2005/07 November 2005
National Certificate of Educational
Achievement (NCEA)
Executive Summary
•
The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a standards based
qualification that has replaced School Certificate, Sixth Form Certificate and Bursary in
New Zealand Schools. It is a series of qualifications registered on the National
Qualifications Framework.
•
The NCEA qualification is awarded to students who achieve a specified number of credits
at the required level. The level one qualification also involves a minimum literacy and
numeracy standard.
•
Students are assessed against pre-assigned standards. These standards comprise
elements of knowledge and skills, which students accumulate progressively until they
have achieved enough at each subject and level to be awarded a national certificate.
NCEA involves both internal as well as external assessment approaches.
•
NCEA differs considerably to the system it replaces: School Certificate, Sixth Form
Certificate and Bursary, where a student’s performance was judged relative to other
students through norm referencing.
•
2004 was the first year that students sat level three NCEA, which is the highest level of
the qualification.
•
Results from 2004 have prompted much discussion, especially around whether the
observed variability in attainment that has occurred reflects variability in actual scholastic
ability; is due to the removal of scaling or for other reasons. A review team has made
recommendations to scale results where undue variability is apparent.
Introduction
This paper describes the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. It
describes the basis of operation of the qualification within the National
Qualifications Framework and the use of standards and credits; describes
standards based assessment and discusses the difference between this and
norm-referenced assessment; discusses the reasoning for the development
of the qualification, providing a brief history of advocacy for change that
eventually led to NCEA; and finally discusses some of the reactions to NCEA,
the results for 2004 and future directions for NCEA, based on
recommendations made in review.
Approaches
to
assessment:
standardsbased and
normreferenced
assessment
NCEA is founded on a standards-based assessment of achievement in that
students are assigned credits on the standards they actually achieve. It
replaced School Certificate which principally used a norm-referenced
assessment approach.
There are several different types of assessment. In standards-based
assessment a learner’s performance is measured against standards of
achievement or competence. Results are reported in terms of what the
learner has been assessed as being able to do.
Norm-referenced assessment is where a learner’s achievement is ranked
against the achievement of others in a group. A ranked list of learner
outcomes are reported as percentage marks or grades. A student’s
achievement is defined by their position on the rank in relation to other
learners. What an individual knows or can do is not directly reported. 1
Norm-referenced approaches typically involve scaling. Scaling is used where
the overall level of scores differs from year to year and subject to subject to
give an appearance of consistency. This has in the past created the illusion
of consistent standards, however what a student knows and can do is not
reported and this approach is unable to detect overall improvement in group
performance. NCEA does not as yet involve the use of ranking or scaling.
National
Qualifications
Framework
(NQF)
When describing NCEA, it is first necessary to describe the framework that it
operates within and the rules that it operates under. The National
Qualifications Framework (NQF) is a hierarchical structure within which
qualifications are registered. The framework is designed to provide nationally
recognised, consistent standards and qualifications and recognition and
credit for all learning of knowledge and skills. It is administered by the New
Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA). Qualifications on the framework are
gained through the accumulation of “standards”. Standards are the means to
assess attainment of specified levels of knowledge and skills.
NQF Levels
There are ten levels in the qualifications framework. These levels reflect the
level of complexity of a qualification - one is the least complex and ten, the
most. They do not equate to 'years spent learning' but reflect the content of
the qualification. NCEA standards, known as “achievement standards”, have
been written at levels one to three. The new Scholarship qualification, which
is not part of NCEA, operates at level four. 2
1
NZQA. 1991. Designing the Framework – a discussion document about restructuring national qualifications. NZQA,
Wellington.
2
New Zealand Scholarship is a separate qualification.
