Contexts….Gregor Fountain

Dear NZHTA Exec’

Thanks for keeping us in the loop about developments in the alignment process, by posting some details of the context debate as framed up recently by NZQA on the NZHTA website. I’m sure it must be very frustrating to have the parameters and requirements of the task constantly changing. Personally, I am delighted that someone in a Government education agency has finally acknowledged that the context of what is assessed in our subject area is important. I think the point that is made in the paper that external assessment in history without a specified content focus can turn the assessment into a lottery, is a valid one. It’s certainly been my experience that the results from generic externally assessed essay questions are completely random. They seem to relate more to the students’ ability to stumble across a connection or phrase which links an aspect of the content of their essay to the question or the standard (or some mixed up combination of both) rather than a student’s historical understanding or ability to write an essay. Students attempting to use certain contexts have been hugely advantaged or disadvantaged depending on the angle of the question.

The revised curriculum requires us to develop school based programmes which meet the needs of our students. The history they study should be explicitly relevant to the world in which they live. The opportunity to name some contexts for the externally assessed standards provides us with an opportunity to ensure that this will happen. The internally assessed component of the courses also allows schools to assess some local, interesting and lively student-centred history.

I’ve heard a rumour, that there is a possibility of now providing more than 24 credits of achievement standards in a subject area. In one subject, they are apparently looking at offering 36 credits (6 x 6) and that schools would be able to choose their own pathways within this framework to make a course of more or less 24 credits. This seems to be an excellent solution, especially in light of the proposed abolition of the unit standards. I would like to recommend that you consider the following ideas as you develop our 36 credit matrix…

1. Provide as many internally assessed standards as you can get NZQA to agree to. Push it as far as you can. The absolute minimum should be 18 credits internal out of a total of 36. As far as I’m concerned, the more internals the better. We all know that assessment which takes place near to the time of teaching, that is naturally integrated into the learning programme is the best. More internals will also allow teachers to truly enter into the spirit and philosophy of the curriculum, because this way they will be able to assess their school based programme in a way that is meaningful. They won’t have to throw their students over to the vagaries of generic questioning in an external exam, because they will be able to write questions and tasks that suit their teaching and the students’ learning. Another reason that I like internal assessment is that it treats teachers as professionals. As subject experts we make the calls on our own students (with moderation to support us) and we trust our colleagues at other schools to do the same. We must challenge the notion among our colleagues that internal assessment creates more work for them. That’s simply untrue. How many formative level one perspectives questions are assessed before the end of year exam, regardless of student performance in them and yet at level 2 the internally assessed perspectives task is assessed once or twice. The setting of internally assessed questions by the teacher mirrors the practice in universities. I find it extraordinary when some history teachers say that sitting externally assessed exams prepares students for university. Every university exam is set by the person who taught the course! Often the question or topic has already been conveyed to the students before-hand. There is no such thing as an externally set university exam. In fact, students sitting a course in New Zealand history taught by Tom Brooking in Otago are unlikely to be able to answer the questions in Giselle Byrnes’ equivalent paper at Waikato or vice versa. That’s good and proper because the lecturers and their courses have different emphases. It would be truly in the spirit of the new curriculum if something similar could happen in schools.

2. Choose five or six contexts for each of the externally assessed standards in the explanatory notes. There is nothing wrong with establishing a small number of contexts for the external assessments. The basis for choosing these should be “what do New Zealand students need to know about the world they live in to be effective citizens and contributors?”. If it’s not important or relevant, it shouldn’t make the cut. Maybe we should ask the students what they deem to be important! We must avoid teachers with pet topics capturing this process. If they are desperate to keep teaching something they will be able to use the 18 internal credits to do it if they simply have to! I’m am certainly a teacher with favourite pet topics, so I won’t start naming the contexts that I think should be used in the external assessment. But we mustn’t miss out on the opportunity we are being given to shape the learning of history students in New Zealand. Let’s name some! Let’s not replicate the current topics. Let’s start from scratch. I have a preference for these contexts being stated in the explanatory notes of the standards rather than in the assessment specifications because the contexts shouldn’t be decided at the whim of an examiner, there should be a much wider consensus about them.

