nzhta’s weblog

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 Note that at Level 3 the Decision essay has been replaced by a Historical Debate essay.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

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.

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