Instead, let's focus on giving young people the skills society will be crying out for in the years or months to come. Practical vocations such as water-cannon operator, wasteland scavenger, penguin coffin logger, Thunderdome umpire, dissident strangler, henchperson and pie ingredient. Charlie Brooker
“Auckland Grammar to give NCEA exams flick” read the headline, followed by “One of the country's most prestigious schools, Auckland Grammar, has become the first state school to dump NCEA exams”. Actually, it’s not quite that dramatic; the school has offered the alternative Cambridge exams for a number of years, and from next year is making it the default choice for year 11 pupils – estimating that it will be taken by 90% of them, up from the 60% currently choosing to sit it. A number of NCEA only papers will also be offered.
Judging by the nature of the statements made by some commentators - such as the Cambridge exams being a third world examination system, and considering that they’ve already been already used for a number of years in some schools here - it would seem the declaration by Auckland Grammar that it was extending the programme broke an informal modus vivendi on offering these differing methods of assessment.
The statements made by the school Headmaster, John Morris, regarding the change are also at first glance contradictory. He states that it will better suit the pupils, while also saying that the school will allow weaker pupils to sit NCEA. I always found doing things that suited me was easier than doing things that don’t – in which case surely weaker pupils should also have Cambridge as a preference? There is of course a subtext to the comments which gives them sense, and which is consistent with and an extension of Mr Morris’s previous criticisms of NCEA. But the statements also recognise some of the strengths of NCEA over systems like Cambridge, without explicitly saying it.
Before NCEA 5th form (year 11) students sat School Certificate, the minimum secondary school qualification available. School Cert. was available in a range of academic and trade subjects and wasn't internally assessed, meaning students results were dependent on an end of year external assessment. That end of year assessment was then scaled so only 50% of people passed. It really isn't logical to send half of your population into the workforce without a minimum qualification, whether it was because of lack of ability, a learning style which didn't suit the assessment system, or interests and abilities in areas other than the subjects offered. NCEA addresses these issues through the range of subjects offered and the inclusion of internal assessment in the final results. It is still possible to fail subjects, but there is a good chance that there will be something the student will be good at and will receive acknowledgement for that. NCEA has proved particularly successful in raising the achievement of some groups who historically haven't done well, and the Employers Federation have acknowledged that NCEA gives employers a good indication of prospective employees’ strengths and knowledge.
In his response to a Herald editorial Mr Morris has said that NCEA is deeply flawed and patently unfair, whereas Cambridge is fair and consistent. He also states that the Ministry of Education has agreed that schools don't have to offer NCEA. If you believe it is flawed and unfair, and you don't have to offer it, then why do so? Cambridge is similar to the old School Certificate, although it isn't scaled. Some of the criticisms of that system therefore apply to Cambridge i.e. some people aren't going to pass and therefore gain a minimum school qualification at year 11. This isn't fair or appropriate for those students, and Auckland Grammars streaming of people who will benefit from the NCEA model - but might fail at Cambridge - into NCEA is an acknowledgement of the flaws of the Cambridge model and the strengths of NCEA. To criticise NCEA but then use it this way could be considered cynical.
In New Zealand use of Cambridge is biased towards academically gifted students in high decile schools, without a study that randomly assigned students and schools to either system it is impossible to judge whether it is “better” than NCEA. A study by Oxford University in 2008 comparing achievement prior to the introduction of national standards in England with that years group of students showed that while it improved the average the very talented students weren't doing nearly as well, with the study's authors suggesting it was because of a different focus that standards brought to schools. Whether this is directly applicable to the New Zealand system is debatable. It does raise an interesting question however – if you argue that NCEA is a fairer system because it allows more students to achieve to a higher standard than the old system, and if it can be demonstrated that some students would benefit even more from another system than NCEA, isn't it hypocritical to deny them that benefit?
No comments:
Post a Comment