John Morris: Australian answer to NCEA woes

John Morris

My opposition to the NCEA and its underpinning assessment methodology has been consistent and strong.

The uncompromising standards-based system has proven, as predicted, to be disastrous, especially in the traditional academic subjects because it does not fulfil any of the essential prerequisites for credible and valid assessment.

Despite well-documented disasters, the Government has said it has no plans to drop the NCEA, and the qualification does have support among some principals and teachers.

So is there a way that the qualification can operate that will ensure improved validity, fairness, transparency and ultimately credibility?

First, there has to be an acceptance that a standards-based system in its pure form cannot work in all subjects. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is needed to give all students a fair go.

It is clearly far more important to provide a fair assessment system for students than to try to please the liberal clique who have always seemed more concerned with removing exams and marks from the lexicon of assessment-speak than in providing a credible, alternative assessment methodology.

Emeritus education Professor Warwick Elley has suggested a system that provides an appropriate assessment methodology for each subject. In his view, a marks-based approach should be used for the likes of history, physics, maths, chemistry, English and similar subjects. In more vocationally-oriented subjects, such as technology, a standards-based approach should be used.

I could live with this but there is a better way.

In 2000, New South Wales introduced a new assessment model for the Higher School Certificate, its exit examination. This system, called a standards-referenced model, could work here. Coincidentally, it is similar to the assessment model used in University of Cambridge International Examinations (CIE).

Those critics who have done little research on the matter, and that is, unfortunately, the majority, have always assumed the CIE is a norm-referenced system. It has never been.

Auckland Grammar School's reasons for adopting the CIE had a lot more research behind them than that.

Rather than reflecting a lack of leadership, as Rangitoto College principal Allan Peachey contends in his recently published book, the decision showed foresight and innovation sadly lacking in educational leadership.

So how does the standards-referenced model work?

* Written standards of performance are set for each grade band (A to F - or whatever one wants to call them).

* Each student is assessed against the specified standards of performance that are established for each course.

* Reporting is given in marks out of 100 as well as grades, with marks reflecting the standard achieved rather than the position in the group.

* There is no scaling and, therefore, no predetermined number of students in each mark range.

* There is no limit to the number of students achieving top marks.

* Students who score below the minimum standard (50 per cent) still receive a mark and recognition of course completion.

* Examination and school internal assessment components are combined to produce a final mark, but could just as easily be reported separately if that was considered preferable.

The accompanying diagram represents this based on the NSW Higher School Certificate model.

If this reads and looks like a reasonable and sensible compromise, it is. It actually combines the best of both models and could work in the New Zealand context, provided there is a will to make it work.

After all, it has worked successfully in New South Wales and in CIE exams for several years.

It would also enable some reform of the achievement standards concept, which would not be a bad thing because the breaking up of subjects into bits is not good practice and has taken away the importance of holistic subject learning.

The credit currency could also be accommodated by allotting credits commensurate with the mark gained.

Of course, the Government has appointed its own supposed independent analyst, Alan Barker, to suggest how the NCEA can be improved. There is some irony in this because he was one of the original Qualifications Authority officials charged with developing a standards-based system in the 1990s - one would have to say he may not be truly independent.

I just hope he is able to show greater respect for others' opinions this time around and look at how the NCEA can become a valid, credible, fair and transparent system.

* John Morris is headmaster of Auckland Grammar School.