90467 Exemplar Schedule
(See the end of this document for the Judgment Statement)
Question 1
Achievement: A correct description of the relationship between low prices paid to
growers on the ordinary world market (Source A), and the benefits to farmers of
selling their coffee through a Fair Trade organisation (Source B), supported by some
evidence.
 Responses could include: many farmers were trapped “in an inescapable cycle of
poverty, debt and hunger” OR were working in “sweatshops in the field” while Fair
Trade “raised income and standards for small coffee farmers.”
Achievement with Merit: A clear explanation of the relationship between sliding
prices paid to growers on the ordinary world market (Source A), and the benefits to
farmers of selling their coffee through a Fair Trade organisation (Source B),
supported by a range of evidence.
 Responses could include: many farmers were trapped “in an inescapable cycle of
poverty, debt and hunger” OR were working in “sweatshops in the field” while Fair
Trade “raised income and standards for small coffee farmers.” Over a ten year
period the percentage coffee growers’ received of the world market sale price
dropped from 40% to 16%. Fair trade increased this proportion and gave farmers
a ‘decent living wage’.
Achievement with Excellence: A perceptive explanation of the relationship between
sliding prices paid to growers on the ordinary world market (Source A), and the
benefits to farmers of selling their coffee through a Fair Trade organisation (Source
B), supported by a comprehensive range of evidence.
 Responses could include: many farmers were trapped “in an inescapable cycle of
poverty, debt and hunger” OR were working in “sweatshops in the field” while Fair
Trade “raised income and standards for small coffee farmers.” Over a ten year
period the percentage coffee growers’ received of the world market sale price
dropped from 40% to 16% (US$12billion to US$8billion), yet the value of the
market actually grew from US$30billion to US$50billion. Fair trade increased this
proportion and gave farmers a ‘decent living wage’ and at the same time protected
the environment. This was not charity and thus served to promote self-reliance.
Consumers needed to understand this.
Question 2
Achievement: A correct description of the historical relationship of past (Source C)
and present (Source B) is given, supported by some evidence.
 Responses could include at least one of: Coffee is still an important economic
resource (Brazil’s economy built on it/small farmers dependent on it for income);
vulnerability of small farmers (banks and trading houses profited at small farmers’
expense in Brazil/Fair Trade ensures a fair price is paid and raises incomes);
ecological impact of coffee growing (Parahyba Valley/Fair Trade’s environmental
standards); labour exploitation (slavery in Brazil/organisations such as Fair Trade
exist to protect workers and small growers from exploitation).
Achievement with Merit: A clear explanation of the historical relationship of past
(Source C) and present (Source B) is given, supported by a range of evidence.
 Responses could include at least one of: Coffee is still an important economic
resource (Brazil’s economic and social structure built on it/small farmers
dependent on it for income, avoiding the need for charity); vulnerability of small
farmers (banks and trading houses profited at small farmers’ expense in
Brazil/Fair Trade ensures a fair price is paid and raises incomes, while developing
sustainability); ecological impact of coffee growing (Parahyba Valley
deforested/Fair Trade’s environmental standards part of its policy); labour
exploitation (slavery in Brazil, although fundamental to the industry’s
development, meant misery for many/organisations such as Fair Trade exist to
protect workers and small growers from exploitation, and provides links between
buyers and farmers).
Achievement with Excellent: A perceptive explanation of the historical relationship
of past (Source C) and present (Source B) is given, supported by a comprehensive
range of evidence.
 Responses could include at least one of: Coffee is still an important economic
resource (Brazil’s economic and social structure built on it, using slaves and
investment by international companies/small farmers dependent on it for income,
avoiding the need for charity and promoting economically sustainable self-reliance
on an equitable basis); vulnerability of small farmers (international banks and
trading houses in London and New York profited at small farmers’ expense in
Brazil, where small farmers were often impoverished/Fair Trade ensures – via
inspections - a fair price is paid and raises family incomes, while developing
sustainability); ecological impact of coffee growing (Parahyba Valley deforested
within a century/Fair Trade’s environmental standards part of its policy); labour
exploitation (slavery in Brazil, although fundamental to the industry’s
development, meant misery for many, yet the industry continued even after its
abolition/organisations such as Fair Trade exist to protect workers and small
growers from exploitation, and provides links between buyers and farmers, while
also promoting social justice such as women’s participation and democratic
representation).
