KEY POINTS:
One of New Zealand's largest secondary schools is considering introducing an overseas exam system because it lacks confidence in NCEA.
Avondale College - which has about 2600 students, making it the third largest in the country - is seeking parents' support for Cambridge International Exams as an alternative to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement.
This has helped re-ignite debate about NCEA.
Here is a selection of earlier views:
Nikki
NCEA is terrible. Half of the students do not understand it, let alone the parents. Unfortunately I started NCEA the year after it was introduced and was one of the governments guinea pigs. They stuff up the papers- one year it is too easy, the next year it is the complete opposite. They can not find a balance! The whole system is a joke. Fortunately I am now at university where I receive a mark that's easy to understand (A-F) rather than a useless A, M or E.
Breeze
As most of you have somewhat of a subsidiary view on this subject, I thought, as a pupil of Auckland grammar, it would be beneficial for you to hear what a student has to say, one who is currently undertaking Cambridge exams and ( has undertaken NCEA, and Cambridge before). I have to say after taking Latin Ncea Level 1 ( as there was no option to take cambridge ) and all other subjects were cambridge, I found that my ncea exam was overly simplified, yet in the way of marking it was probably one of the most complicated systems I had seen. In fact, i can recall an occasion of doing an internal assessment, where one person who had got nearly 26/30 had got not achieved just because he did not achieve one standard, which in this case was 8/10 I believe he got 7/10, anyway, although obtuse in itself, I knew of someone who got 18/30 and got an excellence. What is this system promoting? Inadequacy and incompetence.
I dont know if anyone else watched the documentary about NCEA few weeks ago, but, not too sound pompous or arrogant, but the stuff these students were undertaking were considerably lower than what should be expected of students at that level. That being said, I am the same age as the students shown. NCEA promotes laziness, and definitely is a dumbing down as aforementioned. Contrary to popular belief, students dont want to be like this, take me for an example! How can you expect them to be inspired or encouraged to even study, and yes, for the most part of these exams to get excellence it is more trying to figure out how NCEA marks than the actual coursework. NCEA was designed to bring the lower students up, and lower the high students. It is unequal, and in my opinion, a wasted system for a populace too concerned about "not hurting their feelings" than actual education. You only hear the conversations around school courtyard.Those who choose NCEA subjects, choose them not because its good, they choose them because they not they can waste time the whole year and still pass. Cambridge, too, to some degree is not as specifically for coursework. I think all exams are changing to the point where the key is to figure out how to answer the question, bugger what information we need to know or will be useful for us later in life.
Moreover, I found that studying doesnt help in NCEA, yet for Cambridge those who study will see results. NCEA is a mediocre system at best, the government needs to get over it self and stop trying to make everyone equal. We are not all equal, deal with it. NCEA is a joke, really, if you talk to any student who is fairly smart will agree.Each year it gets easier and easier. It is almost laughable. Anyway, that is my opinion about NCEA.
Wayne
As someone involved in tertiary education teaching a highly technical subject, I can absolutely confirm that the students that we receive now from secondary schools have a standard of mathematics and physics that is at least two years behind that of their counterparts of ten years ago. They are having problems coping with basic trigonometry, algebraic manipulations - not to mention integration and differentiation. Mathematics and Physics requires discipline to master and repetitive drilling to fully assimilate. Obviously discipline and drills and rote learning are concepts that are totally anathema to our current crop of 70s radicals turned politicos.
Instead of improving educational standards so that we can compete in the international economy they waste their time with window dressing anti-smacking that will of absolutely no benefit to any children whatsoever. And our educational system, once among the finest in the world, withers away on the vine. It is so terribly depressing.
Di Shaw
Absolutely no confidence in NCEA. My daughter received an outstanding bursary pass [22/24] in English but, with exactly the same subject material, only earned Level 3 merit pass. NCEA lacks consistency and credibility.art assessments and requiring a Level 3 pass before being considered for bursary is flawed and does much to erode the talent of young NZers. I am hugely thankful my daughter has gone on to tertiary education and is not relying on NCEA qualifications to secure employment.
