English in the
New Zealand Curriculum

A Submission on the Draft

THE EDUCATION FORUM
APRIL 1994

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This submission has been prepared for the Education Forum with the assistance of Professor Emeritus C.K. Stead CBE, MA, PhD, LittD.

SECTION 1 THE NATURE OF THE DRAFT - ELEMENTS IN CONFLICT

Anyone who has seen earlier versions of the draft English in the New Zealand Curriculum (the Draft) must acknowledge improvements, some of them significant, and honour the strenuous efforts made by several teachers to bring these about. Knowing how much worse it might have been, the latter are likely to feel relief, and would probably argue that although they would have preferred more specificity and rigour, this, at least, is a document they can work with.

But is the fact that it might have been much worse a sufficient criterion? Certainly attempts have been made to meet earlier criticisms; but these, it seems to us, have had largely cosmetic effect. To offer only one, but a significant and typical, example: a criticism of an earlier draft English syllabus pointed out that no thought had been given to, nor mention made of, students of exceptional ability. There is now, on p.14, a paragraph saying that teachers need to identify and nurture the individual language development of all students including those who are "gifted and talented". While that is a welcome reminder and requirement, there is little to back it up and make it seem anything but an afterthought.

As will be seen from what follows, the Draft still has the flavour and emphasis of a document designed to foster social accommodation and amelioration rather than excellence. It continues the tendency of recent years which has made the study of English more therapeutic than academic. Although well intended, this is an approach which ultimately can only do harm. English is at the core of the whole educational process. It is the means of communication and understanding on which all else is constructed. Whether it is well or badly taught in our schools, and whether what is taught is substantial and useful, affect the whole intellectual life of the community, and also the degree to which as a group we function successfully in the larger world.

There are other evidences that a push towards greater rigour has had some effect on the framing of this Draft; but these remain minor, and contradictory to the overall direction, like small stones in a fast flowing river. For example, on p.20 the general statement "Exploring and Learning about Language" includes "grammar" among topics which may be studied. But this word vanishes entirely from the remainder of the Draft, occurring nowhere in the detailed outlines of what should be achieved at each level. Even under "Exploring language" at level 8 of "Written Language: Reading" (p.74), the nearest we come to what might mean "grammar" is that "language features" may be considered, but with no clear indication of what that phrase means, or is intended to mean.

The point here is not merely that the quite clear and specific word "grammar" has been entirely omitted from the "Achievement Objectives" and "Teaching Examples", replaced by words and phrases which teachers may or may not choose to see as sanctioning grammar at appropriate levels. It is that the word, lying there on p.20 like a body on a battlefield, appears to represent either the losing side of an argument, or a winner so exhausted that winning has used up all his powers to act. To be allowed to appear once is the beginning and end of grammar's triumph!

Some of the confusions of the Draft no doubt result from conflicts among those whose job it was to design and write it. If (as the old joke has it) a camel is a horse designed by a committee, this Draft might be described as a camel designed by a committee reviewed by a policy advisory group.

SECTION 2 STRUCTURES

The Draft has needlessly and typically been lumbered with structures and artificial frameworks of a kind which, it must be assumed, give comfort to the insecure even when they seem needlessly imposed upon reality rather than abstracted from it. There are three in particular which call for comment.

2.1 The Eight Levels

The specifications of the contract let by the Ministry of Education for the drafting of an English syllabus required that there be eight stages of progress or development (in the Minister's words) "from the first day at school to the last". What is there to explain the Ministry's special attachment to the numeral eight? (There used to be "eight modes of language"; and there are now "eight sets of essential skills" listed in its Curriculum Framework.) Whatever the answer, it will remain a difficult problem, surely, for teachers to relate the eight levels of achievement with the thirteen years our children and young persons are at school; and particularly difficult, I should think, to manage the overlaps between primary and intermediate, intermediate and secondary schools. It also appears that the Level One of some of the strands begins at requirements which would match Standard One rather than Primer One.

This is an administrative more than an academic problem; but there is nothing in the Draft which explains how it is to be solved. Further guidance will be needed.

2.2 The Three Strands

The whole syllabus is constructed upon the notion of three strands - oral language, written language, and visual language. For each strand there is, so to speak, transmission and reception. We speak and listen (oral); we write and read (written); we "present and view" (visual)(p.15). This is an improvement on the old "Eight Modes of Language" promoted by the former syllabus for English in New Zealand secondary schools. Yet in a way it is also worse, because it is not quite so manifestly absurd, and therefore less vulnerable to criticism, while still inheriting the basic error of the now abandoned "Eight Modes".

The first matter of concern is that, like the old system, this one confuses literal and metaphorical uses of the word "language"; and the confusion is at once concealed and compounded by constantly using that word rather than "English", despite the fact that this is supposed to be an English syllabus. If the Draft had discussed "oral English", "written English" and "visual English" the confusion would have been more clearly apparent.

Let us first get a few simple matters clear. Language is apprehended normally (Braille is the exception) through the ear or through the eye. So "written language" is received visually, "oral language" aurally. It is a secondary matter, but should not be forgotten, that some readers instantly, silently, and internally, translate the visual image into an aural one, before making sense of it, and that this habit, frowned upon by promoters of speed reading programmes, serves some kinds of literary writing better than the direct transmission of image to meaning - indeed that a full appreciation of poetry, which is built upon textures of sound as well as sense, requires it. The only true "visual language", therefore, is written language.

