nzhta’s weblog

I have several concerns that I feel compelled to voice in this forum:

Non-prescribed topics

There is already a broad range of topics available that are attractive to student interest.  All of these topics have significance to New Zealanders in either a domestic or international context.  To open the range further, provided that they meet the AOs and have significance to New Zealanders, invites the teaching of facile and unsubstantial material.  Furthermore, it is problematic for external markers who, as it is, must hold a considerable level of content knowledge and detail.

Significance to New Zealanders

Before any requirement to include significance to New Zealanders is put in place, it must be clarified that this need only be a link to connect the students to the relevance of the topic to New Zealanders.  It must not be at the centre of the teaching or assessment of the topic.  We live in an increasingly globalised world, in which New Zealand is a player, not the centrepiece.  Many of the topics that we teach are significant events in history that have shaped and continue to shape the world order and international relations.  While in the past our history lessons have shamefully excluded New Zealand content, we must not overcompensate by skewing the view of ourselves.

Essays/Extended Writing

The essay writing skills attained in the study of history at secondary school are invaluable for future academic and professional work.  Extended text is practised in several subjects and does not demand the academic rigour needed for analytical exposition.

Internal/External assessment and workload

I favour the status quo of a balance of internal and external assessments.  It is difficult enough for student to learn to manage their time and their workload.  While some students may be attracted the idea of fewer exams, they may then find themselves in difficulty, overloaded with internal assessments.

The workload for teachers would obviously be greater and the pressure on the whole school assessment calendar unmanageable.

The idea of externally marking internal assessments would do little to alleviate this workload and create extreme difficulties in connecting with students and giving them profitable feedback on their effort and progress.

Libby Giles

Auckland Girls’ Grammar School

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

Auckland Girls’ Grammar with 6 Specialist History Teachers

144 Students at Level 1

106 Students at Level 2

And 110 Students at Level 3 in a school of 1250.

“There are no prescribed topics at Level 1, 2, 3” – this is far too wide a scope.  There needs to be some boundaries.  At present there is the view that schools will not deviate too much from the current topics because of resourcing issues but in 5 years time the situation could be quite different and a teacher could deliver a topic on say the History of Star Wars and justify its validity on the grounds that it can be “tweaked” to fit the achievement standards.  Furthermore, National markers will have to have wide general knowledge to be able to effectively and accurately mark 1.5, 2.5, 3.5.

Teachers can teach anything as long as it fits the Achievement Standards – “the addition of the words of significance to New Zealanders” immediately imposes a strait-jacket in terms of time and emphasis.  Surely it should be possible to teach an “event” such as World War 1 or World War 2 or the Vietnam topic without skewing or tweaking it to fit.

There are world topics that have affected the way governments and societies operate.  Surely it is acceptable to encourage set topics that demonstrate this impact.

The use of the word tweaking is making assumptions that we can justify a link.  We can’t engineer or force a link.  If a link is so tentative that it requires justification then we cannot assume it will be valid.  Clarification is needed.

New Zealand Content

The teachers at Auckland Girls’ Grammar value the inclusion of New Zealand History but would like the phrase “of significance to New Zealanders” to be applied to only ONE Achievement Standard for each level.  The New Zealand emphasis in the inquiry research at Level 1, 2 and 3 is an unnecessary and invidious strait-jacket.  It will detract from students choosing History as an option.  Students do not want New Zealand History shoved down their throats ad nauseam.  Are we crazy!

Students of History are students of the world and have a fascination with global History and politics.  The current thrust of the History Curriculum has been Modern History with the exception of the Tudor Stuart option.  Why limit it to topics which can be engineered to be of significance to New Zealanders?  Why not harness this global interest and energy, not restrict it?  We should feed their passion not stunt it.

“An extended piece of writing”

We teach History and the skill of writing essays in History – why are we so PC.  An extended piece of writing could be:                        a poem

                                    a limerick                      this is English

                                    a song

                                    a narrative tale

History is the one subject in the curriculum that teaches essay writing properly and this is acknowledged by other subject areas.  Don’t drop the word essay or for that matter the skill.  We are preparing students for University “an extended piece of writing” is a retrograde step.

The Case Against Decontextualised Resource Interpretation

Anyone who marks external examinations will be well aware that disparities emerge between individuals schools, geographical areas and Decile One to Ten Schools.

Can we honestly say that decontextualised resource interpretation is a level playing field for all students across the socio economic spectrum.  Auckland schools demonstrate this phenomenon.  Students thrive when they understand and feel familiar with the broad context in which the questions are set.  Does this system perpetuate disparity of educational opportunity.

A Balance between Internal and External Assessment.

Auckland Girls’ Grammar supports a balance between internal and external Achievement Standards.  More internal assessment could place an unmanageable load on already stressed teachers.

