nzhta’s weblog

        I  am disappointed and worried about these matrices because they take out all guidance about what we teach , apart from vague references to NZ,  and undermine the  level playing field of external assessment. It is not an update but a revolution and parents and politicians should be part of such a change if it survives. In a flood of internal assessment there are no safe beacons or lifeboats.

 1. There were 4 issues teachers needed the NZHTA, NZQA and MOE to look at

• The decontextualising issue – most seemed to like it for internal assessment but know it doesn’t suit external assessment
• The generic question issue at level 2 which has been awkward for many
• The inclusion of NZ history
• The need to update some of our popular contextual topics.

 2. The MOE seems to have overridden NZQA and NZHTA by demanding all levels be decontextualised, which means they can only be externally assessed by generic questions. So two big issues have been taken off the consultation table before the start and the last made irrelevant. It is a highjack.

 3. Consequently NZHTA has been forced to give us  4 matrices representing only what the MOE Reps want – we don’t get offered any other options. Nobody I have contacted in Auckland, Hamilton, Timaru and Christchurch is happy. We are supposed to choose one of these turkeys and then MOE will be able to say History teachers chose the new curriculum. It is dangerous to select  any option because this will be putting you in the process of endorsing the MOE., as they will be well aware.

4.   Particular features which scare me.;

 Introducing this beast simultaneously at all levels in one year – this is the ridiculous becoming the impossible – Mallard found that out last time

• Decontextualising externals
• Generic questions  at all levels

·        “events” have become the focus for studies, not individuals or groups of people

·        “essays” have disappeared  from all levels, being replaced by passages of “extended writing”.

·        only topics “of significance to New Zealanders” are  specified in a few places, and these need not be in or about NZ, so their chances of  bringing in popular NZ teaching are very slim, especially if the matrices deter  dealing with interesting personalities.

·        The differences between the matrices is mainly the degree of internal assessment – all seem to require more than we have now. One proposal is entirely internally assessed. There is no mention of compensatory time for this and no mention of the horrific moderating task it would involve. The present secret moderation is not suitable for a profession.

·        The matrices present a danger of losing the level playing field that the present externally assessed  system provides all schools. It could expose students to local prejudice.

5. Some points that might tilt the Titanic away from the icebergs

·        Make 1.3, 2.3, 3.3 , 1.4, 2.4. 3.4 1.5, 2.5, 3.5   externally assessed  but enable the examiner to name the contexts of the questions each year – this will help teachers plan their year. We need contexts for credible external assessment. The  examiner would need guidelines set by NZQA  not MOE.

·        Maintain the  external  examinations at the present length in order to maintain our  credibility with the parents.

·        Merging 3.1 and 3.2 makes sense – surely we can judge the quality of the research from the finished product at this level

·        Restore a 1.6 NZ option, make it externally assessed, and take it through to levels  2  and 3 , focusing on the impact of a New Zealander. This will put some flesh among the events and is more likely to get NZ taught for its own worth.

·        Return to “essays” – extended pieces of writing  invite dishonesty among students and teachers.

·        Cut out all generic questions – if topics are nominated by an examiner then there is no need for them

·        Allow decontextualised material for internal assessment

·        Get a committee of AHTA and NZQA to draw up exam topic contexts.which will be attached to the curriculum

George Bowen

Kia Ora colleagues

My conclusions first:

Given the following:

(i) The lack of prescribed choices (and currently the choice is already vast for internals and wide for Externals) and

(ii) The need for one or more external exam (for students’ benefit and NCEA credibility)

It follows that:

a) De-contextualised sources will have to go ahead for all 3 Levels – unless we switch to foreign curricula or assess internally.

b) Essay(s) will have to be generic across the board too … unless we switch to foreign curricula or assess internally (and either mark internally or have NZQA mark it).

c) If we have neither essays nor sources examined externally – then whatever else is done (some kind of short answer response paper for instance) in an external will still have to be de-contextualised.

§   Therefore, if they were set, generic essays/other questions in the exams will have to be much more accessible to students than the questions currently set. It will still be possible to tell A, from M, from E even with simpler questions and retaining writing frames. We could even consider using the exact same stems every time. Failing this we ought to be informed of the generic question before hand so we can decipher it for our students!

§   If de-contextualised sources are set as exams we should have a rough idea of the topic content so we can teach it – if we choose!

§   If we had 2 essays for Levels 2 and 3 by re-instating Identity and Decision as 6^th AS option they would be perfect candidates for externals. Then do trickier Force and Situation for internals (marked externally would be my preference).

§   Are perspectives and interpretations interchangeable concepts that can apply to contemporary and modern points of view? Or do perspectives apply to contemporary PoV and interpretations apply to matters of historiography? Either way, at what levels do we teach and assess contemporary perspectives and historiography?

More detailed thoughts on NZHTA Matrices options:

Option 1

(1)   Inquiry/communication

§   Have no big issue with selecting historical events for the assessments because it tallies with the (cursory) NC AO’s. However, history is not only about historical events and it is restrictive.

