Editorial
Education problems are piling up for the Government, from truancy to the long Covid hangover. Now it’s NCEA, again.
The much-troubled National Certificate of Educational Achievement has three levels, roughly matching school years 11, 12 and 13 (or 16- to 18-year-olds). A report by the Education Review Office (ERO) yesterday
said NCEA Level 1 was unfair, unreliable and possibly not worth keeping. Difficulty levels varied between subjects and schools, so children had unequal workloads and chances of achieving. Tellingly, ERO head of assessment Ruth Shinoda said: “Last year, students were almost twice as likely to achieve an excellence grade on an internal assessment than an external assessment.”
In a view backed by Education Minister Erica Stanford, Shinoda questioned whether it made sense to assess secondary students for three years in a row. She said students were missing out on key knowledge because NCEA Level 1 was too flexible, allowing students to cherry-pick the easiest credits and do the bare minimum. In many cases, they did not take the foundational courses that allowed them to study at a higher level. Some simply stopped studying for the year once they had achieved the required number of credits.
More than a quarter of schools have already voted with their feet and stopped offering Level 1 for the reasons above. Attempts to make Level 1 more rigorous have received a predictably mixed reaction from principals, with some applauding the move and others complaining their students might leave school with no qualifications at all.
None of this will be news to long-suffering parents and students who have been baffled and frustrated by the perverse logic of NCEA for many years.