A curriculum is a knowledge structure outlining what is to be learned in what order. The Australian curriculum for English emphasises creation of a ‘coherent’ and ‘cumulative’ ‘body of knowledge about how the English language works’, with learning that is ‘portable and applicable to new settings across the school years and beyond’ (National Curriculum Board, 2009, p. 9, emphasis added). But what happens when those charged with implementing curriculum cannot agree on ‘what counts’ This article reflects on key differences between stakeholders about disciplinarity in English, drawing on sociological categories of Bernstein and Maton. The fourth challenge facing implementation is ‘face validity’. The creation of a viable knowledge structure for English makes it crucial that teachers and professional bodies find it acceptable. The article concludes with a heuristic figure for representing key parameters of knowledge structure in English and a proposal for interrelating these so as to optimize implementation of the curriculum in Australian classrooms.
BernsteinB. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Vol. 4. Class, codes and control. London, UK: Routledge.
4.
BernsteinB. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173.
5.
BernsteinB. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique: Vol. 1. Class, codes and control (Rev. ed.). Lanham, MD, and Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield.
6.
ChristieF. (1993). The ‘received tradition’ of English teaching: The decline of rhetoric and the corruption of grammar. In GreenB. (Ed.), The insistence of the letter: Literacy studies and curriculum theorizing (pp. 75–106). London, UK, and Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
7.
ChristieF.DerewiankaB. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London, UK, and New York, NY: Continuum Press.
8.
ChristieF.DevlinB.FreebodyP.LukeA.MartinJ.R.ThreadgoldT.WaltonC. (1991). Teaching English literacy: The preservice preparation of teachers to teach English. Canberra: Centre for Studies of Language in Education, Northern Territory University and Department of Employment, Education and Training.
9.
ChristieF.Macken-HorarikM. (2007). Building verticality in subject English. In ChristieF.MartinJ.R. (Eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 156–183). London, UK, and New York, NY: Continuum Press.
10.
ChristieF.Macken-HorarikM. (2011). Disciplinarity and school subject English. In ChristieF.MatonK. (Eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 175–196). London, UK, and New York, NY: Continuum Press.
11.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.
12.
Department of Education, Science and Training (Commonwealth). (2005). Teaching reading: Report and recommendations. National inquiry into the teaching of literacy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
13.
DoeckeB.HowieM.SawyerW. (Eds.) (2006). Only connect. English teaching, schooling and community. Adelaide: Wakefield Press and the Australian Association for the Teaching of English.
14.
English Teachers' Association. (2009). English Teachers' Association NSW response to the consultation on the national English curriculum: Framing paper. Sydney, NSW: English Teachers' Association.
15.
FreebodyP. (2007). Literacy education in school: Research perspectives from the past for the future. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
16.
FreebodyP.MatonK.MartinJ.R. (2008). Talk, text and knowledge in cumulative, integrated learning: A response to ‘intellectual challenge‘. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 188–201.
17.
GoodwynA. (2003). We teach English not literacy: Growth pedagogy under siege in England. In DoeckeB.HomerD.NixonH. (Eds.), English teachers at work: Narratives, counter narratives and arguments (pp. 123–134). Adelaide: Australian Association for the Teaching of English and Wakefield Press.
18.
GreenB.CormackP. (2008). Curriculum history, ‘English’ and the new education; or, installing the empire of English. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 16(3), 253–267.
19.
HallidayM.A. K. (2009). Language and education: Implications for practice. In WebsterJ.J. (Ed.), The essential Halliday (pp. 216–218). London, UK, and New York, NY: Continuum Press.
20.
HammondJ.Macken-HorarikM. (2001). Teachers' voices, teachers' practices: Insider perspectives on literacy education. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(2), 112–132.
21.
HarperH.RennieJ. (2009). I had to go out and get myself a book on grammar: A study of pre-service teachers' knowledge about language. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(1), 22–37.
LockeT. (2005). Writing positions and rhetorical spaces. In DoeckeB.ParrG. (Eds.), Writing = Learning (pp. 75–95). Adelaide: Australian Association for the Teaching of English and Wakefield Press.
24.
LoudenW.RohlM.GoreJ.GreavesD.McIntoshA.WrightR.SiemonD.HouseH. (2005). Prepared to teach: An investigation into the preparation of teachers to teach literacy and numeracy. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training.
25.
Macken-HorarikM. (2006a). Hierarchies in diversities: What students' examined responses tell us about literacy practices in contemporary school English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 52–78.
26.
Macken-HorarikM. (2006b). Knowledge through ‘know-how’: Systemic functional grammatics and the symbolic reading. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 102–121.
27.
MatonK. (2009). Cumulative and segmented learning: Exploring the role of curriculum structures in knowledge-building. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(1), 43–57.
28.
MatonK. (2010). Progress and canons in the arts and humanities: Knowers and gazes. In MatonK.MooreR. (Eds.), Social realism, knowledge and the sociology of education: Coalitions of the mind (pp. 154–178). London, UK: Continuum Press.
29.
MatonK. (2011). Theories and things: The semantics of disciplinarity. In ChristieF.MatonK. (Eds.), Disciplinarity: Systemic functional and sociological perspectives. London, UK: Continuum Press.
30.
MullerJ. (2007). On splitting hairs: Hierarchy, knowledge and the school curriculum. In ChristieF.MartinJ.R. (Eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 65–86). London, UK, and New York, NY: Continuum Press.
31.
National Curriculum Board. (2008). The shape of the national curriculum: A proposal for discussion. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
32.
National Curriculum Board. (2009). National English curriculum: Framing paper. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
33.
PeimN. (2009). The elusive object of transformation: English, theory and Bernstein's sociology of education. Changing English, 16(2), 149–164.
34.
SawyerW. (2005). English literacy: A more open marriage or time for a divorce?Literacy Learning in the Middle Years, 13(1), 11–19.
35.
ThomsonJ. (2004). Post-Dartmouth developments in English teaching in Australia. In SawyerW.GoldE. (Eds.), Reviewing English (pp. 10–22). Adelaide: Wakefield Press.
36.
ValdezG.BunchG.SnowC.LeeC. (2005). Enhancing the development of students' language. In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 126–167). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