§   (Would prefer 3.1 and 3.2 to be split, rather than lumped. You do not have to do 3.1 to get to 3.2 and I like the option of doing 2 different topics.

§   Can we do an event essay as part of the 1.2, 2.2, 3,2?

(2) Sources.

§   Don’t mind how the 1.3 AS read (interpret; examine; analyse is fine – although I think it’s about analysis across the levels but at different stages of ‘student readiness’/current ability).

§   I detest de-contextualised sources – this is not how professional historians operate, nor how novices should be expected to operate. In-depth prior knowledge is important when analysing source material.

§   The subjects chosen for the sources exam are often a million miles from the experience of my South Auckland students – Princess Diana, the American Civil War etc has little relevance for them without any teaching and learning around the topics. Isn’t the new NC about making things more relevant?! There is an issue of equity here.

·          If we can’t have contextualised sources let’s tell teachers/kids what topic to expect for the year

(3) Perspectives/interpretations.

§   Question #1: for 1.4 and 2.4 are the perspectives contemporary and/or historian’s interpretations? I presume they are contemporary perspectives.

§   Internal is a good idea for empathetic writing that requires more than analytical writing.

§   Question #2: are we using perspectives and interpretations as interchangeable terms, to be pre-fixed with ‘contemporary’ or ‘modern historians’’?

§   I think ‘describe a debate among historians’ (3.4) is a good idea at L3 – short answer responses or extended writing though?

§   At least internal assessment will avoid generic essay questions.

§   Presumably perspectives/interpretations will be covered in sources paper too.

 (6) Extended writing/essays.

§   External de-contextualised essays (or extended writing) – hard enough for my students when they are specific questions. Add the generic format and you add a further level of difficulty. Especially as the questions are so long winded and unclear – written by committee perhaps?

§   Does the MoE consider essays as non-essential when they insist on ‘extended writing’ in the language of the AS?

§   Shame to drop the Identity essay as easier to interpret (I think!) than generic force question. Could the Identity essay it become 2.6?

§   Decision essay also easier than situation. Could we make 3.6 as the decision essay?

§   Can we do a event essay as part of the 1.2, 2.2 or 3.2?

Option 2

(1)   Sources.

§   Don’t like the phrasing/implications. Better to have primary and secondary for level 1? Level 2 sources – more than interpretations (contemp or modern) to study. Level 3 is fine.

§   Again, de-contextualised sources suck. Of course, they might be inevitable under the impending regime. I prefer my Unit Standard ones! Will US survive?

(2) 1.6/2.6

§   1.6 – superfluous? Format? Still generic/de-contextualised. Worried there aren’t enough exams? If so, why not a 3.6 for L3?

§   2.6 – I’d rather have a generic L2 identity essay as an external.The 2.6 option sounds like it could be better done at 2.3 or 2.4.

§   Perhaps have one generic essay in the exam and 1 internal marked externally?

(3) Essays. Internal setting and external marking is a great compromise! Contextualised is best.

Option 3

Prefer Option 2 as stated. External marking please for (1) relieving workload (2) 100% real public scrutiny.

Option 4

(1)   We need one or 2 exam papers for student study skills/Uni futures and future of NCEA.

HISTORY MATRIX OPTION ONE
All exam questions would be generic – decontextualised. But only 2 standards are examined externally at every level. Note that at Level 3 the Decision essay has been replaced by a Historical Debate essay. Students do find the decision essay more accessible. The 1.5 essay could become a potential nightmare of a huge range of topics presented for exam answers.
Acceptance of this standard would be more work as more is assessed internally.  My assessment, based upon considerable evidence, is that generic assessments are not regarded fondly by most teachers. That may be understating the emotion! The present Level 2 experience has not been a happy one! 

HISTORY MATRIX TWO
The key point about this Matrix is that essays are internally administered but marked externally at every level. Is this more of a burden on teachers in terms of administration??? This Matrix aims to make you feel happier by adding a contextualised essay standard at every level.  There are still only two externally examined standards. But this matrix allows you to retain more present topics you teach as long as at Level 1-2 students are describing events of significance to New Zealanders. Also can we expect Year 11 students to cope with only primary sources for 1.3 and Level 2 students to grasp different interpretations in historical resources in 2.3? 

HISTORY MATRIX THREE
NO CONTEXT IS PROVIDED for this one in terms of its provenance!!! There is only one externally assessed standard at every level. My sense is that this involves a lot more work for teachers. 

HISTORY MATRIX FOUR
Where on earth did this one come from?? The whole kit and caboodle are internal. A massive workload!!  I have the sense that 3 and 4 have been included to guide you back gently to Matrix 2, after coping with that icy clutch at your heart.My thanks to Paul Wulff and his group of teachers in Timaru who initially guided me through the matrix thicket – jungle. But these comments are my own. To my mind all four Matrixes have unpalatable aspects.  Some clearly more so than others!!! Overall, more responsibility, which really means work, is handed back (more fashionable word-’devolved’) to classroom teachers and HODs whichever Matrix is chosen!  
Best wishes
Jim