2
Table 1: National Qualifications Framework Levels 1- 4
3
Process, Learning Demand and Responsibility
Carry out processes that
Level 1
•
•
•
Level 2
•
•
•
are limited in range
are repetitive and familiar
are employed within closely
defined contexts
are moderate in range
are established and familiar
offer a clear choice of routine
responses
Employing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Level 3
•
•
•
Level 4
require a range of well
developed skills
offer a significant choice of
procedures
are employed within a range of
familiar contexts
•
•
•
require a wide range of
technical or scholastic skills
offer a considerable choice of
procedures
are employed in a variety of
familiar and unfamiliar
contexts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Applied
recall
a narrow range of knowledge
and cognitive skills
no generation of new ideas
basic operational knowledge
readily available information
known solutions to familiar
problems
little generation of new ideas
•
•
•
some relevant theoretical
knowledge
interpretation of available
information
discretion and judgement
a range of known responses to
familiar problems
•
a broad knowledge base
incorporating some theoretical
concepts
analytical interpretation of
information
informed judgement
a range of sometimes
innovative responses to
concrete but often unfamiliar
problems
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
in directed activity
under close supervision
with no responsibility for the
work or learning of others
in directed activity
under general supervision and
quality control
with some responsibility for
quantity and quality
with possible responsibility for
guiding others
in directed activity with some
autonomy
under general supervision and
quality checking
with significant responsibility for
the quantity and quality of
output
with possible responsibility for
the output of others
in self-directed activity
under broad guidance and
evaluation
with complete responsibility for
quantity and quality of output
with possible responsibility for
the quantity and quality of the
output of others
National
Standards
The standards are the nationally agreed and registered criteria by which
student achievement is measured. National standards consist of collections
of knowledge and skills grouped together and positioned at a level on the
framework. They are considered by their creators to encompass the required
quantum of knowledge and learning for their subject and level on the
framework and a registration process evaluates whether this is so. They
cannot be changed or modified unless by a formal review process.
Unit and
Achievement
Standards
Standards are the building blocks of qualifications on the Framework.
Standards currently take two forms: unit and achievement standards. Each
standard comprises components that, once achieved, earn credits that can
be accumulated towards material qualifications. Unit standards generally are
created to apply in industry training and other non-school settings, however
both achievement and unit standards can be used to count towards NCEA.
Unit standards are created by standards setting bodies and those involved in
administering industry training, such as Industry Training Organisations
(ITOs).
For NCEA, national standards are known as achievement standards.
Achievement standards are those based on the New Zealand Curriculum,
prepared by the Ministry of Education in its role as a standards setting body.
The achievement standards have been created under the management of
the Ministry of Education specifically for the school system and NCEA. They
are curriculum related; are placed at NQF levels one, two and three and
cover fields of study previously covered by School Certificate, Sixth Form
Certificate and University Bursaries. 4
3
Adapted from New Zealand Qualifications Authority website. For descriptors of all 10 levels, see
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/framework/levels.html
4
See NZQA, 2002. Unit standards and achievement standards - what's the difference?. In QA News,
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/publications/newsletters/qanews/june-2001/story1.html#usa
3
Unit standards have only two levels of attainment: “not achieved” and
“achieved”. Achievement standards comprise four possible outcomes: “not
achieved”, “achieved”, “achieved with merit”, “achieved with excellence”.
Credits
Credits are the currency of the National Qualifications Framework. Credits
are numerical values that are awarded for successful completion of
standards. They may also be awarded for successful completion of other
qualifications. Credits for achievement standards are allocated on the basis
of the estimated time needed for a typical learner to demonstrate that all
specified outcomes have been met. Generally, they are supposed to reflect
the quantum of knowledge and skills required by a given standard within its
specified level.
National
Certificate
As its acronym suggests, NCEA is a National Certificate, based on the
system of credit accumulation from achievement standards as described
above. It is based on the attainment of skills and knowledge as detailed in
each of the standards. There are many National Certificates and National
Diplomas registered on the NQF. Qualifications such as National Certificates,
Diplomas and some degrees are awarded on the basis of credit and standard
accumulation to a specified total. Most university degrees do not operate on
the framework, however.
The NCEA National Certificate is awarded at levels one and three. The
majority of students take NCEA through the school system, but it is open to
anyone assessed through an accredited provider.
Level 1
Students normally begin NCEA level one in Year 11, the equivalent of fifth
form year under the old system. The level one qualification began in 2002,
with the last administration of School Certificate in 2001. Students qualify for
NCEA level one if they complete eighty credits at level one, as long as eight
of those credits show numeracy skills and eight other credits involve literacy
skills. Literacy skills can be shown through achievement in English or in te
reo Māori standards, or a combination of these. Certain standards satisfy the
requirement for numeracy and literacy skills (see below).
