OBJECTS OF LETASA
 To promote and provide support for legal education in schools in South
Australia
 To publish and disseminate legal education resources
 To link with the broader legal community
for teachers and students
ABN 14 852 335 677
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
The Pines, Marryatville High School
THURSDAY 8 March 2012 4.45 to 6.30 pm
Chaired: Peter Cavouras
Minutes: Penny Cavanagh
1. Exchange of Accounts and Administration and Change over etc
2. Present and Apologies
Apologies: Robin Aukett, Liam Brown, Annette Chigros, Kathleen Meyers, Alex Dighton, Donna
Foster, Helen Douglas-Irving, Paula Hensing, Jarrod Lungley, Helen Peake, Jane Penhall, Brett
Schenk, Mareea Smith, Rick Sommariva
Present: Geof Bailey, Penny Cavanagh, Peter Cavouras, Irene Frangos, Yvette Winter.
Quorum: The Constitution was referred to and we made a quorum by 5 attendees, one of whom is a
non-office bearer – Section 11a – so the meeting proceeded.
Non-attending:
Minutes from Previous Meetings
Moved Yvette Winter
Seconded Irene Frangos
Carried
3. Business Arising from the Minutes
Clarifying Forum SACE Expressions of Interest Feedback
The responses from 5 non Executive members were all concerning clarification on how work was
moderated so after clarification with the SACE Board it was decided to send the respondees an email
outlining who they could contact at the SACE Board and the Australian Education Union with their
concerns rather than LETASA hold a forum.
Action: Penny to contact respondees with details of whom they should be contacting
Action: Peter to write a letter to SACE Board and cc to Minister for Education and other professional
subject associations outlining our concerns on the moderation process.
Letter requesting a moderator come and explain their actions – feedback from membership, no
guidance, can’t learn from reports what has to change and would like to have a session to improve this
Report on Careers in Court March 7
See Executive Report
4. Correspondence
Nil
5. Strategic Planning [Yvette – 30 mins]
Agreed to Vision and Mission Statement
Re Clarifying Forum in LETASA Action Plan it was agreed to approach the SACE Board to run
moderation explanatory sessions so teachers could improve their practice – Action: Peter
It was agreed to investigate a “Freedom of Information” process in order to clarify moderation
processes for teachers – Action: Irene Frangos agreed to follow up FOI process for discussion next
meeting
Re Mentoring in LETASA Action Plan it was agreed we need to know who are the new teachers who
become members and personally contact them and offering them mentoring and an introductory pack.
It was agreed to formulate a Mentoring Checklist.
It was agreed that Yvette would update the Action Plan according to our discussions and we would
continue discussion next meeting at “Savvy Teacher Tool Kit”.
6. Reports








Executive Report – See attached
It was agreed to reschedule the Year 12 Legal Studies Revision Evening to Monday 17 as a
suitable room is then available at Uni SA and this would include a sausage sizzle for students
and teachers prior to the event courtesy of Uni SA
Action: Penny to ask Robin to change calendar on web to Revision evening Monday 17
September. It was agreed we would encourage a range of new Committee Member speakers
to present at this evening.
Action: Peter To confirm new date with Uni SA
Treasurer’s Report – not available
SACE – discussed previously
Technology Report – Not Available
Action: Jarrod demo next meeting – to access Wi Fi at AEU on the night need to contact
Dean for password as it is changed regularly
Publications Report – Geof publications sent out from numerous orders. It was noted a few
more individuals are contributing to Legal Brief. It was agreed winners of movie tickets for their
contributions would be announced in Legal Brief so encourage others. Action: Geof
Membership Report – 44 Members – 9 of whom are new members, of the 9 – 4 are past
members returning this year
Annual Conference – Friday 24 August University of SA, Bradley Forum, City West
Country Liaison –Not Available
6. Any Other Business - Nil
Meeting Finished: 6.18 pm
NEXT MEETING: 29 March 2012 AEU – (next meeting May 10 Room 4 not our usual Room 5)
See Dean re password for use of Wi Fi
Nibbles: Cabra Canteen
LETASA EXECUTIVE REPORT
March 8, 2012
UniSA – Linking with tertiary institutions
1. Sit-in lectures
I attended an introductory lecture for first year Tort students in February. Unfortunately we were not able to get a class
of students to attend primarily for the following reasons: Three hour duration, difficulty getting out of school. The
lecture was on the very narrow topic of Trespass to person – battery and while there were some useful case law
examples ad principles referred to I believe It was too narrow in its focus for our purpose and more suited to teachers. A
good portion of the lecture also related to assistance with tutorial and assignment questions again not relevant.
