Roy Kelley: NCEA - Far too much and far too soon

COMMENT

As a newcomer to New Zealand education last year, I arrived amid the turmoil arising from the rapid introduction of the NCEA and the demise of the well-regarded Bursary exam system.

The social agenda that accompanied this move - to allow more students to finish 13 years of schooling - is well understood and supported by all educators. But the radical new system was rushed, poorly planned and badly resourced. Under such circumstances the chance of success was always going to be limited.

The Minister of Education, Trevor Mallard, has said that if he had his time over again, he would not have introduced the NCEA quite so quickly. Sadly, there is plenty of evidence to prove that this was always going to be the case.

In 2000 Western Australia announced a post-compulsory qualification review for the equivalent of Year 12 and 13 students, aimed for a 2004 implementation.

Last year, in recognition of the size and scope of the new qualification, it was decided to defer the introduction to 2007. This proposed qualification would affect only two year-groups, not three, as is the case with the NCEA.

It was clear to the proponents in Western Australia that change of this magnitude was too important to get wrong. This highlights the need to plan for success by giving the time and resources needed to embed any new qualification thoroughly before implementation.

Unfortunately, debate on this issue in New Zealand has become too polarised. The defenders of the faith argue the strengths of their preferred qualification system without much acknowledgement of the importance of choice for families and schools.

Mr Mallard's Perspectives article, in response to that of Bill English, National's education spokesman, was, once again, too defensive. Mr English had simply pointed out what so many people know - there are definite problems with the NCEA that require immediate review.

To suggest all is well with the new system, as Mr Mallard does, is again to give the impression of a man rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Several weeks ago a Herald article detailed the claim of Howard Lee, an associate professor in Otago University's faculty of education, that the NCEA was fatally flawed. Such damning criticism from an eminent educator must have been a serious concern for the creators, managers and defenders of this system.

But rather than reiterate the serious and well-known concerns that many educators have with the NCEA, it is important to look to the future, as Mr English tried to do.

One of the problems with the NCEA stems from trying to provide one qualification system for all students yet a one-size-fits-all mentality restricts its effectiveness.

This same criticism was levelled at its predecessor, Bursary and Scholarship examinations. At King's College in Year 12 this year, 70 per cent of the students have elected to do a Cambridge International Examination course and 30 per cent have selected an NCEA course.

The notion of choice is critical for parents and students, especially as independent schools are founded on this premise.

While some students feel an NCEA course best suits their abilities, interests and future career choices, most clearly feel best suited by the CIE. Given the above-average academic student population at the college and its traditional ethos, this is not surprising.

Mr English said that parents and students want a national-standard, high-stakes, competitive examination such as Bursary.

I agree and so would the other 40 or so schools now registered with the Cambridge International Examination system.

The vast majority of universities around the world prefer externally based exams as the basis for their entrance criteria. Perhaps the reintroduction of a Bursary-style exam aimed at University Entrance, sitting alongside an NCEA qualification aimed at polytechnic or vocational career pathways, would be preferable.

Critics would argue that this would create a two-tiered qualification system, but it need not do so if handled correctly. Similar academic awards and scholarships could be awarded to students in both systems, and schools could offer the courses side by side, allowing students to stay on until Year 13 but still recognising the different academic demands of those who wish to attend university and those who do not.

Well-planned crossover courses could allow students to complete either qualification and still apply for either university or other tertiary course entrance. Examples of such systems do exist in other countries.

The important aspect is that they would allow schools and families to select the qualification best suited for their students, rather than be forced to accept a system that does not suit all students, and one which will prove difficult for universities to select students for tertiary entrance.

Another suggestion is to make the NCEA a two-year course for Year 12 and 13, rather than the three-year course. The huge administrative and workload issues for the Qualifications Authority and schools would be relieved by this simple move, and the reality is that the Level 1 Certificate has limited value as it is.

The opportunity for schools to select, plan, teach and assess their own curriculum materials for the three years from Years 9 to 11 is one that all good schools should welcome.

This would also have the benefit of reducing the level of external bureaucratic control in our schools.

If the NCEA is to be the national university entrance qualification, an enormous amount needs to be done in terms of the validity, consistency and relevance of the subject standards and the assessment process, despite Mr Mallard's contentious assurances that this is providing "rich and meaningful" data.

The minister should convene an immediate independent review of the NCEA to provide the recommendations and changes necessary to see it gain the national support and recognition so desperately sought by its creators.

The simple admission that the problems are real and will be addressed by the Government will be welcomed by many students, parents and schools. However, without serious transformation of the NCEA, the concerns and the confusion will remain for some time to come.

* Roy Kelley is the headmaster of King's College.