KEY POINTS:
In recent days two fine Auckland schools have indicated they may entertain using an assessment system in addition to NCEA. That, of course, is their choice.
Significantly, at least one of the principals involved indicated that although not the only reason, a major factor for possible change was
pressure from parents. That is a concern.
There is an increasing tension in education between what research and practice indicate is educationally sound, and what some parent groups may think should happen.
During the past three years, many primary and secondary principals have indicated to me they have often been put in a position of trying to balance what they know to be in the best interests of teaching and learning with the alternative demands of parents. In some cases it has driven them from the profession.
The question of who gets to make what decisions is clearly unresolved and is becoming more murky.
What is happening here is the result of one of the greatest sleights of hand ever to happen in New Zealand public policy; the amateurisation of the social professions.
During the public reforms of the late 1980s, one of the driving principles was that those involved in certain professions and social services really did not have the answers because those in the community knew more.
In other words, if you had a point of view and enough of you shared it then you must be right. As a result, we have seen millions of dollars squandered on social programmes given under contract to groups which, aside from good intentions, have no particular expertise to carry them out.
When hard problems have to be solved, good intentions are not enough. Opinion is not enough. Democratic decisions don't work. What is needed is knowledge and expertise.
In education the process known as Tomorrow's Schools systematically undermined the status of teachers by giving parents and communities the expectation that, not only should they be involved in the governance of schools, but that they know best about how their children should be taught.
They don't always. The result is we now have some principals constantly engaged in an irresolvable balancing act between their professional obligations and the whims of some parents and parent groups.
Can anyone seriously contemplate doctors, dentists or engineers putting up with such intrusion? They must always exercise their knowledge and skill commensurate with research and up-to-date practice. They also owe their clients a duty of care to consult them and ensure they have the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision.
What they do not do is allow their clients to dictate effective treatment procedures, the stress levels needed in the metal needed to build a bridge, or how to do a root canal. That would be absurd. But, it is precisely what is happening in some aspects of education.
Any effective teacher, principal or school will always work with parents and families to maximise the education of children, just as other professions do with patients or clients.
But that does not mean parents can dictate how reading is taught, how science lessons are conducted, or how the assessment of those subjects should be made.
These are professional decisions based on research and best practice, not public hysteria whipped up by a few and fostered by a media cohort that seems only too keen to encourage such behaviour.
Assessment is a complex area. It is also misunderstood. It has been particularly misunderstood with regard to NCEA.
NCEA is not about what is taught. That is curriculum, and we have a national curriculum. NCEA is not about how it is taught. That is pedagogy or teaching method. NCEA is about how we measure what has been learned - nothing more or less.
One of the reasons for moving away from the previous assessment system (School Certificate, UE and Bursary) was not because it was more reliable, which is being claimed by some, but because it was not.
For example, the mark most students received on their exam results in School Certificate was often not what they actually achieved in the exam, but scaled as a comparison against others.
A move to a standards-based system was never going to be easy. So it has proven. Mistakes have been made. Improvements to the system are still necessary.
When one considers the scope and enormity of introducing a new national system of assessment, these challenges are to be expected. But that does not mean decisions about assessment and its implementation should be based on public opinion.
In the two schools involved I am sure that is not so, but the warning signs are clear and potentially concerning.
What is needed here is to identify the true meaning of the concept of partnership between educators and the community. The current relationship is, in many cases, neither productive nor beneficial and if it continues, does not auger well for the future.
* Dr John Langley writes as the Dean, Faculty of Education, the University of Auckland, not as a member of the NZQA.