Nevertheless, I was able to provide useful feedback to the Law School such that the next offering would be more likely
tailored to our (student) specific needs rather than be a repeat of a 1st year law lecture. The aim is for this to occur in
semester 2 with up to 300 places available.
2. Revision Evening
We have been having ongoing negotiations around dates for this event as the date mooted in our draft calendar is
unsuitable for the university. A large lecture theatre catering for over 350 students is available on Monday 17 or
Tuesday 18 September. UniSA is keen to hold a sausage sizzle before the event as a PR exercise.
3. Annual Conference
We have secured the venue for our advertised date but will need to move to different areas for afternoon activities.
UniSA is keen to support us with merchandise such as pens, notepads etc.
Twilight forum at courts and Annual conference session
Alex Ward (National President of the Law Society) is keen to present on the issue of the referendum our Pm wants to
hold in line with next year’s election on the topic of constitutional recognition for ATSI Peoples. I am just having trouble
securing a date but see this as a good way to attract teachers having to up-skill themselves in relation to the Australian
Curriculum as this relates to content in the middle years as well as general capabilities and cross curriculum priorities.
SACE Board Data
Still nothing forthcoming
Annual Conference
Have contact details for former Justice Brian Martin and will check his availability subject to major trial in WA.
Careers in Justice Forum – March 7
Changed focus of leadership forums and it seems to have been a success.
Peter Cavouras
Legal Studies
2011 Assessment Report
STAGE 2 LEGAL STUDIES
2011 ASSESSMENT REPORT
OVERVIEW
Assessment reports give an overview of how students performed in their school and
external assessments in relation to the learning requirements, assessment design
criteria, and performance standards set out in the relevant subject outline. They
provide information and advice regarding the assessment types, the application of
the performance standards in school and external assessments, the quality of
student performance, and any relevant statistical information.
GENERAL
There were 1006 students who studied Stage 2 Legal Studies in 2011. Assessments
in the form of an external examination and school-based assessments were
undertaken by these students. These assessment tools provided ample opportunities
for students to demonstrate the required performance standards.
SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT
Assessment Type 1: Folio
Most summative tasks had been adapted to meet the word count and provide
opportunities for students to show a high level of proficiency against the performance
standards. There were many different types of tasks used, including tests. A few
samples did not adhere to the word count requirements. Teachers need to carefully
plan their tasks to keep within the total word count. The use of a mid-year or trial
examination as a folio task is not recommended as these generally exceed the word
count. However, if used it is recommended that only the evaluation section of a trial
examination be submitted for moderation. In designing assessment tasks, questions
should go beyond seeking a definition. They need to include higher order questions
that allow students to show evidence of the evaluation assessment design criteria,
under supervision. Oral assessments were well done, but must also adhere to time
allocations and word counts. The better assessment tasks went beyond an
explanation of terms and asked students to apply their knowledge. This often
occurred by using past examination stimulus questions or sections of media articles.
Assessment Type 2: Inquiry
The most successful inquiry tasks were those that selected an appropriate legal
question, in line with the subject outline. It was pleasing to see that only a few
inquiries chose topics of a social nature that did not allow students to meet the
course requirements. The more successful tasks allowed students to design a
research question where they could demonstrate detailed, credible research and
evaluation of their sources. Too many inquiries only focused on knowledge about the
research question. Students need to go beyond arguments ‘for and against’ and
critically evaluate their topic, and link it to their understanding of the legal principles in
Legal Studies 2011 Assessment Report Page 2 of 4
the subject outline. Many inquiry tasks failed to include one or more
recommendations or conclusions, as required in the subject outline. The most
successful inquiry tasks included strong evidence of research, synthesis, and
analysis of information and opinions, and appropriate acknowledgement of sources.
Teachers are reminded that they need to allow adequate class time to enable them
to guide and verify the students’ work.
EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Assessment Type 3: Examination
The examination provided students with ample opportunity to demonstrate their level
of knowledge and understanding, communication and evaluation of the legal
principles, and processes as required in the subject outline. This year there were two
major changes to the content of the subject outline; firstly, the removal of the
‘Relationships and the Law’ topic from the course, and secondly, a stronger focus on
the evaluation of key legal principles and processes in relation to the Australian Legal
System, in the assessment design criteria.
