Proposed NCEA changes ‘overdue’
A proposal to completely overhaul NCEA will stop some students suffering the ‘‘perverse consequences’’ of a system focused on passing at any cost, according to the country’s secondary school union.
Education Minister Chris Hipkins has received a report back from his ministerial advisory group, set up to review NCEA, that proposes new level one achievement standards specific to school projects.
The idea of ‘‘credit farming’’ and teachers steering students to achievable credits, rather than career paths, has long been a criticism of the NCEA model.
Post-primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) president Jack Boyle said the ‘‘overassessment’’ of NCEA had led to negative impacts on students.
‘‘One offshoot is they have a whole lot of meaningless credits that don’t point them in any particular direction and through the shear weight of assessment they have the highest rates of anxiety and stress around assessment of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).’’
The proposed review would halve the number of credits at level one, focus on less assessment and get rid of external exams. Instead, students would pick a project and concentrate on improving literacy and numeracy.
Boyle says it’s ‘‘long overdue’’ and Kiwi teachers, parents and students need to have confidence that young people won’t be ‘‘lost to any sort of employment, vocation or tertiary pathway’’.
‘‘We have a duty of care to ensure those perverse consequences of an assessment system that is largely about getting enough credits rather than any shape or pathway, must be addressed,’’ he said.
In 2002, School Certificate was replaced with the NCEA model – students in year 11 at the time were the first to trial the new system, which was rolled out to year 12 and 13 over the next two years, bringing to an end Sixth Form Certificate and Bursary.
Another option considered by the advisory group was removing level one altogether.
However, the positives of ‘‘lowering teacher and learner workload and making more room for the curriculum’’ were outweighed by the negatives.
‘‘Around 20 per cent of school leavers either achieve no qualification or only achieve level one, and these learners may be denied a real shot at obtaining a qualification before leaving school,’’ the advisory group said.
‘‘We also know that many learners, parents, and wha¯ nau value some formal assessment at level one, so some schools may feel obliged to replace level one with other qualifications,’’ the advisory group said.
‘‘The rebuilt level one wouldn’t replace the wide range of courses offered – and we expect it will remain an option. For many learners, their favourite courses will be at the heart of their projects and could be a basis for developing literacy and numeracy.’’
The benefits of changing the level one standards would ‘‘enable learners to pick a project which reflects their identity, language, culture and aspirations’’.