Literacy and
Numeracy
standard
requirements
When students have achieved eighty credits, they are awarded NCEA level
one certificate, providing that eight of these credits show the student has met
basic literacy requirements and eight other credits show the student has met
basic numeracy requirements.
Currently these requirements are for a minimum of eight literacy credits, at
level one or above, from any combination of the following standards:
• any English achievement or unit standards
• any Te Reo Maori or Te Reo Rangitira achievement or unit standards
• any of the following Communication Skills unit standards: 1277
Communicate information in a specified workplace
2989 Read and assess texts to gain knowledge
2977 Read texts for practical purposes
10792 Write formal personal correspondence.
A minimum of eight numeracy credits, at level one or above is required from
any combination of the following to show numeracy:
•
•
•
5
any Mathematics achievement or unit standards
any Pangarau achievement or unit standards
any Statistics or Probability unit standards. 5
NZQA , 2001. NCEA Update - Issue 9. http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/publications/updates/update9.html#2
4
Level 2
NCEA level two requires a minimum of sixty credits at level two or above and
twenty credits at any other level. Credits can be used for more than one
qualification so some NCEA level one credits already achieved by students
can count towards NCEA level two. Level two students do not need to
achieve a specific number of credits in literacy or numeracy standards and
they do not have to complete the level one or two qualification before starting
on level two or three.
Level 3
In 2004 NCEA level three and the New Zealand Scholarship qualification
replaced University Bursaries. To be awarded NCEA level three, students are
required to achieve eighty credits, of which sixty must be at level three or
above and twenty at level two or above.
Entry Fees
Students sitting NCEA have to pay an annual fee. Students are required to
pay $75 out of a total cost of $400 per annum for entry to all NQF standards
and up to three Scholarship subjects. Foreign fee-paying students are
required to pay the full amount, as they are not subsidised. Parents can apply
for financial assistance through their school if they are below certain income
thresholds, based on the Community Services Card income eligibility criteria.
Internal and
External
Assessment
NCEA uses both internal and external assessment. Standards can involve
any form of assessment that is a valid measure of the stated outcomes. This
includes written examinations, essays and tests, performance in front of an
examiner, and other assessment methods, as well as internal assessment.
Standards amenable to external assessment are so assessed, with the
remainder being assessed internally. NCEA is assessed using a roughly fiftyfifty mixture of internal (course work) and external (largely examination)
assessment.
Internal assessment comprises all those assessments where the assessment
judgement is made within a learning institution. It is generally considered that
external assessment can be used to validly assess only some of the
capabilities developed in school students. Internal assessment takes place
within schools and students are assessed by their own teachers on course
work submitted throughout the year. External assessment takes place within
schools, but generally involves external supervision of externally set and
marked papers.
Moderation
NCEA, in common with most qualifications, involves a process of moderation
which is a form of quality assurance. Moderation is the process of ensuring
that the standard is applied across locations and subjects consistently, and
that it is a valid interpretation of the standard. To promote a national
consistency of judgements against the achievement and unit standards,
moderators check samples of students’ work marked in every subject in
every school.
Both internal and external assessments involve moderation and moderators.
In external assessment, independent moderators review papers set by
external examiners, and evaluate whether the papers and associated
marking schedules are valid instruments for assessing the relative standard.
Moderation for internal assessment occurs both internally and externally.
Teachers send away assessment activity, marking schedules and samples of
student’s work to NZQA moderators, who check that the teachers’
judgements are at the national standard, and then send a report back to the
6
Nixon, M. The High Trust Model that Nobody Trusts. New Zealand Education Review, Vol. 10 No.16, April 28 – May 4
2005.
5
principal. Moderators are contractors, not full-time employees, and must be
qualified subject teachers, tutors or school advisors. 6
Rationale for change
Qualification
and
assessment
framework
(NQF)
Most commentators agree that by the 1980s, qualifications in New Zealand
were fragmentary and lacked coherence. Those existing at the time had
grown in an ad hoc fashion and were no longer appropriate for the needs of
learners, employment and society. The need for a coherent and coordinated
qualifications structure was increasingly evident.
