ETA response. It tracks ideas of ‘literature’ and canonicity from existing NSW syllabi into the AEC, and the NSW draft. SLIDE 6 OLD & NEW I argue that the AEC constitutes a significant shift away from the current Critical Literacy/ what I am calling Emancipatory approaches, to what I ‘soft canonical’ approaches. Then we will look at some resources for accommodating this shift. Brief background to English curricula Historically it can be seen that the number of syllabus ‘perspectives’ has been accumulating since the early 20th century, roughly in NSW from two 1911-1971 (Golsby-Smith 2007: 18), three 1971- 1999 (Golsby-Smith 2007: 18; Brock, 1985), to four with the current syllabi (BOS, 1999; 2005). SLIDE 7 HISTORY OF ENGLISH SYLLABI Up until the 1960s the majority focus of Western English syllabi, gravitated around ‘bits’ of “‘skills base’ and ‘Cultural Heritage’”. These ‘Cultural Heritage’ ideas clustered around ‘literature’, based on Matthew Arnold’s didactic approach and a Leavisite/ Richards/ New Critic aesthetic approach (Eagleton, 1983; Golsby-Smith 2007: 25-26). This basically means that the great texts represent the ‘best done and said’, and have a kind of civilizing effect on us, although it didn’t seem to work with the NAZIS. Also, Leavisite or ‘new critical’ approaches to text have a reader submitting themselves to the devices and artistry of a text, to become immersed in them. In NSW, this approach was supplemented (1971-1985) by ‘The New English’ years 7-10 (Brock 1985), out of Reader Response literary theory and Personal Growth theory (after Dixon 1975; Moffett 1968). The 1999 stage 6 (11-12) NSW English syllabi, added a fourth
Australia (Dawkins 1987). Such thinking has progressively seeped into English curriculum since, via ‘basic skills’ debates, compulsory federal literacy tests (NAPLAN) for every second year of schooling, which by the way the Honourable Christopher Pyne wants to ramp up to every year of schooling, and we all know Mr Pyne is an honourable man. ‘Leaning for earning’ is now ‘commonsense’ in Australian Education, and inhabits all of the rationales of Australian curricula and master statements such as 2008 Melbourne Declaration. SLIDE 13 ON EQUAL TERMS Hence, I argue, ‘perspectives’ in current English syllabi cluster into three groups of more or less mutually incompatible theory. Canonical, Emancipatory, and Vocational. I would also characterize the current syllabi in NSW as dominated by Emancipatory approaches, not owing to the volume of its presence in the documents, but rather the catastrophic nature of its project: a negative critique ‘canonical’ approaches and Vocationalism. Ie. It’s like the US marines: fundamentally designed to invade something. SLIDE 14 CHANGE AND CONTINUITY The Australian English Curriculum The new AEC is, in part, a response to growing alarm in the last decade about the drift towards the scepticism of these ‘Emancipatory’ approaches. It does this in three ways. First canonical conceptions have been re-enshrined in one of three distinct strands, K-12, called ‘Literature’: “Literature is... valued for their form and style and are recognised as having enduring or artistic value.” (AEC) This is a significant shift away from critical literacy. SLIDE 15 CRITICAL LITERACY