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.

J. Hasler

TIC NCEA History

[Summary of views of 7 History teachers]

 

GENERAL COMMENTS.

 

SUMMARY:

We

(i)                 Do NOT want NCEA to be fully internally assessed

(ii)               Do NOT want generic essays – at any level

 

Our belief is these can be avoided by completing ‘Tier 2’ and listing examinable ‘core’ of topics (contexts) for the standards e.g. a list of 4 possible, then the essay standards could have a specific question and be examined externally. Schools could opt to do one (or more) of these AND still have freedom to teach other topics/contexts of interest to them/their community.

 

This should force the Ministry to design an assessment system based on the curriculum (not the assessment driving the curriculum)

 

 

OTHER POINTS:

1.      We would be interest to know if what is happening in History with the new NCEA Matrix is similar to other subjects.

 

2.      We seem to be seeing the believed conspiracy theory that NZQA/MoE want NCEA to be all internally assessed coming through.

 

3.      The MoE seems to be bullying History teachers to either accept hated generic essay questions or move to standards being fully internally assessed.

 

4.      MoE arguments seem to be that as Curriculum ‘document’ (Tier 1 only) allows anybody to do anything – thus this is what has to happen. We could mitigate this by finishing a Tier 2 document (it must be precise and have concenus)

 

5.      The MoE should NOT be allowing the assessment to drive the curriculum – ‘we’ need to define Tier 2 asap to avoid this.

 

6.      Where is the proof that generic essay questions are educationally sound? Student’s rote learn answers (often prepared by their teachers) and regurgitate them in the exam. There have been problems at Level 2 with this – especially with AS2.6 (Identity essay) as it has had no real ‘hook’ or focus in the past few years to get students to argue and shape their knowledge – not just regurgitate. MoE could have used 4 generic theme based essays (like that of the old Combined Schools exam) to avoid one far to ‘generic’ question trying to cope with very different themes.

 

7.      The undercurrent seems to be that the MoE/NZQA is trying to do qualifications on the cheap – pass on ALL ‘costs’ to the school’s  and teachers: printing, setting, grading and marking – you can bet we will not be paid like the external markers/exam setters did. And what about moderation problems and multiple ‘resits’ – this could lead to the growth of ‘elitist schools’ – jobs dependent on what school you went to – not the results because the results can’t be trusted There are fears about the consistency and reliability of moderation now – will this get any better? Will we rely on a National Moderator? Will this be the same moderator who commented we were using the wrong version of AS3.2 when they were in fact quoting Version 1 NOT version 2!  Moving to fully internal assessed will mean more work for MU holders in term of compliance etc. at no extra pay not time allowance. It may mean more time on assessment and even less on ‘real’ history (i.e. via the ‘topics’ (contexts)

  

SPECIFIC COMMENTS FOLLOW THE MATRIX OPTIONS

  option-1

JBH COMMENTS

#1 [AS3.1/3.2 – in all options] Why join AS3.1 and AS3.2 together? Students will still need to know the (separates) skill of research and communicating ideas. Feedback to students on the research is needed to avoid double jeopardy in AS3.2. These are 2 different skills – so why not separate standards as they are at present (and as in Level 1 and 2 in these proposals)

 

#2. [AS3.3 – in all options] At present this is “analyse and evaluate” => allows for higher level skill of critical evaluation of reliability and usefulness – not clear if ‘analyse’ alone would do this. Should it be replaced with ‘examine’ as in AS2.2 which allows all 3 skill levels (identify, analyse and evaluate)?

 

#3. [Proposed AS3.4 - in all options] ‘Describe’ only => how will excellence be reached – “comprehensive detail” is probably NOT what we want. We must have evaluation  including explanation for differences (historiography) and hopefully with student taking their own stance – based on reasoned argument. This could be done externally – e.g. like Cambridge does by announcing a focus for the year and providing a hypothesis and range of sources as a starter. (Like Level 4 Schol).

 

#4. [AS3.5 - in all options] Many students found AS3.4 Decision essay more ‘approachable’. I assume situations will cover decisions anyway. How many choices will be offered?

 

#5. [No AS1.6 in options 1, 3 and 4] Disappointed there is no AS1.6 Identity of New Zealanders – I think more due to teachers finding it difficult to teach, not because it was not good history (after all it is about ourselves!). It hopefully will be covered via AS1.5 and a NZ ‘context’.

 

NOTES: [JBH Comments in BLUE]

·         This is the original matrix designed by NZHTA which was forwarded to the Ministry.