To refer, as the Draft does constantly, to "visual texts" when these are neither written nor printed (the only meaning dictionaries allow to the word "text") but pictorial, is misleading. It is at the very least an unhelpful metaphor; and in its effect in this context it would not be unfair to describe it as a deliberate misuse of language. Even the authors of the Draft seem to feel some unease about it. In a document singularly lacking in reference outside itself they write, on p.19, "This curriculum statement follows theoretical precedents in using the term 'text' to describe any language event such as a conversation, a poem, or a poster." What "theoretical precedents" are these? We are not told; and at a time when there is "theory" available to support virtually anything, the failure to disclose this authorisation-from-on-high is hardly reassuring. Even the examples given ("a conversation, a poem, or a poster") are deceptive. A conversation, if transcribed, becomes a text; a poem when written or printed is a text; and most posters contain a text. But the visual component of the poster is distinguished from its text precisely by being non-text, not a "language event".

It needs the utmost emphasis that the objections raised here are not just academic quibbles about usage. The use of the phrase "visual language" throughout the Draft, so that it takes its place as third and equal partner with "oral language" and "written language", is sleight of hand, more rhetorical (intended to persuade) than scrupulous. It carries forward from the earlier syllabus a confusion which has seriously damaged the teaching of English in New Zealand at the secondary level.

Our guess is that it may have sprung originally from the very reasonable wish to extend the study of English literature from the old standard categories of poetry, fiction and non-fiction, to include film and television. Perhaps some resistance was anticipated, and so a terminology was devised which might overcome any opposition. There was also, probably, a wish to offer something for students with very low levels of linguistic ability. Out of these good intentions (with which, it must be remembered, the road to Hell is paved) came the absurd categories of "Non-Verbal Language" in what was then called the New English Syllabus - "moving and watching", "shaping and viewing". In the Draft these overlapping four have been refined and amalgamated, becoming just two: "Visual Language: Viewing" and "Visual Language: Presenting".

Let it be said at once that no reasonable person would object to the inclusion of film and television studies in an English syllabus. Indeed, given the nature of the late twentieth century, it would be strange if the film medium did not figure significantly. Nor can there be any objection if, where appropriate to the level of study, other primarily or partly visual media (posters, comics, cartoons, video presentations, whatever) come into the study of English. But a good cause does not need the support of a bad argument, especially one which enshrines confusion, distorts reality, and gives an unbalanced emphasis to what is more and what is less important in the subject under review.

By giving "Visual Language" a category of its own, a minor element in the study of English (or any language) is given major status, and will lead to more time being spent on it than it warrants. Correspondingly, those elements which are by far the most important are reduced to a level of equality with it. And finally, the true nature of the most important (from the point of view of language studies) of the visual media, film, is misrepresented, and the study of it consequently given a wrong emphasis.

Film is a visual medium, certainly. But movies are also written, acted texts; they are usually fictions, having more in common with plays/theatre than with anything else. And although the photographic element is of great importance (and might be the primary object of study in a Department of Fine Art) it is of no more importance than the production, staging, costuming, lighting, of a play. If any ordinary feature film is played over for two persons, one completely blind, the other stone deaf, both will have missed a great deal: but the blind person will have understood far more of the action and issues than will the deaf person, because the verbal component, the script, carries the narrative and the human drama. On language depends both the continuity of sense and the sense of continuity. Radio drama has no visual component; silent movies, on the other hand, had to be supplemented by textual interruptions, making clear what was going on.

There is, then, no need, no reason, and no excuse, for contriving the misleading heading "Visual Language" and proceeding to ascribe to it one third of the time and effort available right from the beginning of English studies; and our strong recommendation is that it should be eliminated. To do that would not be to eliminate the study either of film seen as film, nor of film read as text (scripts). These would, rather, take their place along with traditional drama studies, and also with the study of journalism and news-media. Other visual elements would enter English whenever and however appropriate. But English would be the central focus of English studies, not technology, whether of film-making, theatre, printing, computers, or anything else.

The problem, it should be understood, is not that "foreign bodies" have been allowed to enter English studies and that we are calling for their expulsion. Let the study of English adapt to the modern world and include them. But there is no need to smuggle them into the curriculum by means of a structure which in turn distorts the nature of language and the proper focus of English teaching.

In English studies at every level reading and writing are the skills which need most to be encouraged, taught and fostered. It is important to remember that without any help at all from school, all children in New Zealand not suffering a disability will learn to speak and understand English, at however primitive a level, and will learn to watch and understand movies and television, however uncritically. But without schooling most will not learn to read and write; and without advanced schooling the reading and writing of most will not advance. There is no significant evidence to suggest that the ability to speak basic English and to watch and understand it on television is diminishing; but there are signs that literacy is being lost, that most children read less and have greater difficulty reading advanced texts than was the case several decades ago. And these facts surely indicate (quite apart from the arguments already advanced against the notion of "Visual Language") why the equal balance in the presentation of the "three strands" is wrong, and where the emphasis ought to lie.

The Draft's most serious deficiency is in not placing a heavy and predominant emphasis on the teaching of those crucial skills which have always been seen as our schools' primary responsibility: reading and writing. A syllabus which conceals and undermines the primacy of that task, as the Draft does, is educationally facile and socially irresponsible, and the "three strands" framework contributes to that effect.

2.3 The Three Functions and/or Types

On p.15 we find three "functions of language" referred to - "expressive", "poetic" and "transactional" - which in turn are derived, a footnote explains, from three "types of writing" adumbrated in a book (by four authors) published in London in 1976. These "three functions of language", it seems, correlate not at all with the "three strands of language" which form the framework for the Draft as a whole; but they are irregularly built into it, and become recurrent but inconsistent headings in the charts setting out "Achievement Objectives".

