Principals: Cambridge High glitch in sound exam system

COMMENT

The recent publicity over issues at Cambridge High School should not cause any lessening of confidence in the long-term viability and effectiveness of the NCEA as our national qualification.

A small proportion of Cambridge High students who were working towards minor credits outside the mainstream subjects were not validly and fairly assessed. However, the majority of students at the school were appropriately and fairly assessed by good teachers.

It is a matter of shame that some commentators have used the inadequacies of systems in the so-called achievement room as an excuse to call into question the validity of the NCEA, and to question the perfectly valid qualifications gained by the vast majority of students at this school and at schools throughout the country.

It is time to stop undermining the efforts and achievements of our young people and their teachers.

The systems used for checking internal and external NCEA assessments at schools are more stringent than the systems used in our universities. The community quite rightly accepts that the judgments made by university teachers are professional and valid. We have every confidence that judgments made by teachers in our schools, who are widely recognised around the world as outstanding, are equally professional and valid, particularly since they are supported by a complex network of professional development and checking systems.

In fact, the NCEA is remarkably similar to the assessment systems used by our universities. University students also earn credits through a mixture of internal assessments (for example, laboratory work, essays and presentations) and exams.

Credits are gained when university students meet the requirements for individual papers (very like NCEA standards). Credits accumulate until a qualification has been earned, and students receive grades, not percentage marks, in both systems.

The NCEA is, therefore, much better preparation for university study than a single, end-of-year assessment such as the Bursary examination.

The NCEA is a robust qualification. In fact, it may be more demanding than equivalent qualifications in other countries. It includes both external (exam-based) assessment at three levels (Years 11, 12 and 13), and internal, performance-based assessments.

Apart from Britain (which is considering a move to an NCEA-type system), no other developed country requires as much external assessment. In all Australian states apart from New South Wales, there are exams only at Year 13 (usually in addition to a 50 per cent internal assessment component).

In Queensland, all assessment up to Year 12 is internal - based on teacher professional judgment.

Yet world has not spun off its axis.

The NCEA is certainly judged positively by top universities overseas. Admission offices at Harvard, Princeton and Yale, for example, have confirmed they are happy to use NCEA as an important part of their selection process. They have also commented that the rich data provided from NCEA assessment will greatly help their selection process.

According to Richard Kyle, education adviser for the British Council, NCEA-qualified students will be welcomed into British tertiary education in the same way as students schooled here always have been. British universities will understand the NCEA because of work being done by the Qualifications Authority and the New Zealand Vice Chancellors Committee to provide meaningful data that allows comparison between different national qualifications.

Closer to home all universities in this country have endorsed the NCEA and intend to use it as part of their entry and selection processes.

All major sector groups have endorsed the NCEA, including Business New Zealand, the Parent Teacher Association, the Secondary Principals Association, the Post Primary Teachers Association, the Principals Council of the PPTA, and the Vice Chancellors Committee.

The results of NCEA assessments reflect variations in achievement across subjects and across years, which has caused much recent comment. Analysis of these variations is valuable for all educators who seek to improve the education of youngsters. It is worth noting that these variations are nothing new, and were masked by the previous system.

With University Bursary examinations, huge variations from year to year were hidden by the simple and, most would say, unacceptable expedient of scaling marks regardless of of achievement.

The NCEA is not perfect. There are no perfect systems. But the fundamental principles upon which it is based are right.

Quite simply, it has the capacity to improve the learning of all students. It can ensure that every student leaves school knowing what they are good at and knowing what pathways they could follow to continue their learning.

The merits of the NCEA are certainly accepted internationally. It will significantly improve the effectiveness of our education system.

The qualification is here to stay. We support it unreservedly and hope to see much more constructive support for the young New Zealanders for whom the NCEA is already a reality.

* Mrs M. Bendall is the principal of Epsom Girls Grammar School, Mr B. Haque is the principal of Pakuranga College, Mr G. Laurenson is the principal of Otatahu College, Mrs Ann Mildenhall is the principal of Diocesan School for Girls, Mr W. Peat is the headmaster, St Kentigern College, and Mrs L. Reid is the principal of St Cuthberts College.