The National Qualifications Framework (NQF) was developed to enable a
“seamless” education system, one that would permit an easy progression
through the different types of learning and eradicate the dichotomy between
the elite “academic” education and “training”, which was seen as second
class. Education and training operated under separate systems, with
different cultures, forms of provision, qualifications and providers. 7
Changes to
assessment
in schools
NCEA was created to fit into the new standards based National Qualifications
Framework. The intended benefits of moving school-based assessment to
the new framework included improved coherence between curriculum and
qualifications and rationalisation of qualifications and assessment practices
for conventional school subjects. 8
International movements in the 1980s and 1990s were towards improved
achievement, including demands for accountability and standards based
assessment. School assessment had been undergoing change since the
1960s. There was a long-standing conviction among education professionals
that the existing qualifications did not fit the curriculum and did not meet the
needs of users or the full range of students. 9
NCEA was developed to be outcomes driven, motivated by the wider push
for clarity around what students actually learn in school. 10 Increasingly there
was a desire for assessment that would provide information about student
achievement that would show exactly what learning had taken place, coupled
with a belief that the ranking (norm-referenced) marks-based approach did
not provide this information. 11
There was also a concern about the de-motivating effects of academic failure
on students. The Committee of Inquiry into Curriculum, Assessment and
Qualifications in Forms 5 to 7 expressed a belief that is was important that an
assessment system should recognise the achievement of individual students
without diminishing the feeling of self-worth of other students, therefore a
system in which high marks or grades gained by one student mean that
another student must necessarily receive lower marks, such as ranking and
scaling entailed, should be avoided. 12 The Committee was concerned to
encourage young people to want to continue learning and received a high
7
Barker, A. Standards-Based Assessment : The Vision And Broader Factors. In Peddie, R. & Tuck, B. 1995. Setting
the Standards - Issues in Assessment for National Qualifications. Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.
8
Education Review Office, 2004. Progress of NCEA Levels 1 and 2, and Readiness of Schools to Implement Level 3.
Wellington.
9
Strachan, J. 2002. Assessment in Change: Some Reflections on the Local and International Background to the
National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). In New Zealand Annual Review of Education. Victoria
University of Wellington. No.11, 2001.
10
O’Neill, A., Clark, J. & Openshaw, R. Mapping the Field: An Introduction to Curriculum Politics in Aotearoa / New
Zealand. In O’Neill, A., Clark, J. & Openshaw, R. 2004. Reshaping Culture, Knowledge and Learning – Policy and
Content in The New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.
11
Department of Education, 1987. Learning an Achieving – second report of the Committee of Inquiry into Curriculum,
Assessment and Qualifications in Forms 5 to 7. Wellington.
12
Ibid, pg 57.
6
number of submissions supporting the elimination of the concept of failure
from assessment. It advised the Minister of Education in1986 to introduce a
system of grades in which achievement of all students is recognised without
reference to passing or failing.
There was also an international move towards awarding exit certificates, and
away from awarding intermediate certificates. Australia had removed its
school certificate equivalent by the mid 1970s and had no Form 6 equivalent
to Sixth Form Certificate.
History and
Development
These pushes for change eventually led to the development of NCEA. The
process of review and reform that led to the introduction of NCEA goes back
at least to the early 1970s and has been described as a process of
“advocacy” and “evolution”. 13 The following timeline gives a brief overview of
the advocacy and evolution that led to the introduction of NCEA: 14
1934
School Certificate (SC) introduced.
1945
SC became the only Form 5 award, awarded overall for results in English and
best three other subjects. The majority of University Entrance passes were
internally assessed from the late 1940s.
1967
SC was awarded in single subjects only. Since 1967 there has been no such
thing as a nationally recognised overall "pass" in SC.
1969
There were calls for SC to be abolished, largely because it imposed one
course and one examination on all, regardless of ability and failed the “fit for
purpose” test.
Education in Charge, a publication of the PPTA, called for agreed criteria,
clearly stated learning objectives and profile reporting instead of single figure
results.
1972
There were discussions on the abolition (or at least partial internal
assessment) of SC, and the need for specified learning outcomes.
