Am I getting paranoid or simply out of touch? The recent flyer from the HTA advertising the 'HSC Enrichment Head Start to Extension' day looks very commendable and interesting. But why is one of the sessions entitled 'Extension Core: Postmodernism'? This could simply be a typo, but if it is not I ask - "Since when has Extension had a Core (with the associated meaning of mandatory study), and who decided that Postmodernism filled that role? The syllabus makes no mention of a core in relation to the historiography to be studied. The syllabus does not give Postmodernism any greater standing over other schools of thought or approaches to history that have been adopted over time. It follows therefore that it should be perfectly possible for a student, in an examination context, to gain maximum marks in the HSC exam without making any reference to Postmodernism. At least, that seems a reasonable conclusion from the syllabus.
Now I'll confess my fears. It would be a great shame if the preference for Postmodernism studies, which I presume some teachers/academics have, were to become a dominant, if unofficial, movement at the HSC marking centre. This would create a great inequity between those 'in the know' and the majority around the state who rely on the syllabus and Board documents to guide their teaching. To put it simply, if Postmodernism is to be considered mandatory, it should be in the syllabus: if it is not in the syllabus (as is the case) it should not be considered mandatory. Let us have everything out in the open and a level playing field for all. Is there an unofficial Core of Postmodernism studies, or not?
Assume a misprint (Andrew Lundy's name is also misspelt on the version that was mailed). Or, more likely, a reference to the fact that the postmodernism session addresses material that may be relevant to Question 1 of the HSC exam, which is a compulsory question for all students. I think the intention was to indicate that this session addressed the historiography question, done by all, rather than the case studies.
Clearly, postmodernism does not have any special status and, notwithstanding last year's exam, I cannot see how the syllabus justifies special status for any particular aspect of historiography. (On the other hand, postmodernism is a very popular topic with teachers and students and sessions are always well attended.)
What is raised, yet again, it the problem of a syllabus that has no prescribed content. This creates a significant challenge for examiners if they are seeking to move away from broad, open-ended (repetitive?) questions. If we are to be guided by the syllabus, it is difficult to see how this can be done without a revision of the syllabus and much more thought given to producing something which is not only great to teach and learn but also takes account of the fact that it needs to offer an agreed body of knowledge for examination and marking.
As far as I know, you are the second person to react with concern to what I think is a harmless word on the program. Leaving aside the possibility that you may be 'paranoid and out of touch', I think this highlights the fact that there is a high degree of justifiable concern out there, particularly a worry over transparency in interpretation of the syllabus. I would suggest that this flows from serious flaws (in relation to examination and marking) in an otherwise great syllabus, but that no one at any level is doing anything other than to work within these limitations as best they can.
As is evident from the enthusiasm of teachers and students, it is a great syllabus and presents a wonderful opportunity for history NSW, the 'history state'. Being innovative, however, one would have thought that needed close evaluation and that the BOS would have been keenly interested in its progress. I first called for a revison in 2003. On the basis of continuous close contact with teachers and students throughout the state, I can only say that this revision is now well overdue and I worry that further delay will impact on the subject's credibility, which would be a great shame.
In response to your concerns, Paul, about a revision/review of Extension History: the Board has in place a cycle of review of curriculum. All KLAs had to present a report to the Board this year, highlighting any syllabuses that were thought to be in need of review/revision. Extension History has been clearly highlighted, together with other syllabuses in the HSIE KLA. However, the timing of such a review will depend on government priorities and obviously, funding. I am as keen as anyone to see a review of Extension History.
