The government has announced that they will undertake a major overhaul of the secondary school qualification system and that they will be consulting with the sector later in the year. I recall back in the crazy neoliberal 1990s shake up of education for ideological purposes, it was commonly held that the definition of consultation went as follows.
- We will tell you what we are planning to do
- We will ask you what you think about it and ask you to provide useful feedback
- We will ignore all feedback and do it anyway
Will this proposed consultation be the same?
Too much credit counting’: Government proposes replacing NCEA school system
“Under the proposal, NCEA level 1 would be replaced with foundation literacy and numeracy tests.
Levels 2 and 3 would be replaced with a New Zealand Certificate of Education and an Advanced Certificate.
Students would be required to take five subjects and pass at least four to get each certificate.
Marking would be out of 100 and grades would and range from A to E.”
It seems to me that the proposed changes are just another move to standardise education, following on from national standards a decade ago, and to go back to a winners and losers system as was the case way back in the dark ages of School Certificate and University Entrance examinations, except I hope the results won’t be scaled to bring a 50% pass/fail ratio which apparently was the case with School Certificate.
Back then School C, as it was known, was a gatekeeper. Pass and you could move on to the 6th form as it was called. Fail and you had two choices. Repeat the School C year and hope you passed next time, or leave school to look for some kind of manual labour.
One intent of NCEA was to enable students to continue with their education in spite of their NCEA results. I do think some kind of revision of NCEA was needed, after all it’s been in place for over 20 years and there are clearly some issues with students gaming the system. Before we get too hypercritical, who hasn’t gamed the system? Like paying a tradesman cash in order to save costs on a project, or using an accountant to find ways of avoiding paying their fair share of tax, in the case of our wealthier brethren?
I wonder what will happen to students who fail to pass the proposed Certificate of Education and the Advanced Certificate? Kick them out on the street? Wouldn’t surprise me. Once again, the government is ignoring (or is ignorant of) the reality that the biggest driver of poor achievement in education is the inequality in this country. There is is a wealth of evidence that confirms this. Any efforts to change education are likely doomed to fail unless this is addressed.
So yet again we have the situation where politicians, driven by ideology, are imposing changes in education that are based on hearsay, heavily influenced by a select group of ‘top’ Auckland school principals (e.g., Tim O’Connor of Auckland Grammar) and that are not indicative of educational research or developed in consultation with academics and the teaching profession.
We mustn’t forget Crimson Education (where some bloke called John Key is involved) and that ‘coincidentally’ has featured in recent news items.
NCEA leaves Kiwi kids unprepared for future – Crimson head
‘The NCEA qualification lacks the rigour needed to prepare New Zealand students for competitive universities and workplaces, the chief executive of Crimson Education says.
It comes as an announcement from the Government and Education Minister Erica Stanford is expected imminently on the future of the NCEA system.
Speaking to Q+A, Crimson Education co-founder Jamie Beaton said NCEA wasn’t setting students up well for future success, and lacks international recognition.
“To be honest, it’s rough. NCEA is basically not a rigorous curriculum at all, and students graduating with it are often two years behind in core subjects like maths, science as well,” said Beaton.’
Think about this comment from Stanford and Luxon’s show and tell:
‘There were a couple of things from NCEA Stanford said the government did want to carry over into the new system including not measuring students against each other, but against a standard.
She also wanted a “good, coherent” package of learning that would be linked to industry.’
Seems ok on the surface, doesn’t it? However there’s a hidden message here that shows how this government views workers. What happened to the vision that education should aim at developing the whole person? Is education only aimed at providing workplace fodder and to hell with the development of young people who can learn and think for themselves and express themselves in creative and original ways? After all who wants a populace who can think? The ghost of the last National led government’s attempt to standardise primary school education through their failed national standards programme lingers on in Stanford’s comment. There’s not a great deal of difference between that this proposal and the ‘knowledge based curriculum’ that I discussed in my previous article.
There is a very real danger that this short term quick fix approach will cause chaos in secondary education that will affect teachers and students for years. When NCEA was introduced in the early 2000s a comprehensive teacher professional development programme was established to ensure teachers had the knowledge and skills to implement it. Is a similar effort going to be made with these changes?
Enough of my ponderings.
Here’s an article by Claire Amos, Principal of Albany Senior High School, someone who really does know what she is talking about. While I’ve highlighted sections, I recommend you read the full article.