Educational theory is full of attempts of this kind to separate, define and contain elements which in reality are not clearly discrete. The containers then put needless limits on understanding, failing to take account of overlaps and of elements which the initial definitions did not accommodate. A curriculum can become entangled and entrapped in its own terminology, leading to pointless exercises designed to satisfy one or another of the abstracted categories.

"Language" is as various as human consciousness, and to attempt to set three (or two, or four, or even the Ministry's favoured numeral eight) clearly defined "functions", with corresponding "types of writing", is bound to be at least unsatisfactory and constricting - if not faintly absurd.

It is clear that the English authors of these distinctions must have been trained in educational theory, not in literature. To use the term "poetic" to cover the traditional major categories of literature (poetry and fiction) is reductive and inaccurate. Depending on context, the word "poetic" (like its cousin "prosaic") usually has faint but distinct pejorative overtones. A good poet would no more care to be told that his or her work was "poetic" than a woman poet would wish to be called a "poetess". There is about the word an aura suggesting prettiness, preciousness, daintiness, excess of sensibility, disconnectedness from harsh reality. And even in a context where the word is neutral, and therefore serviceable, its usefulness is in distinguishing the decorative from the plain, either of which may occur in works of literature.

To make "poetic" serve as label for the whole of the corpus of literatures in the English language - the great repository of the best uses of perhaps the richest and most widely-used of the human languages - will not do; and nor will "transactional" and "expressive" which are needlessly constricting, especially when there is such a clear overlap between the "poetic" and "expressive" functions.

This unhelpful division into "three functions of language" intermittently spills over into other areas of the syllabus, so that we find, for example, the term "Transactional Language" appearing on the chart for "Oral Language: Listening", and the term "Poetic Speaking" (requirement: "Tell a story") on the chart for "Oral Language: Speaking". Yet when it comes to "Written Language: Reading", where the "three types of writing" would logically be expected to figure, the terms vanish altogether.

In fact these terms have no secure or necessary grounding in the realities of language use, and should be eliminated from the syllabus.

SECTION 3 THE RELATION OF THE DRAFT TO THE NEW ZEALAND CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK

The Draft requires that teachers "take account of the principles of The New Zealand Curriculum Framework", and this requirement, it may be supposed, is the source of some of the Draft's unsatisfactoriness and contradictions. The Framework requires that "the curriculum will be of the highest quality for all students" - a worthy aim; but it is also couched in language which insists resolutely on "independent learning" rather than teaching, and on the acquisition of ''skills" rather than of knowledge. This is an emphasis taken over in the Draft, the language of which seems tortured in its efforts to keep to a minimum any suggestion that a teacher is a person in possession of a body of important knowledge and with authority to impart it.

3.1 Some Particular Examples, with Commentary

The following are some typical statements from the Draft, with critical comment. The intention is not to carp, but to illustrate the kinds of muddiness and confusion resulting, we believe, from conflicting intentions in a syllabus which aims to serve the needs of students of vastly differing linguistic ability as well as teachers of significantly different theoretical and (in effect) political persuasions. These are symptoms of deeper failings which could not be corrected simply by piecemeal revision, but would require a radical rethink and complete redrafting.

(a) "Information skills and problem-solving skills are essential for learning, for language development, and for participation in society..." (p.7)

What is an "information skill"? Does it mean the ability to obtain information? How are the "information skills" of a research scientist, a spy, a priestly-confessor, and an SS interrogator distinguished? Does "information skill" mean knowing where information may be found? If so, and if it is to be taught as part of an English syllabus, why not say so, clearly and simply, and say precisely what sort of information and what kinds of sources are intended?

What are "problem-solving skills", apart from the possession of innate intelligence? What kinds of "problems" are specific to the subject under review? Problems of form, of meaning, of grammar and syntax, of vocabulary and dialect, of interpretation, of social, political and literary history - any or all of these, and a great many more, may figure in the study of English language and literature; but one has the impression that any reference to such substantial matters would be unacceptable to the authors of the Draft, and that the sentence quoted is essentially tautological because it is deliberately denied content, and so cannot move from the general to the particular.

(b) "[Students] should be able to process information from a range of oral, written, and visual sources, use a range of information-retrieval and information-processing technologies, and present information using a variety of language skills, media, and technologies." (p.7)

How is "processing information" distinct from understanding it, and why is "understanding" not mentioned? Is all "information" of equal value? We have here the spectre (already a reality) of students photocopying passages from books they will never read, or transferring indiscriminate "information" from printed and other sources on to computer or video screens, without any demonstration that they are "informed" of anything but the method of transfer.

[Note: One of the teachers we consulted remarked: "Technology must not be allowed to crowd out competence in reading/writing, speaking/listening. The school day is very short - four hours a week is all most secondary schools allow for English. It is fun to play with word processors, but some very illiterate work often results."]

(c) "Learning programmes should affirm the value of the learner's own language and experience." (p.10)

The possible meanings of this statement are left vague. If the learner is not a native English speaker, then the value of his or her first language is certainly not denied by the teaching of English. If by "the learner's own language" is intended the learner's English (and, as we have seen, the word "language" is very frequently used in the Draft when "English" is what is meant), then why should its "value" be "affirmed" if it is incompetent or inadequate?

No one will deny what is also asserted on p.10, that language, identity and confidence are interrelated; and it is fully conceded that this means sensitivity is required of English teachers, so that confidence is not undermined and resistance to learning set up. But there is no point in teaching English at all if its only purpose is to affirm whatever passes for "language" through the mind and mouth of the learner. Excellence should be the aim; and when that cannot be achieved, then at least an improvement. From a sense of something achieved will spring real confidence. The pretence that a minimal vocabulary, slovenly articulation, and an ignorance of the written word, deserve to be "affirmed and valued" because they happen to be what the student arrives with, is patronising and will fool nobody, least of all the one in need of help.

