Controlled Assessment Exemplar Work - AQA GCSE B History

GCSE History B
Controlled Assessment Exemplar
Teacher Resource Bank / GCSE History B / Controlled Assessment Exemplar / Version 1.0
Contents
Introduction
Question 1
4
The Sources
Candidate 1
Candidate 2
10
Candidate 3
12
Examiners comments on the answers
14
16
Question 2
HIJ
The Sources
17
Candidate 1
23
Candidate 2
28
Candidate 3
31
33
Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The following material is designed to support the first round of teacher
standardisation meetings in 2010. The tasks have been specially written for this
exemplar in order to support centres in their application of the mark scheme. The
mark scheme, which is generic, can of course be applied to any of the published
tasks.
Further advice on the exemplification of the mark scheme and on how to deliver
Controlled Assessment can be found in the Teacher Resource Bank.
HIJ
Question 1
15 marks
Target:
Analysis of sources to assess utility (AO3, 12 marks) with

supporting knowledge (AO1/2, 3 marks)
Select 5 sources. Explain how useful these sources have been in informing
you in your enquiry into the involvement of women in agriculture in the two
World Wars.
Areas of Study:
The British People in War

The Changing Role and Status of Women in Britain
Bibliography of Sources
A Oral evidence from Mrs Grace Elsey, a member of the Womens Land Army in
World War 1. Quoted in War Women of Britain, published by the Imperial War
Museum
B Government recruitment poster for the Womens Land Army in World War 1.
Published by the Imperial War Museum
C Oral evidence from Joan Shakesheff, a member of the Womens Land Army in
World War 2. Quoted in Yesterdays Britain, Readers Digest, 1998
D Secondary evidence on the Womens Land Army in both World Wars. From
Modern World History by Ferriby and McCabe, Heinemann, 2001
E Photograph of members of the Womens Land Army at work in World War 2.
Published in Yesterdays Britain, Readers Digest, 1998
HIJ
The Sources
Source A
Mrs Grace Elsey recalls being a member of the WLA in World War 1
Source B
A Recruitment Poster for the WLA in World War 1
Source C
Joan Shakesheff recalls being a member of the WLA in World War 2
HIJ
Source D
From a school History textbook published in 2001
Source E
Members of the WLA at work in World War 2
HIJ
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS AND PUBLISHERS

Question 1, Source A:
Question 1, Source B:
Question 1, Source C:
Question 1, Source D:
Question 1, Source E:
From Recollections of Grace Elsey, a sound archive (1977). Reprinted by permission