Yan Flint
I would strongly encourage more schools to introduce independent and external assessment frameworks (either Cambridge or IB) rather than relying on the NCEA. Regrettably, only a couple of schools in Wellington offer either the Cambridge or IB curricula (Wellington College, although listed in your article, is not one of these). External assessment frameworks allow better assessment of the performance of teachers (one of the reasons many teachers resist the introduction of Cambridge and IB)as well as of students and, more importantly, are recognised by major universities overseas which have little confidence in our unreliable and non-specific NCEA assessment framework.
Dot
NCEA is supposed to be integrated qualification that runs from minimum achievement required by school leaving age, to recognition of exceptional achievement in pre-university studies. In fact, the NCEA system is not integrated - the attempt to find a level for every student has made it extremely fragmented. Low-level students need more teachers in the classroom with them, not more academic administration staff. These students need a clear-cut system, because may not have the chance to discuss their options thoroughly with education-oriented family members at home. They are also the students whose parents are most likely to want them out of school and earning once they reach school-leaving age - they don't need bureaucracy and befuddlement to waste the few years they are in high school.
CIE is over-rated and irrelevant both to our times and to NZs position in Asia and the Pacific, I believe. IB remains the only widely recognized international qualification, and it is the one that students who truly intend to study outside NZ/Australia choose.
I would d rather see a home-grown university-oriented learning system that ran concurrently with NCEA, either in the same schools or in separate regional public 6th-form college or grammar schools (no public schools honestly serve the high-achieving university-bound Manukau student at present). So either Polly A stays at her NCEA school for 3-5 years while Polly B switches to an academic school from year 10; or Johnny A does 5 periods of NCEA English a week, while Johnny B does 3 periods of NCEA English (and is expected to study effectively at home) and 2 periods of English aimed at giving him skills he will need at university.
Rob
It is almost a cliche to say it but the namby-pamby ideas of inclusion, participation etc are truly at odds with the competitive struggle which makes people world-over better and encourages them to strive to achieve. It is the people on the ground at the best and largest schools who know what works - better than any politician or outside consultant. Its time the government started realising that they are the people who should be consulted on how to move forward or, as is the case now, to move backwards to the old system which worked just fine in many more ways than NCEA.
A
The NCEA system is terrible. It is too ambiguous. There is too much happening in this system. At times, it is too easy to get an achieved and too hard to get an excellence. You are never sure about what grade you are going to get. Even, if you studied so much for it, and were really confident, you end up getting and achieved. The other thing with this system is that students stop trying hard because it is just too easy to get an achieved. Below-Average students can sometimes get an achieved. The children with potential usually miss the Excellence because it is too hard. The marking system is too fussy. Most of the teachers do not have enough understanding of it.
Something seriously needs to be done
.
Trevor McIntyre
I am Headmaster of Christchurch Boys High School. I was a avid supporter of NCEA in its early stages (you may find a video clip in TV3 archives!!) but having introduced and experienced the motivation of our top students studying and being assessed by CIE I have done a complete about turn. Their academic performance has been stimulated and their attitudes to study have been heightened. We did some research on our first year group who did Mathematics at NCEA L1 in Y10 and IGCSE Maths at Y11 so they could offer a valid comparison. The results were profoundly in favour of the IGCSE. The students appreciate its clear academic focus and challenge, its international flavour, its competitiveness and its definitive fairness.
AJC. Mortensen
Having sat both of these two examination systems 2003-2004 Cambridge, 2005 NCEA Level 3) at Auckland Boys Grammar, I can succinctly say that NCEA is terrible. It took me at least the first term to "understand" how to achieve marks. Once this was accomplished, NCEA became nothing more than a nuisance. To elaborate it became so easy to simply "achieve" that the process became redundant.
Cambridge on the other hand was far more challenging and required real aptitude. I am glad to hear of other schools banding together against this poorly legislated examination system enacted by an even more redundant government.
