Search

This paper presents data from an Australian high school classroom, investigating how students and their teacher negotiate readings of literature in order to arrive at meanings that are valued by subject English, as well as understood by the students. Subject English acts a vital agent for the transmission of both literacy and literary knowledge in English-speaking countries, and students which do not share the cultural and social orientations valued by the subject and its texts have the potential to be disadvantaged. However, I argue that this clash of socio-cultural perspectives may be positively viewed as an advantage for democratic education, as it allows students' critical understanding of their world to be challenged, for teachers to include student perspectives, and for students to be empowered to participate in institutional discourses. Implications for teacher practice and educational theory are discussed.

National curricula influence, and are influenced by, political agendas. Understanding political enmeshment (both overt and covert) in curriculum development is therefore vital for ensuring transparency and quality in curricula. This paper analyses how the Australian Curriculum is represented in the federal Education Ministers' media releases. Using NVivo, media releases were inductively coded into two broad themes: (a) back to basics, overcrowding and phonics; and (b) Australian ‘truth’: History, democracy and identity. By organising political discourse into the narrative presented below, I argue that the Australian Curriculum is used as a weapon of mass construction. In other words, politicians use curriculum development and renewal to enforce particular subject positions and attack the other side of government. As a result, genuine curriculum renewal is stymied, with each new government claiming that it is correcting the mistakes of the previous government while appearing to make no tangible changes. The implications of this analysis are that greater transparency of political involvement is needed in curriculum materials, greater teacher autonomy is needed to adapt curricula to localised contexts and greater student freedom to contest curricula is needed to ensure robust literacy development and meaningful engagement with subject knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the language of the 2009 NSW Stage 6 English Syllabus. I argue that the language of the syllabus aims to create two distinct subjects: Subject English, that is, what students learn; and the subject position of its students, that is, what students are expected to become. Analysis reveals themes of personal development and moral regulation are deeply embedded within the subject and have an important influence on how the subject positions itself and its students. Systemic Functional Linguistics is used to examine six pages of the Syllabus, focusing in particular on the document's Rationale section. A "transitivity" and "appraisal" analysis reveal that the syllabus document assigns the subject a difficult set of goals; ranging from developing communicative competence and literary knowledge, to creating a sensitive, aesthetically appreciative, reflective individual. An analysis of Commands within the syllabus shows that the language places much of the responsibility with the students. The implications of this analysis for teaching and learning are then discussed; in particular, the need for teachers of English to cognisant of the values and aims that are embedded within the syllabus and the subject.

This paper presents data from an Australian high school classroom, investigating how students and their teacher negotiate readings of literature in order to arrive at meanings that are valued by subject English, as well as understood by the students. Subject English acts a vital agent for the transmission of both literacy and literary knowledge in English-speaking countries, and students which do not share the cultural and social orientations valued by the subject and its texts have the potential to be disadvantaged. However, I argue that this clash of socio-cultural perspectives may be positively viewed as an advantage for democratic education, as it allows students' critical understanding of their world to be challenged, for teachers to include student perspectives, and for students to be empowered to participate in institutional discourses. Implications for teacher practice and educational theory are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]