NCEA Level 2 History (90467) 2008 — page 1 of 5
Assessment Schedule – 2008
History: Examine evidence in historical sources (90467)
Evidence Statement
QUESTION ONE
(a) Oil.
(b) “Although it is chocolate that has gotten the most publicity of late…” OR “The best way to prevent child labour
and slavery in the fields is to pay workers a living wage…” OR “Most people in America would rather buy a cup
of coffee picked under fair trade conditions than sweatshop labour conditions…" OR “this industry isn’t
responsible for what happens in a foreign country.”
(c) The amount of money that goes out of the country; the King, his ancestors, and his officers were brought up on
beer (so everybody should drink it); he does not believe that coffee-drinking soldiers can be relied upon to
endure hardships in case of another war.
(d) Child / boy labour / slave labour.
(e) Better pay / income: $18 per hour, plus health insurance, compared with $12 per hour for non-owner-workers.
OR transparency of costs and / or charges: [costs as listed in the blue section of the ad.]
(f) Positive. Before the changes, opening hours were limited (tea rooms closed in the afternoons, pubs at 6.00
pm), but after, coffee-houses were “more importantly, remaining open through to the early hours of the
morning” OR “the awful coffee and chicory essence … that New Zealanders called coffee” changed after the
“explosion of coffee houses” OR “These new coffee bars filled a social gap” or similar.
QUESTION TWO (a)
Achievement: A correct description of the relationship between low prices paid to growers on the ordinary world
market (Source E), and the benefits to farmers of selling their coffee through a Fair Trade organisation (Source I),
supported by 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 E), and the benefits to farmers of selling their coffee through a Fair Trade
organisation (Source I), supported by 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 of the world market sale price that coffee growers’ received
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 E), and the benefits to farmers of selling their coffee through a Fair Trade
organisation (Source I), supported by 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 of the world market sale price that coffee growers’ received
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.
NCEA Level 2 History (90467) 2008 — page 2 of 5
QUESTION TWO (b)
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 evidence.
•
Responses could include:
– Continuity – growers were always paid substantially less than retailers charged their customers – 600
cents per pound versus 100 cents per pound in 1970; 450 cents per pound versus 50 cents per pound in
2000.
– Change – there were some big variations over the period – eg 600 cents per pound versus 100 cents per
pound in 1970; 1300 cents per pound versus 300 cents 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 evidence.
•
Responses could include:
– Continuity – the difference between what growers were paid and what retailers charged their customers
remained fairly constant over the period as a whole, despite some spikes – 600 cents per pound versus
100 cents per pound in 1970 (500 cents difference); 450 cents per pound versus 50 cents per pound in
2000 (400 cents difference).
– Change – there were some big variations over the period – eg 600 cents per pound versus 100 cents per
pound in 1970; 1300 cents per pound versus 300 cents per pound in the late 1970s OR prices both groups
received have declined over the whole period – 600 cents per pound per pound in 1970 versus 450 cents
per pound in 2000 for retailers; 100 cents per pound in 1970 versus 50 cents 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
evidence.
•
Responses could include:
– Continuity – the difference between what growers were paid and retailers charged their customers
remained fairly constant over the period as a whole, despite some spikes – 600 cents per pound versus
100 cents per pound in 1970 (500 cents difference); 450 cents per pound versus 50 cents per pound in
2000 (400 cents difference). For all of the spikes, retailers benefited more than growers, but both groups
benefited; growers’ prices were, overall, more stable.
– Change – there were some big variations over the period, with retailers enjoying the highest spikes but
also the biggest falls – eg 600 cents per pound versus 100 cents per pound in 1970; 1300 cents per pound
versus 300 cents per pound in the late 1970s OR prices both groups received have declined over the
whole period – 600 cents per pound per pound in 1970 versus 450 cents per pound in 2000 for retailers;
100 cents per pound in 1970 versus 50 cents per pound in 2000 for growers.
QUESTION TWO (c)
Achievement: A correct description of the historical relationship of past and present, supported by 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 and present, supported by
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).
NCEA Level 2 History (90467) 2008 — page 3 of 5
Achievement with Excellence: A perceptive explanation of the historical relationship of past and present,
supported by 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 slavery’s 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 THREE (a)
Achievement: A correct description of the two points of view on labour conditions in the production of coffee,
supported by evidence.
•
Responses could include: Gary Goldstein of the American National Coffee Association says that the labour
issue isn't their concern. Global Exchange disagrees with this position.
Achievement with Merit: A clear explanation of the two points of view on labour conditions in the production of
coffee, supported by evidence.