1974
The report on the nation-wide Educational Development Conference
proposed that SC be phased out and replaced by moderated teacher
assessments, reporting on "levels of attainment" in each subject. In 1974 the
fully internally assessed option for SC Art and Mathematics were introduced.
Similar schemes were introduced in subsequent years for Science and
English (1976) and Workshop Technology (1979).
1979
School Certificate Exam Board propose a fully internally assessed fifth form
certificate.
1981
A New Zealand Employers Federation booklet called for full internal
assessment of SC, assessment against standards, results as personal
profiles and the removal of the distinction between so-called "academic" and
"vocational" courses. The PPTA Journal contained a series of articles on
assessment. Most writers promoted enhanced internal assessment and the
recognition of a wider range of skills and abilities.
13
Strachan, ibid.
This timeline is adapted from Lennox, B. Where did NCEA come from?. In New Zealand Qualifications Authority,
2001. QA News. Issue 38, June 2001. See: http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/publications/newsletters/qanews/june2001/featurewhere.html
14
7
1982
The Bursaries English examination marking schedule used written criteria for
assessing literature essays. Over the next twenty years most marking
schedules for School Certificate and Bursaries examinations introduced
written criteria. In effect, student work was assessed against criteria (a form
of standards) leading to the allocation of grades; then marks were allocated,
generally without the use of criteria.
1983
Alison Gilmore from the New Zealand Council for Education Research
(NZCER) discussed ways of moderating teacher assessments, including
inspection, consensus and "group standards" as alternatives to statistical
moderation.
1985
Warwick Elley (in the PPTA Journal) described our "sluggish advance
towards internal assessment" and pointed out that few comparable countries
have national examinations at all three levels. Elley promoted greater school
flexibility in organising learning and saw the abolition of ranking and
descriptions of what students "can do" as "a long-term ideal".
1985
The interim report of the Committee of Inquiry into Curriculum, Assessment
and Qualifications in forms 5 to 7 led to the immediate abolition of the
University Entrance examination and replaced with fully internally assessed
Sixth Form Certificate (SFC), statistically moderated as proposed by Elley
and Livingstone in 1972 (SFC had been in place alongside UE since 1969.)
For the next eighteen years, until the introduction of NCEA level two
examinations in 2003, New Zealand has two examinations for senior school
students.
1986
Learning and Achieving (the full report of the 1985 Committee of Inquiry)
called for far-sighted reforms. This was a key document in the evolution of
assessment and qualifications in New Zealand. Overall, the report said, the
move should be to enhanced school flexibility, enhanced internal
assessment, and assessment against criteria. The report proposed:
•
•
•
for Form 5: full internal assessment using standards at three levels and
leading to profile reporting. Schools should be able to design their own
courses
a similar system for Form 6
for Form 7: an achievement based system using five levels of
achievement, partially internally assessed.
The Department of Education commenced Form 6 achievement based
assessment trials. Grade-related criteria were developed (at four or five
levels) in the various aspects of each subject and trials held to investigate
ways of moderating teacher assessments.
This was an attempt to remove the predetermined national distribution of
Sixth Form Certificate grades (where a pre-determined four percent of all
candidates were awarded grade one) and statistical moderation of teacher
judgements (using the previous year's SC results). In essence, the aim was
to attach meaning to SFC grades. The trials ran until 1988 and were
discontinued when more radical qualifications and assessment reform was
signalled by the 1988 Hawke Report, in effect leading directly to the
establishment of NZQA and the NQF.
Many schools continued to use grade-related criteria in assessing for Sixth
Form Certificate. This created confusion when schools had to reconcile their
standards based results with the national norm-referenced structure.
8
1989
The Project ABLE report, the report of the Ministerial Working Party on
Assessment for Better Learning, confirmed the directions of the Learning and
Achieving report and added "SC has largely outlived its usefulness". The
report called for a standards based approach and a single cumulative
national certificate for school learners.
1990s
There were three key developments in the nineties:
•
the national curriculum that was introduced for schools was based on
written descriptions of learning outcomes for the separate aspects of each
subject. It also validated school learning beyond traditional subjects
• for the first time, all secondary qualifications were administered by one
government agency, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority
• The National Qualifications Framework had a demonstrable impact,
especially in schools that were trying to introduce more varied and flexible
learning in response to increased senior school retention rates.