of Sound Archive, Imperial War Museum, London
Recruitment poster from the Imperial War Museum. Reprinted by permission of Getty
Images
Reproduced with permission from Readers Digest Association, Inc., Yesterdays
Britain 1998.
From Modern World History, D Ferriby and J McCabe, Heinemann, 2001. Reprinted
by permission of Pearson Education Ltd
From Yesterdays Britain, Readers Digest, 1998. Reprinted by permission of
Popperfoto/Getty Images
Permission to reproduce all copyright material has been applied for. In some cases efforts to contact
copyright-holders have been unsuccessful and AQA will be happy to rectify any omissions of acknowledgements in
future if notified.
HIJ
Candidate 1
The two World Wars were total wars affecting everyone. The role of women was
important as it was felt that the main contribution of men would be fighting. Women
took jobs that would normally be done by men. This included work on the land. In
both wars Britain had to rely much more on its own resources to feed itself because
of enemy blockades. The sources selected come from both wars and have been
chosen for their variety. This will allow me to assess the usefulness of different types
of sources in looking at the involvement of women in agriculture.
Source D is a secondary source summarising the WLA in both wars. It shows that
about the same number of women joined the WLA in the two wars. It implies that the
role of the WLA was the same in both wars to keep the country supplied with food.
It also states that the WLA resulted from male farm workers going into the forces
either as volunteers or conscripts. Some of the evidence in the source is supported
by other sources Sources B and E show ploughing; Source C mentions haymaking.
This source can be accepted as accurate as a secondary source that would have
been researched and has the advantage of hindsight. The detail it gives can also be
supported by information in other sources.
Sources B and E cover both wars and are visual evidence. Source B is a poster to
persuade women to join the WLA in World War 1. It does this by a patriotic appeal to
National Service just like the men. A new bright future is shown to be in the hands
of women who will produce the food to save Britain. It is accurate because an
important role of women in agriculture was to plough the land and harvest the grain.
However, it is a propaganda poster issued by the government with the aim of
recruiting women into the WLA by persuasion. So it gives a positive view of the WLA.
It will not want to show how hard the work was. This bias limits the usefulness of the
source. Source E is a photograph of Land Girls at work in the World War 2. They are
ploughing a field with a tractor and this supports the statement in Source D. The girls
do not appear to be wearing uniforms and this may be a change from World War 1
where Sources A and B suggest the WLA in World War 1 wore uniforms. However,
the photograph is a limited piece if evidence. No information is given about when it
was taken, where it was taken or why it was taken. It might have been a government
propaganda photograph with a similar purpose to Source B but this isnt known. Both
sources have their usefulness and limitations. However, because the purpose of
Source B is known, this makes it more useful than Source E.
Sources A and C are both oral recollections of life in the WLA in both wars. There are
similarities that show that womens involvement in agriculture was the same. The
work was hard and most of it was manual. They did a variety of different jobs. A small
wage was paid to members of the WLA in both wars. However, there are differences.
Source A suggests that in World War 1 the WLA wore a kind of uniform. There is no
mention of this in Source C and this is supported by Source E. The two sources
provide information on the work women did on the land in both wars. Just as
important they show the feelings of these two members of the WLA. However, both
sources have limitations. The statements are short and are probably parts of longer
statements it is not known what else they said. More importantly, we do not know
when these statements were made. They were both after the war as they were
recalled. If they were given well after the war then memories could fade or become
inaccurate and selective. It is also not clear what the purpose of these statements
was. Why were they given? This uncertainty about the nature of the sources limits
their usefulness.
HIJ
The 5 sources are useful in looking at the role of women in agriculture in both wars.
They give information on why the WLA was formed, what it did and the feelings of
members of the WLA. They show that the work and conditions were similar in both
wars. However, some sources are more useful than others. The most useful in the
information given were Sources A and C, the two oral statements. They gave
information on the work of the WLA, which was supported by Source D, and gave the
feelings of the women involved. Source B was useful in explaining the governments
attitude to the WLA, something not in the other sources. Source E was the least
useful because the provenance of the source was unknown and the information it
gave was available in other sources.
HIJ
Candidate 2
In both World Wars women played an important role. In World War 1, with men
required to do the fighting, women played an important part on the Home Front and
did a number of jobs that previously had been regarded as mens work. World War 2
was also a total war and again women were expected to play a full part at home. One
area that involved women in both wars was agriculture through the WLA.
The sources selected have all proved useful in building up a picture of the work of
women in agriculture in the two wars.
Source D is a secondary source from a History textbook. It is useful because it gives
some basic information about the WLA in both world wars the number of women
involved and the types of work they were expected to do. As it is a secondary source
it can be accepted as accurate and reliable. Some of its detail is also supported by
other sources selected.
Source B explains how important the WLA was to the war effort in World War 1. It
was National Service, necessary to win the war and bring a new dawn to Britain.
The poster also makes the work seem patriotic and implies that God is on our side.
However, this is a recruitment poster issued by the government to persuade women
to join the WLA. Because of this it may not be accurate. It is trying to present a
positive image that will appeal to women. It is not useful in telling us what women did
in their work in agriculture but it does tell us that the government thought that it was
very important, and this is useful.
Sources A and C are both oral evidence giving the reactions of two women, one from
each war, to being in the WLA. It is useful to compare them to examine the
involvement of women in agriculture. In Source A, from World War 1, Grace Elsey
gives a lot of information. The clothes worn seem like a uniform. There is a weekly
wage. She tells of the jobs that were done, all in the attempt to produce more food to
allow Britain to survive the German blockade. She also shows us how backward
agriculture was in World War 1. There were no tractors and everything had to be
done by hand. It was hard work. Source C, from World War 2, shows that the work
was still hard and agriculture was still backward. Haymaking continued to be done by
hand. Source C also says that the members of the WLA were paid a weekly wage. It
was now double that paid in World War 1 but that could be due to inflation. Both
sources are useful. They show that women were involved in agriculture in similar
ways in the two World Wars. They also give us the feelings of the women in the
WLA. However, there are problems with these sources. They are both short. They
are both oral accounts and both are given after the wars both statements are
recalled. The sources do not state when the interviews took place and this is
important in assessing their usefulness. It is possible that memories would fade or
only particular things were remembered. So a complete picture is not given.
Source E is a photograph from World War 2. It is useful as it shows Land Girls at
work, ploughing up a field for cultivation. It also shows that agricultural methods have
improved since World War 1. The girls are using a tractor. However, this is a
photograph and we dont know who took it or why. It might be staged for propaganda
reasons by the government to show how important the work of women in agriculture
was. The provenance is not clear and this reduces its usefulness.
Looking at the sources as a whole, it is possible to paint a picture of womens
involvement in agriculture in both World Wars. Women were expected and
HIJ
10
encouraged to work on the land and in this way to do their bit to bring victory to
Britain. Thousands of women responded to the call. They were paid a small wage for
their efforts. The work they did was hard manual work despite some improvements
in World War 2.
So I think that the sources selected are useful in telling me about the role of women
in agriculture in both World Wars.
HIJ
11
Candidate 3
Women played an important part in both World Wars. They did many jobs that had
previously been done by men because men were expected to do the fighting. In
World War 1 up until 1916 men volunteered for the forces. After that and during
World War 2 they were conscripted. This meant that jobs at home had to be done by
women. The jobs included working in munitions factories, and making steel and
ships. One of the most important jobs was working on the land in the WLA. In both
wars the German navy tried to starve Britain by blockading Britain and by using their
U Boats and submarines to attack merchant ships coming to Britain. These merchant
ships carried food among other things, as before both wars Britain had depended on
imports of food from abroad. Now Britain had to produce as much of its own food as
it could. This was done by ploughing over any spare piece of land such as parks. It
also needed our farms to produce as much as possible even without the male farm
labourers. This became an important role for women in the WLA. The 5 sources tell
us about the role of the WLA in both World Wars.
Source A is useful as it is an account of the WLA in World War 1 by an actual
member of the WLA. It tells us about the clothes they had to wear and the work they
had to do in growing vegetables. It was hard work as everything had to be done by
hand. They were also paid for their work.
Source B is a recruitment poster for the WLA in World War 1. It shows a young
woman doing National Service by ploughing a field. Although she seems happy the
work is hard as she has to use a horse to draw the plough. This may be what Mrs.
Elsey is referring to in Source A. The government issued posters like this to persuade
people to do things in the war that they would not normally do like joining the army
or working in a munitions factory. These sorts of poster were biased and tried to paint
a good image of the job.
Source C is another account of life in the WLA by a former member of it, this time in
World War 2. It tells us that the work of the WLA was much the same as in World
War 1. The work was hard especially at haymaking where there seems to be no
machinery to help. There were many different jobs that needed to be done. They
were also paid a small wage. It also tells us a bit more than Source A. It says that the
women in the WLA were proud to serve their country in the war.
Sources A and C are oral evidence. This kind of evidence might not be completely
useful because it could be biased.
Source D is from a History textbook written in 2001 so it will be accurate and useful.
It gives a lot of information about the role of women in the two World Wars. It tells us
the numbers of women who joined the WLA in both wars 100,000 in World War 1
and 80,000 in World War 2. It tells us that they did the work of male farm labourers
who had joined the forces. It also tells us about the jobs women did in the WLA. We
can get a lot of useful information from this source.
Source E is a photograph of three young women in the WLA in World War 2. They
are ploughing a field by using a tractor. This shows us that women did similar kinds
of work in both wars but also that conditions of work improved. In Source B the land
is ploughed using a horse, now it is by a tractor. A photograph like this may not be
very reliable or useful. Photographs can be staged and so may be biased.
From the five sources we can learn a lot about the WLA in the two World Wars.
Women volunteered to work on the land to do the jobs left by men. The work was
hard because it was usually done by hand. Agricultural machinery was not as
HIJ
12
developed as today. The work was important at a time when Britain had to produce
as much of its own food as it could.
I think that source D is the most useful source because we can get more information
from it than from the other sources. The two oral sources give us the same kind of
information on the conditions in the WLA. The two visual sources show us the
different methods of ploughing in the two World Wars.
HIJ
13
Question 1
Candidate 1
This answer meets the criteria for a Level 4 award:
all 5 sources have good L3 evaluation
all 5 sources have good L3 analysis
there is good knowledge to support the sources and in a short but effective
introduction that sets the scene.
Thus all 3 skills are of high L3 standard in a sustained explanation.
There is also judgement of the sources. This comes within the text e.g. in
comparing Sources B and E; and Sources A and C. There is also a final overarching
judgement that compares the utility of the 5 sources as a whole.
The mark awarded in the Level is based on the quality of judgements made.
This would reach top Level 4 15 marks.
Word count: 820 words
Candidate 2
Sources A, B and C: there is evidence of an analysis of the meaning of the sources
to Level 3 standard, and this analysis is supported by relevant knowledge. There is
also evaluation of the sources to Level 3 standard.
Sources D and E show more simple analysis and the evaluative comments are more
general and generic. Both are covered to Level 2 standard.
The opening paragraph provides a relevant introduction based on knowledge.
There is an attempt to provide an overview in the conclusion but this summary is
linked to content and not the utility of the sources.
The answer meets the criteria for a mid Level 3 award there is analysis and
evaluation to Level 3 standard of 3 of the 5 sources with supporting knowledge.
Mid Level 3 10 marks.
Candidate 3
The answer meets the criteria for an award in Level 2.
The opening paragraph uses knowledge only (Level 1) the 3 marks available to
AO1/2 will have been attained here.
The coverage of the sources varies but in no case does it move beyond Level 2.
Source A is covered by description with some simple analysis.
Source B is covered by description with simple/generic evaluation. The comparison
with Source A is not developed.
Sources C and E have simple analysis/inferences with simple/generic evaluation.
Source D is covered by description.
The conclusion is partly based on knowledge and partly further simple comparative
comments.
HIJ
14
There is either Level 2 analysis and/or Level 2 evaluation in 4 of the sources with
Level 1 knowledge divorced from the sources.
This would place the answer in mid Level 2 6 marks.
NB the approach adopted in this answer of covering the sources one by one limits
the degree of comparison and comment that can be made.
HIJ
15
Question 2
25 marks
Target:
Analysis and evaluation of sources to test an interpretation

