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
