[…] Teachers are also concerned about the emphasis on traditional literary texts, such as Shakespeare and other works. They worry many students might find these works inaccessible. As parents and teachers await the draft curriculum, it is worth considering what is changing and why.
Just about all kids are going to find Shakespeare inaccessible. At first.
The international push to develop knowledge economies over the past three decades has led to demands for “competency-based” education organised around achievement objectives.
For teachers this has meant outcomes-driven teaching, including planing [sic] their lessons around the knowledge and skills students are expected to have at the end of each unit. For students it has meant becoming “self-managing” learners who play an active role in setting the course of their education.
In other words, mastering basic stuff before moving on to the more difficult stuff.
[…] This does not mean there has been no literature in classrooms. But there has been a higher degree of curriculum variability between schools, as well as content driven by student interest rather than disciplinary merit. A pick-and-choose assessment framework has become the default curriculum for the final three years of secondary school.
Which has been a total disaster and allowed schools to falsely claim 80 per cent and higher pass rates.
[…] This approach differs from the changes made in 2023, which focused on “giving practical effect” to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Under the 2023 changes, schools had to ensure the curriculum reflected local tikanga Maori (Maori customary practices or behaviours), matauranga Maori (Maori knowledge) and te ao Maori (the Maori world).
[…] How this will play out in an English curriculum remains to be seen. So far, it seems literary, popular and traditional texts will be categorised into year levels on recommended reading lists. Grammar will be prescribed from year 7 to year 13.
The rewrite’s emphasis on a knowledge-rich curriculum raises questions about the balance between school-subject knowledge and the knowledge young people bring from home.
Too many young people bring nothing from home except a backpack and a smart phone to look at TikTok videos on.
When the plans for the curriculum rewrite were revealed, one working group member told media: “Every child throughout the country has the right to the very best English language and literature.”
True.
Grammar is all about writing in a way so that you can be easily understood. Sure, Shakespeare played around a bit with grammar and made up words; but then he was, you know, Shakespeare. It’s actually more difficult to write simply than in a way that says ‘Look at me, I’m clever!’ (By the way, this fact alone is why I regard this site as infinitely better than sites like The Standard. At least here you can read articles that are not only easy to read but are actually fun to read.) And if you don’t know even the basics of grammar, it’s next to impossible.
In other words, Rangi can learn all the “tikanga” he wants, but it’s useless if he can’t actually express himself in a way everyone else can actually understand.
Kevin is a Libertarian and pragmatic anarchist. His favourite saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
ZI find the cases for Shakepeare and for cursive writing very dubious. And from memory of incredibly tedious sentence slice up sessions in pimary school, very dubious about gramme, if to be taught the same way. In the discussions about cursive writing many seem to confuse with any form of manual writing. At school I spent hours learning to do smooth loops etc, now redundant. Also spent hours on how to hold a pen/pencil. The untaught grotesque modern grips intrigue.
English has changed so much over the past 400 years that Shakespeare is comprehensible only to people with degrees in literature and linguistics. Modernising the language of Shakespeare means you end up with something that is not Shakespeare. I think it's time for Shakespeare to bow out of school English literature courses.
Defoe's English is a lot more accessible to a modern reader than is The Bard's. I would suggest a Year 12-13 reading list starting with Defoe's 'Robinson Crusoe' and moving on from there to later literature.
Does Barend mean year 12-13 or age 12-13? Some of Shakepeare is relevant to the preoccupations of modern youth. I seem to remember "wouldst that I had thy inches" or somesuch from somewhere.
It wasn't until I was an that I could really appreciate Shakespeare. Then I appreciated not so much his language as his characters who are very deep.
His characters are part of western culture and speak of the human condition and
how multi -faceted it is.
I think it is important for senior students to learn why great literature is labelled that way. The subtlety of the characters and how they change and react as well as the brilliant language with its imagery and construction.
In the same way I am glad I learned Newton's Laws and Geometric theorems which I have never used but had me experience ideas geniuses had produced.
Robert, I was talking about Years 12 and 13 i.e. 16 and 17-year-olds.
English was my best Bursaries subject in 1972. The Shakespearian play I had had to study that year was Othello. My first Shakespeare was in Form 3 - Merchant of Venice.
They didn't muck around in those days. As well as Othello I had to be right on top of Hardy's The Mayor of Casterbridge and Milton's Paradise Lost (and one of Dickens' novels, can't remember which). I look back at that kind of education that we enjoyed then with a feeling of pride. But I realise that even then it really didn't serve most youngsters all that well.
I am awaiting the publication of my first commercial book - historical fiction - in the UK. I love my English literature and kept that interest alive throughout a science-based career. But I always found Shakespeare a hard read, and should imagine that it is totally beyond the ken of most youngsters today.
Post a Comment