(AO3, 20 marks) with supporting knowledge (AO1/2, 5 marks)
Evacuation was a great success.

Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation?
Explain your answer using the sources and knowledge from your studies.
Area of Study:
The British People in War
NOTE:
This question and the following answers come from the current Specification (B5,
Model A2).
the sources were provided by AQA in its exemplar material (9 sources)
the answers were not written under controlled conditions
as a result, Answer 1 and, to a lesser extent, Answer 2, exceed the number of
words suggested in the new Specification
This is, therefore, an exercise in applying the amended criteria of the mark scheme of
the new Specification to an interpretation question from the current Specification.
Bibliography of Sources
Secondary evidence on the evacuation process. From Mastering Economic and
Social History by David Taylor, published in 1988
B Photograph taken in September 1939 of evacuees walking to a station in London
C Oral evidence from an interview in 1988 with a teacher recalling being evacuated
with children from her school
D Photograph issued by the government of evacuees at bath time
E Oral evidence from an interview in 1988 with a mother of a host family
F Oral evidence from an interview in 1988 with an evacuee in 1939
G From a novel written for children about evacuation and evacuees; Carries War
by Nina Bawden, published in 1973
H Government advertisement issued in 1940 appealing for people in Scotland to
provide homes for evacuated children
I Mass Observation Survey of May 1940, interviewing the father of a seven year
old boy in Southend
HIJ
16
The Sources
Source A
An interpretation of the relations between evacuees and host families
Many children, parents and teachers were evacuated when war was declared. The
evacuees were received at reception centres and then placed with local families.
Arrangements, however, did not always go smoothly. Unfortunately many evacuees
could not settle in the countryside. The country people were shocked at the obvious
poverty and deprivation of the town children, not to mention their bad manners.
There were reports of children fouling gardens, hair crawling with lice, and bed
wetting.
From Mastering Economic and Social History, a textbook written for British schools,
by David Taylor, 1988
Source B
This image has been removed for copyright reasons. The photograph,
taken in September 1939, shows evacuees walking to the station in
London.
Please contact the History Subject Team for further information.
Source C
A teacher remembers being evacuated with children from her school
All you could hear was the feet of the children and a kind of murmur, because the
children were too afraid to talk. Mothers werent allowed with us, but they came along
behind. When we got to the station the train was ready. We hadnt the slightest idea
where we were going and we put the children on the train and the gates closed behind
us. The mothers pressed against the iron gates calling Good-bye darling.
From an interview in 1988 with a teacher
HIJ
17
Source D
This image has been removed for copyright reasons. The photograph,
issued by the government during the Second World War, shows child
evacuees at bath time.
Please contact the History Subject Team for further information.
Source E
The mother of a host family looks back
The children went round the house urinating on the walls. Although we had two toilets
they never used them. Although we told the children and their mother off about this
filthy habit they took no notice and our house stank to high heaven.
From an interview in 1988 with the mother of a host family
Source F
An evacuee looks back
How I wish the common view of evacuees could be changed. We were not all raised
on a diet of fish and chips eaten from newspaper, and many of us were quite familiar
with the origins of milk. It is just as upsetting for a clean and well-educated child to
find itself in a grubby semi-slum as the other way round.
From an interview in 1988 with someone who was an evacuee in 1939
HIJ
18
Source G
An extract from a novel about evacuees
Not a speck of dust anywhere. Miss Evans looked down at their feet. Better change
into your slippers before I take you to your bedroom. We havent any, Carrie said.
She meant to explain that there hadnt been room in their cases for their slippers, but
before she could speak Miss Evans turned bright red and said quickly, Oh, Im sorry,
how silly of me, why should you have slippers? Never mind as long as youre careful
and keep to the middle of the stair carpet where its covered with a cloth. Her brother
Nick whispered, She thinks were poor children, too poor to have slippers, and they
giggled.
From Carries War, a novel for children written by Nina Bawden in 1973
HIJ
19
Source H
An appeal for more people in Scotland to provide homes for evacuee children
Some kindly folk have been looking

after children from the cities for over
six months. Extra work? Yes,
theyve been a handful!...but the
foster-parents know they have done
the right thing.
Then their parents.

means to them!
Think what it
The Government are grateful to all the

20,000 people in Scotland who are so
greatly helping the country by looking
after evacuated children. But many
new volunteers are needed to share
in the present task and to be ready for
any crisis that may come. Wont you be
one of them? All you need do is enrol
your name with the local Authority. You
will be doing a real service for the
nation.
And think of all the people who have

cause to be thanking the fosterparents.
First, the children
themselves. Theyre out of a dangerzone where desperate peril may
come at any minute. And theyre
healthier and happier. Perhaps they
dont say it but they certainly mean
Thank you.
You may be saving a childs life.
The Secretary of State, who has been entrusted by the Government with
the conduct of evacuation, asks you urgently to join the Roll of those who
are willing to receive children. Please apply to your local Council.
An advertisement issued by the government in 1940
HIJ
20
Source I
A fathers opposition to evacuation
Observer
Fathers reply
What do people feel about evacuating

children?
People are so funny here; first they say theyll

send them, then they say they wont.
They dont have to, do they? I suppose

you havent got any?
Yes, Ive got a boy.
What are you going to do?
Im not letting him go. They cant be looked

after where theyre sending them.
Wheres that?
The Shires. Wales and the West.
Why not?
Well, theyve nothing there; they were starving

there before the war.
Only the unemployed in the large towns

and mining centres, surely, not in the
villages?
Well, what if I got killed? Whod look after him?