NCEA Reform: Window Dressing or Genuine Change?
“The latest announcements around the future of NCEA have sparked headlines and raised eyebrows, but as we sift through the consultation documents, a worrying pattern is emerging. Despite the bold rebranding and headline changes, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to shake the feeling that what’s being offered may be more about appearing to change than about delivering the deep, meaningful reform that our education system and young people actually need.”
But wait, there’s more:
‘At first glance, this sounds like a dramatic overhaul. But dig a little deeper and it starts to look like window dressing — a change of names and language more likely aimed at placating anxious parents than genuinely transforming how we recognise student learning.’
Claire raises a number of questions
- What exactly is the Foundation Skills Award?
- What are the subjects on offer?
- What counts as a “pass” under the new system?
- What about Vocational and Educational Training (VET) pathways?
- What happens to students who rely on Unit Standards (USs)?
- What happens to students who rely on Unit Standards (USs)?
Claire expands on these in her article.
She concludes with a statement that matches my comment about consultation in the crazy 1990s:
The Need for Authentic Consultation
Above all, this process must be more than a marketing exercise. The stakes are too high. We’re not just redesigning certificates, we’re reshaping the way young people across Aotearoa experience success, define their futures, and see themselves reflected in the system.
The proposed timeline is interesting – consultation to begin next month, with the changes being phased in from next year. That implies the decisions have already been made and the implementation work is well and truly in progress.
The change as outlined is just window dressing. Crimson suggested adopting international qualifications on STEM subjects with local standards for history. National as usual has chosen a solution that pleases neither the left or the right.
I read that Stanford says that she didn’t understand NCEA which disqualifies her from being a competent education minister in my view. I only have good memories of School C & UE, although I found it easy to pass exams, and as you write some people have skills in other areas. Good teachers and the learning environment make a huge difference in the students results so as you point out improving the financial position of those who are missing out now would probably do more to improve students results than any of this window dressing which can best be described as an attempt to fool the simple minded that they know what they are doing.
Very accurate Steve.
I like that ‘fool the simple minded that they know what they are doing’. According to the latest poll that would be 20% of the electorate who say they’d vote Act or Winston First and the other lame ducks who think Luxon actually stands for something.
He’s in his element being partied and red-carpetted in PNG. That’s what he thinks he was born to do. That, and hiding from criticism. It happens so often, and he thinks we don’t notice?
When you break it down to ‘improving the financial position of those who are missing out’ we can see that window dressing is the name of this game.
Stanford ,like many employers is too dumb to understand .I spoke to a head teacher at a large college yesterday who is disgusted with the step back to the 1960s .One point he raised was ,why should a student not be given any credits if they obtain a drivers license while at the school or a pass in food tech both of which shows the future employer that the person has a license and can work in a kitchen already .Two things that should be valued by a prospective hospo employer .The same would apply to a kid who has qualifications in hort or ag which are not on Stanfords list for end of year exams .My grandson starts at college next year ,he has to take the 5 core subjects and 4 options from a list of 20 .These options are there to allow the kids to get skills ina chosen career path before they leave school which is what employers have been bleating about for years ,constantly moaning because the kid cant cook a 3 course meal ofr build a house from day one .
I’ve reached the point awhile ago where I view every decision made by this bunch of CoCs with deep suspicion and skepticism.
Nothing they do is designed to actually help society. Rather, there will always be a crony or donor lurking somewhere in the background, ready to receive their pound of flesh.
Haven’t there been very rigorous international exams available for very competent children to sit. Our local high school used to offer exams run by the University of New South Wales and I’m sure there were some from even more illustrious places. Passes in those would prepare young people for OE studies sufficiently well.
Is there still the problem of universities wanting a certain number of bursary points for certain courses, thus forcing children to choose their best subjects for bursary, rather than continuing with more challenging but more difficult classes, in 7th. form, sorry Year 13. e.g. Students forced to drop German at bursary level and take something easier.
Your assessment of what ‘consultation’ means to this govt. is correct. As you say, they don’t want people who can think, they only want ergonomic units.
Their uncreative and plodding ‘solutions’ may impress parents, who also don’t understand what a well-rounded education consists of, and do nothing to further ‘knowledge-richness’ nor future productivity. Instead, they will lead to a desire to drop out, later in life. Not many people are satisfied with being ergonomic units for 45 years. Eventually the brain needs something more.