Question 3
Achievement: A correct description of the reliability or not of the views about
worker conditions in Source D is given, supported by some evidence.
 Responses should provide valid comments on both Sources, and could include:
 Reliable: although Source A talks about the poor conditions and prices
for growers, Source D is by a grower who started as a worker and has
tried to improve conditions.
 Unreliable: Source A talks about the drop in prices paid to growers and
how this has created ‘sweatshops in the field’ or even slavery. It would
be hard for the grower in Source D to stand up to the big companies OR
the workers might not agree with the grower’s rosy view.
Achievement with Merit: A clear explanation of the reliability or not of the views
about worker conditions in Source D is given, supported by a range of evidence.
 Responses should provide valid comments on both Sources, and could include:
 Reliable: although Source A talks about the poor conditions and prices
for growers, Source D is by a grower who started as a worker and has
tried to improve conditions. He says “Trust, honesty, hard work and
teamwork are important building blocks for a strong future." The grower
in Source D might be a member of Fair Trade, Source B, and his views
are in line with the organisation’s policies, such as providing a decent
wage.
 Unreliable: Source A talks about the drop in prices paid to growers and
how this has created ‘sweatshops in the field’ or even slavery. It would
be hard for the grower in Source D to stand up to the big companies OR
the workers might not agree with the grower’s rosy view. Not all growers
are part of Fair Trade, Source B, as it is more profitable for them to
exploit their workers.
Achievement with Excellence: A perceptive explanation of the reliability or not of
the views about worker conditions in Source D is given, supported by a comprehensive
range of evidence.
 Responses should provide valid comments on both Sources, and could include:
 Reliable: although Source A talks about the poor conditions and prices
for growers (their ‘cut’ dropping from 40% to 16% over a ten year
period), Source D is by a third-generation grower who started as a
worker and who has tried to improve his own workers’ conditions. He
provides verifiable details of improvements for workers (eg medical,
dental, eye care), not just generalisations. He says “Trust, honesty, hard
work and teamwork are important building blocks for a strong future."
The grower in Source D might have succeeded because he was/is a
member of Fair Trade, Source B. His views are in line with the

organisation’s policies, such as providing a decent wage and good
conditions.
Unreliable: Source A talks about the drop in prices paid to growers
(their ‘cut’ dropping from 40% to 16% over a ten year period, despite the
industry’s value increasing from US$30billion to US$50billion) and how
this has created ‘sweatshops in the field’ or even slavery. It would be
hard for the grower in Source D to stand up to the big companies OR
the workers might not agree with the grower’s rosy view; we don’t hear
anything from them. Not all growers are part of Fair Trade, Source B, as
it is more profitable for them to exploit their workers, as the figures
above attest. The fact that Fair Trade exists at all suggests that
exploitation is far more common than not, and that growers might feel
under some pressure to appear to provide well for their workers.
Question 4
Achievement: A correct description of the usefulness of the Sources for the study
of the social and/or political role of coffee houses is given, supported by some
evidence.
 Responses should provide valid comments on at least TWO of the Sources, and
could include: Source E1 gives a general overview and talks about revolutionaries in
France and America meeting in coffee houses. In Source E2 the King tried to ban
coffee houses because ‘trouble-makers’ used them and disturbed the ‘peace and
quiet of his kingdom’. In Source E3 it says that coffee bars filled a ‘social gap’.
Achievement with Merit: A clear explanation of the usefulness of the Sources for
the study of the social and/or political role of coffee houses is given, supported by a
range of evidence.
 Responses should provide valid comments on all THREE of the Sources, and could
include: Source E1 gives a general overview and talks about revolutionaries in
France and America meeting in coffee houses. In Source E2 the King tried to ban
coffee houses because ‘trouble-makers’ disturbed the ‘peace and quiet of his
kingdom’; this is especially useful as it is a primary source. In Source E3 it says
that coffee bars filled a ‘social gap’ and changed NZers’ lifestyles. It also gives a
good description of Wellington’s social life ‘before’ and ‘after’ coffee bars. The
three Sources together help show the role of coffee houses over different places
and times.
Achievement with Excellence: A perceptive explanation of the usefulness of the
Sources for the study of the social and/or political role of coffee houses is given,
supported by a comprehensive range of evidence.
