Briefing from the New Zealand
Qualifications Authority on grade
inflation
Report of the Education and Science
Committee
Contents
Recommendation
2
Introduction
2
Moderation
2
Enhancements to NCEA
2
Reporting of results
3
The future of NCEA assessment
4
Appendix
6
BRIEFING FROM NZQA ON GRADE INFLATION
Briefing from New Zealand Qualifications
Authority on grade inflation
Recommendation
The Education and Science Committee has considered a briefing from the New Zealand
Qualifications Authority on grade inflation and recommends that the House take note of its
report.
Introduction
On 12 August 2015, we received a briefing from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority
(NZQA) on grade inflation. We had heard media reports stating that some schools had
been selectively using grade inflation to artificially improve their achievement rates. NZQA
administers the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) and oversees the
assessment and moderation of this qualification.
Moderation
NZQA told us about the evidence-based system of quality assurance that underpins
NCEA. NZQA verifies that schools are capable of assessing against NZQA’s standards
and then issues schools a Consent to Assess. NZQA can withdraw this consent, although
we were told this is a rare occurrence.
NZQA moderates the internal assessments administered by schools. Schools are required
to demonstrate that they can effectively moderate their own work. Colleagues in other
schools must critique assessment material as fit for purpose and verify that marking is
consistent with the standard. NZQA verifies this internal process by moderating teachers’
assessment of student work.
In 2014, 100,000 samples were chosen for moderation in areas where there may be issues,
such as in assessing grade boundaries. A further 10,000 samples were randomly selected to
ensure that NZQA analysed a representative sample. The moderation processes are
supplemented by direct communication with schools and the facilitation of knowledgesharing seminars. A group of university statisticians called the Technical Overview Group
Assessment (TOGA) analyses and critiques the processes used by NZQA.
About 2,000 subject experts develop and mark external assessments. This is overseen by
NZQA staff with assessment expertise, who systematically check the quality and rigour of
marking. TOGA also oversees this process. We were told that these processes also allow
NZQA to gain a national picture of achievement, which helps to ensure national
consistency.
Enhancements to NCEA
Since 2007, a series of enhancements have been made to NCEA that have improved
student engagement, motivation, and performance. Course and subject endorsements were
2
BRIEFING FROM NZQA ON GRADE INFLATION
introduced, which meant students could pass NCEA with a merit or excellence
endorsement.
In 2014, an NZQA review, titled “An Independent Review of the Effectiveness of
NZQA’s Implementation of the 2007 NCEA Enhancements” found that the reforms had
increased confidence in NCEA as a qualification. The review also found that there was
more trust in the quality and transparency of the moderation process.
A further enhancement has been vocational pathways for students. Students are
encouraged to consider their career aspirations and set appropriate goals in pursuing a
career. Vocational pathways map out what standards a student should take to pursue a
particular career. Vocational pathways are endorsed by the relevant industry.
Vocational pathways also encourage students to consider their career aspirations when
choosing which NCEA standards to take. An online tool shows students which standards
they have achieved and how these standards fulfil the requirements for different career
paths.
We are aware of concerns that students can achieve NCEA Level 2 with credits that do not
reflect a pathway into work or further education. It is even more concerning when the
effect is to disqualify students from programmes such as Youth Guarantee. Only 20
percent of the students enrolled in this programme can have NCEA Level 2. We were
informed that about 90 percent of certificates were achieved in coherent courses, meaning
that they represent a pathway into work or further education.
Reporting of results
We are aware of media reports claiming that schools are using statistical measurements
selectively to artificially increase their achievement rates. NZQA informed us that the
reporting of NCEA results is transparent. NZQA publishes attainment statistics in annual
reports and on its website. The statistics use four different cohorts, each of which is useful
in different contexts:

Roll-based cohort: Consists of all students in Years 11–13 who are enrolled in a
school on 1 July.

Enrolled student cohort: Consists of students who are enrolled with NZQA to do
an assessment. This excludes students taking courses that NZQA does not assess.