There are plenty of people here, my family and
friends.
An extract from a Mass Observation Survey in May 1940. The observer was
interviewing a Southend father of a seven-year-old child.
HIJ
21
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS AND PUBLISHERS

Question 2, Source A:
Question 2, Source G:
Question 2, Source H:
Question 2, Source I:
From Mastering Economic and Social History, D Taylor, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 1988.
Reprinted by permission of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd
From Carries War, N Bawden, Puffin Books (Penguin Books Ltd), 1974. Reproduced
with permission of Curtis Brown Group Ltd, London on behalf of Nina Bawden Nina
Bawden 1973
From Evidence from the Home Front, R Currie and S Livingstone, Blackie & Son Ltd,
1990. Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller
of HMSO and Queens Printer for Scotland
From Evacuation File Report 151, May 1940. Reproduced by permission of the
Mass Observation Archive Trustees.
Permission to reproduce all copyright material has been applied for. In some cases efforts to contact
copyright-holders have been unsuccessful and AQA will be happy to rectify any omissions of acknowledgements in
future if notified.
HIJ
22
Candidate 1
In my answer I am going to analyse the utility of all the sources and come to a clear
judgement as to whether or not evacuation was a great success. By success, I mean
organised, the evacuees were safe and the happiness and survival of the evacuees
was great overall. I will also compare each source to my own knowledge.
From source B, the photograph taken in September of 1939, I can make a clear
judgement that evacuation was a great success. Although evacuation is shown to be
a success, in this source, it does not appear to be very reliable. The fact it does not
state in the attribution why the photograph was taken or who by is a limitation
From this source I can judge that it is likely that the photo was taken by an official
company or the government in order to promote evacuation, as there is a rather
official looking man stood at the very corner of the picture. Also not many people
would have owned a camera back in World War two and those that did wouldnt have
been taking photos of the whole crowd of evacuees. It is likely that they would have
focused on their child or children. The fact that cameras were not very common could
explain why the children in the photo graph look very excited as many of them
wouldnt have ever seen a camera before. Also, the nature of the source (a
photograph) is a limitation as we do not know what happened before or after this
moment in time. You can make a judgement and state that it could have been taken
for propaganda reasons and that split moment in time could contrast the actually
scene and events that actually happened. The content of the photography shows
evacuation as being a success. The evacuees in the photograph are shown as being
very orderly and therefore I can judge that evacuation was very well organised. The
evacuees come across as being very excited and the whole photograph seams to
show the children as being very jolly, which once again indicates that evacuation was
a great success. However, this contrasts my own knowledge as a large majority of
the evacuees were distressed at this time in their life. The content of this source is
very accurate compared to my own knowledge. It shows mainly children and a few
possible teachers walking down the street to the station in London. This is accurate
as a large majority of the evacuees were children. The few adult exceptions to the list
of people being evacuated were teachers, disabled people and mothers with children
at a very young age. Also the location of the source (London) is accurate as most of
the evacuees departed from London, in the 4 days when trains were closed to the
public and given priority to all evacuees. From this I can once again judge that
evacuation was well structured and under control. This source overall highlights
evacuation as a success, as it shows the organisation and thought that went into
preparation.
Source Ds nature is also a photograph. From this source I once again can make a
clear judgement that evacuation was a great success. The content of this source
shows numerous clean, healthy evacuees all bathing together with great beaming
smiles on everybodys faces. To us this may not seam normal, as after a certain age
nowadays you get bathed on your own in clean bath water. However, in World War 2
it was common for families to bath either together or in the same water, one after
another. The attribution of this source states that it is A photograph issued by the
government during the war. This means that it isnt very reliable as I can judge that
the motive behind it would be to keep peoples morale high and to ensure all the
mothers that their children are being well looked after, and are healthy and happy in
the countryside. From this I can judge that maybe there were some conflict between
the government and the evacuees parents and maybe the evacuees mothers in
particular was losing faith and become more and more depressed as the war went
HIJ
23
on. It would have probably been used to promote evacuation and make the mothers
feel better on themselves about the idea of evacuation. The nature of this source is
also a limitation. The fact it is a photograph means you do not know what happened
before or after it was taken. It is a split moment in time and therefore it is more likely
to be bias and posed. This source would have more than likely been used for
propaganda purposes and therefore it would have had to show evacuation as a
success. Overall, it shows that the children were healthy, well and happy, which
shows that evacuation was a great success.
Source H also shows evacuation in a positive way. The nature of this source is an
advertisement issued by the government in 1940. This mean that it is a primary
source, which usually would mean that it is more reliable however, because the
government published it with the motive to persuade It is more than likely biased.
From this source I can judge that the government were aware of the heavy bombing
due after the phoney war. During the phoney war, a lot of the evacuees went back to
the city as there was no heavy bombing in the 6 months as Hitler wasnt ready to
attack. In the text, it says to be ready for any crisis that may come. This shows that
the preparation and process of evacuation was well organised and that people
werent evacuated for the sake of it. This also indicates that the government were
definitely in control when it came to evacuating children to the countryside. From this
I can infer that the government were aware of the heavy bombing due and was just
waiting for it to happen. I can also judge from this source that the government were
aware of the attitude of host families towards evacuees. It says in the text, yes,
theyve been a handful! ... By saying this it shows that the government are taking the
sides of the host families, in order for the host families to feel closer to the
government and hopefully as a result to take on more of the evacuees. The content
of this source (both the photograph and text) is also very emotive. The text finishes
with the sentence, You may be saving a childs life. This in some ways shows a sign
of desperation, especially as the attribution calls it An Appeal. Also I can judge that
the contrast between light and dark background on the picture was deliberately used
to portray the countryside as heaven and the city as hell. As you read this article it
clearly plays on your emotions and I can judge from this source that the governments
plan was to bribe able host families into taking on the evacuees. This text on this
source shows some form of accuracy. It says, Perhaps they dont say it but they
certainly man Thank You A fraction of the evacuees were from a working class
background and didnt use their manners often. They also werent familiar with
certain aspects of rudeness and often these were noticed by the host families. This
source, overall, seams to be present evacuation very successfully and especially
makes you feel that evacuation was so widely spread that more room was needed. It
shows that evacuation was as success as I can judge from this source that the
children are well, safe and happy. Also it shows that evacuation saved lives.
In contrast, sources A, C, E, F and I disagree as evidence to the statement
evacuation was a great success.
Source A, an extract from a textbook which was written for British schools, is reliable
as it is based on true facts and not just memory or opinions. Also a man called David
Taylor who is a historian wrote this source, which shows that the information will not
be biased and in fact can be backed up with evidence if need be. From the content of
this source I can make the judgement that evacuation was not a great success. It
shows the dirtiness of the evacuees and the conflict between the middle class people
living in the country and the working class from the town. It says, many children,
parents, and teachers were evacuated when war was declared. Compared to my
own knowledge, I know that the quote is partly accurate. Not all parents were
HIJ
24
evacuated with their children, as most of the men where at war and the women were
needed to do the mens previous jobs. However, some mothers with children under
that age of 5 were. Some school teachers accompanied the evacuees on their
