nzhta’s weblog

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.

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