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

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have discussed the History matrix and make the following comments.

 

We prefer in ranking order, with reservations outlined below, Option TWO and ONE.

 

The response from the ChCh BHS History Department is largely endorsed by us.

 

We would like to add to/ highlight the following:

 

1.       More internally assessed Standards appear to be signalled as a given. Why? The assumption appears to be that external assessment equals decontextualised assessment (If this is incorrect, we would like to hear why). This assumption is not true. The curriculum AOs at each level do not necessitate decontextualised external essays. The idea offered by ChCh Boys’ High History Dept addresses this – that is for a range of agreed external contextualised questions (derived from agreed taught content), with an additional single decontextualised option for those schools who do not opt for the agreed (majority) topics.

 

2.       The “of significance to New Zealanders” definition offered by NZHTA will need to be authorised officially before any decisions about content can be made. But the following concerns will need to be addressed: How is this aspect achieved? Is it intended that all student assessment explicitly demonstrates links to this? This would be easily achieved for “events occurring in NZ”, and for “global events involving NZ”, but could be difficult for “global events influencing NZ”. Which “events influencing NZ” would not be accepted by a marker? How much demonstration by students would be required for this?

 

3.       The clarification for point two above could be addressed with effective Explanatory Notes – but we need to see these to judge the Standards. All of the listed Achievement Standards critically depend on thorough and clear Explanatory Notes. Much work will be needed to ensure ENs assist teachers and students. Without these, it is difficult to judge any of the assessment options given.

 

4.       A single external standard for any level is indeed farcical. It should be accompanied by at least one other external standard to ensure examinations are meaningful for students, for assessment consistency across schools and to assist with preparation for students’ future study.

 

5.       If more internal assessment is indeed a “given”, then the timing of assessment and moderation will be radically affected. How can so much assessment, that all require internal and then external moderation be completed without watering down content? And, surely the assessment conditions can not be consistent across all schools – eg. Inconsistent or unfair prior assistance for an internal assessment. The workload for teachers will increase dramatically (including the writing/adapting of new assessments at each level).

 

6.       AS 90654 (3.1 and 3.2) need not and should not be combined into a super standard.

 

History Dept

Nelson College