Karl
I have been teaching since the year NCEA was first introduced at year 11. During the introductory process there were a number of teething difficulties which put a lot of people - teachers, students and parents - off the entire system. This has coloured peoples perception of the course, despite the fact that many of the issues have been resolved. Personally, I am not a huge fan of NCEA as I believe that it caters for, and encourages, mediocrity. However, the current educational philosophy is that all students must achieve, rather than just the best ones. Imagine the outcry if 40 per cent of our students were failing because too much effort was going into the most capable! Much of the support for the Cambridge exams is based on a sheer dislike of NCEA, rather than an understanding of Cambridge. A number of parents have asked why our school does not have CE, and have been unable to answer me when I asked them to tell me about how Cambridge worked. NCEA provides a lot of flexibility, more than the Cambridge exams. The standards based assessment approach makes it easier to tell what students can actually do. While it does not solve all of our problems, it does help us drag the tail of our poorer achieving students up - which means they are, theoretically at least, more capable of being employed rather than on the dole. Furthermore, it remains the official and most accepted curriculum delivery model in New Zealand schools.
The problem with internal assessment comes from a couple of reasons. The training process in setting and marking internal assessment was a difficult one, and needed to be more vigorous. The disparity between subjects, where one subject may give three credits for an hour's work where another gives three for something requiring ten hours, is another difficulty. The problems of multiple reassessment are also still continuing, as well as parental pressure on teachers for their children to succeed. The system was devised with minimal teaching input, but teachers were left to sort out the kinks themselves. Many parents look at the disparity between internal results and external results as "proof" that schools are dishonest in their marking, but consider this. In the internal assessments, students get a number of opportunities to meet the standard being assessed during the course of a whole school year - and, due to the hours of extra teaching and marking put in by dedicated teachers, those that do the work will often pass.
In the external assessment, however, they get one shot and that is it, at a time when they are having to do a number of assessments all at once. Of course their external results will be lower!
While NCEA is by no means perfect, I believe that it is the system most likely to help the majority of our students succeed. What we as teachers need to work on is how to push our top students to strive for excellence despite the system.
L
NCEA is failing the very students it was set up to help while substituting box-ticking for clarity of thought it what it demands of brighter pupils. The internal assessment process is a joke, with any meaningful and rigorous moderation between schools being a pipe dream. Under the old system, 95 per cent for Bursary English from Waikikamukau District High School was just as good as the same result from Auckland Grammar or EGGS. Now, as an employer, I would look only at the external NCEA results. Otherwise I should end up judging an applicant by the school he or she went to. NCEA stifles creative teaching. It was dreamed up by dullards (frequently calling themselves "educationalists") to be administered to pliant "consumers" of education. Aimed at the lowest common educational denominator, it makes no demands upon intelligent students.
Along with zoning, it is an attack by Labour on the aspirations of working-class people to get a decent education for their children. How many bright kids from South Auckland are now able to get places in the top state schools in this city?
Steve
I have sat through School Cert, 6th Form Internal and Bursary. All very different testing and examination methods. Bursary got it right, study study study, take the test. If you fail, it is your own fault.
NCEA appears to be designed for those who just can not hack a real test of knowledge. Oh and the allowance of mobile-txt language in NCEA? What is next, 1337 5p34k ? We are raising a generation of retarded morons.
Martin
No matter what drawbacks School Certificate and University Entrance had they still had the effect that the student knew they had to knuckle down and work, get to grips with the subject and do their best. NCEA does the opposite, in that any number of attempts to "achieve" during the year allows complacency to be the norm. The goal has gone from "Do my best" to "I only need to get this many credits". Not many students are motivated to strive for excellence under a system that encourages mediocrity so of the whole range of possibilities available only the minimum is now the goal.
Wayne
NCEA does not allow for valid comparisons of students' efforts and abilities. Some teachers give students a lot of assistance with internal achievement standards and some do not. The difficulty of the tasks given to students varies from school to school. For example, some teachers may make students complete the same assessment under exam conditions while others may use open book testing or an assignment. Some teachers will give students one attempt only and others will give several attempts. There is no consistency. It is a joke!!!! With Unit Standards again the amount of assistance given to students will vary from teacher to teacher. Some teachers will allow one attempt and others three or even four attempts. A student who takes three attempts to pass gets the same grade (Achieved) as someone who passed the first time. On top of this the moderator may disagree with all of a teachers grades but the student still receives the original grades given by the teacher. Keep in mind that there is pressure on teachers to deliver results and so some will bend the rules to make it look like they are doing a good job. In many subjects the course prescription emphasises outcomes rather than content. The result is that examiners ask questions of content not covered by teachers. This can be of considerable disadvantage to students. Now NZQA has gone back to scaling by playing around with external Achievement Standards to ensure exam results are "satisfactory".
