nzhta’s weblog

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.