3. Insist that the MOE and NZQA commit to a regular review process. We must ensure that the contexts that are used in the internal assessment are reviewed every 5 years. The answers to the question “what do New Zealand students need to know about the world they live in to be effective citizens and contruibutors?” will constantly be changing, so we need to ask it regularly. Five years seems about right to me. This is how long it takes a Year 9 student to reach Year 13.

This has turned into a bit of a rant. Sorry everyone. I will stop now. I am very grateful for all the work that the NZHTA Exec is doing on behalf of history teachers. I hope my comments are useful as they consider their next steps and meet with MOE officials this week.

Gregor Fountain

In reply to Graeme Ball…

Graeme Ball’s ‘middle way’ for the ‘essay’ standards fails to address the
major concern of inconsistency and unethical behavior associated with the
internal component of our courses.

Response to internally administered, externally marked essays in order of
reprehensibility;

1. The teacher gives his/her students the question and two weeks to prepare.

2. The teacher gives his/her students the question and two weeks to
prepare and spends considerable time in class ‘brain-storming’, plan
writing…

3. The teacher gives his/her students a model essay answer and time to
memorise it.

4. (Worst case scenario) The teacher, aware that their favourite student
is struggling and/or they are running out of time to do the standard,
‘leaves’ a detailed plan/copy of the model answer on the board/OHP/data
projector…

I think it would be naive to suggest that one of the three scenarios above
(or variatons thereof) would not occur and there seems to be no way in
which this kind of thing could be monitored.

I guess a reply could be that there is nothing wrong with students knowing
exactly what is required of them in an assessment (including the answer!)
and that ‘we want everyone to achieve’. Ultimately this is a reflection of
a fundamental, philosophical difference. Of course those that argue the
former are likely to practice 1-4 above…

Adrian McCormack
Glendowie College

A reply to George Bowen

George Bowen’s views on the necessity of teaching New Zealand history and
his warning that without prescribed topics New Zealand history could be
‘lost’ at secondary level, while commendably impassioned, reflect only one
side of this debate.

Other teachers are worried that with a ‘tight’ reading of ’significance to
New Zealand(ers)’ that certain popular topics will no longer be options
and/or that for every topic taught they will have to go through the
motions of outlining the (often indirect) connection between, for
instance, ‘The Russian Revolution’, and New Zealand (ers).

A tight reading will potentially eliminate a range of topics that teachers
and, more importantly, STUDENTS find interesting and PRESCRIBE New Zealand
topics.

A loose reading ALLOWS teachers to teach New Zealand topics IF THEY WISH,
while also allowing others to develop or continue to teach a full range of
fascinating topics that are of significance because New Zealanders are
human too!!!

If, as Bowen et al. contends, New Zealand history/topics are so essential
for today’s history students, then with a loose reading of the key phrase,
many, if not all history teachers will be able to pack their courses with
New Zealand-rich content. What is he so worried about? The answer of
course is the key weakness of his contention.

I am concerned that my position, outlined above, is being written off as
the last vestige of older, conservative history teachers, who don’t
realise the ‘changes’ that are occurring in the study and teaching of
history. I am 37, have a first class honours Masters degree AND I teach
New Zealand’s Search for Security AND the New Zealand option at Level 3.
I’m sure, like many other history teachers, that we are tired of being
patronised by those in no position to do so.

A loose reading of ’significance to New Zealanders’ is the FAIREST
approach given the differing opinions on the necessity of teaching New
Zealand topics. A tight reading means that a considerable body of teachers
AND students suffer (and I do genuinely mean SUFFER).

Adrian McCormack
Glendowie College

Adrian McCormack – Glendowie College

First the positives;

Like the change in 1.2 from ideas to understanding. At last there is a
requirement to DO something with the research – surely this is what REAL
historians do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Problem is, why go back to ideas at
Level 2 and then  back to understanding at Level 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, it’s about time with 3.1. Who would have thought that it would
take over 5 years for history students to be assessed on their ability to
DO history. The only problem I can see is that too much of the year is
riding on ONE assessment. If they do a good job in terms of research but
stuff up the communication they can’t get 1/2 marks – they simply fail the
standard and miss out on 8 credits + imagine the re-sit!!!!

