I watched Erica Stanford being interviewed on Q&A recently. I was interested to hear what she had to say about the NCEA changes that she announced on Monday 4 August. There was a moment where Jack Tame raised a statistic that you may have heard that NZQA published in their 2024 report about that year’s NCEA. NZQA reported that 24.8% of all students enrolled in NCEA standards attained an excellence grade on internal standards, while only 12% achieved an excellence grade on external standards. In other words, students are twice as likely to get an ‘excellence’ grade in an internal assessment than an external assessment. Internal standards are assessments marked within the school, normally by teachers who administer the assessment, and external standards are generally marked by teachers not related to the school, mostly at the end of the year.
On the surface this sounds like a problem. On the show, Jack Tame accused teachers of being “dishonest” and Stanford interestingly said that “teachers want the best for their students”. Neither of these viewpoints are correct (although I’m sure teachers want the best for the students but not to the point of cheating the system) but they reflect the misunderstanding that exists with NCEA in its current form. Internally assessed standards can be assessed in a variety of ways and recognise that not all learners can display the breadth of their learning in an end of year pen-and-paper or now more commonly, digital exam format.
Internal assessments provide more inclusive forms of assessment than the traditional end-of-year external, suited to the type of learning that is taking place. Assessments may take the form of digital portfolios, assignments, quizzes, oral presentations, projects, group presentations, pen-and-paper tests, just to name a few examples. The type of assessment will vary across different subjects. For example, in one subject, a teacher may ask their students to research an area of the learning and set milestones along the way to ensure that students are doing the work and to ensure its authenticity. Over the period of learning, the teacher is continually going through the achievement criteria, being very clear about what is required for the grade points of achieved, merit and excellence, reflecting the depth of thinking about the subject matter. As milestones pass, the teacher is giving formative feedback to the students as part of the learning process. By the due date, there have been multiple conversations between student and teacher about the learning but, of course, this also affects the end result of the assessment. We should expect attainment on internal standards to be higher because of this process and we can feel pleased that students have had sufficient opportunity to display their depth of knowledge beyond the confines of a 3 hour pen-and-paper assessment. It doesn’t mean that the result is any less valid and we need to remind ourselves that the key objective is learning, not assessment, and the tool used for that assessment will affect the results.
If you have understood what I have written here you will understand that a statistic may not indicate a weakness in the system. Indeed, it may indicate a strength. It may depend on the narrative being pushed and this reminds me of a famous quote attributed to Mark Twain: “… there are lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
The announcement of changes to NCEA are worrying for many reasons.
Firstly, I found out about the changes because a journalist rang me early last Monday morning to ask if he could come to school to talk to teachers about their impressions of the changes. I had to say to him that I didn’t know what the changes proposed were because I hadn’t received any information. Shortly after, emails arrived from the Minister and later that day, further information from regional sources. Ok, so there were some slip ups with communication and that should be easily solvable in the future, I hope!
Secondly, the Minister presented this information with what a Principal colleague of mine described as ‘crisis rhetoric’ with a very short period of ‘consultation’ at the same time that the media was discrediting the current qualification. The crisis rhetoric seemed to indicate that there were huge problems with NCEA and these needed fixing fast so that year 9 in 2026 can undertake a new curriculum (not released yet, and we will get to curriculum v assessment soon) to enable them to sit the new qualifications in 2028, 2029, and 2030. I’m sorry, what? Are we trying to do this properly or are we trying to fit an election cycle?
Never mind the thousands of students who have just been told that their qualification is worthless – it’s not. NCEA is a world class qualification, envied in many countries because of our standards-based approach, and easily transferable for study overseas. Jack Tame raised a good point on Q&A about the message that the discrediting of the qualification was sending to our international students who have a wonderful NZ experience but also use NCEA as a lever for university study in their home country.
Thirdly and fourthly and fifthly, etc, I have so many questions based on the materials that have been released to date. For example, in Stanford’s official announcement letter she explains one of the key elements of “our proposal” as being “shifting away from a ‘standards-based approach’ to comprehensive subjects that are clearly laid out in the NZ curriculum”. However, on page 15 of the NCEA discussion document released on the same day, there is a quote from NZCER which says “NCEA’s standards-based approach is fairer and more equitable than the previous norm-referenced systems of School Certificate and Bursary. The standards-based approach reduces barriers for learners who face particular challenges in their learning or life circumstances…”.
A standard, in the context of the NZ curriculum, is a discrete parcel of work related to a particular skill or body of knowledge. For example, in music at level 2, the wording for standard 2.1 (Making Music – 6 credits) is “perform two substantial pieces of music as a featured soloist”. The wording for standard 2.7 (Music Studies – 4 credits) is “demonstrate understanding of two substantial and contrasting music works”. Students can, with the guidance of their teacher, choose a pathway, and standards, that are tailored to their skills within a subject – this is a standards-based approach and they end up with a “record of achievement” that is unique to them. In relation to the standards above, the first standard (2.1) requires an aptitude on an instrument or vocal – it doesn’t require a student to be able to read music. The second standard clearly requires that ability. And to remind you of my starting point, which standard do you think would have a higher rate of excellence, and can you understand why?
