We heard at the weekend about an ERO report.
Basically, said the whole system is too flexible. Kids are scooping up credits from all corners of the classroom.
It's too broad and flexible, they reckon.
As a result, students aren't being properly taught core subjects.
The government's looking it. But there was a number in this report which should jump out at all parents and teachers.
22%.
In 2024, just 22% of NCEA results came from external assessment. Which means exams.
The bulk of credits come from internal assessments - stuff like essays.
This means kids can use AI and all sorts to do the work for them.
One in four don't bother sitting the exams because they've already got enough internal credits.
I went through the NCEA system and this happened to me too - but I would never dream of skipping an exam and missing out on credits.
Clearly, something has to be done.
What hope do we give students if they're not being taught the basics and not being assessed properly?
Until something's done, bad headlines and reports like this one will just keep undermining the qualification so many young people rely on to get through their working lives.
Ryan Bridge is a New Zealand broadcaster who has worked on many current affairs television and radio shows. He currently hosts Newstalk ZB's Early Edition - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
As a product of the mid 1950’s and ‘60’s education system, I had discipline, respect for my elders, a relatively stable 2 parent (male/female) upbringing, provided with regular home cooked meals. I could go on. All attributes/aspects that have been carried through to my own family and provided me with a level of competency that has served me well. Reverting to an education system from those times would be a very good start to turning around the achievements of today’s school leavers, acknowledging extra support for those with learning disabilities, who were previously unrecognised. As for turning back the clock on the rest, I remain saddened that those days are well and truly gone.
The flexibility of the NCEA system is spoken of disparagingly here, but I regard that as a good thing as it means adolescents can be tracked into different career-oriented pathways - vocational, technical, academic - depending on where their aptitudes lie. As a relevant aside, Unit Standards had their origin in vocational education; it was a mistake to bring them into academic disciplines. But there is nothing at all wrong with having tech/vocat-oriented kids doing USs while the more academically-inclined ones do ASs (Achievement Standards which include exams, some of them external). We have to get away from the "one size fits all" mentality of yesteryear. Specialisation at upper secondary level is a characteristic of the most effective and efficient education systems (e.g. France, Germany, Japan......)
Having said that, of course all school students should be proficient in the basics - literacy and numeracy - but it strikes me as absurd to wait until the secondary level for that as it should be happening at primary school level. What we have at present is the primary tier feeding illiterates and innumerates into high schools and so the 'GIGO principle' comes into effect ("garbage in, garbage out").
What should we do with the NCEA? Let's begin with some proper research (tracer studies, for instance) to see where young people with various kinds of quals are 5 years down the track career-wise. Keep what works and tweak that which doesn't. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Post a Comment