Not surprisingly, there has been pushback, with some now arguing that they accept that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) has some faults but “let’s fix the bits that aren’t working”. The irony lost on many is that our old system also had faults and needed to be modernised, but we chose to demolish it completely rather than change the bits that needed to be changed.
Essentially, we told New Zealanders everything was so broken that everything needed to change. This was simply not true. Let us not lose sight of one of the underlying issues that drove those changes. It is the long tail made up of a disproportionate percentage of Māori and Pasifika learners. This was the issue 30 years ago and it is now a bigger issue. All the NCEA did was hide it differently.
Many are not happy with what has been proposed, as is evidenced by the open letter to the minister signed by 89 principals. A growing number of teachers were educated in the NCEA system and will struggle with the lack of control they can have on the overall results through internal assessments.
Principals and teachers alike will no longer be able to massage the data and although well-meaning, they will not be able to influence the statistics. I can think of a recent example from one of these schools where some students were not entered into all the available external standards in a subject, yet they were interested in a health science career. I can think of other examples where the teachers actually turned students away when they came to sit the external assessments.
For 20 years, those in positions of influence had the opportunity to address some of the NCEA issues but chose not to. Commentators like Bali Haque argue that the minister is manufacturing a crisis. It is clear to me that he has decided to ignore all the hard and anecdotal data that say otherwise.
Apparently, the NCEA is recognised internationally and some of our students get accepted into famous universities. This is true in spite of the NCEA. We are fooling ourselves if we think prestigious universities hold our qualification in high regard.
Applicants will be forced to sit various entrance assessments before being accepted. Bright students are bright, regardless of the qualification system. Haque also suggested there was no data that support the idea that students game the system. He obviously hasn’t worked in a school for a while. It is rife.
All credit to Auckland University’s Pasifika Academy programme that is making a real and measurable difference as it helps prepare Māori and Pasifika students for potential university life. Some will choose not to take this path but at least they have options.
The proposed system appears to address the gaming problem and the use of percentages will make it easier for all to understand. I always thought it was ironic that maths or economics teachers were encouraged to give context to their subject when discussing interest rates or percentages yet then report a student’s progress using the made-up Achieved, Merit or Excellence measure.
If the resulting official certificate captures what subjects make up the overall result, then future employers and the university will be able to judge for themselves whether the student has obtained appropriate learning for their post-school education.
I suspect separate lists of academic and vocational subjects will be required to ensure students choose wisely as they plan their bundle of subjects. It won’t put an end to gaming, but it should decrease it considerably. This is the low-hanging fruit and part of the change that is required.
Haque and others are right in recognising the underlying problem and the need to address the social, economic, cultural and learning barriers that disadvantage students when they enter a primary school. And this is part of many teachers’ concerns.
The reality is that for thousands of students in Aotearoa, which school they attend does make a difference and will limit what dreams they can pursue. These schools and their staff will struggle in the new system because they will not have access to the right specialist teachers while also dealing with high levels of truancy and other socio-economic issues faced by their students.
Our overarching philosophy should be to ensure equal opportunity for all and that the school doesn’t play a big factor. This should not be confused with equal outcomes for all; whether a student takes advantage of what is on offer is a different issue. Students who enter the secondary phase of their education with a poor grasp of the basics will inevitably fall short in the new system as well.
Nothing will change unless the students entering secondary school do so with an improved knowledge base. A plan is in place to address the numeracy and literacy issues but even this might be of limited use if children coming from difficult socio-economic backgrounds have not had the opportunity to develop in their preschool and primary school years.
Much has been made of the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots. Sadly for many of our young learners, they belong to a third class that I call the “never-hads”. They never attended a preschool, their family life is not that rosy and life is most probably about day-to-day survival.
Time-poor parents don’t read to their children anymore, among other things. Apparently, about 30% of 3- to 4-year-old children don’t receive early childhood education (ECE) and the number is about 50% for Māori. The first 5-7 years of life are critical to brain development and preschool institutions have an important role to play in being part of “the village that brings up the child”.
If we don’t attempt to fix the underlying problem then we are all complicit in the consequences that continue to play out in front of our eyes. Many children will end up contributing to the statistics that our society is not proud of.
New Zealand needs brave, cross-party politicians with a long-term view. We need to make a start, regardless of how small that start might be and ECE would most probably deliver best value for money.
For what it is worth, my approach would be to run a pilot programme, starting with a handful of carefully chosen communities, and involving bespoke solutions run by the community that leverage local infrastructure such as halls, maraes or disused buildings.
Caregivers and whānau must be at the heart of the programme. The advantage to this approach is that it is quicker to establish, adjustments are easier to manage and cost outlay is limited. Regular reviews can then take place to cherry-pick the bits that work and manage potential fishhooks. Small wins are worth celebrating.
The way I look at it, every step is a step closer. We just need to roll up our sleeves and make a start.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.
