I was present at the meeting with Professor Ridd. It was my first real opportunity to express my opinions relating to (specifically) the Chemistry syllabus. We did have a QSA representative visit our school earlier in the year which gave me an opportunity to discuss aspects of the Science 21 syllabus and our experience in the school. Whilst that is a different topic, I would like to make the following points in relation to the trial of Science 21 in our school:
- the agreement between the QSA and the school included the QSA providing a written work program and assessment items (with criteria sheets). The work program was rejected twice by the Panel Chair, and the assessment items/criteria sheets have been criticised by panel. If it is this difficult for experienced program writers at the QSA, how can an isolated first-year teacher be expected to have any success?
- we no longer offer Science 21, and our current Year 11 cohort will be the last. It is a subject which has quite clearly failed to match the abilities of the students who would have previously selected Multi-strand Science
My decision to take part in the discussion on Saturday was as a result of the disatisfaction I am aware of in relation to the implementation of the Senior Science syllabi. For what it is worth, my interactions with other teachers in the scientific community (and this is specifically relating to Chemistry and Science 21) would demonstrate that the majority are not comfortable with the new syllabi.
The main concerns that are evident from my experiences are:
- interpretation of standards related to performance at different levels. The example I use is that an ‘A’ descriptor expresses ‘complex and challenging’ situations whereas a ‘B’ descriptor expresses ‘complex or challenging’ situations. I would not want to be held accountable for drawing a line in the sand between those differences. As a staff, we often find a great deal of subjectivity between levels – this presents a real problem with transparency and consistency of judgements
- formation, use and implementation of criteria sheets. They are very time consuming (which has increased workload for those involved in preparation and marking of those assessment items). Feedback from the students is that they do not assist in the completion of the tasks – they explain that the descriptors are too vague – and yet we are told that we cannot deviate from the descriptors as listed in the syllabus (other than to give them task specificity)
- the introduction of extended writing as part of the assessment program. A staff member at our school queried the fact that I was asking the students to produce a report of 2000-2500 words. I had to defend my position and explain that it was a syllabus recommendation – in truth, the situation was worse than they had envisaged, as the syllabus recommends this for only one section of the report. In actual fact, the report could well exceed 3000 words. The staff member explained that this exceeds the requirement for an English assessment piece. I spoke to the QSA in reference to this and I was told it was only a recommendation – but this highlighted an area for real confusion. If the QSA have gone to the trouble of stating a word count, it surely has to be considered as important? Are we to ignore QSA recommendations in the syllabus documents?
- authenticity of student work. There is a real issue with ‘Google-proofing’ assessment tasks – I expect to find plagiarism becoming more of a problem. This is easier to track when a student produces a ‘hunter/gatherer’ report of cut and paste items – there is no way of tracking the contribution of parents/tutors/students from other schools/’Pay-for-Essay’ websites. I know that my own niece and nephew have benefited greatly from my experiences as a maths/science teacher!
I think my frustration with the current syllabi culminated last year with our Year 12 Physics submission, although some of my frustration also lies within the QSA procedures (of which I was blissfully unaware until our problem arose). Here is a brief summary.
Our Senior Physics teacher had been involved with the trial pilot from the start. Indications from the feedback received at monitoring and verification were positive. The panel had, over the previous three years, positively endorsed the assessment instruments that were being used by the school and the judgments that were been made therein.
Last year, we were heavily criticised at verification with an alarming ‘down scaling’ of our students’ LoAs. An appeal to SRPC resulted in a further drop. For the school, the frustration was:
- we had followed Panel advice and yet were left in the dark as to why things had suddenly changed
- QSA’s refusal to accept our experience from previous years. The oft quoted ‘last year was last year and this year is this year’ left me frustrated
- the insistence that the only thing we could do was ‘look for the evidence’ in the folios. Unfortunately, the folios contained evidence collected using instruments that were now deemed inappropriate, which created a circular (and non-negotiable) argument from our point of view
- there seemed to be no other avenue for appeal. If the QSA are going to adjudicate on contentious issues relating to QSA procedures, it would seem a rather moot point to continue with any further appeal
This is obviously linked to clarity and consistency of Panel opinion and recommendations with that of the school – this situation cannot be helped by the subjectiveness of decisions relating to the performance of students against syllabus criteria. I would add that during the marking of the QCS paper earlier this year, I was recounting my experience to a colleague. They had had an almost identical experience with a different panel, which had left them disillusioned (and precipitated their intention to retire a little earlier). I would add that my colleague was a Panel member for that subject with many years of experience.
I hope you understand that my concerns are driven by the need to maintain, as I see, the integrity of our subjects. I am passionate about my subject and its implementation through my teaching. In terms of ‘pendulum swings’, I would not want to see a return to the ‘old days’ of rote learning and regurgitation. There really are some positive aspects of the new syllabus which have given my students the opportunity to engage in experimental processes which could not have occurred under the old syllabus.
My own experience cannot allow me to share the view of the QSA that “current Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry syllabuses have all been favourably received by the vast majority of Queensland teachers”. It is my experience that most teachers are confused and unhappy with the current situation, although I concede that is only a minority of the actual teaching population. I have certainly never been canvassed as to my opinions relating to the syllabus.
I do hope that there will be continued discussion in regards to the current situation.