 Responses should provide valid comments on all THREE of the Sources, and could
include: Source E1 gives a general overview and talks about revolutionaries in
France and America meeting in coffee houses. In Source E2 the English King tried
to ban coffee houses because ‘trouble-makers’ used them to spread many ‘false,
hateful and scandalous rumours’ and disturbed the ‘peace and quiet of his
kingdom’; this is especially useful as it is a primary source. In Source E3 it says
that coffee bars filled a ‘social gap’ and changed NZers’ lifestyles. Harry
Seresin's coffee house was one such place, a ‘focal point for writers, poets,
artists, musicians and academics’. It gives a good description of Wellington’s social
life ‘before’ (tea-rooms, closed in the afternoon; pubs, male-only and closed at
6pm; restaurants, closed by 10pm and unable to serve liquor) and ‘after’ coffee
bars (open during the day and evening, through to the early hours). The three
Sources together help show the role of coffee houses over different places and
times, and that they were often places where social/political non-conformists
gathered.
Question 5
Achievement: A correct description of the relationship of continuity OR change
between the price paid to growers of coffee and the price retailers charged their
customers, 1970-2000, supported by evidence. NOTE: responses may argue either
position as long as they are supported by appropriate some evidence.
 Responses could include:
o Continuity – growers were always paid substantially less than retailers
charged their customers – 600cents per pound versus 100cents per pound in
1970; 450cents per pound versus 50cents per pound in 2000.
o Change – there were some big variations over the period – eg 600cents per
pound versus 100cents per pound in 1970; 1300cents per pound versus
300cents per pound in the late 1970s.
Achievement with Merit: A clear explanation of the relationship of continuity OR
change between the price paid to growers of coffee and the price retailers charged
their customers, 1970-2000, supported by a range of evidence.
 Responses could include:
o Continuity – the difference between what growers were paid and retailers
charged their customers remains fairly constant over the period as a whole,
despite some spikes – 600cents per pound versus 100cents per pound in
1970 (500cents difference); 450cents per pound versus 50cents per pound
in 2000 (400cents difference).
o Change – there were some big variations over the period – eg 600cents per
pound versus 100cents per pound in 1970; 1300cents per pound versus
300cents per pound in the late 1970s OR prices both groups received have
declined over the whole period - 600cents per pound per pound in 1970
versus 450cents per pound in 2000 for retailers; 100cents per pound in
1970 versus 50cents per pound in 2000 for growers.
Achievement with Excellence: A perceptive explanation of the relationship of
continuity OR change between the price paid to growers of coffee and the price
retailers charged their customers, 1970-2000, supported by a comprehensive range
of evidence.
 Responses could include:
o Continuity – the difference between what growers were paid and retailers
charged their customers remains fairly constant over the period as a whole,
despite some spikes – 600cents per pound versus 100cents per pound in
1970 (500cents difference); 450cents per pound versus 50cents per pound
in 2000 (400cents difference). For all of the spikes retailers benefited
more than growers, but both groups benefited; growers’ prices were,
overall, more stable.
o Change – there were some big variations over the period, with retailers
enjoying the highest spikes but also the biggest falls – eg 600cents per
pound versus 100cents per pound in 1970; 1300cents per pound versus
300cents per pound in the late 1970s OR prices both groups received have
declined over the whole period - 600cents per pound per pound in 1970
versus 450cents per pound in 2000 for retailers; 100cents per pound in
1970 versus 50cents per pound in 2000 for growers.
Judgement Statement
Achieved
Students will necessarily
meet the requirements of
this criterion by
completing the criteria
below, as per the
descriptor.
The historical
relationships in two out of
the three questions (1, 2,
5) are described (with
some supporting evidence).
Merit
Students will necessarily
meet the requirements of
this criterion by
completing the criteria
below, as per the
descriptor.
The historical relationships
in two out of the three
questions (1, 2, 5) are
explained (with a range of
supporting evidence).
The usefulness/reliability
in one out of the two
questions (3, 4) is
described (with some
supporting evidence).
The usefulness/reliability
in one out of the two
questions (3, 4) is
explained (with a range of
supporting evidence).
Excellence
Students will necessarily
meet the requirements of
this criterion by
completing the criteria
below, as per the
descriptor.
The historical relationships
in two out of the three
questions (1, 2, 5) are
perceptively explained
(with a comprehensive
range of supporting
evidence).
The usefulness/reliability
in one out of the two
questions (3, 4) is
perceptively explained
(with a comprehensive
range of supporting
evidence).