The NCEA unmasked

By PAULA OLIVER

The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) has endured its first year - and what a year it was.

Heated debates, teacher strikes and doubts over resourcing marred the introduction of the secondary school qualification.

The standards-based NCEA replaced School Certificate for Year 11 students last year, and opinions on its merits have been divided within the education sector.

Even the tightly-knit Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) was almost split down the middle by the NCEA when some of its members wanted to ban implementing the next level but others did not.

The first students to tackle the NCEA now have their results.

Many have achieved the required standards, some have done so with "merit" or "excellence".

But others have not met the required standard and numbers are alarmingly high in some subjects.

Teachers have begun identifying trouble-spots and there are claims that poorly written exam questions and vague instructions contributed to the results.

But NCEA supporters claim that it is a transparent qualification that is simply exposing the weaknesses of students that were previously masked by School Certificate.

As another round of debate rages over the NCEA, the Herald took a look at how the students fared.

English

Most students reached achievement level in the nine English standards, few attained excellence.

Results showed formal writing to be a problem - 40 per cent of the 41,118 students did not meet the required standard.

Students attempting formal writing were asked to create something to a publishable standard, such as a letter to a Board of Trustees or an article for a newspaper.

Different schools set different tasks.

The high failure rate surprised some English teachers, but others suspect formal writing has always been an area of weakness.

Noeline Wright, vice-president of the New Zealand Association for the Teaching of English, said the NCEA standards were probably exposing areas that had previously been hidden behind an all-encompassing School Certificate mark.

"In School Certificate the questions were passive, and they often began with 'write about'. You could conceal things you weren't good at. Now you can't."

Other teachers question whether some English departments took too narrow a view of what was publishable.

"Everything, including a novel or a newspaper, no matter how hard you try, there will be errors," said one teacher.

In other English standards, 35 per cent of students failed to adequately view/listen to, study and show understanding of a visual or oral text.

The highest achievement rate was in the reading and showing understanding of unfamiliar texts - just 11 per cent did not meet the requirements.

Mathematics

Some maths teachers are concerned the NCEA results will cap a disappointing year for students.

At least half of the students sitting each of the nine maths standards reached achievement level - but it was a close call in some cases.

Forty-nine per cent failed to estimate and determine probabilities, 41 per cent failed to sketch and interpret linear or quadratic graphs, and 36 per cent could not use straightforward algebraic methods to solve equations.

Other topics boasted a more successful strike rate - almost 40 per cent of students who attempted standards involving measurement and geometric reasoning achieved the merit or excellence category.

Steve Bushell, the head of mathematics at Kelston Boys High School, said he was concerned that the standards were inflexible and that the exam contained complicated language.

He pointed to one student who made a minor error in a paper and it had cost him an excellence grade. In School Certificate, because the student was applying the correct process, he would have got at least some marks for the question, Mr Bushell said.

Teachers also complained that they were not prepared for what the students would meet in the exam.

"There needs to be more stuff from the NZQA about what's going on and what students can expect," one teacher said.

Mr Bushell said some questions used three lines to ask what only needed one. Many did not allow students to demonstrate how much they knew.

He asked parents and the public not to blame teachers for the results.

"It was an incredibly hard year. There will be a lot of very disappointed students. The teaching has been good. The students largely have embraced NCEA and worked hard and done what they thought they needed to do."

Science

Science teachers have expressed great concern that fewer than half of students achieved some standards.

Problems arose in the areas of rocks and minerals, and micro-organisms and genetic information, where 53 per cent and 51 per cent failed to meet standards respectively.

Jenni Edwards, president of the New Zealand Association of Science Educators, said teachers wanted the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and Ministry of Education to look at changes to address the concerns.

Blame has been laid at unclear, open-ended questions and contexts that students did not understand.

Dr Edwards said the failure rate was higher than teachers had expected.

Another senior teacher said "university students would have had problems figuring out where some of the science exam questions were leading".

The highest rate of success in science was for carrying out a practical investigation - 49 per cent achieved either merit or excellence.

Economics

Economics teachers said they were not surprised that standards containing internal assessment components attracted higher pass rates than those that did not.

"Kids get two chances at internal. You'd expect it," said Concerned Teachers' spokesman and Dannevirke High School economics teacher Peter Calvert.

Results were predominantly pleasing for student and teachers. Eighty-eight per cent of students were able to describe concepts related to consumer choice and demand. Other standards had similar pass rates.

Mr Calvert said more students were passing than under School Certificate.

"But I think it's hard to say that those kids know more than the kids from a year ago."

He feared students might determine which NCEA subjects were easier to pass and gravitate towards them for that reason.

Technology

The poorest performer of all subjects - 75 per cent of students failed to reach a standard that asked them to describe the interactions between a technological innovation and society.

Five out of the seven technology standards had at least a 40 per cent failure rate.

The poor results are being attributed to massive changes in the technology curriculum.

Students who used to do woodwork or metalwork were now being asked to plan a project and submit written material before they began the practical work.

The shift toward theoretical elements had been difficult for some teachers to adjust to, and that was being identified as a possible reason for the results.

"They got a double whammy, if you like," said a former teacher. "It's a whole new set of knowledge and skills that they need."

But some teachers adjusted well.

Beth McCrystal, who taught technology at Aorere College before moving to Tangaroa College this year, said she was selective when choosing the standards she would teach. She did not teach the standard that attracted a 75 per cent failure rate because it involved writing an essay and many of her students used English as a second language.

"I was selective. I also attended every professional development [course] I could get to. Some didn't."

Low decile schools fared well in technology, but some higher decile schools had higher failure rates.

Biology and information management

Biology teachers are concerned by the failure rates in seven of the subject's 12 standards.

Describing the functioning of the human circulatory, respiratory and excretory systems was too much for 65 per cent of students.

Other standards had 61 per cent and 54 per cent failure rates.

Students of information management complained shortly after their exam that they did not have enough time to complete it.

Three of the seven standards had a failure rate of at least 50 per cent.

The Future

The NZQA has asked for a brief report on the results from each national assessment panel and the information is expected this month.

That is earlier than the chief marker's report, which usually arrives in April. The NZQA wants speedier delivery because of the level of interest in the NCEA results.

Spokesman Bill Lennox said the NZQA was keen to promote a discussion around the results.

He suggested some of the results revealed the way students in New Zealand had always been - but their skills had not been transparent before NCEA.

Individual NCEA standards will not change as a result of the discussion.

Mr Lennox said standards could be reviewed only after two years, but feedback was welcomed.