As many have said, having designated a large number of students as work units only, will there be adequate funding in place and avenues for them to move into gainful employment.
The possibility of never getting an academic qualification that employers recognise, is still there for many young ones. What does Stanford plan to do with them?
NZCE probably does need some remedial work now, but is this sufficient or as well considered as it needs to be? Without good consultation, it appears, it won’t be.
Suspect there’s a lot water to pass under the bridge. Telling that an interview on Q&A with Welby Ings preceded the one with Crimson. Both have a point. One size all will never meet everyone’s needs and the NCEA helped in addressing that. Under the old School Cert what was the fail rate? Pretty high if I recall – and even higher among certain demographics. Teenagers shouldn’t be made to feel like failures, as everyone has something to offer. Folk would be surprised at how many of our iconic musicians were dyslexic at school. An outlier perhaps but it covers what Ings was getting at.
The NCEA is competency based – well it was designed that way if I recall. Grades and percentages are rather different. Achievers will excel but a good many at the other end of the curve will fall through the cracks. Yes, we do need achievers. The more the better. The balance is making sure those who don’t do well academically feel worthy.
The failure rate with School Cert would have been 50% because they scaled the results to make it so. It was just a number.
Yes, everyone has something they are good at. Let’s face it, we can all see the glaring failures of members of this govt. However, people do need to get positive feedback sometime, to feel good about themselves.
I also agree about musicians and other artists. They have found a creative way to make themselves acceptable and possibly wealthy, but school may not have given them that impression.
It’s easy to praise bright little achievers. Much harder to find anything nice to say about children who struggle, yet they are the ones who need to be boosted. A varied curriculum may point them to something they can be good at. One dominated by preparation for exams, will stifle many interesting personalities. They’ll leave as soon as they can and go where they are ‘appreciated’ which could be a gang or other anti-social group.
No, i don’t think Stanford is likely to be the person who solves all these gnarly problems, she’s too blind.
yes as I remember there was never an over 50% pass in either school cert or UE .There seemed to be the need to have 50% fail to make the others feel real special .What is going to be the accepted pass rate for the new standards .If all teachers in NZ do a great job the pass rate should be over 90% is that going to be ok for the elite schools if all the slum public bottom dwellers also pass because they had a great teacher .
I saw the interview with the fella from crimson ,which is a lobby company who lobby unis to take your kid off your hands for a few years .And for that you pay a small fortune with no garantee your kid will be the next Steve Jobs .He was educated at Harvard as was shane Jones and he spouted hard out just like Luxon and Willis talking mainly shit to pad out what he was saying instead of a direct answer .
The intention is to attack any sort of vocational education to make it easier for employers to exploit younger tradesmen.
or to throw 50% of the kids straight on the scrap heap and call them lazy drop kicks .
“Repeat the School C year and hope you passed next time, or leave school to look for some kind of manual labour.” Back in the day Kids were able to leave in the 5th form and get an apprenticeship or undergo vocational training. Now we force them to stay two extra years, when many of them would benefit more from the same options. Especially so these days when apprenticeships can lead to well paying jobs (secret, they could back them too). To make it work would require extra polytechs as many of the ones we had morphed into fee paying Universites. Having taught year 12, I would say a lot of students do better in the final exams having done internally assessed practical projects, especially in the tech field. Hopefully we aren’t throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also with the arrival of AI do we know what we are trying to prepare them for? Even in just five years , many of the careers my year 12s were hoping to do don’t exist anymore.
The sociology of work? Now there’s at topic only a brave and committed soul would pursue. But what insights it would give. About the difference between knowledge, skills and competency and their relationship to education, both formal and informal, both in the compulsory and the tertiary sectors. Curriculum and assessment. The relationship between qualifications and employment. The role of educational institutions. The role of employers. The role of on-the-job training. Past, present and future. But definitely future.
Not to mention the precarity of work – at least a good deal of it- in the modern post industrial world, and the implications for peoples’ lives (and livelihoods). The world of our grandparents has long gone. We know that. educators should know. And politicians should definitely know.
As if the present isn’t challenging enough what indeed will the future behold? What will paid work in fact look like for many. Will there be any paid work for those who don’t fit into the future molds? More to the point are political leaders up to the challenge – will they listen to a range of educators who profess to know more than they do, but unfortunately are not always on the same page.
