Now that the thought has occurred to me, it seems blindingly obvious: Why is writing – both formal and creative – not a stand-alone subject in all New Zealand high schools?
Writing is quite apart from English, which largely concerns the analysis and comprehension of texts and language. English teaches us to interpret and comprehend complex structures and themes, a valuable skill for some career paths and essential at an early level. But English as it stands in the New Zealand curriculum at a high school level devotes so little of itself to writing and to producing the sort of content that others will interpret, that a major void has been left.
My brother, a year 13 student, spent 3 weeks on formal writing last year and another 3 weeks on creative writing. These were assessed internally before the focus shifted once more to other areas of the subject. In a school year, 6 weeks is very little. Granted, not every student would consider a career in journalism, creative writing or copy-writing, but neither would they a career in the arts. I believe there would be more than enough students who would be excited by the prospect of devoting one of their subjects to a very important art form.
My school, Burnside High school, offers music in 4 different forms and art in 6 at year 13. Yet writing is absent from the options list. Surely writing as a subject has been considered, yet I can’t fathom the reason behind its exclusion. Surely if a school as large as Burnside is offering a course like photography, it ought to offer writing – an art form at least the equal of music or design.
Personally, I’m quite surprised that this hasn’t occurred to me before. I’m very passionate about writing – it is an important form of personal expression and enjoyment for me. I know many others share my interest, but I’m also certain that there are many others unaware of it too. If writing were an option in its own right, we would be opening up a wealth of new opportunities for young New Zealanders, in careers as journalists and authors. These are truly universal trades, crucial in our society. As technology has carved out many new careers in areas such as programming and science, writing has always remained and always will.
But this is my point of view and I suppose I’m biased being a writer myself. So what I want to hear is one of two things. Either a convincing opposing argument, or reassurance that change is imminent and that writing is finally going to become a part of high school for many New Zealand students.
However, maybe there isn’t an explanation at all to why writing doesn’t exist as a subject. Maybe, like me, teachers and students just haven’t realised what a major area of interest we’re leaving out from our high school curriculum. But in realising this, I struggle to see why we shouldn’t address this void immediately.
I understand your passion for writing but it seem more of a leisure activity and people who are interested in writing groups will join one. The thing about English is that there is not much to teach. What can be taught at that level when what can be taught is taught already and what is yet to be taught is reserved for University Level. The Curriculum is all about getting good grades and keeping up with the increased criterias.
As for having Writing as a Year 13 subject, there are several factors to be considered. How will it be assessed, whether or not the universities will accept it and can teachers of adequate ability and students of sufficient interest be found to take this course.
Remember, writing for pleasure and writing to get a grade is different and writing what you want to when you want to is different from writing when you have and what you have to.
After spending several terms dabbling in NCEA English, I agree that the course is slightly vapid. Creative writing, or anything inherently creative for that matter, seems almost hostile to the NCEA system. I’m beginning to feel that formal writing standards have been institutionalized in an attempt to avoid subjective marking, to the extent where regurgitating some mediocre exemplar near-verbatim will get you excellence. It’s more than possible to produce something exceptional, but the catch is to keep it in line with structural norms, and in this respect I think NCEA is inhibiting creativity. Sort of the antithesis of what we were doing in FPS all those merry years ago. And I agree, the time and depth invested into writing is very limited.
However, I’m not entirely sure if writing should become a stand-alone per se, lest it also has its creative potential destroyed by the system. One day NCEA will realize the distinction between studying and learning, but in the meantime I guess passions will have to be pursued through passion alone.
Charlette – I totally understand and respect this argument – it is the most compelling against the idea of Writing as a stand-alone subject. (Although I will disagree with you on the point that writing is merely a leisure activity. It is, for many people, a career.) I don’t have any evidence or statistics to back up my case, but I ask that people look to the existing spread of subjects, particularly concerning the arts, as well as the lack of writing topics covered at present during the school year.
Take a look at art. Many would protest if we threatened to remove it, yet no one has been able to convince me that writing is at all disparate. If anything, I would argue it is a broader subject, that could easily be split into creative and formal if it were to become a subject. I feel that people object to the idea of writing as a subject because it is never questioned or considered. Now is as good a time as any to begin having this conversation, so I’m glad you’ve shared your thoughts.
Vincent – Thank you for commenting. I can’t directly respond to your comments on NCEA with too little experience myself but I’ll give my best interpretation. Purely from a spectator’s point of view, I feel that some of the passions you mentioned (creative or otherwise) are actually very well catered for, evidenced by the number of arts subjects available. Some students, in their final year, will do 6 subjects under the umbrella of arts and achieve excellence without sitting a single external exam. In this lies two issues.
Firstly, I do believe it is wrong that students from year 11 to 13 can get by with few of the primary – yet in my mind essential – subjects such as English and maths. What is needed here is not the elimination of the arts but for a middle ground to be found. However, that issue is for another post.
What I’m really questioning is why are there so many opportunities in subjects as specific as sculpture, photography and print-making – which are fundamentally creative subjects – yet the far more expansive subject of writing – which encompasses both creative and more factual areas – is excluded? Beyond simply comparing the two, I also believe people are wrong to suggest that writing is just a hobby. In doing so they are denying the credibility of journalism, editing, book authoring and the like – almost every form of modern media involves the written word, from film to the internet to the traditional print newspaper.
If I were given the opportunity, I would treat the subject of writing like we do a subject such as media studies. It would occupy an intersection between purely artistic (e.g sculpture) and purely intellectual (e.g science), or alternatively it could be split into “creative” writing and “formal” writing. Maybe that goes some way toward addressing the issue you take with the inhibition of creativity as well.
Daniel, I think that your point has merit, and makes sense. My experience with writing – in a top-stream, Year 10 English class – has been somewhat limited. My classmates’ interpretations of what an essay actually is, are also questionable.
The opportunity to learn more about literary techniques and develop writing skills would be an amazing thing for students, as well as being able to focus solely on creative and formal writing, instead of having to divide time between reading comprehension and theme interpretation, etc.
However, despite the obvious advantages of having writing as a subject, I do have some doubts. Firstly, there is only so much you can teach about writing, (at a high school level) and once those things have been exhausted, what will happen? I appreciate that writing takes time and effort, but surely it won’t last the school year.
This leads me to my second point. Writing takes time and effort, no doubt about it. However, the thought of spending whole periods of class time sitting at a desk just writing has even me, an avid writer, shuddering. To me, class time must involve some kind of interaction, and I understand that the volleying of story ideas across a classroom is interaction, but if the subject is dedicated to developing your personal writing skill and style, how will sharing your ideas with others improve their skill?
Lastly, I can’t help but think of how teachers will assess creative writing. What defines a good story? What seems like an interesting and amazing storyline to someone, may in fact, be insipid and superficial. I can’t imagine how it would feel to create my own, original piece of writing, then have it graded and criticized negatively because a teacher didn’t have the same views as me, or didn’t interpret it how I did. It doesn’t seem fair to grade students on something that can be interpreted in so many ways.
I’m sure that many people would jump at the opportunity of being able to sign up for writing as an elective, but to me, the benefits of the course aren’t enough to persuade me from my skepticism. I do however, understand your point, and wholeheartedly agree with many of them.
If writing is an entire major at Universities, then surely it follows that they’d appreciate a degree (pun very much intended) of formal preparation?
Also, how can Burnside justify farcical subjects like Legal Studies and not writing? NCEA won’t budge, of course, while Anne Tolley is busy with stomach staples…
Pingback: The onus is on us | Daniel Coats
Pingback: Mentoring in practice | Daniel Coats