journey to the countryside as well. Also the phrase when war was declared is
accurate. As on the 31st August the operating piped piper started and lasted for 4
days. The evacuees were sometimes just dumped at the host families doors and
other times collect in a reception centre or town hall. It this particular source it says
the evacuees were chosen at a reception centre. Also, from the content of this
source I can judge that the bed wetting of the evacuees could have been caused by
stress of moving away from home and been landed with strangers. However, as for
the evacuees hair crawling with lice this is just down to the hygiene of the
evacuees. This is accurate as hygiene levels were very low. This source indicates
that evacuation was not a great success overall and in fact the host families often
didnt want the evacuees and the evacuees didnt want to be staying with the host
families. It shows that were social differences between the city people and those
living in the countryside.
From source C, I can infer that evacuation was not a great success. The content
states that children were too afraid to talk and they hadnt the slightest idea where
they were going. Although, it seams from previous sources that evacuation was well
organised, In contrast the evacuees themselves seam to have been left in the dark.
From this I can judge that the government were more concerned with the number of
people being evacuated than letting the children know exactly what was going to
happen and where they were going. This source also seams to be exaggerated, as
they very last line says, the mothers pressed against the gates calling, good-bye
darling. The mothers would not have been pressed against the gates and it is likely
that there would have been so much noise that the teacher being evacuated, also the
interviewee in this source, would not have heard specific comments. The provenance
of this source shows that it is not very reliable. It is a secondary source and the fact
that the nature of the source is an interview is a limitation. We do not know the
purpose of the interview or what happened previously or after this extract. In the
attribution it also says that the interviewee is a teacher remembering being
evacuated with the children from her school. From this I can judge that the memory
of the school teacher may not be accurate, as the interview was taken many years
after World War 2. However, as evacuation would have been a key event in her life, it
is likely that the event would have been very memorable as it is not sometime that
you experience often. Overall, this source shows evacuation as not such a great
success and was not as well organised as people think.
From source E, a host family looking back, I can make a judgement that evacuation
was not a great success. I know from my own knowledge that a small majority of
evacuees were not potty trained, this source seams reliable as it says, children went
round the house urination on the walls. Also, I can make a judgement that the
children urinated on the carpets, walls and in bed because of the stress they were
going through. I can also infer from this source that the host mother is middle class
and the evacuees probably were working In the content it states that there was two
toilets which would have been very rare in 1940. Also, she describes the evacuees
habits as filthy. The tone of the host mother seams to be very disgusted in what she
experience. She also implies that the evacuated child and mother were rude, when
she says, they took no notice. In the content of the source it also says, we told the
children and the mother off. This implies that the evacuees mother had also been
evacuated with the child. This was also very rare and could mean that the children
were very young, maybe younger than 5 years of age. The content of the source,
however, could have been slightly twisted as it is a secondary source, taken 49 years
HIJ
25
after World War 2. The host mother may have forgotten a lot of what happened
around the time. Although, on the other hand it would have been a key event in her
life and something she remembers with great detail. Not only that, but the society
nowadays if fairly middle class, she may not have wanted to present herself in a
negative way. However, at the end of the day, this source has a narrow perspective,
as it is once persons interpretation.
Source F, also has a narrow perspective. It is an extract taken from an interview,
which first of all is a limitation as we do not know the reason as to why the interview
was taken or what happened before or after. The interview is an evacuee who is
looking back and therefore it is based on one persons interpretation, which does not
make it very reliable. The stereotype of evacuees was from a working class
background, dirty and rude. The interviewee shows signs of wanting this stereotype
to be changed, especially when he says, How I wish the common view of evacuees
could be changed. This source shows evacuation as not a great success as many
middle class evacuees were evacuated and left with working class host families. The
evacuee describes the host families houses as semi-slums which shows that
evacuation was far from a success. This is not a well known situation and in general
it is opposite to the world wide circumstances that were experienced. The evacuee
looking back in fact indicates that many of the evacuees were quite familiar with the
origins of the milk. By saying this he focus on the fact that people from the city had
seen a cow before in their life and in fact wasnt shocked to see one for the first time.
The attribution of this source states that the interview was from 1988, which were
many years after World War 2. Once again, because it is a secondary source,
information is likely to be slightly less reliable as the interviewee who was also an
evacuee may have forgotten some of the event from when he was evacuated, way
back in 1939. However, the date in which the evacuee was evacuated is very
accurate as the operation piped piper started on the last day of August in the year
1939 and continued for the first 3 days of September the same year.
Source G, is a novel written by Nina Bowden who was once herself an evacuee.
From the nature of this source (a novel) I can judge that it is not very reliable as it
would have been written with a motive to entertain and make money. This means
that Nina Bowden would have made the story more excited and would have added a
tale to it. Also as it is a fictional novel written for children, it is likely it would have
been designed to have a happy ending, as most storybooks end in this way. Also, as
it is a fictional piece of writing, there no rule to say that Nina had to stick to the truth.
However, because Nina Bowden was an evacuee herself she would have probably
based some of the tails on her own experiences. Also, because the novel was
written in 1973, Nina Bowden would have had access to primary sources and
therefore could have also based her novel on research. From this source, however, I
can make a clear judgement that evacuation was not a great success. The content of
this source clearly shows that the host mothers were prejudice towards the evacuee
and presumed that they were poor, dirty and from a working class background. This
was a common view of all evacuees, despite the fact that on the whole not all
evacuees were poor, dirty and from a working class background. This shows that
evacuation caused a lot of the people living in the countryside to judge and comment
on those living in the town. It also shows that overall there was a line drawn between
the two different environments. In the content of this source it says, Not a speck of
dust anywhere, from this I can judge that Miss Evans (the host mother) was very
house proud and from a middle class background. She also shows signs of thinking
that the children are dirty, especially when she tells them to keep to the middle of the
stairs carpet where it was covered with a cloth. From the quote you can imagine the
way the evacuees felt when they realised that she had made judgements on them
HIJ
26
before she know them. This shows that evacuation was not a success because of all
the prejudiced around at the time. Also, the two main characters in this novel (Carry
and Nick) are brother and sister being evacuated together. In real life, this was very
rare. Most families got spilt up and were only reunited when they went back home,
that is if they had a home and family to go home to. This content of the source is very
accurate. Evacuees could only take essentials in their case. This was because they
had to have a small case and many of their belongings could not fit into their small
cases. The reason why they had to have small cases was so more evacuees could
be taken to the countryside and not just train loads of evacuees luggage. This
source particular portrays evacuation as not such a great success with its reference
to prejudice thoughts by the host mother. This is defently something that was
commonly seen in World War 2.
The final source to disagree as evidence with the interpretation, evacuation was a
great success is source I. The nature of this source is an extract from a mass
observation survey (which was a wide range survey) taken during World War 2. This
is a limitation as we do not know what happened before or after. The fact it is a
primary source means that it is more reliable; however it could be biased as it has a
narrow perspective and is one persons interpretation. The man being surveyed is a