(d) "Language development is fostered by an environment which encourages creativity and experimentation. Students should be encouraged to take risks with language without fear of making 'mistakes'." (p.10)

Is this another way of saying that grammar, punctuation and spelling may not be corrected for fear of doing damage? We have conceded that teachers must proceed sensitively. But "creativity" cannot be allowed to be a Trojan horse for ignorance, indiscipline, imprecision and error. And although the quotation marks around the word "mistakes" are clearly intended to remind us that rules in language are shifting and somewhat arbitrary, not even the authors of the Draft are likely to dispute that there are better and worse uses of English, and that at any one time there is a set of agreed conventions which when flouted create confusion and suggest that the user is uneducated. To be "creative" beyond the rules, you must first know what the rules are.

(e) "Students should learn how to use the appropriate skills or procedures for any language task. By knowing the steps in the writing process, for instance, they will become independent writers able to transfer their knowledge to different kinds of writing." (p.11)

What does the first of these sentences mean? The harder it is looked at the more shadowy it becomes. Possibly what is meant is that, in general, students of English should learn to use English.

The example given in the second sentence scarcely helps. What are these "steps" which will magically transform students into "independent writers"? What kind of "knowledge" (knowledge of the writing process, or wider knowledge?) is meant? And from what will they be able to "transfer" this knowledge "to different kinds of writing"?

[Note: A teacher quoted the first of these sentences ("Students should learn how to use ..." etc.) and remarked: "They must be taught how to write what the rest of us consider to be standard English, not just left doing assignments in the hope that with a pen and paper and some ideas, an understandable piece of writing will ensue."]

(f) "Attention should be given to the distinctive New Zealand variety of English ..."(p.11)

Yes; but not undue attention. (The word "distinctive" is a great improvement on an earlier draft syllabus which twice incorrectly used the word "unique".) The purpose of this kind of focus should not be nationalistic but practical. New Zealand English is the variant we have most readily to hand, and the one of most particular interest to us. It includes some peculiarities of pronunciation and vocabulary; and its difference from other variants is most clearly defined by the significant element of Maori vocabulary that has entered into common use. All this, and the Pakeha usages of Maori words, including their common deviations from the pronunciation of Maori speakers, and the sometimes tortured Pakeha attempts to pronounce Maori names "correctly", is worthy of study.

While we agree there must be no suggestion that the New Zealand dialect should be corrected against an imported standard, this should not be interpreted as excusing slovenly speech. If "Oral Language" is to be a part of the study of English, and it is right that it should be, students must be encouraged to speak out and speak up, to be up to the best level each is capable of, articulate and intelligible. This will include an attempt to curb the worst excesses of demotic New Zealand speech - such as the pronunciation of "Alps" as "elps" - because they create confusion. We are talking about an educational process, and the aim should be "educated speech", not nationalist self-assertion.

(g) "Students should learn to work increasingly independently, take responsibility for their own learning, and transfer their own skills and knowledge to new learning." (p.11)

"Students should develop the skills, knowledge, and strategies to analyse and evaluate language ..." (p.11)

Certainly there is a place for self-directed learning. However, here again there is a reluctance to suggest that students should be taught and that "knowledge" should derive from a teacher - or, it would seem, from any source other than some miraculous inner spring which the student should "develop strategies" to tap.

(h) "Although girls are more successful than boys in English at school, their achievements in English are not subsequently translated into high status vocational training and employment. A gender-inclusive curriculum has a critical role to play in producing and maintaining equitable outcomes for all students." (p.12)

It is not, apparently, inequitable that "girls are more successful than boys at English at school" (though it is, we learn elsewhere, inequitable that boys are more successful at mathematics). This generally greater success is a matter of superior female talent. If that is accepted, and we are not disposed to dispute it, there are many possible explanations for the facts (if they are facts) about training and employment which follow. Perhaps males develop later - and if they do, is that "inequitable"? Perhaps more females than males choose not to pursue academic careers. Perhaps our society is changing so fast the phrase "are not subsequently translated..." should more accurately read "have, in the past, not been subsequently translated...". (For example the statement that females do not go on to "higher vocational training" is not confirmed by university graduations in English, where in recent years females have vastly exceeded males, with a corresponding alteration in the balance of new academic appointments.)

Whatever the answers, these are complex matters of sociology and politics, and to talk about a "gender-inclusive curriculum" is to turn the teaching of English suddenly and crudely into an instrument of social policy, without any precise knowledge or agreement either of what is the state of affairs that is to be changed, or how the change might best be brought about.

To balance the choice of texts as between male and female authors (which is one of the remedies suggested) is to misrepresent literary history, since for whatever reasons (and they belong to the study of social history) women writers were relatively few prior to the twentieth century. That it is fashionable to deplore this fact does nothing to alter it, nor to supply a shortfall of good pre-twentieth century texts by women.

(i) "Boys as well as girls are disadvantaged by the ways in which oral, written and visual language both create and reinforce gender stereotyping." (p.12)

This statement contains a piece of the conventional wisdom of the moment. Strong arguments could be mustered in its support; but equally, it could be powerfully disputed. It could be said, for example, that Nature is more radical, indeed absolute, in its "stereotyping" of males and females than society has ever been, and that this has served collective survival. It could be argued that to most individuals "stereotyping", giving strong identity is more an advantage than a disadvantage. And so on. The point here, however, is that again English, which ought to be the vehicle of the free intellect, is being required to serve a particular cause currently promoted by the State.

