Doug Blackmur: NCEA principles may have been hijacked along the way

Opinion

The principles for the NCEA advocated by John Morris, of Auckland Grammar School, in his article on this page resemble strongly those intended originally for the qualifications system.

An historical perspective confirms as much, and explains why Mr Morris' ideas should command firm and widespread support.

Until 1996, the Qualifications Authority tried to revolutionise secondary qualifications by means of the unit standards model.

The Government of the day responded to grave concerns among educators, students and the community in general over the philosophical and practical dimensions of this model by calling a halt to its implementation in late 1996.

The PPTA was one of the many stakeholders that drew attention to, among other things, the horrendous assessment, record-keeping and administrative burden of the unit standards approach.

Other bodies and individuals also offered constructive criticism, particularly of the tailorisation of knowledge that was a feature of the model.

In early 1997, it was clear that a new approach was essential, and that continued public confidence depended on a principled and effective resolution of the secondary qualifications crisis.

The Qualifications Authority discussed the issues with a range of people, especially secondary educators. In early 1997 it defined the principles that were to underpin a new model of secondary qualifications. This new model rejected the unit standards approach. The 1997 principles dictated that:

* The qualifications were to be subject-based, with the subjects and the curriculum content to be determined by the Ministry of Education.

* Each subject was to be accompanied by a statement of the expected educational outcomes. These were called achievement standards (they were to include matters such as the reasoning and analytical skills achieved by students).

* Each subject was to be assessed against the achievement standards by a combination of external, national examinations (50 per cent of the assessment) and school-determined, internal assessment (50 per cent of the assessment).

* The internal, school-based assessment results were to be moderated by the results of the national exams.

* A result for each subject was to be declared based on this 50:50 system.

* A measure of excellence in student performance was to be applied, and was to be used in determining and reporting results.

These principles were the foundation of work within the Qualifications Authority to develop a practical system that would meet the needs of students, teachers, and the community.

Towards the end of 1997 a draft secondary school qualifications model, based on these principles, had been developed.

Each member of the authority board (including Mr Morris) was visited to explain the model and to obtain feedback. Then the model was refined and formally presented to the board for consideration and approval for submission to the Minister of Education.

The authority board gave its approval, and the Government announced the new secondary schools qualifications policy in early 1998.

A Qualifications Authority-Ministry of Education working party was set up to design the implementation of this National Certificate of Educational Achievement.

The principles advocated by Mr Morris bear a strong resemblance to the 1997 principles. Given that background, it is surprising from an outsider's perspective that there is continuing controversy over the NCEA.

The 1997-98 model should have been an important part of the education fabric by now. What's been going on? Clearly, some questions need to be answered.

It would appear the NCEA model, approved by the Government of 1998, is not the model that applies today.

It may be that the Labour Government, which assumed office in 1999, approved changes to the original model, and that this is the source of today's controversy. But if it did not, there is a prima facie case to suggest that some person(s) unilaterally changed Government policy without the endorsement and knowledge of the responsible minister or of the Government.

This hypothesis raises a potentially serious matter, which should be investigated by the review being headed by Doug Martin.

What might have happened (and this is pure speculation) is that the unit standards approach was reinstated (without authority?) under the camouflage of maintaining the achievement standards nomenclature.

Various other principles on which the original model was based might also have been abandoned without any ministerial authority.

This hypothesis also raises a potentially serious matter, but both can be easily resolved, given that all the documentation is held by the Qualifications Authority and can be made available to the Martin review.

It would be ironic if the Government, in seeking a way out of the mess, returned to the thinking behind what many regard as the discredited, damaging and unworkable unit standards model of the years before 1996.

* Professor Doug Blackmur was the chief executive of the Qualifications Authority from 1997 to 1999.