted questions assume many issues have been resolved.

The purpose of the Teaching Advice should not be to provide a better understanding of the intent of the syllabus. This is a problematic question in the survey.