•
Responses could include: Gary Goldstein is a spokesman of the American National Coffee Association and
acknowledges there is slave labour used, but says it is not their concern what happens in another country.
According to Global Exchange, most Americans would disagree if they knew and not buy ‘sweatshop’ coffee.
Achievement with Excellence: A perceptive explanation of the two points of view on labour conditions in the
production of coffee, supported by evidence.
•
Responses could include: Gary Goldstein is a spokesman for the American National Coffee Association and
thus presumably speaks for all of his members when he says that it is not their concern (there might be
dissenting voices within the industry, but these are apparently not strong enough or sufficient enough in
number to influence the views of the leadership): "This industry isn't responsible for what happens in a foreign
country." According to Global Exchange policies, this is morally indefensible and it is the industry’s business to
ensure fair trade practices, especially as most Americans would not want to buy coffee produced by sweated
or slave labour.
QUESTION THREE (b)
Achievement: A correct description of the usefulness of the sources for the study of the social and / or political role
of coffee houses, supported by evidence.
•
Responses should provide valid comments on at least TWO of the sources, and could include: Source C1
gives a general overview and talks about revolutionaries in France and America meeting in coffee houses. In
Source C2 the King tried to ban coffee houses because ‘trouble-makers’ used them and disturbed the ‘peace
and quiet of his kingdom’. In Source H 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, supported by evidence.
•
Responses should provide valid comments on all THREE of the sources, and could include: Source C1 gives a
general overview and talks about revolutionaries in France and America meeting in coffee houses. In Source
C2 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 H it says that coffee bars filled a ‘social
gap’ and changed New Zealanders’ 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, supported by evidence.
•
Responses should provide valid comments on all THREE of the sources, and could include: Source C1 gives a
general overview and talks about revolutionaries in France and America meeting in coffee houses. In Source
NCEA Level 2 History (90467) 2008 — page 4 of 5
C2 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 H it says that coffee bars filled a ‘social gap’ and changed New Zealanders’
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 6.00 pm; restaurants, closed by 10.00 pm 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 THREE (c)
Achievement: A correct description of the reliability or not of the views about worker conditions in Source G,
supported by evidence.
•
Responses should provide valid comments on both sources, and could include:
– Reliable: although Source E talks about the poor conditions and prices for growers, Source G is by a
grower who started as a worker and has tried to improve conditions. He is a 3rd generation coffee worker
and because he has worked at every link of the chain, he has a very clear understanding about the worker
conditions.
– Unreliable: Source E 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 G 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 G, supported by evidence.
•
Responses should provide valid comments on both Sources, and could include:
– Reliable: although Source E talks about the poor conditions and prices for growers, Source G is by a
grower who started as a worker and has tried to improve conditions. Source E is likely to be a second-hand
account and maybe written by someone who has limited knowledge of worker conditions. Martinez is a 3rd
generation coffee worker and because he has worked at every link of the chain, he has a very clear
understanding about the worker conditions.
– Unreliable: Source E 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 G 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
I, 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 G, supported by evidence.
•
Responses should provide valid comments on both sources, and could include:
– Reliable: although Source E talks about the poor conditions and prices for growers (their ‘cut’ dropping
from 40% to 16% over a ten-year period), Source G 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. The grower in Source G
might have succeeded because he was / is a member of Fair Trade, Source I. His views are in line with the
organisation’s policies, such as providing a decent wage and good conditions.
– Unreliable: Source E 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 G 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 I, 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.
NCEA Level 2 History (90467) 2008 — page 5 of 5
Judgement Statement — 2008
Question One:
Achievement
Three correct responses.
Achievement with Merit
Four correct responses.
Achievement with Excellence
Five correct responses.
Question Two
Achievement
Two suitable responses at
Achievement level, or one
Achievement and one higher.
Achievement with Merit
Two suitable responses at Merit
level, or one Merit and one
Excellence.
Achievement with Excellence
Two suitable responses at
Excellence level.
Question Three
Achievement
Two suitable responses at
Achievement level, or one
Achievement and one higher.
Achievement with Merit
Two suitable responses at Merit
level, or one Merit and one
Excellence.
Achievement with Excellence
Two suitable responses at
Excellence level.
Overall Judgement Statement
Achievement
Achievement with Merit
Three correct responses in
Question One, plus two responses
at Achievement level (or above) for
each of Questions Two and Three.
Four correct responses in
Question One, plus two responses
at Merit level (or above) for each of
Questions Two and Three.
Achievement with Excellence
Five or six correct responses in
Question One, plus two responses
at Excellence level for each of
Questions Two and Three.