KEY POINTS:
Nobody would relish a foreign examination becoming the prime measure of educational accomplishment in this country. Equally, however, nobody wants a flawed National Certificate in Educational Achievement that fails to demand sufficient academic rigour. The task, therefore, is to perform fairly drastic surgery on the NCEA before its
shortcomings drive more schools towards alternatives such as the Cambridge International Examinations. Over the past week or so, several major schools, including Avondale College, Kelston Boys' High and St Cuthbert's College, have decided to consider just that option. Time is running short to waylay that tendency before it becomes a stampede.
There could, thus, be no better time for Education Minister Steve Maharey to concede that all is far from well with the NCEA. Better still, his proposals for change meet many of the criticisms commonly levelled at the system. The focus will be on rewarding top-performing pupils with more credits and making difficult subjects worth more credits than easier ones.
These changes address problems arising from the NCEA's one-size-fits-all approach. This erased former distinctions between academic and technical subjects, and allowed pupils in all subjects to gather credits of their own choice at their own pace, towards a single national qualification. The outcome has been the cherry-picking of easy subjects to get credits, rather than the tackling of more difficult options. Hard work is not properly recognised, and pupils are not motivated to put in their best effort. Early in the piece, the likes of Auckland Grammar School opted for the Cambridge exams to provide the challenges they considered necessary for their best pupils.
While Mr Maharey's proposals, adroitly implemented, will answer many of these schools' criticisms, the minister must be wary of other areas of concern. Perhaps the most pressing, raised last week by John Morris, the headmaster of Auckland Grammar, is the Qualifications Authority's signal of increased internal assessment over the next few years. The ability to compare pupils from different schools based on external achievement standards is an essential tool for prospective employers. More thoroughgoing internal assessment would undermine that. It might also temper the view of the likes of Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O'Reilly, who last week provided much-needed support for the NCEA, saying it provided far more information than overseas qualifications about prospective employees' capabilities.
It stands to reason that the NCEA is more tailored to this country's tertiary education system. As such, it enjoys a natural advantage over international exams, which aim to serve many constituencies. The Secondary School Principals' Council has been keen to point out these pluses, although it overstepped the mark in claiming schools, particularly in Auckland, were using the Cambridge system as a marketing tool. Likewise, Dr John Langley, the Dean of the University of Auckland's education faculty, did the NCEA cause no favours when, in a show of unadulterated elitism, he effectively advised parents to butt out of the debate.
The NCEA remains a work in progress. The changes since its introduction have amounted to little more than tinkering. Substantial reform is now required to stop more disillusioned schools signing up for international qualifications. The Education Minister's proposals should supply the sort of challenge and rigour that will motivate pupils. They must be introduced without delay.