In proposing a subject-based approach, Stanford wants all “students to take at least five subjects and pass at least four to attain each certificate at year 12 and 13”. But we moved away from that approach 25 years ago didn’t we? Why would we want all students to achieve in four out of five subjects? Sure, it will suit many but isn’t it ok if they acquire a range of skills across a number of disciplines whether that be 2, or 4, or 5, or 8? Using my example above, what about the student, who is an amazing guitarist (excellence on 2.1) but that’s it for their music. They can’t read a note on a staff but they can play the solo in Stairway to Heaven (I may be showing my age now!). They are also a very skilled mathematician and computer programmer. They will get a lot more credits in the mathematics and computing but the music is their passion and the current system recognises that and awards them ‘credits’ for that discrete skill. Will they still be able to do music under a subject-based system? Or would it be safer to keep it as ‘extra-curricular’ because they won’t pass? Really, is this what we want? Don’t we want a system that celebrates the John Lennons and Paul McCartneys of this world (both couldn’t read a note of music and McCartney’s music teacher at school famously thought he had no musical ability)?
This also makes me wonder about the proposals for vocational education and how that will work under a subject-based system. Currently, a number of our students in years 12 and 13 (up to 50 per year) enrol in polytech for two days a week and attend school for the other three days. These students undertake courses such as: Construction Mixed Trades, Engineering & Automotive, Salon Environment, to name a few. These are lightbulb moments for the students entered into them as they find contexts that suit their learning and ambition. If they become one subject out of five (or one day a week?), then this potentially reduces the amount of learning they can do in this context and keeps them in a context (school) which may not be working for them. Why would we do this? Perhaps there will be more sense in this part of the proposal when it is further developed – but I am supposed to give feedback on something that isn’t developed and this is difficult. I would argue that the current trades academy model where students have dual enrolment at school and at other training institutions, and the integration of that learning into the same qualification (NCEA), is a real strength of the current system.
And what is a subject? We are already over a week into a consultation period and we don’t know what that means yet. I was in a meeting today with representatives from the ministry who told us that information will be released ‘soon’. Hopefully before the end of consultation? Because it’s quite a crucial piece of information. Will we have the same flexibility with subjects that we have with current courses we run at school? For example, we run a course called Painted Word which assesses against Art History standards and English standards, providing a context for writing that some students prefer. In the same way, we offer different contexts based in Film or Journalism to deliver Media Studies standards. Will we still be able to do this under the subject based approach? Having previously taught in Australia and England which were far more prescriptive in their curriculum approaches but no better in terms of end outcomes, another beauty of the NZ school system and NCEA is the ability to mix standards and create courses and contexts that appeal more to students than some traditional contexts.
I could go on, but I won’t. This piece is already way too long, and thank you if you are still reading!
And I know that NCEA does have its shortcomings. Teachers have been saying this for most of the time that NCEA has existed. The government of the day has, at times, listened and changes have been made along the way but we are still not there.
In the internal-external information I presented above, having more time to complete assessments enables students to draft and re-draft and finesse their internal submissions – the sorts of things you can’t do in the mad scramble of a 3 hour exam. When they are doing this across multiple subjects, many of them become immersed in a seemingly endless cycle of assessment, with a subsequent effect on their wellbeing. This is a concern.
We also know at school that students can achieve credits by doing, for example, health and safety courses run by outside providers who may offer a course with up to 10 credits over two days. In other words, one sixth of a qualification (60 credits needed in total) achieved in two days. This devalues other work in schools but it also creates a dilemma for us because these micro-quals are good for students who are building their skill set, working on their CVs, and looking for pathways beyond school. A student who has undertaken some health and safety training will seem more ‘work-ready’ than one who hasn’t so we try to get our students into these courses, despite knowing the problems these present to the overall qualification.
Finally, we need to distinguish between curriculum and assessment because the two are being blurred in the current debate. The curriculum decides what learning will take place and the assessment system should be the measure of that learning. The current proposal focuses on a change in assessment before most curricula have been published – think cart and horse. Let’s get the curriculum sorted and then think about assessment.
The Government has invited us to make submission on the changes proposed. If you want to do that, you need to go to https://www.education.govt.nz/consultation-ncea where you will find more information and where you can have your say:
I said that I met with some representatives of the ministry today. An opinion was expressed that the questions in the survey seem to be loaded or leading questions. The ministry said that there is the opportunity within those links to ignore the questions and just give feedback.
Ngā mihi
Dominic Killalea
Principal