It is extremely difficult to persuade well-intentioned and morally responsible teachers that they should no more let language and literature studies become an instrument for the promotion of "gender equity" than teachers in Nazi Germany should have permitted such studies to promote racial purity, or those of Stalin's Russia should have promoted the virtues of the Proletarian State, or those of Khomeini's Iran the purity of Islam - all of which were conventional wisdoms, and therefore self-evident "truths", of their time and place. We are, most of us, trapped inside our own system of beliefs, and there are few windows on the wider range of human possibility. One of those windows, however, is literature. Another is simply the exercise of the sceptical intellect and the creative imagination through the free use of language. English studies should throw those windows wide open, not predetermine what is to be seen and discovered.

If "gender-equity" is an issue of the moment it is appropriate that it will be discussed, like any other, as it arises in the consideration of particular works of literature, in talks given by students, in class discussion meant to promote abilities in spoken English. But it is quite wrong for a syllabus to require, as the Draft does taking its cue from The New Zealand Curriculum Framework, that any one particular conclusion should be arrived at, or that any one view of the matter is right. English in a democracy must serve all the members of that democracy equally, including those whose views the government, the education bureaucracy, or even the majority, happen to deplore.

[Note 1: A teacher remarked, on the matter of the requirement that "all programmes will be gender-inclusive, non-racist and non-discriminatory": "I feel that teachers sometimes get into strange depths in misguidedly trying to teach a sociological agenda instead of helping students to understand what agenda/theme/purpose the author of the text had in mind."]

[Note 2: We must accept the new usage of the word "gender", hitherto exclusively a grammatical term, to mean "sex"; but it is desirable that English teachers should not be ignorant of its traditional meaning and of the change in usage that has occurred.]

(j) "Teachers in mainstream classes need to plan their programmes so that they are relevant to Maori students. In their approaches to learning and teaching and in their selection of spoken, written and visual texts, teachers should have regard to the inclusion of Maori perspectives." (p.13)

The very best that English teachers can do for Maori students is to teach English well. To take this view is not, as the tone in both the New Zealand Curriculum Framework and the Draft suggests, to undervalue Maori culture or its importance in creating Maori confidence. It is, rather, a recognition of the realities both of New Zealand, where there may be "two official languages" but one is the lingua franca, and of the larger world, where English has become the international language.

We, Maori and Pakeha, are enormously fortunate that simply by being born into New Zealand society we inherit this instrument of international communication which others struggle so hard, and spend so much money, to acquire. There is no need to apologise for the effort to improve the performance of all students in their knowledge, understanding and use of English, and no need to dress it up or disguise either its present reality or its rich history. It is a gift, a treasure, a taonga of immeasurable value. Let it be affirmed and celebrated accordingly.

(k) "Some students have minimal receptive and expressive language. Others are non-verbal... An English language programme must offer students with communication difficulties and disabilities every opportunity to develop their ability to communicate. Such students must have access to the balanced English curriculum available to all students." (p.14)

The last of these sentences glides over the problem, nowhere helpfully confronted in the Draft, of how a teacher is to deal with the fact that "students within a single class may operate at different levels of learning" (p.17) - that, for example, some students arriving in the Third Form will have read two or three novels by Dickens while others will never have read any book at all, even one written for children. As we have seen, acknowledgement is made of the existence of "gifted and talented" students; but the needs and rights of those whose competence in language is low are much more thoroughly urged. It is easy to say that the one does not rule out the other; much harder to achieve teaching which serves both ends of the scale.

"Streaming" according to ability is nowhere mentioned, though not expressly forbidden. It is difficult to see how the requirements of the Draft could be properly served without it. The Draft's over-emphasis (as it seems to us) on individual work at the expense of teaching is probably one unacknowledged consequence. Good students will simply be set loose to run as they may ahead of the pack or, in frustration, out of it, while the teacher's best efforts will go into the task of raising the performance of the less able.

(l) "A wide range of texts and genres should be studied, which include and reflect the achievements, interests and perspectives of girls and women along with those of boys and men." (p.12)

"New Zealand writing, including writing by Maori authors and about Maori, should be used." (p.13)

"Teachers must ensure that there is a balance between the reading and study of local literature and the wider heritage of English literature and world literature in English." (p.19)

These, with a few other equally broad and general remarks, are the Draft's only statements on what is expected in the study of literature in English. Thus the most specific and absolute requirement is that consideration should be given to local and "gender-inclusive" content (New Zealand/female/Maori), and that something (anything - the choice is open) of the wider perspectives which "literature in English" signifies, should be included. By this measure the case for studying the work of a Maori woman writer is made central and specific, without reference to quality, while that for studying work by Dickens or Shakespeare depends entirely on the inclination of the individual teacher.

3.2 General Comment

The fact that the authors of the Draft have been constricted by the need to satisfy the requirements of the New Zealand Curriculum Framework, together with the need to achieve a compromise between the contradictory wishes of teachers ideologically opposed about the proper function of English in schools, no doubt helps to explain the characteristic tone and content of the Draft. A more resolute, unified and academic approach to the task would have produced a more useful and better written document; but this could not have been achieved by a team effort when the team were not of like mind.