There was no overall change in the format of the examination, which comprised
compulsory Part A: Short Answers (60%), and Part B: Extended Responses (40%)
where students could choose two questions from the eight options provided.
The need to apply the evaluation assessment design criteria in this new course
resulted in questions requiring greater critical analysis of legal principles in Section 1
of Part B: Extended Responses. Section 2 required students to evaluate a key
statement and use examples to support their evaluation. With this greater emphasis
on evaluation, the short answer questions were designed to be more streamlined,
with each of the four short answer questions covering each of the four topics in the
subject outline.
Part A: Short Answers
All questions in this section were compulsory. Overall, the responses presented an
improvement on previous years. Students performed best in Question 1 on Lawmaking
and in Question 3 on Justice Systems. For Question 3, 72% of the responses
were awarded a score above 10 out of 15 marks, with 13% of students achieving full
marks. For Question 1, 65% of responses were awarded a score above 10 out of 15
marks, with 12% achieving full marks.
Students also responded well to Question 4 on Constitutional Government, with 62%
of students gaining a score above 10 out of 15 marks and 12% of the cohort attaining
full marks.
Only 43% of candidates achieved greater than 10 out of 15 marks for Question 2,
with only 4% gaining a perfect score. The most successful students in this question
were those who were able to answer parts (e) and (f) accurately. Successful
responses demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the parliamentary stage of
law-making and the operation of our federal system of government.
Markers suggested that there was a high number of attempts to answer questions in
Part A. Markers also noted that students have taken up the advice of previous Chief
Assessors, by showing they are more aware of the meaning of directive terms (for
Legal Studies 2011 Assessment Report Page 3 of 4
example, ‘identify’, ‘suggest’, ‘describe’, ‘outline’, and ‘discuss’). The less successful
answers suggested that students lacked the knowledge and understanding of some
aspects of the course. Students are encouraged to thoroughly learn all of the content
in the subject outline.
Part B: Extended Responses
In general, the responses to these questions proved more challenging for students.
This section focused on the evaluation assessment design criteria. The more
successful students chose carefully to maximise the opportunity to demonstrate that
they could critically analyse and evaluate the question selected.
In Section 1, Questions 5 and 6 were the most popular and the ones where students
demonstrated the greatest success. For Question 5, 64% of the students obtained a
score of 13 marks or more out of a possible 20, with 23% of students achieving more
than 18 marks for their response to Part 1.
For Question 6, 62% of the students obtained a score of 13 marks or more out of a
possible 20, with 14% of them achieving more than 18 marks.
Question 7 and Question 8 were poorly answered. In order to be successful, students
needed to include greater factual detail and show evidence that they could critically
analyse. The most successful responses discussed a range of legal principles in relation
to the question asked and made some form of informed judgement about the
effectiveness of each.
In Section 2, Question 9 was the most popular question, with nearly 70% of students
choosing it. However, popularity did not necessarily transfer to a high level of success.
11% of students received a mark greater than 17 out of a maximum of 20 marks. 47% of
students who answered Question 9 received a mark above 13 out of 20 marks.
Question 10 was less popular, with only 3% of students choosing the option and the
responses often failed to show adequate knowledge and understanding.
Question 11 was answered most successfully. 27% of students were awarded 17 or
more out of a possible 20 marks and 62% of students received greater than 13 marks.
Question 12 had a success rate of 36% of students receiving 13 marks or more out of a
possible 20, and 8% of students were awarded more than 17 marks.
OPERATIONAL ADVICE
The majority of schools submitted the moderation materials requested. Only a few
schools failed to submit all tasks, or give explanations for assessed student work that
was missing or students who had been given special provisions in their school
assessment. Teachers are encouraged to make sure that their approved SACE
Board of SA Learning and Assessment Plan, and any Learning and Assessment Plan
addendum, as well as a set of all tasks are included. Mark schemes are also useful.
Moderators are more readily able to confirm teacher’s assessments when cover
sheets on the summative tasks provide greater detail of the assessment conditions
and specific assessment design criteria being addressed.
Legal Studies
Chief Assessor
Legal Studies 2011 Assessment Report Page 4 of 4