nzhta’s weblog

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