Like 3.4 – Describe a debate – could make for some really interesting case
studies

Now for the negatives;

Surely it hasn’t got to the stage where NCEA / the new curriculum / the
Ministry have so befuddled history teachers (I gather and hope that
history teachers are the ones designing the new standards!) that they are
no longer confident in their use of the most basic, incorruptible(?!)
terminology…

HOW CAN AN EVENT BE A PERSON???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! See 1.1, 2.1
etc. Top this off with the fact that for 2.5 an event goes back to
actually being an event (see explanatory note 4)!!!

While we’re talking about 2.5… Has anyone ever really read the standard?
How can a force/movement INFLUENCE the CONSEQUENCES of an EVENT? Just take
some time to think about it… Why can’t we have something as
straightforward as, ‘Evaluate the IMPACT of a force/related movement in an
historical context’ ?

I’m still a little worried about the ‘of significance to New Zealand(ers)’
aspect of almost every standard. Have we been guaranteed that at no stage
will the students/teachers be formally assessed (including moderation of
internal assessments) on their selected event’s/ topic’s/theme’s
significance to New Zealand?

Comment from Graeme Ball

George raises a number of very good points in his thoughtful analysis of the curriculum and assessment matrix. (The distinction between the two is something teachers need to be clear on; the former guides teaching and learning in the classroom, the latter assessment.)

One advantage, at least in theory, of fewer external assessments is that the emphasis in the classroom can shift more to teaching and learning (as is the intent of the new curriculum) as preparation for external assessment often consumes a disproportionate amount of time. The issue of workload, especially with internal moderation, is one that is being addressed by PPTA in its contribution to the government’s review of NCEA – it MUST be acknowledged and allowed for.

The other issue of an egalitarian ‘level playing’ is fundamental to what many of us feel is (or should be) at the heart of NZ’s education system. How best to achieve this? NZQA’s response would be that external moderation ensures the level playing field. This is problematic. External assessment provides equal conditions of assessment (albeit conditions in which some students do not prosper), and no internal system will ever come close to matching these. We were assured that external moderation was robust when a 3% sample was requested; clearly it wasn’t. Now that there is a single moderator and a 10% sample, things are definitely better, but for anyone who attended the moderator meeting in Dunedin in November, there is a huge variance in interpretation of the standards and tasks out there, a lot of it quite shoddy, frankly. Still, few would disagree that internal assessment has a valuable place.

The main issue, then, seems to be with essays… George offers a possible solution that appears workable: some prescribed topics, reviewed regularly and any changes signaled well in advance. This could easily be done through the Assessment Specifications published at the end of each year. A related suggestion is to have in addition to these questions on prescribed topics a generic question for those who chafe under any form of prescription.

There is another way that meets the MoE’s requirements that there be no prescribing, and it could be a ‘middle way’. This is to have internally administered and externally marked essays. To ensure validity, essay questions and the associated Schedule could be submitted to the the Moderator and gain pre-arproval. Assessment conditions could be mandated (perhaps even allowing students to bring in a word-limited plan), but the teacher or school would run the assessment. Scripts and the Schedule would then be packaged up and sent off to markers much as they are now. This could be done once, or perhaps even twice, a year!

And lastly, the vexed issue of “of significance to NZers”. In the absence of any prescribed NZ content the onus may well lie with MoE (yeah, right!) or NZHTA to take the lead in developing some new programmes of work that are shaped by the new curriculum. This would likely require contracting some teachers as writers. Units could be put, complete with resources, readings, weblinks etc, on to a disc and sold at such a price as to be accessible to all while defraying costs. These could be formated as booklets which could be printed off (or, for those schools with the facilities, kept electronic).

