Abstract:
This paper considers the different decisions made during the process of aligning assessment for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement with the New Zealand Curriculum 2007 in relation to the senior subjects of History, Social Studies, Art History and Classical Studies. As the Alignment of Standards Project nears completion it is evident that determining knowledge to be taught within the curriculum framework has been approached very differently by the writers of the Achievement Standards in response to Ministry of Education directives. Some of these humanities subjects have abandoned prescriptive boundaries for knowledge in favour of teacher autonomy while others have responded by introducing newly developed bodies of content documented in subject guidelines. The high level of freedom to select content to meet broad achievement objectives in History and Social Studies is contrasted with the defined content for Art History, with Classical Studies representing the middle ground. The paper reports upon research into responses to the different approaches, and reasons for the different paths taken by the disciplines. Findings are based on objectives stated in Ministry of Education documents, relating to the development of the Alignment Project, and on online comments made by teachers through their teacher association networks. The views of nearly one hundred teachers, and circa 9500 words of comment are represented and analysed. The paper also draws upon my role as a teacher educator in the relevant four disciplines and upon personal involvement in the development of Achievement Standards for Art History during the Alignment Project. The objective of the paper is to provide explanation for the different approaches to knowledge. It gives consideration to the possibility of differing interpretations of Ministry documents, to the input of examiners and teachers in shaping outcomes, and to the manner in which the respective subjects are represented in the New Zealand Curriculum. The findings are related to international trends in curricula and assessment and draw upon the work of Michael Young (University of London), Stephanie Alias and John Muller in South Africa and Christine Counsell (University of Cambridge) in England. The theoretical framework for the discussion falls within the sociology of knowledge spectrum and its exploration of the issues of different forms of knowledge in curricula development. The paper is important in demonstrating differences in the way subjects may develop in response to a similar set of parameters for a nationally led project. It also highlights the flexibility of broad-based curricula when it meets up with a national assessment process that inherently and inevitably has some constraints.