When government policy was being finalised, NCEA was described by some
as a way out of the so-called "dual system": unit standards and the traditional
examination based awards. At the time, schools could offer either or both as
both were operating side-by-side.
The government's intention throughout the nineties had been to remove the
examination-based system once the Qualifications Framework was in place.
(In 1993 the aim was to base all national schools qualifications on unit
standards by 1997).
1997
The PPTA commissioned report on the Qualifications Framework, Te Tiro
Hou reported wide support among its members for standards-based
assessment over norm-based. It reported strong support for implementation
of the Qualifications Framework at Years 12 and 13 and the retirement of
Sixth Form Certificate once the Framework was in operation at Year 12, and
retirement of School Certificate. 15
In 1997 the Government announced a policy called “Achievement 2001”, a
complete overhaul of the secondary school qualifications system. 16 NCEA,
a new group of qualifications, was to be based on both internal and external
assessment through achievement standards. At least half of the credits for
each subject were to be assessed externally, through written examinations
and other assessments such as portfolios of student work. It was thought
that the approach would reduce teacher workload and the risk of overassessment.
Implementation NCEA was to be implemented from 2001 over a period of three years, to be
fully implemented by 2003, in a staged process. In 2000, the new Labour
Alliance Government decided to delay the start date from 2001 to 2002,
judging that the system was not ready. Level one has been operational in
schools since the beginning of 2002, level two from 2003 and level three was
implemented from the beginning of 2004.
15
New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association. 1997. Te Tiro Hou – Report of the Qualifications Framework
Inquiry. Wellington.
16
Ministry of Education. 1999. Achievement 2001 – Qualifications for 16 to 19 year olds. Wellington.
9
Attitudes towards NCEA
There are a wide variety of views about many facets of NCEA and standards
based assessment. It seems impossible to be ambivalent towards NCEA, as
is the case with many examinations and assessment systems worldwide: it is
a subject that polarises educators and policy makers and there are strong
opinions on either side. In New Zealand, there has been controversy over the
best method of assessing performance of schoolchildren for decades, as the
preceding timeline should illustrate. Many teachers, parents and employers
favour the new system, some are not so sure. Discussions centre around the
implementation, structure and administration of NCEA. A brief overview of
some of the debate follows.
Internal vs.
External
assessment
Some commentators who take a contrary view to internal assessment see it
as subjective, for example, they believe that under internal assessment,
teachers are less likely to mark their own pupils “down” for a number of
reasons: it may reflect badly on their own performance as a teacher; they
may (consciously or not) wish the pupil to succeed so they may have a
tendency to “mark them up”. Teacher judgements may also be influenced by
the achievement of the rest of the group.
They believe that external assessment is necessary to set a proper
benchmark, a standard that all schools should achieve, and something
tangible for students to work towards. 17 They believe that external
examinations provide the means to assess students nationally to a minimum
level of competence that is comparable across schools. External
examinations can also promote common national teaching methods
particular to subjects, for example, teaching languages in a certain way.
Because the external examiners have never met the pupils they mark, there
is less potential for bias or capture.
On the other side of the argument, some think that external assessment
encourages “teaching to the exam”, rather than to the curriculum: teachers
may be tempted or forced to provide instruction narrowly to enable students
to pass exams, rather than provide them with a wider range of learning and
experience. There is some evidence that external examinations are not good
predictors of success for pupils who proceed to university, and they are even
worse predictors for those who go on to non-university study and
employment.
They believe that external assessment can’t assess many desirable
capabilities and motivational and disciplinary effects apply more to some
pupils than other. External assessments are one-off events, unlike real life,
and are less of a level playing field than many believe. These factors have
led most developed countries to place considerable emphasis on internal
assessment in their exit certificate.
17
Elley, W.B. & Livingstone, I.D. 1972. External Examinations and Internal Assessments – Alternative Plans for
Reform. New Zealand Council for Education Research, Wellington.