Well, that’s it from me!
Graeme Ball

I agree with George’s concerns. The intention of the New Zealand Curriculum objectives for History was surely to get people teaching some NZ history rather than twisting existing subject matter so that we can claim it is ‘relevant to New Zealanders’. The current situation means topics not about New Zealand could be horribly distorted and there will still be schools that get away with having no New Zealand content at all! How pointless. The Ministry needs to recognise that decontextualisation is a great way to marginalise essential knowledge about our own nation and the world beyond it. There ARE some things all History students should know at the end of their courses! By the way – thanks very much to the NZHTA executive for their work on the new standards. As frustrated as some of us may be with the new curriculum in general, our association is MILES ahead of others in consulting and informing its membership. Awesome job and I know History teachers all across the country do appreciate that. From Concerns and suggestions – George Bowen, 2008/11/17 at 6:50 AM

2008/11/17

Approve |

Cashmere High School

From Cashmere High School as a whole:

Regarding the November 5 matrix:

1. Why is there no requirement to plan an inquiry at Level 1 (AS1.1)?
2. Why are Level 1 students required to use a range of sources when communicating info (AS1.2) but Level 2 and 3 students are not? Shouldn’t this be in teh research standard anyway?
3. Is ‘describe a debate among historians’ a realistic expectation of Year 3 students? Also, how will teachers resource this? Will mean lots of poring through academic journals on top of doing more internal assessments as a whole and writing units for new topics. Also, historiography seems more like a University level skill.

From Sailing Blind, 2008/11/17 at 1:37 PM

Concerns and suggestions – George Bowen

History Curriculum Concerns and Suggestions

 

 

I am worried by what I see emerging from this process because I can’t see it delivering what students ought to be able to get from this subject or what the Ministry seems to want. The changes are potentially revolutionary but their direction and outcomes are not  clear.  I would like to help, however, and not become part of the problem.

 

So far, in what is supposed to be a consultation we have  been given  no substantial alternatives to discuss – it is all decontextualisation and resultant generic questions – these are really the two major  issues which determine all else. They are points where consultation is most needed.  Allowing for “consultation” after  one of the present matrices is accepted will in fact leave very little to consult or discuss. We have been shown no model allowing for prescribed units or modernized, New Zealand  content.

 

1. Like many teachers I am worried that the present curriculum is exam and assessment driven, becoming more narrow in its topic coverage  leading to a decrease in NZ content, and  in the worst cases a denigration of NZ History as a subject. Quite a few teachers seem to have lost the content knowledge to revive it and  new teachers seem to be steered away from it. Previous  curriculae with prescriptions  had prevented and limited this trend by prescribing the numbers of topics to be studied and prescribing NZ content to be used in them at level 1 (5^th Form) and not allowing double dipping on external and internal studies at level 3. The present matrices seem to be assessment driven as well with little care for “what” is taught.

 

2. The present situation arose through nobody’s choice or policy but because we have been focused so much on assessment over the past 20 years that what was taught has in effect become less important than fitting current content to the achievement fashion of the day. This  does not fit with Government policy of promoting the knowledge economy. The fewer topics taught, the easier it is to fit it to the standards and get the  “good” marks. Teachers have effectively been put under pressure  to “do better by doing less” . This is an absurd situation which nobody planned and certainly nobody  takes responsibility for. This situation is the basic reason behind why so many topics have not changed since the 1980s.

 

3. I worry that the new matrices  with total decontextualisation provide no help or remedy for this and in fact if teachers are faced with another set of  assessment rules, even though they are far better,  then the content will stay the same as they simply adapt it to the new standards. With no prescribed content we will be powerless to say what NZ kids should be taught. Most will probably stay with the same old stuff though a few wackos will get the chance deify Bishop Bryan. I can’t imagine anyone in the Ministry being prepared to justify this to the Minister or the public.

 

4. The attempts to get New Zealand content back into the classroom by making the unspecifiable  decontextualised topics “relevant to NZ” is so easy to apply with minimal compliance that without a lot of goodwill and assistance it is very likely to be  ineffective in many schools. With the decontextualisation  rule applied consistently no specific NZ content could in fact be “required” in any topic. People will focus on what they know will get good results and at the moment that doesn’t help NZ studies.

 

5.  The balance between internal and external assessment needs  more thought. While increasing internal assessment, as all the matrices seem to encourage, will appeal to Treasury, we are supposed to be focusing on the students, not money. More internal assessment increases teacher workload ( again making it less likely content will be updated) but more importantly it does not carry the public confidence that external assessment does.