Eight teachers of History at Burnside High School met to discuss the four options for the aligned standards and the consensus of the department was that Option 1 was the best one. There was considerable annoyance expressed at the “diktat” from the NZQA/MOE regarding their refusal to contemplate nominating specific contexts for external standards, especially essay writing. Our teachers are conscious of the general feeling against generic essay topics, but were realistic enough to accept that if this is what is eventually imposed then we must prepare our students as best we can. If this fait accompli occurs, it will be incumbent upon future examiners and markers not to set too high a level of expectation, or ruling any context out, especially in 2010-2011 while teachers and students are still getting used to the new system.

There was a strong feeling in favour of the retention of some form of external examination in order for the subject to have some credibility, as well as preparing senior students for the realities of tertiary study. There was an enquiry about whether other senior subjects were facing similar pressures from NZQA/MOE to increase the level of internal assessment and/or modify current external assessment expectations. There was a query about the rationale for combining 3.1 and 3.2 into a single standard. There was also a well-founded concern about the impact of proposed changes on teacher workload.

That being said, the Department understood how difficult it must be for the group reviewing history standards to try to meet the clear expectations of history teachers while faced with the intransigence of the NZQA/MOE reviewers. It seems that NZQA/MOE, when faced with reasoned arguments for teachers’ preferences, respond by simply restating their policy without ever justifying it. There was a clear hope that history teachers would be reasonable enough to accept that if what finally transpires is not what they wanted, the responsibility for this lies directly with NZQA/MOE and not the review group who are struggling manfully on our behalf.

I can live with any of the options but my preference is for option 3, although if there are no topics we should perhaps bite the bullet and go for option 4! It will be very difficult to set exams which teachers are satisfied with if the questions are all generic.
 
I have actually been quite happy with the generic essay questions at Level 2 but I do not see Year 11 students coping with generic essay questions.
 
I like the idea of reducing the number of standards at levels 1 and 2 to five, especially if more of them are going to be internally assessed.
 
Comments/questions:
1. Why are the resource questions at Level 1 limited to primary resources?
2. Why are the research descriptors limited to ‘an event’. (Levels 1, 2 and 3 – 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1/2) Currently my students do research focused on a personality (eg level 1 brochure, level 2 ‘This is your life”). Could it not be ‘an event/issue or personality’? An event is fairly restrictive.
3. In Option 2, would the 1.6 and 2.6 sections be generic questions? I can see it would be fairly straightforward at Level 1. Would level 2 be resource based, essay style or what? Actually, this applies to 3.4 also. Is it intended that the ‘debate’ be given to them as resources (similar to the current scholarship set-up) or would it be essays, generic, paragraphs? Any ideas yet? This would influence my choice of option.
 
When will we know what the final decision is? Thanks for all the work you are putting in on this. Rather a thankless task!
Ruth Holland
HOD Otaki College

I would prefer Option 1– I believe that students need to be able to write essays in external examination situations (they will have to at university). I would prefer set essay topics at all Levels, but I’m prepared to live with de-contextualized ones if it avoids essays as Internals.

The extension to five credits for most of the Standards is a progressive idea and a good one.

However, I do think it is unwise to merge 3.1 and 3.2 as AS 90654. Many students (especially those who pick up History at Level 3) are likely be deterred by having to conduct the research and communicate the ideas in one Standard for one less credit than is the case now, and of course it means extra teacher work etc. because it is still “effectively” two internals and 3.4 becomes an internal as well.

I am also concerned that if there are only two Externals at Level 3 that we will see them both extended in their scope and expectation of answers required by students in order to achieve with Excellence.

I am unhappy with the repetition of the phrase “of significance to New Zealanders” in so many of the Standards. Some teachers are already discussing how they will “tweak” the Yr 13 current English topic – it seems to me that if the phrase “of significance to New Zealanders” is included that we will not be able to teach any part of this topic at all (and many other pre-nineteenth century topics) as their events do not occur in NZ, or involve NZ, or influence NZ.

J. Devereux
Columba College

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

Feedback on History Matrix Options

The emphasis on internals

This cuts right across concerns about teacher workload and about the credibility of qualifications. The prospect of Year 13 students turning up to a one hour external paper at the end of the year is farcical – only in New Zealand.

After resisting Cambridge in the expectation that credibility issues were being resolved, these options leave us in an awkward position in our internal school debate. We suspect that these proposals will result in a 2-tier system, as more schools opt for Cambridge International exams in History and other subjects to meet the expectations and perceptions of their parents and students. It may well not be true that Cambridge is better but teachers (and subjects) who refuse to recognise the importance of public opinion may re-learn a lesson of History. If the Ministry is pushing internals for its own reasons, there will also be more pressure on all teachers through increasingly oppressive moderation regimes to appear to be addressing concerns of principals, parents and employers.

