Dear Sir
We have a number of concerns about the NZQA's overall plan to restructure the assessment of mathematics learning using unit standards.
1 The so called unit standards do not seem to us to specify a standard in a clear way. Indeed we doubt that it is possible to specify a standard in mathematics in a clear and unambiguous way, as required by the current policy, using only elements, performance criteria and range statements.
2 We are aware that previous attempts to describe the outcomes of mathematics learning as a series of performance criteria within a hierarchy of levels resulted in the reduction of mathematical content to just those aspects which can be accommodated to this format. This also led to the corresponding marginalisations of those other mathematical learning goals which do not lend themselves to such a clear specification and sequential development. Previous attempts to organise mathematics for assessment in this way, most notably those in the USA during the 1970s, have been subjected to considerable research. This research has led to the rejection of these approaches.
3 We are aware of comments from teachers that the unit standard approach is resulting in large amounts of time being spent on assessment. We believe much of this time would be better spent concentrating on teaching and learning.
Accordingly, we urge the NZQA to reconsider its commitment to the current unit standard approach, and to actively investigate more practical alternatives for the maintenance of national standards in mathematical assessment. In our view an alternative should be sought which:
1 recognises and builds upon those many existing practices within schools, polytechnics and universities which lead, via a variety of well established forms of internal and external quality assurance, to the establishment of national standards in mathematics assessment (e.g. the practice of having the design and the marking-standard of honours courses in mathematics appraised by another university);
2 allows individual providers (or groups of providers) to develop their own qualifications, and the courses leading to them, in such a way that they can be tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of the students taking these courses;
3 is based on the statement of course aims and objectives, and planned methods of assessment, moderation and quality assurance; and
4 adopts an approach to assessment which focuses, not on the prior specification of standards of attainment using performance criteria, but on the identification of the standard of attainment achieved by students, using a range of evidence (including, as appropriate, combinations of internal and external assessment).
In the case of school mathematics, in our view this would be best achieved by using assessment procedures which involve a mixture of internal and external assessment with the proportions anywhere from 0% to 100% depending on the course content, and the proportion of the student population studying the course.
These proposals do not involve the complete abandonment of recent work on unit standards for mathematics. Major parts of this work, particularly those which are directed towards the development of national assessment tasks, will be of lasting value for the future moderation of internally assessed components of mathematics courses.
Yours sincerely
(signed)
Professor Robert Goldblatt FRSNZ, Chairperson
On behalf of the Mathematics Department
Victoria University of Wellington