10
Standards
based
assessment
Similarly, there has been much debate about the standards-based quality of
NCEA. Some commentators prefer standards based systems because they
see them as more valid, because they purport to report what a student can
and cannot do. They believe that scaling and mark aggregation may reduce
the value of ranking assessments as a source of information about student
performance. Others prefer the ranking system of assessment because, for
example, it enables employers to more easily categorise students and
enables schools to provide aggregate measures of achievement of students.
Schools that operate in competition with others to attract students (and
therefore funding) rely on aggregate scores as they may be used as proxy
measures of school quality.
Moderation of
internal
assessments
Similarly, there has been much debate about the moderation of internal
assessments of NCEA, especially in light of the occurrences at Cambridge
High School 18 where internally assessed standards were awarded to
students who did not deserve them and the NZQA moderation system did not
pick this up. 19
Some teachers are concerned that the external moderation of internal
assessment system lacks credibility for several reasons. Some think there
should be more moderation, that the current level is inadequate to make a full
determination of quality and is not tough enough. They are also concerned
about inconsistencies in moderator judgements and of “pettiness” by
moderators and they believe that they should be able to enter into dialogue
with moderators when communication between them is currently forbidden
during moderation. There were also concerns about the lack of knowledge
around the moderation appeals process and the disincentives for teachers to
use it. The PPTA recommends that the moderation system be urgently
reviewed (see section on Teachers below).
On the other side, it is recognised that the current moderation system is a
significant improvement over past practices and has considerable positive
spin-offs.
Parents and
Employers
Some parents and employers feel that NCEA results are difficult to
understand 20 and some have expressed concerns in the system of
moderation. 21 NZQA has responded to some parents’ and employers’
confusion over what results mean by arguing that NCEA provides more detail
on what students can do than previous qualifications, and this opinion has
been supported by other commentators 22.
Students
Researchers with the New Zealand Council of Educational Research
(NZCER) have interviewed students regarding their experience of NCEA as
part of the Learning Curves project. The preliminary results for the 2004
stage of the research indicates that students in all year levels thought that
NCEA was a good qualification and that their credits, both external and
internal, were valuable. 23
18
See: Education Review Office, 2004. Education Review Report – Cambridge High School – October 2004.
http://www.ero.govt.nz/publish/reppub.ns4/Institution/5865640F66F19E3ECC256F26007A3684/$File/142.htm?OpenEl
ement
19
Nixon, M. ibid.
20
Parents find NCEA results hard to decipher. The New Zealand Herald, 13th Jan 2005.
21
Thompson, A. Show us the evidence that these assessments are consistent. The New Zealand Herald, 18th Jan
2005.
22
Langley, J. Employers struggling to earn a pass. The New Zealand Herald, 18th Jan 2005
23
Gerritsen, J. The Kids are alright? New Zealand Education Review, April 7-13, 2005.
11
Teachers
In a recent report, New Zealand teachers said that overall they support NCEA
because they believed it was fairer to all students and they see NCEA as
challenging and extending able students. 24 Those who gave unqualified
support for NCEA listed their reasons as fairness, motivation of students,
parity of esteem of different subjects and flexibility in developing courses to
meet student needs as positive attributes. In only one group of participants
was there complete consensus that the problems with the new system were
so major that it would be better to return to the old system, and they qualified
this by saying that the old system would still have to be modified.
The participants identified a number of areas of concern that they
recommended be subject to review including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the integrity of external assessment. The comparability of difficulty
level of external assessments between standards within a subject,
between subjects and from year to year. Some teachers believe that
within a subject the proportion of students achieving at different levels
ought to be reasonably consistent between the various external
assessments, in their view this is not happening. On the other hand,
exams of the past exhibited such variations from question to question,
so the difference may be that now these variations are able to be
exposed
the balance between curriculum delivery and assessment under
NCEA, including whether assessment is driving curriculum delivery or
whether curriculum delivery is driving assessment (as it should), and
whether the integrity of the national curricula is being broken down
under the new system. This criticism, it should be noted, was also
applied to NCEA’s predecessors
student behaviour demonstrates a greater concern with credit
accumulation than with learning. Students in the middle range of
ability are more likely to take a minimalist approach. Some students
stop work once they have reached the number of credits necessary
for the relevant certificate. Further some students who would
otherwise achieve highly are content with an “achieved” because it
qualifies them. Again, this criticism has been levelled at most
assessment systems, including NCEA’s predecessors
there is a loss of learning time under internal assessment: learning
time is being taken up by assessment instead
there is a feeling that students do not transfer knowledge and skills
from one unit of work to another, due to the modularisation of
assessment
there needs to be more funding from Government to enable NCEA to
operate as it is intended
some teachers have complained of a higher workload under NCEA.
