KEY POINTS:
The barrage of criticism of NCEA from a few mainly Auckland schools is a distraction from the real debate that's needed over the new assessment system.
Several schools have made headlines by announcing they plan to offer the Cambridge examination alongside the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. The
stated reasons vary but parental disquiet with the new system is clearly a factor, and so are concerns the most able students are not being sufficiently challenged by NCEA.
NCEA is by no means perfect. There are many problems that need addressing - and fast. In the early development years of the system there was insufficient attention paid to the flaws that had in many cases been predicted and which quickly emerged.
But the problems need to be seen in perspective to the norm-referenced external examination system NCEA replaced. The overwhelmingly negative commentary often fails to answer the simple question: did this happen under the old assessment regime?
One example of this is the accusation that under NCEA some teachers help students decide which assessments to skip as a way to manage their workload. This may be more apparent than in the past but it's not new. Students could and frequently did leave out whole sections of examinations - doing so was suggested as an effective exam technique when time was tight. That would have reduced their overall mark, whereas now it is obvious which part of a course a student has chosen not to be assessed in.
The latest round of attack also has to be put in its context. While many schools have concerns, the voice of a small group of schools is being allowed to dominate.
What that risks doing is taking people's eyes off the aspects that need to be addressed. It creates an environment where it becomes impossible to tackle them, because positions become entrenched. If that keeps up this country could lose important years flip-flopping when we could be consolidating and vastly improving an assessment system to meet the needs of students well into the future.
The New Zealand Council for Educational Research is an independent research body which has been keeping tabs on NCEA from its inception. We've pointed out pitfalls and things that have never worked as they were intended. And we've supported the parts we think are right.
During 2006 we checked in on the country's secondary schools to see how they were getting on with NCEA. Our survey is the voice of well over half the country's secondary school principals and they are supportive. The full analysis has yet to be completed but it's possible to draw some general points and from other work the council has carried out.
People do not want to go back to the old system of traditional make-or-break exams. That's good news, because traditional exams - with their focus on the taking in of facts and which a proportion of students must fail - are not up to the task of equipping students well for the skills, knowledge and attitudes they will need in the rapidly changing knowledge age. Parents may think they want the Cambridge exam but it's questionable how well it serves students.
In spite of a number of serious concerns with NCEA, 87 per cent of the principals we questioned rejected the idea of a return to the previous system. Nor is there a mandate to ditch NCEA and come up with a new system - only 10 per cent of principals backed that.
What does come through strongly in our work is the confusion and uncertainty about the system from parents. They don't favour a new system but they're unsure about whether the old-style examinations were better. Their support for the system has dropped since 2003, although most are in the "neutral/don't really know" category rather than vehemently opposed.
Tomorrow's Schools gave parents a strong voice in schools and that has been a largely positive development, But these findings illustrate the dangers for schools in basing important and complex assessment decisions on parental opinion. Parents - and students can tell you this - have not on the whole got to grips with NCEA. That's not surprising - it's a fundamental break from the past.
It's been difficult for students, parents and the public to shift from the seeming objectivity of percentage scores, that allowed easy comparison between students, to a situation where students pit themselves against a standard.
The meaning of assessment seems less clear to people, even though more actual learning outcomes are reported in some detail. This aspect of NCEA needs more explaining.
There are sound reasons New Zealand went down the NCEA route. The aims of the ambitious reforms were broad, and included a desire to break down the divide between academic and vocational pathways, to create an outcomes-based system, to enable students to leave school with a more detailed, evidence-based record of what they'd achieved rather than just a pass or fail, to better motivate lower-achieving students and for students to be more fully engaged in their learning choices.
Support was bipartisan. NCEA was put in place by a National Government and picked up by Labour.
Without wishing to minimise the serious challenges that remain, we are cautiously optimistic that the potential benefits of the new system will be delivered.
But it requires a willingness to overcome deeply entrenched attitudes about what counts as a measure of quality learning.
* Dr Rosemary Hipkins is chief researcher of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