However it has come about, and whatever obstacles there may have been to a better outcome, the fact remains that the present Draft is at once long-winded and vague in its statements, insufficiently specific, and largely governed, or where not governed at least constrained, by the unstated but clearly present notion of the subject "English" as a means to social equalisation and individual self-esteem. The attitude which lies somewhere behind a great deal of the framing is that those students who show signs of being articulate and well-read will be "privileged", "middle class", and that to spend the resources of the state on furthering their social advantage would not be productive of "equitable outcomes". That these students may also be, or simply be, talented, and that on their talent will depend the level of civilisation our society is collectively capable of in the future, is largely ignored. In the study of language and literature the surest way to an "equitable outcome" is to lower your standards.

As long ago as March 1962 (see Landfall 61, pp.49-60) Professor Margaret Dalziel, at that time a lecturer in English who had spent many years as a schoolteacher, was worrying about a change of emphasis in a syllabus for primary school English which spoke of helping the child to "develop fully as an individual and a citizen", and of "social competence" and "emotional growth". Professor Dalziel wrote "I believe 'education for citizenship' is a dangerous thing, dangerous in proportion to the rigidity with which the term 'good citizen' is defined. ...the concept of the good citizen seems to me of little value to the teacher faced with the class that has to be taught 'English'. ...Good citizenship, character-training - these, like happiness, are by-products of the life of action directed to specific ends." In another part of that article she observed, "I know that schools have a duty to all children, of whatever ability, but I think they have a special duty to those who will be specially responsible for guarding and transmitting the culture which the schools themselves represent."

Over the years since that was written, English studies in our schools have travelled steadily down the road which gave Professor Dalziel anxiety. The aim now is not just good citizenship, but individual therapy; and with that emphasis there has been a progressive undermining of academic content. Yet there is also a certain guilt, and consequent lack of frankness, in the framing of syllabuses and statements of intent, with the result that a document like the Draft is in many places quite extraordinarily difficult to read - unclear, unspecific, abstract - quite the reverse of what one would expect from a document drawn up by people whose subject is English.

Here are two extracts, the first (quoted by Professor Dalziel in her 1962 article) from the English syllabus for New Zealand primary schools in 1904, the second from p.17 of the Draft:

(1904) "The chief objects of the instruction in reading shall be to impart to the pupils the power of fluent reading, with clear enunciation, correct pronunciation, tone, and inflexion, and expression based upon intelligent comprehension of the subject-matter; to cultivate a taste for and an appreciation of good literature; and accordingly to lead pupils to form the habit of reading good books. The reading of such books might, indeed, well replace all other kinds of homework.

"Poetry set for recitation should, while suited to the age of the pupils, be chosen for its literary merit as well as for the interest it arouses. There is such a wealth of simple and beautiful poetry in English literature that there is no reason to select for repetition verse that is not worth the trouble of learning by heart. One of the objects of making children learn verse or prose by heart is that they may have stored up in their memory masterpieces that may develop their imagination, and may, whether the children are conscious of the operation or not, mould their taste for good literature...

"The object of the instruction in composition shall be to train the children in the correct and ready use of their mother-tongue, both in speech and in writing."

(1993) "In planning programmes, and in assessing and evaluating language development, teachers and learners should therefore focus on both the products of learning and on the means by which learning occurs. Learners should develop self-evaluation skills to help them become self-directed in their use of language. By doing so they will develop control over their uses of language and become progressively more confident learners.

"Teachers will need to develop a variety of learning experiences which will meet their students' needs and the needs of the community. Programmes should provide ways of achieving the objectives that are appropriate for the learner at his or her stage of development. This will often mean drawing on the student's own experiences as a context for further learning.

"In practice, the three language strands are integrated, although there may be a specific learning focus for a particular activity. The suggested teaching and learning examples indicate ways in which teachers can plan an integrated approach to learning and teaching. At the same time, the objectives define, encourage, and recognise specific kinds of learning which contribute to literacy development."

There is a gap of ninety years between these statements. Those of us who have had anything to do with the teaching of English at whatever level, and who care about English language and literature in New Zealand, must ask ourselves whether they have been ninety years of progress.

SECTION 4 WHAT IS MISSING FROM THE DRAFT?

4.1 Frankness, Directness, Clarity

What is missing first and predominantly is frankness, directness, clarity; and the reasons for this, we may charitably suppose, have more to do with the politics of English teaching than with incompetence on the part of its authors.

Because the Draft is generalised and unspecific its authors will be able to say that anything which seems to be missing is in fact allowed for. From grunting to grammar, from Shakespeare to centrefolds - there is room for it all in a syllabus so abstract in its requirements. Good experienced English teachers will probably not be seriously held back - though the existence of the "three strands" with the requirement that "teachers should aim for a balance across" them, must be an impediment.

The generalised nature of the requirements, however, while it will not prevent good basic instruction in English language and literature, does not require it, and indeed seems to suggest that the student rather than the teacher should determine the level and therefore the content of the course at each stage. There is little sense of students measuring up to subject requirements, and a great deal to suggest bringing the subject down to match the lower levels of student ability.

The seemingly deliberate vagueness of the requirements probably stems from recognition of the very wide differences in linguistic ability and potential in any group of students of a similar age. What is the use (so the argument goes) of trying to force, say, Dickens and Shakespeare on young persons who cannot even make sense of the daily paper? It is probably wasted effort, productive only of discord and rebellion.