Our original confusion about the source of pressure for more, or all, internals has been resolved but we still prefer Option 2 as the best of an unsatisfactory set. We believe there should be more true externals, in fact much as at present, but at least it offers a rough 50:50 split, provided the 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 compromise is accepted. By keeping 6 standards for Level 1 and 2 it also better facilitates the practice of dropping a standard and still having a solid number of credits and skills on offer. This would allow schools to weight their courses to internal or external as they see fit.

We believe the exam component is important to maintaining both credibility and a sound basis for future study. There is no evidence that Universities or Polytechnics are abandoning exams and we owe it to our students to prepare them, especially at Year13, for the realities of tertiary education. Though we could use exam format for some standards internally, we object to yet another job being dropped on us without time or money in compensation, and without the advantage of a properly-organised marking system. Each school will be separately doing something that should be centrally-resourced.

This will also reinforce the growing trend of students stopping work in subjects when they have attained the minimum credit requirement. This has serious consequences in subsequent studies as the gaps become glaringly obvious. We will not be able to leave assessment to the very end of the year because of the pressures on students from all their subjects, and because of moderation timetables, unless these change radically.   

A balanced approach is generally preferable in most areas of dispute and this is no exception, unless the intention is to divide history teachers irrevocably. Even if we are part of a minority, it is, we believe, a significant one. Driving us to consider alternative assessment systems will do History and NZ education little good in the long run.

Comments on specifics of Option 2

1          The use of the term “event” in 1.1/2, 2.1/2, 3.1/2 is concerning. There is no definition and we would strenuously object if it excluded research topics that explored significant developments that are not single events e.g. the political and social changes of the 1960s, or the Roaring Twenties. Social issues, in particular, are rarely based on single events. Note the problem of putting social questions into “Decisions” in Year 13 now. We suggest the modification “event or development” to avoid the emphasis on the political, especially in standards which have so far encouraged a wider view.

2          We are unhappy with the excessive use of the expression “of significance to New Zealanders”.  Its absence from all but one of Level 3 standards suggests it has much more significance than is claimed. We appreciate the flexibility this implies at Level 3 but see no reason to treat the other levels differently.

            Can we rely on the unsigned statement about this on the NZHTA website? It is certainly not so clear in the matrix document. The old questions come to mind. Who will decide if we are meeting the standard? On what criteria apart from the inadequate definition provided? Does the Russian Revolution qualify? What do we have to do to justify it? To us the triumph of Marxist ideas in Russia unleashes repercussions of huge significance to NZ in the 1930s and the Cold War period. However, does this have to be included in the role-plays created by the students, or just implied or stated in the assignment notes given to the students?

            Please note we are not opposed to studying specific NZ contexts at Level 1 and 2 though we prefer to do it mainly through 1.2 and 2.2, rather than as an exam requirement. We have persevered, and would continue to persevere, with 1.6.

3          The use of the term “primary” in 1.3 narrows the range of resources too much. It is important to require students to recognise the difference between primary and secondary sources, and the significance of this. Secondary sources have to be included to do this effectively.

4          1.6 seems to be a distinct improvement, bringing it into line with 1.5, and hopefully producing more straight-forward questions as a result.

5          2.6 is an acceptable replacement for the fraught identity essay which confused teachers and pupils alike. It seems a logical step towards 3.4 but we would like to know how it would be assessed. Is it to be contextualised? Will it involve extended writing? With or without the formalities of the essay? We need to know the answers to be able to give full approval.

6          3.1/2 worries us because 9 credits ride on this. It seems to increase the problem of “all or nothing” in NCEA. If the current research aspects become elements in a “super standard” it is very easy for students to miss everything on technicalities. The more elements in a standard the worse this becomes. We think this should remain divided into 2 standards.

7          The issue of contextualised questions does not appear to have been fully-addressed. We have been discussing this issue without reaching a firm conclusion. Option 2 helps, but maybe we need to agree on a compulsory core of 3-4 topics, closer to the Year 13 model, (especially for Year 12); require study of at least one of them; and set exam questions on all of them. The Ministry might find external assessment of essays acceptable if we could find common ground on a limited range of topics. Or is the Ministry pushing for decontextualised questions in other subjects as well, on the basis that the curriculum does not state content? This could have serious implications for many areas of study. Perhaps we could have a combination of, say, 3 contextualised choices and one decontextualised option for the exam essay at Level 1 and 2. Would this be any more difficult to mark than the current range in Year 11? It might accommodate the different interests amongst teachers.

History Teachers

Christchurch Boys’ High School

D Burrowes

H Dacre

M Drury

P Wyatt (HOD)

12/08/08