NCEA is messy, costly and produces invalid outcomes.
Isaac
NCEA = everyone is the same, lets make them all mediocre! Cambridge = bad... heaven forbid that the students find out that some of them are brighter than others! SO many times have I heard of students getting barely enough credits to pass and then not caring anymore. I get a lot of students coming to me looking for jobs but yet only "achieved standards" are shown in their results sheets. Not helpful! You never know if they failed twice as many as they passed. How many children has Trevor Mallard put through school? How many young people has he tried to employ?
Tony
New Zealand needs an educational system and qualifications for the 21st century. Standards based assessment is the best method for describing what a student can do. It is based upon a sound body of educational research and most forward thinking teachers and educationalists support it. Those schools that move to Cambrige exams, or norm referencing are pushing an archaic methodology. I suspect this push has more to do with marketing themselves as a traditional school, and all the memories that stirs up in parents, rather than looking forward. These schools are more concerned about their reputations than whats good to prepare their students for their lives.
John Luscombe
A cynic might say that we will not need a high degree of education in this country in the future. Business is being sold off shore, so we will only become a country of serfs with an easily manipulated population for overseas corporations.
Ezra
I think that if we live in a society where our only focus is personal achievement and advancing ourselves as individuals then the Cambridge system is great. I finished High School two years ago, qualifying under NCEA during its second year in use. The system is a massive step up on the old school cert and bursary systems... Of course its going to take some adjusting and sorting as any new system would. In my opinion the curriculum is no weaker than it ever has been and if anything allows students to expand their knowledge easier than ever - of course this is going to vary teacher to teacher as any other qualification would.
It strikes me as a very juvenile knee jerk thing for schools to do offering Cambridge exams instead of backing NCEA and developing it into an even better system than it is and one we can be proud of.
Cambridge exams in terms of keeping the socio-economic gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" alive.
Achieve with Excellence.
Dawn
I was lucky that I finished Bursary just before NCEA came in. My sister ended up being one of the guinea pigs. When I compare our educations, she had more work but was not taught as much as us. I have not experienced the Cambridge exams for myself, but with its international reputation and long solid history, I think that it would be a better option for both students, teachers and employers. Perhaps if enough schools change over to offering dual systems, NCEA can be phased out ASAP.
Marie Dennis
I have no confidence in NCEA or its ability to produce students who know how to study, achieve or excel. NZ is producing students with qualifications, which are far inferior to overseas standards in order to be seen as politically correct, enabling all students to "pass".
Sheri
NCEA sucks. I hope Vambridge is introduced so they can have opportunites which we as NCEA student missed out.
Simon Higgins
Regional Manager, University of Cambridge International Examinations
University of Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) is the world's largest provider of international qualifications for 14-19 year olds. CIE qualifications are taken in over 150 countries and recognised by universities, educational providers and employers across the world. CIE is a not for profit organisation and the only international examination board to be part of a university. As a department of the University of Cambridge we have access to unparalleled academic expertise with the University and our close collaboration with Homerton College, the University's faculty of education, ensures that our qualifications are informed by expert educational practice.
While CIEs examinations match the standard of those offered in England they differ in content in that UK terminologies and contexts have been replaced by international friendly use of language and examples.
The key is that the standard is the same. Therefore, CIEs AS and A Levels, whether they are sat in UK schools or internationally, are treated as equivalent in recognition to UK AS and A Levels by every university around the world including UK universities where they agree that CIEs AS and A Levels are "acceptable at grades A-E in lieu of UK A and AS Levels on a subject for subject basis. CIE offers secondary schools two distinct qualifications, the IGCSE and A Level. The content of IGCSE means that it can be sat in one year in New Zealand at year 11. The content of the A Level means that it requires two years but rather than require students to specialize in a narrow number of subjects the A Level includes the AS Level, a stand alone qualification gained at the end of one year.