But if that is the case (and many teachers would dispute it) then "streaming" according to ability is surely all the more necessary. To ask teachers to coordinate work at a great variety of levels in a single group of mixed ability is asking too much, and can only damage the subject. If "streaming" produces unacceptable social problems in certain schools (for example, divisions on language ability which also turn out to be ethnic) at least the problem should be faced in the syllabus, alternatives should be considered and remedies suggested. To pretend the problem does not exist, or that insofar as it does it can be cured by giving teachers broad flexible guidelines, is not good enough.
4.2 Clear Guidance on the Assessment of Students' Performance

Many of the "Achievement Objectives" listed are vague and general. In some there is no meaningful description of what is intended to be an advancing scale of performance. In others the demands made at the very lowest level seem too difficult, if the intention is indeed to start at day one of school. One has the impression that teachers will really be assessing each student against his or her perceived potential, rather than against any objective measure; and if this is the case, the fact that a student has reached a particular level in any one of the strands may mean very different things not only from one school to another but even from student to student within the same school.

[Note: A senior teacher was particularly alarmed by the problems this posed. She wrote: "To slot students into the different levels seems an impossibility, or at least something which would take so much time there would be little left for anything else. The difficulty (the administrative nightmare) would be placing the student in one of the 8 levels. Students will still progress from Junior One Primary to 7th Form Secondary, and I'm not sure I even see the purpose of labelling them, as well, as Level so-and-so.

"Which leads me to the second part of this worry - the charts/levels themselves. So many of these ('Poetic Writing', Levels 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, for example, or 'Interpersonal Listening' Levels 5, 6, 7 & 8) are arbitrary - or no divisions at all. Placing a student in any one of these would be as arbitrary as the breaks (or lack of) between the Levels - and with what point?"]

4.3 A Sufficient Emphasis on Reading and Writing

To teach reading and writing has traditionally been the object of English as a subject, with the idea that the ability to read and write should progress through all the years of schooling. These should still be the primary object of all English teaching, but they are now diminished in importance, presented in a framework that makes them equal with "Oral Language" and "Visual Language", and without the emphasis there would once have been on formal methods of teaching and testing.

There appears to be no clear requirement for measuring attainments at early levels in spelling, punctuation, or vocabulary.

There is no specific requirement that exercises in what used to be called "comprehension" should be done; nor in precis and paraphrase. Such exercises are excellent because they teach close reading, test it, and become exercises in writing as well.

There is almost certainly too much emphasis placed on what the Draft calls "Expressive Writing", with overtones of exposed egos and delicate sensibilities, and not enough on plain and purposeful prose, whether story-telling, factual reports, or the development of opinions. (The "three types of writing" seem particularly unhelpful here.) There is also, as a teacher we consulted points out, too many suggestions for "collaborative writing", impractical in the classroom and not consistent with the idea of individual levels of achievement.

There is no suggestion that memorising poems or passages of fiction or plays is desirable. If such exercises have become "unfashionable" it is time the fashion changed.

There is no suggestion that reading by the teacher to the class should be a regular and required part of an English curriculum, at least through primary school and even at the lower levels in secondary school; yet there is no better way, at every level, to encourage young people to read than to read to them - so long as the delivery is suitably clear and dramatic, and the text is chosen because it is interesting, gripping, good story-telling or exciting language-use, and not because it carries some morally uplifting message. Once the idea is instilled that books are containers of pleasure, the motivation to possess the key to the container is established. The same can be true of poetry, at least for many, if not all, children. What is essential is a good choice of text, and good reading.

There is no specific suggestion in the draft that students should be required to read aloud regularly and be tested for progress. This is an important skill, especially in primary school, combining two of the Draft's "strands" - "Oral Language Speaking" and "Written Language - Reading".

4.4 Sufficient Allowance for an Academic Emphasis

When educational authorities give too much thought to the rights, needs and sensitivities of the less talented, and consequently remove from one of the basic subjects the kinds of academic demands which might cause those underprivileged to lose confidence in themselves, one outcome is that they also remove from the subject, and from those who teach it, a certain mana - the sense that, for those with talent, it can be challenging, demanding, even sometimes difficult, and correspondingly exciting and rewarding. It becomes a "soft option". In the degree to which it loses its most exciting and demanding "content", it loses respect.

W.B.Yeats has a poem called "The fascination of what's difficult". Recently that fascination was illustrated in a bizarre way when Auckland zookeepers discovered that their chimpanzees became more cheerful if their food, rather than being handed out to them, was hidden. Set the difficult task of finding it, the chimps enjoyed it more, and their spirits and general demeanour improved.

This homely example is not offered lightly. We are all primates. As we make things better for ourselves in one way we often make them worse in another. This Draft, though it has no doubt been pulled back from the worst excesses of misplaced charity, remains inadequate in the provision of academic demands and possibilities for the study of English language and literature. Where there is no real sense of challenge there is little room for pride, and the truly talented and questing look elsewhere for new intellectual worlds to conquer.

4.5 A Sufficient Emphasis on Literature

The crown of English studies ought to be the encounter with literature, which offers the best, richest and most exciting examples of language use, the folk stories of our inherited European culture as well as the tales of our own settler and post-colonial experience - a fund of wisdom, a storehouse of fact, and a range of experience beyond the powers of any one person to live through in many lifetimes. The very best of poetry or fiction exposes readers, as often as they care to open a good book, to the influence of minds and sensibilities finer, more developed, richer, than they are likely to meet more than once or twice, if ever, in real life.

It is not good enough for an English syllabus to signal vaguely in the direction of this great treasure house, indicating that teachers should show their students around, or tell them where the keys are kept, as and when it seems appropriate and possible. If there are to be eight levels of achievement, then there should surely be levels of reading attained at each of these, indicated by samples of the kinds of literary work appropriate to each. If this is not done then the notion of "levels" is meaningless.