 

I am particularly concerned about the withdrawal of the  level playing field provided by prescribed content units that are externally assessed. Students from disadvantaged schools of low social prestige can prove their attainment in external exams in a way the community accepts. They are a life line and an escape route.  If totally decontextualised internal assessment is adopted then our certificates will cease in fact to be national certificates but be “school certificates” only as good as the reputation of the school they come from.  In the competitive system of “tomorrow’s schools”  there have to be winners and losers and pity help the poor kids at the “loser” schools. The kids from a school in Otara will have no objective way of showing they can do as well as  the kids from Christ’s College.

 

This is socially, morally and politically unacceptable and any decision risking this needs to be shown first to the parents and public before we hastily jump into it.  

 

While I personally don’t like emphasis on exams I feel, for the  kids sake, I have to take it on the jaw for there is so far no other way which provides equitable assessment which the public trusts and which we can afford. Students would be deprived of this advantage if we do not keep some external assessment. I suggest 3, externally assessed units per level would maintain public confidence.

 

Equity between schools in external assessment can only be assured through prescribed topics so all are jumping over the same hurdle. It also enables competent assessment. Experience to date points to specific questions being more suitable at levels 1 and 3 rather than generic. There is debate over the success of generic questions at level 2. 

 

The present  plans seem to have avoided this whole issue, laying down total decontextualisation, which can only be served by generic questions at all levels of external assessment.  Far more  internal assessment seems to be called for but without a prior commitment to a whole new system of moderation by Government (we have only one History moderator in NZ) this is launching us into  uncharted waters.  This is a risk we should not take with our kids. Only a fool would assume increased Government spending in this area over the next difficult years.

 

6. There seem to be some hasty assertions of what can be forced on teachers and the subject. The assertion that it is totally the teacher’s job to provide all the resources and needs for new  decontextualised units seems more like a means of ducking responsibility for the consequences of the decision to decontextualise than promoting sound professional behaviour. It could lead to frantic rushed efforts to the internet .  We penalize the kids for surging over the net and grabbing  and presenting stuff willy-nilly. We don’t want to send teachers down the same path. To develop good units takes time and consideration. The kids deserve that.  The use of the phrase “extended piece of writing” similarly seems like a way of not taking the time and effort to reform the descriptors of what an essay should be in a professional way.

 

7. It is hard to believe the Ministry is serious in not taking teacher workload into account as part of this process. If the cart is too heavy for the horse to pull then it doesn’t matter what is in it. If this is the ministry’s argument the newsmedia would have a field day with any poor spokesman it grabbed to justify it, rather like the guy who got caught being too busy to inspect leaky drains and toilets on the East Coast. Funny how he found the time once TV  grabbed him.

 

8. History it seems is out ahead of the rest of the pack in curriculum  development. There is no virtue in this and if the interests of the kids are foremost, as the Ministry claims, then it is better to get it right than get it quick.  We need not be either guinea pigs or judas sheep.

 

9. Could we see a model using prescribed units for external assessment which could have  a 5 year life . In the 3rd year improvements and modernizations could be set up for approval and in the 4^th the new ones announced  for the following year if need be. That way  a constant process of professional review  of  content can be built into the system. and drive the curriculum rather than the assessment regime.  This way a body of New Zealand content could be assured. The internally assessed units could and should give freedom for teachers and local students to strut their  stuff. This will probably need more  moderation than we have now but could also be the source of producing units which all could be  adopted use for external assessment  in the improvement cycle.

 

This would be a practical way to advance in an orderly manner starting from our present strengths, maintaining public confidence, building a process of ongoing  change in our content  and allowing for  local innovation through internally assessed content. The focus of study  could change to the subject and the students rather than the assessment.

Macleans College response

I am astonished at the changes proposed and believe that these will lead to a real dumbing down of history in our schools.

My main concerns are as follows;

1.       No proposed syllabus. This seems to mean that schools can teach their students whichever topics they please. It also raises the questions as how it will be possible for external standards to be marked effectively as a huge range of topics could be taught across schools. How are markers meant to have sufficient knowledge of all these topics to mark the externals fairly and accurately?

