Education Minister Erica Stanford joins Ryan Bridge on Herald NOW to discuss the proposed end to NCEA and what will replace it.
Analysis by Derek Cheng
Derek Cheng is a Multimedia Journalist for New Zealand’s Herald. He values holding those in power to account and shining a light on issues kept in the dark.
A shake-up of the country’s main secondary school qualification will abolish NCEA and replace it with two new qualifications at Year 12 and 13.
Year 11 students will face a Foundational Skills Award, with English and mathematics compulsory. Year 12 and 13 students will seek to attain the NZ Certificate of Education and the NZ Advanced Certificate of Education respectively.
The proposal is open for consultation until September 15.
Whether supportive or sceptical, there’s been an overriding reaction to the Government’s plan to completely scrap NCEA within five years and replace it with a more structured qualification: the devil will be in the detail.
There was general agreement that NCEA’s credibility had taken a tumble, as evidenced in thegrowing number of schools opting to ditch NCEA Level 1.
But even those wholeheartedly supporting the new system say its success will depend on the quality of the new curricula and how well schools and teachers are resourced.
“The proof will be in the pudding,” says Rangitoto College principal Patrick Gale, who chaired the reform advisory group to the Government.
There are a variety of opinions on how that pudding is shaping, and it’s still early days; feedback on the proposals is open until September 15, with Cabinet releasing final decisions in November.
The idea is that the new system will keep the best of NCEA’s flexibility, but with enough structure and prescription to provide confidence about what students have learned for parents, tertiary education providers and employers.
But even the discussion document on the proposals says it’s likely student achievement will dip during the transition, while sector leaders warn an over-correction will result in our most disadvantaged students falling through the cracks.
There are concerns pulling back on NCEA's flexibility will favour students from richer backgrounds, while the disadvantaged fall through the cracks. Photo / 123rf
How did we get here?
NCEA has become so flexible that it’s being gamed, damaging its credibility. You can gain Level 2 or 3 with a mash-up of mostly internal assessments across several subjects, for example, and then not show up to the exam at the end of the year.
This isn’t universal, as Education Minister Erica Stanford stressed last week, and NCEA remains a decent qualification for many students. But after more than two decades, it’s still confusing for many parents, employers and tertiary education providers.
Nearly half of Year 12 students who achieved Level 2 last year did so “without engaging in a full programme of coherent subject-based learning”, while a third of Year 12 and 13 students with Level 2 or 3 relied on unit standards from “disparate” subjects.
The Government wants to curb this flexibility in exchange for more structure and prescription, with a subject score out of 100 that is more easily understood.
Instead of NCEA Level 1, students will work towards a Foundational Skills Award in Year 11, a NZ Certificate of Education (NZCE) in Year 12, and a NZ Advanced Certificate of Education (NZACE) in Year 13.
Maths and English will be compulsory subjects in Year 11. It’s unclear whether the Foundational Skills Award will differ from the current online numeracy and literacy tests.
Students will need to pass four out of five subjects to gain NZCE or NZACE.
The proposed new record of achievement. Supplied / Ministry of Education
How University Entrance accommodates the new qualifications remains to be seen. It currently requires, among other things, a minimum of 14 credits at NCEA Level 3 in each of three approved subjects.
“The proposed system increases that minimum to four subjects to pass, but it is not yet clear what subjects these will be in, which will be one of the things we consider,” University NZ said in a statement.
“University Entrance is a robust indicator of a student’s readiness for degree-level standards, and we would expect that to continue under a new system.”
Best of both worlds – in theory
The flexibility of NCEA, however, is what was – and still is – lauded by some schools.
It provided an easier way to reward students for what they’d learned, especially if their preferred way of learning didn’t fit neatly into the traditional classroom, or via an end-of-year exam.
This was particularly useful for those with special learning needs because of, for example, their dyslexia, ADHD or autism.
Assessments were made in a fundamentally fairer way too, with students’ work compared to a certain standard. In the old School Certificate-Bursary system, students were compared to each other and their marks were weighted to fit the standard deviation curve.
The new system will remain standards-based, though how that will be compatible with a subject score out of 100 is one of the details yet to be worked out.
“A raw number grade, like 54%, doesn’t actually show what you understand,” said Post-Primary Teachers Association president Chris Abercrombie.
“The standards base can show, for example, ‘Chris is really good at writing essays, he’s not very good at graphs’.”
