KEY POINTS:
Now that the dust has settled and the fog has lifted a little from the NCEA, we should take a dispassionate and considered look at the position and status of our national qualification system.
There has been, of course, the usual division that always seems to occur in
New Zealand educational circles.
One side claims that standards are dropping and the bar is being lowered, and the other claims that students now have many more opportunities to gain some recognition of their talents and endeavours.
The same arguments were used when, some years ago, University Entrance was abandoned in favour of Sixth Form Certificate.
But at the heart of the matter is the debate about whether an internal assessment system is to be preferred to traditional exams.
In more conservative schools, examinations appeal because they are seen as more objective, leaving less room for human error or - even worse - human bias, and indeed they do have many obvious advantages.
Students, for example, are judged on their marks, irrespective of the school they attend.
Employers can see clearly what the student has attained and are not confronted by a complicated "profile" or "record of learning" - sets of units and standards, mysterious numbers and achievements which are almost impossible to evaluate in any meaningful way.
There are advantages, too, in the classroom. Exams usually follow a concise, clear-cut syllabus. Topics are easily identified by teachers and students. Teachers can teach to the syllabus and mark and examine accordingly. This type of approach enables the students to appreciate clearly what they are supposed to learn.
As a result, principals who are wary of internal assessment want to maintain academic standards and see all students performing on a "level playing field".
They are dissatisfied with the present national system and look for viable alternatives: Cambridge or the International Baccalaureate.
The main problem is that educators hardly ever sit on the fence: the debate is quickly polarised, and opposing factions argue from extremes, ignoring a possibly fertile middle ground.
Aristotle long ago argued for the "golden mean" - the middle or common-sense path, and I would urge such a stance.
We don't need to lower the bar. We need to get our top students to jump over it and give our average students a chance to reach it.
No system has all the answers - all have their losses and gains and many attempts to create the perfect approach have been shown to be flawed. The exam-based approach can so easily become rigid and regimented.
Students "cram" for the exams, learn prepared essays and forget what they have "learned" very quickly. Teachers and students pore over past papers as the all-or-nothing day of decision approaches.
Exam techniques creep further back into the school, stultifying teaching and learning at the lower levels. Students who prefer to work at their own pace are disadvantaged.
There is a place for such an approach but one wonders whether it is "education" .
In T.S. Eliot's play Murder in the Cathedral, Archbishop Thomas a Becket states that " ... the greatest treason is to do the right thing for the wrong reason".
I sometimes suspect that some schools fall into this trap. They adopt a system they are not comfortable with because the school down the road is beating the drum, and they have to get in step or lose top students to a perceived better deal.
NCEA assessment too has its weaknesses. The accurate moderation of the wide range of activities assessed internally is a big task.
And surely the range of grades is far too wide. Lazy candidates trying only the minimum are rewarded by achieving the far-too-easy minimum standard, and hard-working students only just miss at the other end of the same category. The fact that both groups are deemed "equal" takes no account of real ability and attitude.
Make a slight error in bursary maths or physics and your ability would still be reflected in your mark (87, say, instead of 93 - but still obviously pretty good).
Now, a similar student could drop a whole category and still be deemed the same as someone who has just crept in at the bottom.
NCEA assessment grades conceal qualities which most parents, teachers or employers would like to see displayed.
There is no reason a University-type system of grading cannot be used - A+, A, A-, B+ and so on down to D - to differentiate between students. It would then be fair to them and to those who teach them. It would no longer mask ineptitude, inability or laziness. Employers and tertiary institutions would know what they were getting. The grades would mean something.
There is a real concern also that our students are not motivated enough to aim for merit and excellence. Boys, in particular, tend to have the mindset of simply doing enough to pass and being content with that.
Parents and teachers watch their blood pressure rise while the boys' minds turn to the attractions of sun, sand and surf.
I have never been convinced that going overseas to find alternatives to a New Zealand system is the complete or best answer.
Ours is a small, compact country and we should be able to come up with a unified qualification system embodying the best of local and international practices.
It must meet the needs of our students. NCEA has a vital role to play in giving students a chance to get a qualification in tune with their requirements - particularly in the practical and vocational areas.
It can be argued that NCEA has performed a valuable service in spreading its net more widely than the traditional fields of study, and has enabled many young people to achieve in subjects once unavailable.
Has the pursuit of academic excellence suffered as a result? It is difficult to say.
A sensible compromise is possible. We can surely devise a system that is rigorous and challenging to our top academic students while allowing students who are not academic to gain a useful qualification.
Let's do NCEA levels 1 and 2 with possibly a little more emphasis on external examination and less on constant, time-consuming internal marking. Then at Year 13 re-introduce, for basically academic subjects, bursary and scholarship-type examinations so students have something to aim at and universities and employers have a valid benchmark by which to assess them.
It is important that senior students face an objective, externally marked assessment which will challenge them and give a realistic evaluation of their ability.
This is a sensible compromise which would help prevent the sad spectacle of institutions going to the extreme of opting out of NCEA and embracing an alternative system.
* Tom Gerrard is the principal of Rosmini College in Takapuna.