2.       This also leads onto another area of major concern, that of generic questions. These have been a disaster at level 2 for the essay externals. Teachers and students spend half their time trying to figure out exactly want the questions is asking. I am doubtful as to whether generic questions actually teach any worthwhile historical skill.

3.       The proposed increase in internal standards. One of the criticisms of NCEA has been the credibility of internals when school policies with regard to time given to do internals vary so much between schools . How many reassessments each school allows also varies greatly from school to school. The impartiality of marking has also been questioned. By increasing the amount of internals this will  erode the credibility of NCEA as a qualification. Colleagues of mine work in overseas schools where the only means of assessment is internal. They have complained that this leads to the demotivation of students who only do work if it is directly relevant to what is going to be tested in internals. It is hard to see what the reason for the justification is for the focus on internal standards.

I believe that we should keep the majority of the achievement standards as external so that there is a proper means to compare student achievement and also to ensure the credibility of the qualification.

4.       The elimination of essays as a standard. Again, writing essays is a key historical skill and if students go onto study history at university, most if not all assessment will be done through essays.

Again, the elimination of essays will undermine the credibility  and rigour of NCEA history.

Regards,
Nick Hamilton, Head of History, Macleans College.

Mt Albert Grammar – John Pipe’s response

 I have been intrigued by this whole development whereby the four suggested matrices are determining what and how we deliver our History curriculum. 

I was encouraged by the very healthy discussion that was occurring re Tier 2 because many teachers such as Graeme Ball were making a huge contribution to that debate. He was attempting, along with others, to build a set of topics that were consistent with the Achievement Objectives without considering any assessment tools. But the matrices have landed and changed that whole process. 

So let us deal with the matrices. I would like to consider the whole decontextualised/contextualised argument first and then tie them into the framework of exams, internal assessment or the suggested compromise offered by Matrix Option 2. 

The skills at level 1 and 2 are de-contextualised but generally tied to a particular theme or event that no-one has studied. Many history teachers did not like that but have learned to live with the compromise. Of course they are not really de-contextualised. They are historical resources around a context that is not known beforehand. I would rather see the approach used for all levels as is used at Level 3 for resources, where there is a nominated topic (or two)  for resource interpretation that would require students to link the resource into their own knowledge. I see this as huge potential to deal with events of significance to New Zealanders at all three levels.  

The courses at all levels can be signalled through Assessment Specifications that would run for a period of years with overlaps when new topics are introduced. This seems to work quite successfully with the Shakespeare topics in level 3 English. 

The essays at level 2 are more problematic and we need to exercise extreme caution if we are to de-contextualise to give ‘local choice’ of topics to be taught. 

AS 2.5 and AS2.6 are currently de-contextualised in a different way from the resource-based standards at Level 1 and 2 because the students are going into the exam with prepared contexts drawn from the topics that they have studied. It is interesting to note that in unpacking AS2.5 and AS2.6 in workshops in 2006, we drew a number of conclusions about ways to prepare the students for these essay questions:

1.       The students and teachers have to supplement the textbooks with further research and reading about the ‘characteristics of forces and movements’ and the ‘creation and development of group and individual identity’ The textbooks do not deal with those aspects in anywhere near the detail needed to answer according to the standard. So there is a resourcing issue. One can argue that in an internet-based world we can get our resources from the net. But for the time being I am rejecting that constructivist; Wikipedian approach.

2.   Some students prepare answers for topics that markers are not qualified to assess. With 30 plus topics available at Level 2 (although in reality about 8 to 10.) teachers have chosen about three topics for their course at Level 2. If a teacher has chosen a less popular topic, it is possible for a student to answer their essay using what, to many markers are obscure topics. We have documented evidence that shows a student’s essay on the American Revolution gained an Excellence from very poor History. Huge generalisations unsupported by evidence, errors of fact and, under informed scrutiny, barely reaching achieved. If we are allowing all course to be de-contextualised we run the risk of these same gross distortions of History. By de-contextualising you are only encouraging the proliferation of weak and inaccurate History.