father who does not agree with evacuating the children. The whole tone of the extract
is negative and the father shows signs of being worried. It says in the content of this
source that, they referring to the children/ evacuees, cant be looked after where
theyre sending them. This shows that he is obviously fears about what would
happen to his 7 year old child if he left him be evacuated. This obviously shows that
evacuation was not an entire success, as some parents refused to let their children
go to the countryside. This survey, however, appears to include leading questions
such as surely, not in the villages? This shows that this source is reliable to an
extent. This source overall shows evacuation as not a great success, as it especially
indicates the fear of the evacuees parents.
To conclude, I personal believe that evacuation was a success as it kept the children
safe and away from the heavy bombing in the cities. However, on the whole it was
not a great success as there was clearly a lot of prejudice surrounding the difference
between the evacuees from the towns and the host families in the countryside. Also,
although the whole process was fairly well organised, the evacuees were clearly kept
in the dark and did not know where they were going or how long for. There should
have been more organisation and the evacuees should have been clear about the
whole process. I also believe that evacuation was not a great success on the whole
because it is clear from the sources that the government emotionally blackmailed the
host families into temporally fostering more of the evacuees. The government overall
come across as desperate which once again shows that the whole process was not
thought through well.
HIJ
27
Candidate 2
In this essay I will be giving my opinion on whether or not I agree with the
statement that evacuation was a great success. I have based my opinion, of the
statement, on the fact that the evacuees had a better quality of life and had their lives
saved. In the first section of my essay I will be reviewing the sources that suggest
evacuation was a success. Secondly I will be reviewing the sources that are equally
for as they are against. Finally I will be reviewing the sources that suggest evacuation
was not a success then I will move onto a conclusion.
First of all, source A, a section of Mastering Economic and Social History (a
textbook written for schools in 1988), shows that evacuation was a great success. It
says, Were evacuated when war was declared this suggests that evacuation was
done to great affect and was planed thoroughly to get the children to safety. They did
this because the evacuees were taken away the day the war started. This source is
not fully reliable because it is an interpretation and was written just under 50 years
since evacuation took place so some of the points could have been forgotten.
However, it was written for a school resource book so it will be fairly reliable but also
some of the vital facts could have been left out as it is for children. Not the entire
source proves that evacuation was a success; Arrangements however did not
always go smoothly, suggests that something somewhere went wrong and it was not
all good.
Following on, source B, a picture taken in September 1939, also shows that
evacuation was a success. It shows a number of children all being evacuated along
with parents and teachers. These were just a little proportion of the many millions
that were evacuated. The fact that so many people were evacuated as soon as the
war broke out suggests that it was a good thing as many, many lives were saved.
Also all the children and adults are looking happy, although this picture could have
been set up, it still shows the mass numbers in which the process happened. The
children are all in their school uniform, which emphasises that the process was done
so quickly. But it is a primary source so it has a reasonable amount of reliability.
Source G, a novel written in 1973 by Nina Bowden, also backs up the statement
that evacuation was a success. The houses in the countryside were mostly big
houses and were spotless; the statement not a speck of dust anywhere proves this.
The reliability of the source could be affected, as it is a novel so Nina Bowden has to
be careful in what she says as some people who were evacuated could take offence
from her comments. Also the fact that it is a novel affects the reliability because the
book needs to stand out and be enjoyable so not all the facts will be accurate but
parts of the novel we know are true from our own knowledge hadnt been room in
their cases proves this. The quote Her brother suggests that the government did
what ever they could to keep families together. We know that this is a true fact
because of our own knowledge so this leads to us feel the source has more
reliability.
Source H, a newspaper article produced by the government in 1940, has a more
balanced view on the interpretation. Some parts of the source prove that evacuation
was a success whereas others prove it was a failure. The picture in the article is
trying to show how good of a life the evacuees will be getting in the countryside on
one half, on the other it is trying to put across the point that in cities it is basically a
chance of death as the cities are being bombed. Also the picture has two young
children looking happy and they look close, maybe they are brother and sister or
maybe they have met each other in the countryside. The quote government are
HIJ
28
grateful to all the 20000 people shows that there was a large number of people who
were happy to help and save peoples life. Also all you need to do is enrol
suggests that evacuation was a success because this proves that it was so easy to
sign up to be a host and was open to everyone who wanted to help and people were
not made to do it against their will. On the other hand, this source is a plea to families
in Scotland to become hosts; this could mean that there was too many people
evacuated and not enough people willing to help out their country. This source is very
reliable as it is a primary source from only one year after war was declared.
Source D also has a changing view. It is a picture issued by the government
during the war; this source is a primary source so it has an increased level of
reliability. The picture is easy to believe as it shows many children in maybe a farm or
orphanage all having a bath, which probably happened during the evacuation
process. The source could be shown as a success for evacuation because it shows
the children having a bath, which could be the first time they have had one. The
government probably took this picture to show to parents that didnt let their children
go of that they would be treated well and would be looked after. In contrast, this
source also shows evacuation to have been a failure, there is a number of children
sharing a bath which is very unhygienic and also these children possibly would not
have been chosen by the host families and would have probably feel left out and
unwanted. The fact that it is taken by the government could mean that it has been set
up because all the children are smiling. The point of all the children having a bath for
the first time could be a bad thing as they may not be able to get used to it and may
not feel right and could be scared by the fact of water in their faces.
Source C, an interview of a teacher in 1988 who was evacuated with her school
children, gives the impression that evacuation was a success. She says things like
When we got to the station, the train was ready. This quote suggests that the
government had the process planned out and the operation went smoothly which
was a plus because they got the evacuees to safety quickly. Another quote from the
source is We hadnt the slightest idea were we were going this could have been for
safety proportions in case there were foreign spies in the area. This proves that the
government had been working on the process of evacuation and had thought long
and hard about it to make sure it was going to work. The reliability of the source is
affected because it was written 49 years later. With it being nearly 50 years on there
will probably be many more evacuated teachers around to give their opinion. This
means that the teacher will probably have made her answers to the interview better
than they should be to possibly get herself into a newspaper or even on television.
But overall it is a trust worthy source as it is written by an employee of the
government and many of the points in the source we know are true.
In contrast, source E, an interview of a host mother in 1988, suggests evacuation
was not a success. The reliability of the source again could be affected because it is
49 years on and again there will most certainly be competition from other host
mothers and families so the mother could have lied to make her story sound better.
Also the mother could have been really strict towards the evacuees as she could
have been pressured into been a host. But on the other hand the mother has first
hand experience of the process. This source shows evacuation was not a success
because it says things like children went round urinating on the walls and and our
house stank to high heaven these two quotes show that the children were just doing
things wrong and didnt really have any manners, not ready for the big posh houses
with toilets in the countryside.
HIJ
29
Following on, source F, an interview of an evacuee in 1988, also shows that