Participating cohort: Consists of students who are enrolled in enough assessments
to achieve NCEA or University Entrance (UE). This roll excludes students who are
not participating in the full NCEA.

Tracked Year 11 cohort: Monitors all students from the beginning of Year 11 for
the next three years. This allows for a clear picture of what students achieve
throughout their time in high school.
We were provided with data on attainment rates for NCEA and UE from 2010 to 2014,
measured using the roll- and participation-based cohorts. The data shows that NCEA pass
rates have increased at all levels since 2010. UE attainment rates declined between 2013
and 2014. This reflected a change in criteria for getting UE. Students now have to pass
3
BRIEFING FROM NZQA ON GRADE INFLATION
NCEA Level 3 as part of the UE requirements. We were informed that the drop off in
attainment was slightly higher than anticipated.
We sought further information on how the changes in achievement rates differed by decile
and ethnicity. The data provided measured achievement rates of NCEA Level 3 and UE
from 2010 to 2014, using the roll-based cumulative cohort.
The lowest three deciles experienced the highest increases in NCEA Level 3 attainment
(11–15 percent), with other deciles increasing by 3–9 percent. Decile 5 schools decreased
by 4 percent. Eight of the ten deciles experienced a small change (plus or minus 2 percent)
in UE attainment rates. Decile 6 schools decreased by 4 percent, and decile 5 schools
dropped by 13 percent.
Overall, the increase in NCEA Level 3 achievement was highest in low decile schools. The
decrease in UE attainment was spread across deciles, with the peculiar exception of decile 5
schools. Decile 5 schools decreased NCEA achievement and saw a substantial drop in UE
attainment.
NCEA level 3 achievement rates increased for all ethnicities. Māori and Pasifika students
improved the most (10.9 and 15.6 percent), and there were smaller increases for NZ
European and Asian ethnicities (5.3 and 0.6 percent). Pasifika students were the only group
to increase UE attainment (3.7 percent), with Māori, NZ European, and Asian ethnicities
decreasing by 1.1, 2.1, and 7.1 percent respectively.
We also inquired whether data existed showing any trends indicating that students are
participating in standards that traditionally have higher pass rates. We have received raw
data on standard participation rates, which did not provide a clear indication whether
students are participating in standards which traditionally had higher credit value.
NZQA credits the improvement of NCEA results to

the maturing of the qualification, which is now well embedded in school practice

the increase in student engagement and motivation, which was driven by the
enhancements discussed earlier

the increase in retention of students.
We were interested in why NCEA achievement rates have been increasing, even though
New Zealand’s Programme for International Student Assessment results have been
decreasing. We were informed that the main reason is that they are two different measures,
so there should not be an expectation that results will be comparable. NZQA and the
Ministry of Education are looking into the deficit between the measures, and we will watch
with interest any future analysis of this issue.
The future of NCEA assessment
NZQA seeks continuous improvement in its performance and is currently promoting
greater understanding of NCEA in parents, employers, and the wider public. It has a
variety of projects to achieve these goals, including a phone app for parents. Secondly, it is
adapting to advancements in digital technology. This includes introducing new standards in
the computing field.
4
BRIEFING FROM NZQA ON GRADE INFLATION
NZQA is making progress with the Future State programme, which is developing digital
assessment for schools. We were told that this could change the end-of-year exam period,
because digital assessment could increase flexibility with exams. This could possibly lead to
multiple smaller exam periods or exams that could be taken at any time. We were told that
schools would probably prefer multiple exam periods rather than a single end-of-year
period. We were also told that NZQA cannot yet provide assessments at any time. We will
be interested to see how this develops.
5
BRIEFING FROM NZQA ON GRADE INFLATION
Appendix
Committee procedure
The committee met on 12 August and 16 September 2015 to consider this briefing.
Committee members
Dr Jian Yang (Chairperson)
Hon Judith Collins
Hon David Cunliffe
Catherine Delahunty
Paul Foster-Bell
Hon Paul Goldsmith
Chris Hipkins
Melissa Lee
Tracey Martin
Jenny Salesa
Hon Maurice Williamson
6