·         The strong recommendation of the Ministry Review Group assigned to respond to this, was that Achievement Standards 90213 (1.5), 90469 (2.5) and 90657 (3.5), the essay standards MUST be internally assessed. [WHY? Purely cost cutting by MoE not for benefit of our children’s education – Qualification on cheap – the Schools & teachers will have to ‘pay’]

·         The Achievement Standards must reflect the Achievement Objectives at each level, as schools programmes of study must from 2010 be derived from and reflect the New Zealand Curriculum 2007. [Tier 2 MUST designate a core of examined topics so we can have contextualised, non generic essay questions – this is NOT difficult to achieve at all levels]

·         The essays are decontextualised across all three levels

·         The sources are decontextualised across all three levels [NO – Level 1 I would prefer to have NZ context – perhaps a link to NZ identity, not necessarily linked to AS1.5 ‘context’ – should be stand alone (interpret and no own knowledge needed); Level 2 OK; Level 3 MUST contextualise e.g. to Tudor Stuart and NZ 19thC as at present – whatever the Tier 2 sets as ‘core’]

·         In this version, two standards are externally assessed at each Level

·         The wording ‘in an essay’ has been replaced with ‘in an extended piece of writing’ the reasoning for this is as follows, from the Ministry Review Group:

 

      [The] strand of standards AS90213, AS90469 and AS90657 can revert back to an external standard with “in an essay” tag removed. [The New Zealand History Teachers'] Association can consider using a term similar to “in a piece of extended writing” in the title.

 

·         During consultation, association must make it explicit to their stakeholders that the new versions of the standards in the AS90213 strand will be quite different and will have only one achievement criteria per grade. One of the current criteria, e.g. at Level 1, “Structure the historical information in a satisfactory essay format” will not be acceptable for this external standard in the new version. [If mean one criteria but within there are several e.g. content and structure but end result is ‘balance of evidence’ I have no problem with this – less pedantic]

·         The new standards will not be confined to a set list of narrow topics (see the principles paper pp.3-4). Association need to consider the impact of this on the changes to the AS90213 strand. [NZHTA must set a core of examinable ‘contexts, e.g. at level 4 most popular ‘context’ (topics) to have a specific question and externally assessed; then teacher/school/community must do at least one but can do others in the year of own choice; etc.]

 

·         The essays will have to be generic across all three levels under this matrix. We reach this conclusion from the wording in the Officials response ‘the new standards will not be confined to a list of narrow topics’. [NO see above]

·         At present though teachers feedback indicates that most people prefer this option, but with context specific questions – under this matrix specific essay questions are NOT an option, they will be generic essays such as those found at Level 2. [NO – see above]

option2

 

 

 

 

   JBH COMMENTS (only where they differ to other option 1)

 

#5 [AS1.6  only in option 2] Prefer to have Identity focus (at least explain why it was significant to New Zealanders) – otherwise this could just repeat AS1.5 – on the other hand it would force teachers/schools to do a NZ ‘context’.

 

#6 [AS2.6 – option 2 only] Some links to the AS3.4 above? But then loss of a link across matrix to this – is retained via AS1.6 row. Example(s) of what is meant by this would help our judgement – e.g. different ‘sides’ over 1981 Tour, or Vietnam War? etc. How will it be examined? – waste of time if generic (and thus rote learnt).

 

#7. [AS1.3 – option 2, 3 and 4] Why just primary – what is wrong with present format, surely primary only would be harder? Prefer Option 1.

 

#8 [AS2.3 – option 2, 3 and 4] Why limit source analysis to just this focus? i.e. limits range of questions/skills in source analysis compared to what we currently cover. Is this an attempt to introduce historiography? If so revise and make more like the suggested AS3.4 above. Prefer Option 1.

 

NOTES

 

·         This version incorporates the strong recommendation from the Ministry and assesses essays internally at each level. [NO – just cost cutting, not sound, etc.  (See general comment #?]

·         We have included a provision that the essay standards are to be internally administered but marked by an external panel [just cost cutting – we will not be paid for printing costs, supervision, mail costs, admin time, etc.]

·         This version allows for contextualized essays whereas option 1 will not – they will have to be decontextualised [how will this work if any teacher/school can do anything – how will markers make judgments – ‘school’ will have to provide “evidence statement” unless we have core ‘contexts’(topics)]

·         In Achievement Standard 90211 (1.3) the evidence may be taken from a broad range of sources, not necessarily on one ‘topic’

·         Achievement Standard 90467 (2.3) allows for a more specific study of sources from a single context/area [How is this any better than what we do at present? See my #8 comment]

·         Achievement Standards 90214 (1.6) and Achievement Standard 90470 (2.6) have been added to allow for two external assessments at levels 1 and 2, with the essay having become internal [see my #6 comments]

·         Only one Level 3 standard – AS90656 – is assessed externally [NO!]

 

Option 3:

option3

JBH COMMENTS

See previous comments #1 – #8

NOTES:

 

·         The essays are to be set and assessed internally and then moderated by the National Moderator on the same rotational basis as all the other internal standards [NO see previous comments about fears about moderation, growth of elitist schools, etc.; more workload for teachers and MU holder for compliance etc.]

·         This allows for contextualised essays [good – but make them EXTERNAL!]