“We”? Probably being a bit generous. A good many of “us” still believe that if educational outcomes can be counted then they must count. The more the better. Test, test, test – measure – compare. Yes, the results count. For something. Good for accountability, the meeting of KPIs … blah, blah, blah.
The NCEA does not impress – & I’m with Deming on 50% must fail – stupid even by National Party standards.
Have no fear though, students that fail whatever replaces NCEA will get to resit after spending a year with some dodgy third tier educator at 4-5 times the cost of going through our school system. That’s the whole point. Graft.
We know what successful education systems look like. They’re not all the same, but thery’e are out there. Why don’t we simply copy one instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?
FFS – these weirdo’s have no imagination and just keep effing around revising what’s already there in front of them. No vision, no plan and no idea.
I suppose someone has put up this link but to be sure as it sounds interesting.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/569416/how-influential-nz-schools-hastened-the-demise-of-ncea
A comment which I made on Liam Hehir’s “Blue Review” article hailing the government’s decision to drop the NCEA:
A word of caution. Education systems are designed to fit within a particular social and economic system. The education system of the twentieth century was designed to sort students into classes and, in the case of the higher classes, to rank them within a hierarchy. (The subject of Latin, which had virtually disappeared by the twenty-first century, served that purpose virtually to the exclusion of any other).
This system was appropriate to a society and an economy which was class based (comprising unskilled and semi-skilled workers, tradesmen and professionals), hierarchical (particularly within the government service, law and medicine) and characterized by permanent employment structures (the permanent public service and established private enterprises).
That all changed in the late twentieth century. Permanence was no longer a prominent feature of society or the economy. That in turn meant that the importance of hierarchy diminished and the need for sorting into classes was reduced. Personnel were no longer selected for their potential and groomed for greatness. They were expected to perform from the day of enlistment. Process supplanted class and hierarchy. That was a profound change in the economic system which demanded an equally profound change in the education system.
The metamorphosis was very evident in my own occupation, forestry, in which the State Forest Service had been the dominant employer. In the mid-twentieth century, if you wanted to work in forestry and had School Certificate or were not too far short of it, you could enter the Forest Service Woodsman School. If you had University Entrance you were a shoo-in for the Forest Service Ranger School. If you had a university bursary or scholarship you could be sent to Oxford or Bangor for training, or later on to the New Zealand Forestry School at Canterbury. There was a hierarchy with “Forester” (university trained) at the top. “Ranger” next, then “Woodsman” and under them the unqualified though not necessarily unskilled “Forest Labourer”. (The FS as a permanent employer informally re-sorted its personnel over time. A Woodsman could become a Forest Manager. A graduate could be relegated to a less pivotal role. These reassortments were regarded as necessary but limited exceptions to the general rule).
With Rogernomics things changed. There was no longer a Forest Service, no Woodsman School and no Ranger School. A polytechnic more or less filled the gap left by the closure of the Ranger School, supplying graduates to the now privatised forest industry which wanted employees ready to start work and earn the company money from their first day. Employers were not interested in training or even retaining staff. It was all about process and performance. To the extent that versatility was required, it could be found in the market rather than in the individual employee. All this made the twentieth century education system somewhat irrelevant to the reformed forest industry. Sorting into classes and ranking into hierarchy was no longer the main aim of the game. It became about the ability to undertake particular tasks, and that imperative filtered down into the education system, through university, polytechnic and into the secondary school.
I am not saying I endorse the changes in either the economic system or the education system. I am just saying that they go together, and if you try to change one independently of the other you may strike unexpected difficulties.
It seems to me that the twentieth century education system is still relevant to law, medicine and the pure sciences. (It should be relevant to journalism, but arguably is not).
Ranking is integral to a gladiatorial profession such as law. Employers have to be able to judge who is most likely to come out on top in a legal battle. That is why schools such as Auckland Grammar which sort into classes and rank in hierarchies remain so important to the top echelons of the legal profession. In medicine, ranking into hierarchy serves as a refinement of the process of sorting into classes as a way of allocating access to the various fields of medical training, and thus the medical profession would also feel the loss of the twentieth century system of education.
However most of us live in the twenty-first century, the education system needs to reflect that, and employers need to accept it. They can’t expect from gig workers the kind of qualities they would expect from career employees, and vice versa.
Comments are closed.