John Langley: Employers struggling to earn a pass

John Langley

Over the past decade or so I have constantly heard employer groups talk about the need for better educational standards, more comprehensive information about what young people can do and the standard of information that is available to them to make appointments. Yet when they get it, they grumble.

Last week, employer groups commented about the difficulties some of their members were having with the NCEA system. One said the results were difficult to interpret.

Another, Peter Townsend, of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, said he still did not understand the NCEA system, despite nine years on a board of trustees.

In the latter case, one has to ask why it took so long for him not to understand something that most 16-year-olds seem to figure out in a day?

The pair also commented that more notice was taken of the school which students attended than the results obtained. So what else is new?

Another Herald article last week described the difficulty that parents were having interpreting NCEA results. That is understandable because the results are more comprehensive than those under the old system and the NCEA system is new, which, in itself, will cause difficulties.

But let's clarify some matters about NCEA. The main issue being debated is really about whether we want to compare our students with a particular group of their peers in any given year and give them a comparison grade or, alternatively, to describe what they know and can do as individuals and grade that accordingly.

School Certificate was about comparing. It ranked those who sat it in any given year along a scale. So many got an A, so many a B and so on. Essentially it was a gate-keeping process to determine those who would pass to the next level.

When I sat School Certificate, I scored 72 per cent in English (from memory). What did that mean? To begin with it did not mean that I actually scored 72 per cent. In those days scores were scaled up or down so that certain percentages of those sitting an examination were spread evenly across the various grades that were available. If the scores were high in a particular year, they got scaled down. If they were low, they got scaled up.

What this meant in reality was that about a half of those who sat the exam did not pass regardless of their performance, and the grades received by others did not necessarily reflect what they actually achieved.

Even if the 72 per cent had been accurate, what did that tell anyone about my ability in English? It was based on a one-off examination that could not possibly measure many of the skills required of those who undertook the curriculum at that level.

How can you possibly assess my ability to make a speech through the medium of a written exam? What would an employer make of it? What would a parent? Probably not a lot, but it was easy. You got one grade.

If we compare that to NCEA, the difference is evident. Level One NCEA English has the following categories:

* Produce creative writing.
* Produce formal writing.
* Read, study and show understanding of extended written texts.
* Read, study and show understanding of short written texts.
* View/listen to/ study and show understanding of a visual or oral text.
* Read and show understanding of unfamiliar texts.
* Deliver a speech in a formal situation.
* Produce a media or dramatic presentation.
* Research, organise and present information.

The performance of each student is described in each of these areas. In the result sheets, the credits are clearly indicated, as is the level of performance.

The same kind of breakdown occurs for all of the other curriculum areas. It also shows which categories are assessed internally and those assessed externally. In addition, there is a summary that describes the overall accomplishment of the student and whether they have achieved a general Level One pass.

Three comments need to be made about this system. To begin with, students achieve credit if they earn it. What other students do or do not do is irrelevant. Credit is given where it is due. That surely is fairer and more accurate in terms of the information a parent or employer needs.

The results area is broken down so that we get detail about each student's performance in specific areas, rather than the blunt instrument that existed in the past.

Finally, and importantly, all work is moderated between schools in order to ensure that a consistent marking and grading standard applies.

The argument that some schools are softer than others simply does not wash, despite some of the very public abuses that have occurred. The fact that those abuses have been identified and dealt with should provide some reassurance.

Is NCEA perfect? Absolutely not and it will never be. Is it more detailed and, therefore, does it take more time to understand? It sure does. But in terms of detail, accuracy and fairness it is streets ahead of the structures that it replaced.

It is likely that the Qualifications Authority does need to do some more work to communicate with employers and parents about the system and what it means. But employers and parents need to be prepared to approach the system with an open mind and to take the time to see how the information they get can better inform them.

* Dr John Langley is the dean of education at Auckland University.