·         Achievement Standards 90211 (1.3), 90467 (2.3 and 90656 (3.3) are the only externally assessed standards [NO]

·         Achievement Standards 90214 and 90470 (1.6 and 2.6) outlined in Option 2 are removed in this option [Put them back!]

option4

 

NOTES:

·         This option assesses all standards at all levels internally [No – see previous arguments]

·         Achievement Standards 90213, 90469 and 90657 (1.5, 2.5 and 3.5), the essays, are able to be contextualised [Contextualised AND EXTERNAL – see previous arguments]

·         Achievement Standards 90211, 90467 and 90656 (1.3, 2.3 and 3.3), the sources, are able to be contextualised [again this would be done at significant cost time, money etc. of MU holder, teachers, school AND fears about consistency achieved via moderation]

·         All standards would be moderated by the National Moderator [Yeah right! will this be the same moderated who comment I was using the wrong version of AS3.2 when they were in fact quoting Version 1 NOT version 2!]

I have to admit that on a first skim viewing I was extremely worried about the Ministries apparent desire to have generic questions, when so far, at level two, they have caused numerous issues and teachers have consistently complained that they have not been handled well. That combined with the potential increased workload due to the increased number of internals had me questioning why the Ministry and teachers were wanting such incredibly different things and neither appears to be reaching a compromise.

 On closer reading and more rational thinking, my concerns have eased somewhat, but I think to truly get to grips with the implications of each option – teachers need the explanatory notes. Without them, my interpretation of the standards and my desire to avoid generic questions, combined with the assumption that the Ministry will introduce all the achievement standards (across all three levels) at once, pushes me towards option three.

 I do have a couple of queries that I would like to be put to the ministry however:

 a) Why do the Ministry appear to want to increase the number of internal assessments, moving away from exam situations – therefore widening the gap between school assessment and university assessment? If students complete a 100% internal course for 3 years as per option 4, they will struggle significantly when they have to face exams at university level.

 b) Without the ‘broad survey’, how will Scholarship exist? Is this why 3.4 now includes historical debate to compensate?

 

c) What is the pre-occupation with ‘events’ as opposed to themes or personalities? The word “event” appears in research (1.1), communication (1.2) and perspectives (1.4) standards and also in 1.6/2.6 in the option two matrix. I would like to see a definition of ‘event’…for example how small/large can an ‘event’ be – is World War Two an event, or a series of events for example?

 

d) If we did end up with an entirely (or even mostly) internally assessed course, will teachers be compensated for the additional hours spent creating, marking and moderating assessments which they are currently eligible to be paid for (for some standards) as markers for NZQA.

 

e) Are other subjects increasing the numbers of internals – if they aren’t, will this devalue history as a subject in already critical parents eyes? If they are increasing their internals, will this mean that students are expected to stay in class for the whole of term 4 rather go on study leave? And also, if they have no externals, what do we teach in this time as it will be too late to do anything significant based on the current moderation set-up.

 

I suspect that since matrix two is a bit of a red herring. It has1.1, 1.2 and 1.6 being so similar (ie wanting an event with significance to NZ) many over burdened teachers will double or in some cases triple dip, using the same content to achieve 12 credits for their students. I doubt that this will broaden students knowledge of history, or in fact show New Zealand in a ‘wider global context’ as hoped but instead limit it.

 

Therefore, at this point, I am not yet appeased…and feel many other teachers may be in a similar situation. It is really important that the Ministry doesn’t assume teachers silence means that they are in agreement with what is occurring, it may simply mean that teachers are so busy they haven’t got time to get properly involved in the debate. If that is the case, should we really be increasing the workload further by brining in all these topic/standard changes all at once in 2010? I’d like to think the Ministry has some vague idea of current teacher workload, but doubt it.

 

Aimee Breddy, St Cuthberts College.

Already one can detect considerable unease being expresed about where we are
heading.
The concerns as we see them at TGC are:

* decontextualised teaching and learning is not good educational
practice, yet it would appear the Ministry is reluctant to allow 
specified contexts(topics) for external examination.  This then may mean
we can only avoid decontextualised  teaching and learning if there is
school-based internal assessment, directly related to the contexts
taught.  What a predicament we have got ourselves in!

* any notion of having an external exam of less than 2 hrs will probably
be treated with some indifference by numerous students, not something
that would prove to be positive for the subject

* everything seems to have to be discussed within the parameters of some
rather narrow AO’s devised in the curriculum statement- it  appears
there was an  interest group shaping the curriculum statement who have
determined that  5 of the 6 AO’s for Levels 6, 7, and 8 have to be “of
significance to New Zealanders’ .  This is going to result in some
rather limiting outcomes, unless this is challenged.

Goodness knows where all this is going to take the study of History in
the senior secondary school, but the framework does seem flawed, -yet we
have the uneasy feeling that the horse has probably bolted!

We do have some practical questions from the viewpoint of those students
who opt for History as a subject  because they like and are excited
about topics/contexts we currently teach. eg In Year11 topics such as
Origins of WW2, and Black Civil Rights, USA.
It is stated that while “this does not preclude existing topics being
taught, they must be tweaked to fit the AO’s”, which therefore means in
terms of  “significance to New Zealanders”.  How is it envisaged such
‘tweaking’ of these topics would be done??

Murray Armstrong
HOD Social Sciences
Tauranga Girls’ 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