New Zealand students can choose to sit a number of AS Levels over a period of 2 years (at years 12 & 13) and gain a breadth of knowledge and/or choose to specialize by taking a particular subject (or subjects) through to a full A Level at the end of year 13. Every university faculty in NZ has expressed their satisfaction with the standard reached in AS Level. Cambridge encourages New Zealand students to include local references as often as possible in all subjects. Our suite of subjects includes NZ History and our newly released poetry anthology features four prominent NZ poets. There is further scope for New Zealand students to include our local culture and environment through CIEs popular coursework option.
Andrew Atkin
No one should have any confidence in any test provided by the Ministry Of Education until the MOE specifies exactly what the tests represent. For example, do they test the students ability to apply information or merely to regurgitate it? The difference is mamolithic.
Raj Subramanian
I was involved in School Boards as Finance Chair, Deputy Chair,etc. At the time NCEA was introduced, teachers were reluctant for the change. Govt. considered their reluctance as something to do with lack of knowledge in the system. Now it proved that the teachers were right. Mostly NZ policies in the past 6 to 7 years are aimed at isolating this Country from the other west and Australia. This is our Small country we rule, mentality has creeped into our political system,especially under Labour. We lost touch with outside world in technology, education, pension-reforms,health-fund restructuring,free-trade with big-powers,etc. The exclamations then and there vouched by our Prime Minister over happenings in Malaysia,("We lost track in Broadband-Look at Asian countries")China (for manufacturing) and India(Internet), is all we get from this Government. We had likes of Theresa Guttungs who held us back by 10 years in technology.
Seen in this context NCEA was a system aimed at showing the isolated New Zealand Mite to all superpowers!!! Cases of NZQA saying that Oxford University Degrees are not as good as New Zealand Degrees are already laughed at by people. In NCEA the internal assessment was talked about as something new. We all know that internal assessment system in School Finals was already tried in not only Western Countries, but also in Asian Countries two-three decades ago. They proved failures, where standardisation of results was not possible,and there were biased valuations reported. After the few years, when teachers were unable to convince the advantages of a system introduced by Government without the support of the parents nor the teachers is bound to fail. Again and again planning coming from experts and officials without ground level knowledge and by a government which cant understand the majority voice of the people will go back to their table with a big Question Mark attached. At least now the Govt. should understand the reality and at this stage the measure needed is to allow alternate curriculum with the whole consent of parents and teachers.
Andrew Atkin
No one should have any confidence in any test provided by the Ministry Of Education until the MOE specifies exactly what the tests represent. For example, do they test the students ability to apply information or merely to regurgitate it? The difference is mamolithic.
Richard
I am a teacher with 26 years experience and have taught both NCEA and Cambridge courses as well as the old S.C and Bursary courses. Despite claims that the change to NCEA would not affect what is taught, I estimate that the course content has dropped to about 70 per cent of what it was, at least in my subject areas. This is because much of the syllabus is not assessed under NCEA, so it is no longer taught. I regard this as a huge disservice to students and parents who no longer get as much 'bang for their buck' as they used to. NCEA is fine for weaker students but certainly not for the better ones as it provides a minimal challenge for them. The Cambridge courses provide a far better challenge for more capable students. However if schools do offer a Cambridge pathway, it needs to start at Year 9 at the latest, if students are to cope with it. I accept that not all schools might have the staff needed to implement this however. One point against Cambridge perhaps, is that a full-time course comprises only 3 or 4 Cambridge subjects normally, so students would not be able to follow such a broad course as they would under NCEA.
Marisher Stowers
My son is doing Cambridge Year 11 at St Peters College (which you failed to mention in your article) here in Auckland. That was a major contributing factor why he is going there on top of the religious element and it is an excellent school academically and in itself has a lot of pride of course. I feel this academic pathway is far more reliable and reduces the prevalent mistakes and balls up of the current status quo being NCEA. This gives them the opportunity to just be lazy and still pass this is not an option with Cambridge. Over and over I have heard more loop holes more negativeness about the incompetence of NCEA. Cambridge is also an easier option for University to ascertain a student's ability as opposed to NCEA. Therefore I am a full supporter of Cambridge or anything else apart from NCEA it does not work and promotes laziness in the students. The level of bias is way over the top especially in internal assessments. Enough is enough back to the drawing board bring something like School C etc like in my day back again or model along the lines of Cambridge/International Bacclaur. for example.
