Editorial: Lower University Entrance pass rate a wake up call for system

Of the 20,500 pupils who attempted NCEA Level 3 last year, the UE test, 58 per cent achieved. That is well down on the 71 per cent who achieved that level in 2013. Photo / Greg Bowker

Opinion

From the moment today's school examination system was conceived in the 1980s there were fears that standards would be "dumbed down". Education was to be made more "accessible" at all levels. Examinations set nationally and marked blindly would give way to assessment of pupils' work by teachers who knew them. The curriculum and the assessment would be pathways without barriers for students who were prepared to do the work. They could progress at their own pace to higher learning.

At the same time, universities were having their system of course-funding changed to be less centrally determined and more responsive to the number of students the course could attract - and keep. Both reforms reached fruition in the 1990s and there were soon mumbled concerns from universities that standards were not what they were. More school leavers and mature students were arriving without the capacity for university, and too many of them were being passed for the sake of "bums on seats".

University funding has been made less reliant on course numbers in recent years and the entrance qualification from school has been made more stringent, too. Of the 20,500 pupils who attempted NCEA Level 3, the university entrance test, last year, 58 per cent passed, or "achieved" as they now say. That is well down on the 71 per cent who achieved that level in 2013.

Education Minister Hekia Parata is not surprised. She says the requirements introduced last year have been well flagged since they were adopted by the Qualifications Authority three years ago and a drop of this magnitude is to be expected. Others are not so sure. Universities New Zealand, representing the eight universities, is surprised at how many failed and wants the Qualifications Authority to review the way schools prepared pupils for the challenge. The Post-Primary Teachers' Association is concerned that the entrance criteria may be too narrow. Both organisations agree with the need to raise the bar but they seem to have a pre-conceived notion of how many will get over it. A success rate of 58 per cent does not appear to discredit the new entrance standard. That may indeed be the proportion of Year 13 pupils who can meet the demands of a university degree.

Too much tertiary training has been taken into universities in recent times and not for the good of the students or their training. Courses have been padded to run for three or four years when one would have been sufficient. After all that time, graduates can emerge with so little practical preparation in their professional certificate that they have to learn on the job.

Meanwhile, academically inclined students are in courses of mediocre standard. Our best universities are not ranking high enough on international league tables. They may be falling between the stools of world-class scholarship and the sharp career preparation. Now that the entrance bar has been raised, new tertiary tiers may need to answer the need of those who miss it. Last year's pass rate may be a reality check, not a disaster.