New assessment systems always increase workload, however, which
then drops back once familiarity grows
24
New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association. 2005. Teachers Talk About NCEA – Research Report on Focus
Groups with Secondary Teachers. NZPPTA, Wellington.
12
2004 Results
NZQA announced in February that it would investigate the 2004 NCEA exam
results at levels one and two where “significant variability” had been found,
following issues with the variability of results for the new Scholarship exam. 25
NZQA has said that such an investigation is part of a standard practice to
check a sample of results each year, as variability is expected. It regards the
variability in the interim results for levels one and two NCEA 2004 as normal,
and comparable to previous years. 26
Credit
Achievement
In 2004, seventy nine percent of students in their third year (Year 11),
seventy six percent of students In their fourth year (Year 12) and seventy four
percent students in their fifth year (Year 13) achieved at least forty credits.
Fifty eight percent of the total Year 11 students, forty seven percent of Year
12 students and thirty nine percent of Year 13 students achieved at least
eighty credits.
Table 2: NCEA Trends over time
Year of
secondary
education
2002
2003
2004
Total no. of NCEA qualifications achieved
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
28,626
1,851
687
30,473
27,590
3,997
33,827
37,090
28,910
Average no. of standards gaining credit per candidate
Year 3
Year 4
27.0
10.0
28.1
22.7
28.5
24.0
Year 5
8.0
10.0
17.8
Year 3
Year 4
88.1
31.0
91.0
74.5
91.8
79.3
Year 5
26.7
33.6
68.6
Average no. of credits achieved per candidate
Source: NZQA Secondary Qualifications Statistics 2004 http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/publications/docs/secondarystats-2004.pdf
25
Authority to look into fluctuations in other NCEA results. New Zealand Herald, 24th February 2005.
New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 23 February 2005. NCEA Variability In Line With Expectations. Media
Release.
26
13
Future
directions
The State Services Commission’s report, Report on the Performance of the
New Zealand Qualifications Authority in the Delivery of Secondary School
Qualifications was released in July 2005 in response to a request by the
Associate Minister of Education to assess whether the apparent variation in
NCEA results both between subjects and between years (where valid
comparisons are possible) reflects deficiencies in NZQA systems.
The review team found that, notwithstanding implementation difficulties,
NCEA enhances learning outcomes for students and is improving teaching
practice. Overall, it is acknowledged that the implementation of NCEA has
been a massive undertaking and NZQA deserves credit for what has been
achieved to date, as does the teaching profession. However, NZQA’s focus
on the implementation of NCEA was not sufficiently strategic and the
implementation path was too steep.
The review team makes a number of recommendations to NZQA regarding
the administration of NCEA, including that :
•
•
•
Further
Information/
links
NZQA should implement a scaling system for results that are outside
the bands of accepted tolerance, unless there is a defendable
explanation for that variation
NZQA should look at ways it can improve the validity of moderation by
randomly sampling student work and opening all standards to
selection for moderation
schools should report to NZQA when students fail to achieve
standards (they were previously not required to) and NZQA should
develop a nationally consistent approach to reporting nonachievement.
New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) NCEA updates
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/publications/updates/index.html
State Services Commission - Report of the performance of the New Zealand
Qualifications Authority in the delivery of secondary school qualifications
http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?docid=4703
Paul Mahoney, Research Analyst
Social Policy Team
Parliamentary Library
For more information contact Paul (ext.9019)
Copyright © NZ Parliamentary Library
Except for educational purposes permitted under the Copyright Act 1994, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval systems, other than by Members of Parliament in the course of their official
duties, without the consent of the Parliamentary Librarian, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand
14