Posts Tagged ‘Scholarship’
Rangitoto College’s Response
Our department is happy with changes shown in Option 1 and 2. We are enthusiastic that there are no prescribed topics, as we will have a greater selection of topics to choose. While there were some teachers concerned with generic questions for the essays (or extended writing) across all three levels, we believe it is skill that can be taught across all levels. Option 2, with the essay administered internally and marked externally, is an acceptable compromise. We are happy that some assessments, especially the internals, have to show some connection with New Zealand. We have based our 1.1 and 1.2 on New Zealand topics for the last three years, and we have found it a successful way for students to study their own history.
There are certainly some things that need to be sorted out. Workload will increase for teachers, and some form of compensation will have to be worked out. If there is no prescribed topic for Level 3, what will students write on for Scholarship? Also, a greater definition of “significance to New Zealanders” is needed.
Otherwise, the History Department at Rangitoto College is looking forward to the changes in 2010.
Jim Hay-Mackenzie
Head of History
Rangitoto College
A personal response from a teacher at St Cuthberts College, Auckland’
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.
