Editorial: Response to exam failure far too hasty

Opinion

A heavy irony hangs over the unexpected failure of some of the country's brightest students to pass scholarship examinations. These school-leavers could not supply the right answers to a considerable interrogation of their academic ability. They failed a challenge of exactly the sort that meritocrats complained would be missing from the NCEA system. The introduction of a greater emphasis on internal assessment would, the critics said, equate to an exercise in dumbing down. So what happened when a number of exams demanded excellence? A hostile response panicked the Government into ill-timed and ill-conceived action.

The crux of the exam debate concerns science subjects, especially biology and chemistry. Only nine of the 1000 students who sat biology last year were awarded scholarships. The Government's response has been twofold: it sought a report from the Associate Education Minister and, before knowing what that would conclude, introduced replacement awards. A distinction certificate will be available to students who did exceptionally well at the less stringent NCEA level 3 in a subject that was under-represented at scholarship. This represents the most premature of votes of no-confidence in the exams. The associate minister's report to Cabinet will show one of two things. It may reveal that the biology or chemistry exams were rogues, and that students had every right to feel hard done by. In that case, there will have been a breakdown in Qualifications Authority procedures, which involve a moderator verifying an exam is clear, understandable and reflects the curriculum, and a checker sitting the exam to confirm its suitability.

Alternatively, the report will conclude that the exams were tough but fair. That whatever the reason - overly ambitious teachers and the inability of science students to put complex thoughts into appropriate English are two suggestions - the vast majority of students simply failed to measure up. In that event, the Government will look foolish. It will have been shown that it should have held its nerve, not lowered standards by resorting to a distinction certificate. If such is the case, there must be no repeat this year.

Scholarship, the top award in the school system, must be a substantial challenge. The reward for passing is access to a Government pot of funding for tertiary study. To gain this, students must reach a certain standard. The money should never be handed out as a matter of course. The introduction of a distinction certificate, however, makes matters every bit as artificial as scaling, the technique that until last year ensured a sufficient number of passes.

Additionally, the Government's method of action was as flawed as its rushed reaction. In the event that the exams had been found to be rogues, it should not have been its job to come up with the remedy. That task should have been handed to a body with education expertise operating at arms' length from the Beehive. Then there might have been a more considered response, not a patch-up job.

Exams have always caused controversy - and always will. Setting them is not easy, and there will always be complaints that one is too hard and one too easy. Equally, the NCEA is an area of complexity. Yet on this issue, a comparison can be drawn with Olympic qualification times. If no New Zealander passes the qualifying standard for, say, the 800m, we do not lower the time just so this country will have an entrant at the next Games. Instead, we accept that our present bunch of middle-distance runners is, for whatever reason, not up to the mark.

If the report to the Cabinet shows the scholarship exams were tough but fair, it should be greeted with a similar acceptance. There is no need to lower standards, especially not as a means of handing out funding. Our elite students should expect theses exams to be extremely demanding. Anything less would, indeed, be proof of a dumbing down of education.