PPTA president Chris Abercrombie says the timeframes for replacing NCEA are tight but not impossible. Photo / Supplied
It would be ideal to have a high level of detail about what a student knows, as well as an overall score that indicates the student’s knowledge of the subject’s curriculum.
“We’re not entirely sure how exactly it’s going to work. A percentage grade and a standards-based assessment kind of don’t go together, per se,” Abercrombie said.
“It’ll be really interesting to see exactly what it looks like.”
Some flexibility, but not too much
A key magic trick will be swinging the pendulum towards a more rigid system in a way that retains enough flexibility to benefit those with special learning needs, but not so much that credibility starts to crumble.
The chief concern is who will fall through the cracks if the swing is too great.
“If there’s an overcorrection, we know it’d be neurodiverse, the low socioeconomic, the students with specific learning needs,” Abercrombie said.
“We don’t want that because that was the point of NCEA, to be a bit fairer. We’re worried this is potentially an overcorrection, leading to more students leaving school without a qualification.”
Special assessment conditions, commonly used for the likes of ADHD students, are being retained, with NZQA looking at ways to strengthen them. Again, what this will eventually look like is still being worked through.
A greater emphasis on external assessment, which is being proposed, should make it harder to game the system.
The internal-external split is another detail yet to be worked out and is likely to vary subject to subject, including whether an end-of-year exam is suitable.
NCEA is thought to make learning easier for the neurodiverse and the new system aims to keep enough flexibility to retain this benefit. Photo / 123rf
“An exam is a good way to assess someone’s memory, but it’s not necessarily a good way to assess certain skills or certain knowledge,” Abercrombie says.
“Art, for instance, that’s often an internally done portfolio that’s marked externally. The students work on it during the year and then it’s sent off to be marked.”
Will more students fail?
More failures are obviously not the intent. But if students are passing by gaming the system, and that won’t happen so easily in the new system, then fewer students will pass, all other things being equal.
The counter to this is that’s the point and the new system will remedy the declining credibility of the current set-up.
Not that all other things are staying equal.
The Government has already moved towards structured literacy and mathematics (though there is contention over the latter’s legitimacy), an increase in learning support funding, and refreshed curriculums with a focus on knowledge-rich content (though teacher feedback has seen the timeline for the rollout pushed back).
Even if it all goes well, such a radical change is unavoidably disruptive. Educational achievement is “likely to decline in the short term compared to NCEA” before lifting again, says the discussion document on the proposed changes.
There is also concern about creating an inflexible two-tier system, one for academic students and another for vocational pathways.
“We don’t want to lock some 13-year-old into a pathway they don’t want to be on when they’re 17 or 18,” Abercrombie said.
Minister of Education Erica Stanford wants to phase out NCEA over five years. Photo / Dean Purcell
Is it all too much, too quickly?
The proposed timeline is to phase out NCEA over five years, with the current system and the new system – including the old curricula and refreshed curricula – running parallel for some of those years.
This is a lot for schools and teachers, on top of the workforce challenges that already exist.
The timeline makes sense, said Rangitoto College principal Patrick Gale.
“It saves a double change of adapting the existing system to new curriculum as it rolls through and then adapting once again to a new assessment system, if decided upon.
“Effective resourcing of new curriculum and associated materials is essential. This was not done well with previous NCEA Level 1 adjustments.”
Abercrombie says the timeline is “not impossible, but tight”.
“Teachers are going to be teaching the old curriculum, the new curriculum, the current NCEA and the new qualifications, all at the same time. A lot of the new curricula aren’t even due until the end of this year. That doesn’t leave a lot of time for feedback.
“That’s a lot of work at a time where we’ve got shortages; we don’t have enough subject specialist teachers.
“We just really need the confidence that the ministry and the minister have a clear resourcing and implementation plan for this.”
The implementation timeline. Supplied / Ministry of Education
Unease over AI marking
Last week Stanford hailed the use of AI for marking, which was already in use for literacy and numeracy corequisite exams.
Abercrombie said there were potential benefits in reducing teacher workloads, but the general feeling among PPTA members was that AI “isn’t there yet to be able to confidently mark”.
As it evolves, he said it should only be used where it made sense, for example in marking a mathematics question rather than an essay about a Shakespeare play.
“There’s also another element. Students like having their teacher mark their work and give them feedback. Teaching is about relationships. Hopefully it’s not done in a way that is going to undermine that relationship.
“We’d hate to get into a situation where the computer says you’ve failed.”
Derek Cheng is a senior journalist who started at the Herald in 2004. He has worked several stints in the press gallery team and is a former deputy political editor.
