Editorial: NCEA reform a question of standards

As much as the Government may seek to deny it, the widespread change to the scholarship exam is hugely significant. This is not, as the Associate Education Minister would have it, a "refinement" of the standards-based system. It is a major philosophical switch, and strong indicator of the shape of things to come for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement.

Levels one to three of the NCEA are linked conclusively to the scholarship exam by the standards-based assessment philosophy. The flaws that emerged during the first running of the exam, which have now prompted the decision to award scholarships to a set percentage of students in every subject, lie at the heart of a standards-based system. They are present also, in practice or potential, at the lower level. As much has been confirmed by the Qualifications Authority's concession of "significant variability" in results at levels one and two. As much was tacitly acknowledged earlier this month when the Associate Education Minister widened the inquiry into the scholarship exam to the entire NCEA.

The Government deserves some credit at least for working quickly to ensure there is no repeat of the unacceptably high failure rate and wide variation of results between subjects in last year's scholarship exam. With little apparent demur, it has accepted the vast majority of a review panel's recommendations. The return to a ranking system means top students will not miss out on scholarships this year.

Now, however, the Government must tackle the implications for the standard NCEA of a system that has done away with scaling (the artificial means that formerly ensured a sufficient number of passes) and assesses students against objective standards - and the unfortunate consequences for students if those who set exams and those who mark them are not applying those standards consistently.

It may be that the Qualifications Authority needs to define those standards more stringently. But it could also be that a standards-based system will always be inimical to some subjects. That method presents few difficulties when it comes to assessing practical, cultural and vocational courses. They involve defined knowledge and skills. But academic subjects - the likes of science, history and English - place more emphasis on understanding and interpretation. Assessing these against objective standards is far more problematic. It could be, therefore, that there is a need for a two-tier structure involving standards-based assessment for some subjects and returning others to norm-referenced testing.

This would be a bitter pill for those who have driven the NCEA process. It would also involve a franker acceptance of the frailties of that regime by the Government. But it is not one that would cause trepidation in students' ranks. Most do not, in fact, fear a method that ranks them against their peers, rather than against an objective set of standards - not if the upshot is a consistency and certainty that eludes a broad-brush standards approach.

The changes to the scholarship exam are the result of a review of leading educators. This process eradicated much of the ideological posturing that drove the introduction of the NCEA and provoked unfortunate responses, such as the withdrawal of the Education and Scholarship Trust, which had successfully administered scholarship exams for more than a decade.

The trust had been among those warning of the shortcomings of standards-based assessment. It was not heeded; the Ministry of Education's view held sway. Only popular disquiet proved sufficient to force the Government's hand. The outcome is a much-improved scholarship exam, and the considerable dilution of a flawed approach. Now, that process must be completed.