Wayne
What really makes me white hot angry is the fact that my wife and I pay high taxes yet still have to scrimp and save so that we can send our daughter to a school that offers a reputable examination system ie Cambridge. NCEA with its internal assessment and lack of rigour is a sick joke. In the end it will hurt low income, low decile schools because of its lack of nation-wide consistency. A student will be judged not so much on his secondary school qualifications but more so by what school he or she attended. It is absolutely impossible to maintain consistency of standards between schools when the amount of internal assessment is so high. The conflict of interest involved in a teacher or department or school internally assessing students is so great that any amount of moderation will only have a limited effect in reducing grade inflation. And I shudder to think of the increased cost burden to the taxpayer from the sheer amount of paperwork involved in maintaining this travesty of an examination system.
M H
As both a former pupil of Avondale College and a recently resigned secondary school teacher, I am a sceptic of the Cambridge exam system. It is not known in the UK and has nothing to do with Cambridge University because it is a private business. It only has snob factor in NZ and if you ask me the parents that a threatening to withdraw their kids from Avondale because of there only being NCEA should do so - Avondale does not need snobs like that. What Avondale needs is for improvements in the NCEA system. It can only be made better.
Sharon Viti
Our son attended Western Springs College (Auckland) in the first year of NCEA. He had up until that point been an excellent student. While his marks in the NCEA exam were ok they did not reflect his capability and, along with the numerous problems that the system presented that year, we made the huge decision to move to the UK for the sake of his education. Although we knew he would be disrupted we felt that it was the right decision in the long run. I felt for the staff of Western Springs as they were excellent teachers caught up in a misguided system lead by the arrogant Trevor Mallard. Our son did significantly better under the UK system achieving 2 As and 2 Bs in his final year. He is currently studying Politics and International Relations with Philosophy at Canterbury. We do not regret leaving NZ but we realise we were lucky as many people do not have that choice. I fully support Avondale College in their decision.
Duncan
I was fortunate enough to have done both School Certificate and NCEA level one maths. I cannot believe people say they are the same level. In 7th form (level 3), I encountered principles that I had previously learned in School Certificate. Needless to say, with little effort I got top marks in level one maths. NCEA is too easy to pass. Before the exam you are told exactly what you will have to do. Any chimpanzee could learn the basics of an achievement standard in under two minutes and pass. Is setting the bar low going to benefit positively on society? I for one will not be hiring people who solely have NCEA qualifications to my name when I am a manager.
Ollie
I was lucky, I was in the very last year of the old School C - Bursary system, and I think my education was all the better for it. My younger brother was caught up in the mire of the NCEA system and from what I could see it was a difficult and confusing beginning period for both students and teachers. There seemed to be a general feeling of optimism, that "once we get used to it it will work perfectly", but we are beginning to realise that this is not the case and NCEA has huge, gaping flaws. If it aint broke, dont fix it: our education system did not need to be fixed.
Gillian Eadie
Samuel Marsden Collegiate School in Wellington has been offering University of Cambridge qualifications since 2003 and the students who have chosen to study for these have found them rigorous, challenging and immensely satisfying. They have been in an excellent position to compare the two systems as they have also studied for NCEA qualifications at the same time. It was initially felt that studying for both qualifications would jeopardize students chances for Excellence grades in NCEA, because of the additional workload. Such was the level of student engagement and extension in CIE classes, however, in each year since 2003, students studying for both qualifications have gained up to five times as many Excellence grades in NCEA, alongside their stunning results in CIE. Samuel Marsden Collegiate School will be continuing to offer University of Cambridge qualifications. New Zealands brightest young minds deserve to be challenged with rigorous programmes of learning and measured against the best in the world.
Derrick Hodgson
You are getting more passes