evacuation was not a success. This evacuee was a contrast to most evacuees as
they were brought up from a posh background. They say, We were not all brought
up on a diet of fish and chips. This quote suggests that most people thought of
evacuees as being all working class and also the quote many of us were quite
familiar with the origins of milk suggests that the prototype of evacuees was not very
good. According to the source writer all evacuees were talked about as being
working class, bad mannered and didnt know anything about wild, farm animals. The
reliability of the source is fairly high as the person being interviewed has first hand
experience of the process, as he was an evacuee himself and judging by the
comments that were made; they were brought up well in a wealthy family.
Finally, source I, an extract from a survey in 1940, also suggests evacuation was
a failure. The parent of a seven-year-old child has a very negative attitude towards
evacuation and feels strongly about letting his child go to the country even though it
is for his own safety. He says cant be looked after were they are sending them this
suggests that not all the adults with children that needed to be evacuated felt that
evacuation was right for their children. Also he says well they have nothing there,
they were starving before the war. This suggests that the parents felt negatively, not
only about the quality of the way that their children will be looked after, but of the diet
and quality of life they will be receiving. The reliability of the source it high as it is a
Mass Observation Survey and people did not know what the questions were going to
be asked for so they probably wouldnt lie. Also it is a primary source as the survey
took place in May 1940.
In conclusion, overall I think that evacuation was a success as it saved many,
many lives, even though not all the evacuees had a better quality of life, many did
and they learned new skills. The fact that they learned new skills helped out the
people in the countryside because many of the evacuees would help out on farms,
ploughing fields, milking cows etc. Also there are more sources that suggest
evacuation was a success in many ways. Also I cannot see why this process, which
saved over 3,000,000 lives, can be seen as a failure. Many of the lines in the
sources also effect my opinion, the fact that the government had it planned out and
organised it very well, quotes that show this include: 2,000 people in Scotland this
show the amount of people that were helping on the home front to save lives and
help win the war. Also when we got to the station the train was ready. This shows
the amount of organisation and planning of the process, that the government went
through and the belief that the process would work. So overall I feel that evacuation
was a great success. It saved lives, taught children new skills, showed them new
scenery, gave them a chance to meet new friends and talk to them about their lives
at home and things.
HIJ
30
Candidate 3
In this essay Im going to write my opinion on whether I think that evacuation was a
great success or not. I shall analyse each source and look at its reliability about
evacuation, also I will look at the attribution and provenance of each source. The
success criteria of evacuation was that it should have been well organised and all
children should have been well prepared. People have different opinions about
whether evacuation was a great success or not, I am now going to write about each
source and give my opinion on what I think.
Source A is the first source I am going to write about, it is a secondary source
from a textbook called Mastering Economic and Social History written in 1988 by
David Taylor. Seen as it is from a school textbook we assume the information will
accurate. Most of the information in the source is accurate, I know this because when
it says The evacuees were received at reception centres I know from my own
knowledge that evacuation had been planned months before hand so we know that it
was very well organised. However the source does not give us much positive
opinions on evacuation because a large majority of the source is about how
unsuccessful was, it says there were reports of children fouling gardens, hair
crawling with lice and bedwetting. This comment clearly makes us think that
evacuation was a failure.
Source B is a picture of children walking the station in London in 1939, it is a
primary source. The children and smiling and waving at the camera therefore
showing us that they are happy about what is happening to them. I know from my
own knowledge that it is reliable in some ways but not in others. The ways in which I
know that it is reliable is that all the children are holding gas masks and all have
name tags on, this is reliable because people were told by the government to all
evacuated people to take a gas mask with them. The ways in which make my think
that it is not reliable is the fact that there is a possibility that the picture might have
been set up by the government to show parents that their children were happy. The
picture itself is trying to get the message across that evacuation was a success,
therefore making the people that see the picture think it was a great success.
Source C does not tell us whether evacuation was a success or not. It is an
interview with a teacher in 1988. It is a misleading source because we dont know
what question was asked to make the teacher respond in this way. It is most likely to
be a bias answer because she might have wanted sympathy from the public who
were going to read it. Also the interview was taken almost 50 years after evacuation
so she might have made things sound better or worse than they really were. There is
no real evidence about whether evacuation was a success or a failure so I am unsure
about this source.
Source D is a photograph taken by the government during the war, therefore
making it a primary source. The picture shows boys taking a bath for maybe the first
time ever. When children got evacuated there were many things that they had not yet
experienced, such as seeing animals or getting washed. In the picture all the boys
are looking at the camera so they knew it was been taken, they all seem to be happy
because they are smiling and it doesnt look fake or fixed. Although people might
think that the picture is unhygienic and shows that it was not a success, the children
dont seem to mind, so I think that the picture shows us that evacuation was a
success.
Source E is an interview with a mother of a host family in 1988. The source is
completely biased and is only her experience with evacuated children. We know from
our own knowledge that when she says we had two toilets that she was telling the
trust because most houses in the countryside were big and posh so there would have
been two toilets in most of them, from this we can say that the source is reliable.
HIJ
31
Everything in the source tells us that evacuation was a failure, such as the children
went around the house urinating on the walls and our house stank to high heaven.
Again, I dont think that source F really tells us whether evacuation was a
success or a failure. It is an interview in 1988 with a person that was an evacuee
1939. Its not really reliable because it is bias and only one persons opinion on her
experience, its says nothing about it in general, it only says things like we were not
all raised on a diet of fish and chips, this tells me nothing about evacuation, therefore
I am not sure about source Fs reliability.
Source G, is an extarct from a book called Carries War, it was written for
children in 1973 by Nina Bowden. Although I think that the extract would be less
brutal because she might not want to upset young child, most of the information in
this extract is accurate but just more light-hearted than what actually might have
happened. Seen as the book was written 34 years after evacuation, Nina herself
might have been an evacuee and the book might be about her experience at the
house she stayed at and this particular section from the book might have happened
to her. This could make the text biased because no-one would know if she was lying
or not. The text suggest that evacuation was a success in more than one way. The
first reason is that when it says and they giggled, shows us that the children are not
frightened or upset about what is happening to them. Also, it says her brother, I
know from my own knowledge that the government did try and keep brothers and
sisters together but sometimes it was not possible. This source clearly is showing us
that evacuation was a success.
The last source I am going to evaluate is source H. This source is a
advertisement issued by the government in 1940. You could look at this source in
two different ways. The first way you could look at implies that evacuation was a
success, it could be advertising for more foster parents to take evacuees in because
evacuation has been such a great success that they need even more families and
there was more evacuees that needed home. The other way you could look at it is
that people did not want any of the children because they were naughty and were too
much trouble to keep. The government might have been really desperate for more
foster parents and this was the only way that they could persuade people to sign their
names up. This source could be read in two different ways, so I think that the source
shows us that evacuation was a success and a failure.
After looking at all the sources I have come to a conclusion that I think that
evacuation was a success. The reason I think that is because the evidence that it
was not a failure is a lot stronger than evidence saying that it was. Also, most of the
sources suggest that evacuation was a success, from all the evidence and
information I have gathered I can now say that I defiantly think that evacuation was a
great success.
HIJ
32
Question 2
Candidate 1
The answer has a sustained development of good L3 standard covering all 9
sources in terms of:
analysis of the meaning of the sources
evaluation of the sources with the possible exception of source A
There is sound knowledge to support the sources, particularly A, B, E, G, H.
There is judgement:
within the development of the sources
balanced in terms of the structure of the answer which recognises both
agreement and disagreement with the interpretation in the sources
in a conclusion that makes a final decision to disagree with the interpretation
having considered the evidence of the sources and having considered both
cases.
Thus the criteria for Level 4 have been attained:
source analysis and evaluation consistently sustained to a high Level 3 standard
balanced judgement.
The mark range for this level is 21-25 with 23 as the middle mark. The final decision
on the mark to be awarded is based on the depth of the judgement made on the
interpretation. This is sound but a greater reference could have been made to the
sources. This omission places the answer below the middle mark.
22 marks were awarded.
Candidate 2
The introduction is general but it establishes a structure for the answer.
Level 3 analysis of the meaning of sources is present in Sources C, D, E, F, H.