It is one of the absurdities of the age we live in that a predominantly Anglo-Celtic culture like ours, with a tradition stretching back thousands of years into European history, should make strenuous efforts to see that minority cultures are emphasised and that proper respect is paid to them, while at the same time the assertion commonly made by social theorists and activists that "the Pakeha have no culture of their own" is allowed to pass unchallenged, and is seemingly confirmed by a relative indifference to it.

Literature in the English language is a cultural resource of immeasurable value, with huge potential for the enrichment of the lives of all who speak the language. If a syllabus drawn up by teachers of English will not trumpet its worth and insist upon maximising its potential for value by specifying how, where, how much of, and at what level of richness and complexity, it is to figure in the teaching of their subject, then New Zealand might as well resign itself to becoming an intellectual and cultural backwater.

SECTION 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The attempt by one group of interested teachers to pull English studies in our schools back from the brink of total dissolution into therapy, social improvement and political correctness has had some significant effect. The outcome is a Draft which, if it becomes the syllabus, will not gravely disturb or inhibit good English teachers from carrying out what they know is their proper task. But the effort to reach compromise has left the Draft seriously flawed, especially as a guide to new or inexperienced teachers, or those whose qualifications in the subject are minimal.

What is needed is a complete redrafting of the curriculum statement along the lines suggested in this submission. This might best be achieved in the first instance either by one person, or at most a small group who are of like mind. Their first task would be to scrap the "three strands" framework, and also, incidentally, the "three functions of language" and "three types of writing". Those things which in our previous section are listed as missing from the Draft should be put back. Emphasis should be put on reading and writing, with a secondary emphasis on oral English. Film and television, and other visual media would figure significantly, but without the creation of an artificial "strand" to cater for them.

The whole syllabus should be much simpler in language, briefer, and more specific. The tasks (reading, writing, spelling, punctuation, grammar) and levels of attainment required at each level should be set out clearly. There should be more emphasis on teaching, and although individual effort should of course be encouraged and rewarded, there should be much less emphasis on the "development of skills" and much more on the acquisition of knowledge.

More, and more specific, provision should be made at every level for the study of literature, and also, at upper levels, for the study of something of the history of literature and the theory of language. English should regain its old kudos as an academic subject, even a demanding subject - sometimes difficult but always rewarding.

Our discussion of the Draft has focused on the first 21 pages in which principles, aims and objects are set out, rather than on the many pages of examples of how these may be translated into work in the classroom. Our reason for this is that criticism directed at the latter sections would have been too easily countered by the saying that these were only examples, and that other and better ones could readily be devised. It seemed best, therefore, to direct attention at what we saw as the root and stem of the problem rather than at the consequent branches.

It should be said, however, that anyone who spends time looking through the "Teaching, Learning and Assessment Examples" will receive a discouraging picture of the typical English classroom in New Zealand schools, where it would seem that an insufficient proportion of time is given to reading and writing, almost none to direct teaching, and far too much to group activities which often seem devised as ends in themselves, to fill the time, or as if there were virtue in a method irrespective of intellectual and pedagogical content.

It is not surprising that during their last few years at school a significant proportion of our young, including some of the most talented, pass through extreme boredom into semi-delinquency. Young intellects must be engaged, occupied, challenged, or they quickly rebel.



APPENDIX A
EDUCATION FORUM

The Education Forum has been formed to contribute to education policy through research and debate on the current issues, structures, and expectations at all levels of New Zealand education.

The Forum believes that New Zealand education requires an approach to learning and achieving which encourages all individuals to reach their full potential, and which will take New Zealand to the leading edge of international performance and achievement.

The Forum is an association of individuals who have a common concern for the future direction of New Zealand education. The membership is drawn from primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of education, together with leaders of industry and commerce.

The principles incorporated in the above statements include the following:

A commitment to excellence and high expectation in all human endeavour, based on a lifelong desire for learning.

The belief that the community/government should ensure that all young New Zealanders have access to quality education.

The teaching of values and life skills which will preserve the dignity of the individual and the integrity of the family.

The acceptance of healthy competition for both individuals and the education sector.

The encouragement of cooperation, creativity, adaptability and enterprise.

The encouragement and recognition of personal responsibility, goal setting
and achievement in all endeavours, through self discipline and hard work.

The acceptance of a compulsory core curriculum in primary and secondary schools.

The necessity for high standards of assessment of student performance and of accountability of teachers and institutions.

The promotion of a New Zealand cultural identity.

The key involvement and responsibility of parents in their children's education.

The emphasis on the value of parental choice and the self-management of education institutions.

The development of closer links between education institutions and industry.

PO Box 22-012 Auckland 6
Telephone: 09-276-7059 Facsimile: 09-276-0670

APPENDIX B
MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATION FORUM

Mr Simon Arnold
Chief Executive Officer
New Zealand Manufacturers Federation

Mr Michael Barnett
General Manager
Auckland Chamber of Commerce

Mr John Boyens
Principal
Meadowbank School

Mrs Alison Gernhoefer
Principal
Westlake Girls' High School

Mr John Graham
Company Director

Sir Alan Hellaby
Company Director

Dr John Hinchcliff
President
Auckland Institute of Technology

Mr Alan Jones
Industrial Relations Manager
Fletcher Challenge

Mr Roger Kerr
Executive Director
New Zealand Business Roundtable

Ms Jennie Langley
Langley Meo and Associates

Brother Pat Lynch
Executive Director
New Zealand Catholic Education Office

Mr Steve Marshall
Chief Executive Officer
New Zealand Employers Federation

Mr Theo Simeonidis
Chief Executive Officer
Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Mr John Taylor
Headmaster
Kings College
Auckland

Ms Claudia Wysocki
Headmistress
St Margarets College
Christchurch