3         But there is more. The students then focus on one or two topics for the two essay questions in the exam. Worse, they are able to focus on one section of the topic for the exam and have a multi-fit, prepared answer that can cope with whatever generic question is flung at them. The Diem Regime in Vietnam is a good example of that. Students can write an extremely high quality essay for AS2.6 by just using the period 1954 to 1963 in Vietnam. This sub-topic ticks all the boxes and with a little bit of research, students can use that narrow context for their preparation. Of course the new curriculum will require them to consider the significance to New Zealand. That is not a problem for this topic. But this approach is a problem for History because it is training seals to perform on cue. It is not good History. And it is borne out of a system that had the largest selection of topics available to choose from of all three levels. If we de-contextualise to allow local choice we aggravate that problem. 

These approaches were pragmatic responses by teachers to a situation that existed and had to be worked through.

It is clear that I favour the retention of external assessment and would support the option that provides more externals. I do not like the phrase ‘ extended piece of writing’ although I can live with it because an essay can be signaled through the assessment specifications.  

 

I will be blunt in my reasons for cynicism with increased ratios of internal assessment. About ten years ago a group of us were contracted to audit the Internal Assessment practices of 100 secondary schools across New Zealand under the old Bursary prescription. The variations in practice were huge with 80% being non-compliant in some way or other. Some were downright criminal in their neglect of the spirit and the letter of the requirements.  

 

Since then I have seen the experiences of teachers in Auckland and Northland grappling with internal assessment under NCEA. The difficulty is not so much the equity of judgements, but more the equity of the assessment conditions. There are huge variations with what is allowed for feedback (and feed forward) before the due date and fix-up times after the assignment is due, let alone what constitutes an historical idea. Full-time moderators or Full-time markers for all standards are not going to change that because they cannot control what happens in the schools. In some cases, schools cheat – that is the worst-case scenario. The real difficulty is not with those cheating schools – fortunately, because they will be found out in time – the real difficulty is with variations in practice that under-mine the standard. The external assessment is at least transparent and honest and with some tweaking can offer an assessment regime that addresses the issues I mention above. I know that one can criticise the NCEA external assessment as well, but a large number of those criticisms could be labelled at the old system as well. It was just not as transparent. I think that there is a solution. 

 

If we support Matrix 1 with de-contextualised standards, the contexts can be provided through the assessment specifications. I would like a longer lead-in for these (than December of the year prior) but there would be nominated topics that an examiner can signal to be available for assessment for the next 3 to 5 years. Every year new topics could be added or replaced. But all topics would have a shelf life of five years minimum. This would address the resourcing issue by providing some certainty for schools in purchasing sets of texts – a real issue in a country like New Zealand. It would allow for local curriculums (for internals only) and it would allow questions to be asked by examiners for the Resource questions and the Essay questions (I am going to keep using the term ‘essay’) that meet the ‘of significance to New Zealand’ part of the Achievement Objective. I am not happy about Resources at Level 1 being only Primary (Where did that come from?) however I can see scope for an examiner to use a New Zealand context for the resource interpretation question.

 

I would expect the standard to have a reference to contextual knowledge as well – again signalled through the assessment specifications. The CIE History exam signals which topic will be available for resource interpretation in any given year. While I do not support the whole CIE initiative, I can see that schools will increasingly head towards it if we don’t get this right. 

 

In summary:

1.       I support all resource interpretations at level 1 and 2 being drawn from a New Zealand context with the proviso that the student’s answer with their own knowledge. Nominated contexts through assessment specifications published in Term 2 of the year prior and with a longer shelf life.

2.       I support Matrix 1 with some modification of the Achievement Standards titles.

3.       I support the retention of external assessment.

4.       I support topics/contexts being signalled through earlier publication of assessment specifications.

5.       I support the retention of the term ‘essay’

6.       I am not in favour of Internal Assessment as proposed by Matrix 4.

7.       I am concerned that markers cannot mark accurately for contexts that are local, hence very suspicious of the internal administration and externally marked suggestion

8.   I am concerned about resourcing in a country like New Zealand if we de-contextualise. 

John Pipe
Mt Albert Grammar School