nzhta’s weblog

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?