And this is where our serious concerns arise. An existing criticism of NCEA is that students can earn credits from a wide range of courses and programmes, without having to dive deeply into specific subjects.
Work to make the curriculum more content-specific is already under way but not completed, let alone introduced and embedded into student learning. So, it is concerning that the public is being asked to give feedback on a proposed assessment and qualifications system before knowing exactly what will be assessed.
Many principals and teachers are worried the proposals represent an over-correction from the flexibility of the present system and there is a high risk of unintended harm, of reducing or eliminating access to a Level 1 qualification. Students would be left without the qualification they would otherwise have earned and with no robust vocational pathway yet in existence to carry on with.
A strength of NCEA is that learning programmes can be broad as well as deep, adaptive and responsive to the needs of an individual, a community, a society and an economy. Now, the Government is proposing a much narrower range of acceptable subjects and the notion of “acceptable losses” with young people leaving school after Year 11, aged 16, with no credible, widely recognised qualification.
Rationing of success is exactly what abandoning School Certificate and other unfair ranking devices was intended to overcome. To reintroduce this notion is a significant change in philosophy from qualifications recording achievement to rewarding a much smaller – often more advantaged – group.
Every parent wants their children to succeed. We fear the proposed changes will reduce achievement in the most disadvantaged communities. The greater the achievement at secondary level, the better the life outcomes in terms of income and health for an individual, and the better educated a community is, the more likely it is that people can collaborate to solve complex problems.
We are also concerned about how much careful thought has been given to the proposed vocational subjects to be included on the approved subjects list.
In the absence of fully integrated national vocational education pathways, secondary schools have developed local responses to give every student the opportunity to succeed.
For a couple of decades, the flexibility of NCEA has meant meaningful programmes at a local level have been recognised within the NCEA.
The Government’s plan is that Industry Skill Councils (ISCs) will “work with industry” to devise these “subjects” that are currently no more than political ideas. ISCs have not even been established yet and will inherit the workloads and lack of resourcing evident in the Workforce Development Councils that are soon to be abolished.
There is no guarantee the industry groups the Government thinks are acceptable will play ball. We have been wanting vocational pathways for students forever. We need a more coherent approach that ensures the pathways are clear and accessible for rangatahi whether they live in Grey Lynn or Greymouth.
There is no hint in these proposals of an understanding of the future staffing and workforce development needs to meet expectations. There are significant resourcing implications for secondary schools, which provide a specialist workforce to deliver the curriculum and prepare students for qualifications, especially in a time of severe secondary teacher shortage.
It is likely the Ministry of Education does not even have accurate raw data about how many English, maths and science teachers are currently employed, let alone the number necessary for an imposed approved subject list.
Principals, teachers, students and communities need to have faith that these big-ticket items are actively being addressed.
A poor track record for resourcing and rollout of initiatives in the secondary sector, in particular, means there is a level of scepticism about any genuine consultation process.
This could be easily dispelled if the large number of submissions already made, and those still to come, lead to constructive changes to the current proposals.
It is imperative that consultation on these proposals is a genuine opportunity for the Government to hear and respond appropriately to address valid concerns. A mere box-ticking exercise risks serious disadvantage and harm to future generations.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.