This is the stronger of the skills.
Level 3 evaluation of sources is present in Sources A, D, G, and, though more
confused, E.
Supporting knowledge is present.
Level 2 analysis and/or evaluation is present in Sources B, C, I.
The conclusion makes reference to the sources but is essentially knowledge based.
There is agreement and disagreement in testing the interpretation.
Thus, there is evidence of analysis and evaluation of sources to Level 3 standard
covering most of the sources although L3 analysis is stronger than L3 evaluation.
There is also adequate supporting knowledge.
This indicates an award in mid Level 3 (16-18 marks). Because of a degree of
inconsistency in the quality of the coverage of the sources, the lowest mark of this
range is awarded 16 marks.
HIJ
33
Candidate 3
8 sources are considered, source by source. There is no attempt within the structure
of the answer to identify and separate those sources that agree with the
interpretation from those that disagree.
Level 2 source evaluation with simple, generic comments is present in sources A,

B, C, E, F, G, H although B and G are marginally stronger in evaluation
Level 2 source analysis with simple comments/inferences is present in sources A
D, H
Supporting knowledge is present.
The conclusion is not developed but offers only a slender judgement.

Thus, there is evidence of analysis and evaluation of sources to Level 2 standard
with source evaluation being the stronger component.
The answer meets the criteria of a high Level 2 award 11 marks.
HIJ
34

Controlled Assessment Exemplar Work - AQA GCSE B History

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Controlled Assessment Exemplar Work - AQA GCSE B History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GCSE History B

Controlled Assessment Exemplar

Examiners comments on the answers

Examiners comments on the answers

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Analysis of sources to assess utility (AO3, 12 marks) with

The British People in War

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS AND PUBLISHERS

From Recollections of Grace Elsey, a sound archive (1977). Reprinted by permission

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Analysis and evaluation of sources to test an interpretation

Evacuation was a great success.

The British People in War

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

From an interview in 1988 with a teacher

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

From an interview in 1988 with the mother of a host family

From an interview in 1988 with someone who was an evacuee in 1939

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Some kindly folk have been looking

Then their parents.

The Government are grateful to all the

And think of all the people who have

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

What do people feel about evacuating

People are so funny here; first they say theyll

They dont have to, do they? I suppose

Yes, Ive got a boy.

What are you going to do?

Im not letting him go. They cant be looked

The Shires. Wales and the West.

Well, theyve nothing there; they were starving

Only the unemployed in the large towns

Well, what if I got killed? Whod look after him?

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS AND PUBLISHERS

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Following on, source F, an interview of an evacuee in 1988, also shows that

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Level 3 analysis of the meaning of sources is present in Sources C, D, E, F, H.

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Level 2 source evaluation with simple, generic comments is present in sources A,