Some key parts:
A leading education researcher warns new high-stakes NCEA literacy and maths tests could do more harm than good.
From 2026 students would not be allowed an NCEA certificate until they had passed all three tests in reading, writing and maths.
Darr said schools needed other options for assessing literacy and numeracy and meeting the requirements should not be a prerequisite for receiving an NCEA qualification.
Literacy and numeracy could be a separate qualification, or they could be included in the NCEA certificates in the same manner that standards from other subjects were included.
NCEA has always had literacy and numeracy requirements to gain the final qualification. The difference now is that the assessment of these requirements have changed whereas before if you did okay in one of the liberal arts and Maths or Science you probably had the requirements without really trying. I personally like the fact that it is a little more rigorous now.
Lots of people in this thread spamming their opinion, and yet this is the only comment pointing out that literacy and numeracy requirements already exist…
Like the other commenters, I have a chip on my shoulder about the quality of education here in NZ. Unlike the other commenters, I’m not naive enough to think that makes my armchair opinion relevant.
Lots of people in this thread spamming their opinion
That’s kinda why we’re here, isn’t it?
meeting the requirements should not be a prerequisite for receiving an NCEA qualification
I’m sorry, what?
Meeting the requirements for a standard is the whole point of having a standard…
But they aren’t currently part of the standard.
Currently (based on my understanding), you need so many points in whatever you choose to get NCEA. Like picking a degree in something, you can choose to do psychology or computer science, or whatever, and get a degree. NCEA says you’ve attained a level of education in the subjects you chose. Edit: There are some base numeracy and literacy requirements but they can be obtained through other subjects, e.g. through geography classwork.
Note that university entrance does have a reading/writing (English credits) and maths credits requirement, which is different from just attaining a level in NCEA.
The government is proposing to add a requirement that all NCEA qualifications must have reading, writing, and maths credits to a certain level. This is not currently part of the standard, so it’s a change to the standard.Edit: rephrasing - the government is proposing to add literacy and numeracy tests as requuirements, which is different to the current process where you just have to show your numeracy/literacy skills in some way.It must’ve been relaxed since I went through NCEA then (around 15 years ago).
To pass, you needed a certain amount of English and maths credits and then the rest could be made up of whatever other subjects you were studying.
Also, you could pass NCEA Level 1 on unit standards alone. Iirc these didn’t have end of year assessments, were either pass/fail (not a achievement, merit or excellence like the achievement standards) and if you had a pulse and / or could write your name, you were likely to pass
Sorry, it gets even more complicated. So university entrance requires specific credits in english/maths. But NCEA has numeracy and literacy skill requirements but you don’t have to get those credits specifically from “English” or “Maths” subjects. So for example you can get your reading/writing/maths credits in the Geography class. However, this is based on which standards your school has picked, as there is flexibility over which assessments under each subject they will teach.
Sorry if what I wrote was misleading, I’ll edit a little to clarify.
Also, you could pass NCEA Level 1 on unit standards alone. Iirc these didn’t have end of year assessments, were either pass/fail (not a achievement, merit or excellence like the achievement standards) and if you had a pulse and / or could write your name, you were likely to pass
Unit standards were a non-exam way of assessing. Exams were sent to other schools to be graded, but I’m not sure that is the case with unit standards. Probably the teacher has a lot of discretion. Also, if you were in NCEA 15 years ago then it was still pretty early days I think. I presume it’s been refined over time.
Back in the day, universities had to add in their own requirements on top of NCEA and re-test everyone for literacy.
Looks like its legacy is still going on here.
Basically getting overseas students to demonstrate proficiency through ESOL wasn’t enough because it turned out a significant proportion of NZ native English speakers were coming through NCEA without the language level required for tertiary.
The whole point of a standard is to guarantee a minimum level of something, in this case educational achievement. To get that certificate, you should absolutely be able to read, write, and count.
Otherwise, what’s the point of having it?
The artcle is saying if you want a reading, writing, maths achievement qualification, then make one separate to this one (or as an addon).
I don’t know if it’s a good idea but seems reasonable. But then I don’t know how employers look at NCEA. Do they check what subjects you got your credits in?
I’ve got other qualifications that imply I have those skills, so not in my case, but I imagine if you’re hiring a school leaver, you’d want to know they’re literate.
My view is that NCEA levels should guarantee a base level of knowledge to a potential employer, in order to have confidence in the scheme, and that includes the three Rs
but I imagine if you’re hiring a school leaver, you’d want to know they’re literate.
My initial thought is that roles exist where you don’t need to be literate, but then my second thought is that you probably won’t be asking for any qualification in that case. If you are asking for applicants with NCEA, you probably want a minimum literacy. But what level is that?
There are definitely industries that require reading and writing, but low literacy is enough.
This leads on from the discussion yesterday. It seems currently to get NCEA you need enough points, but what those points are in doesn’t matter.
This change is going to require reading, writing, and maths tests which 46% of kids are failing currently.
So it comes back to the discussion of what our goal is for schools.
NCEA is a terrible system. Reading, writing and math are the core of all education.
Literally every other part of education stands on these pillars. Not everyone needs to be an expert, but a basic level of understanding in these three is so important in the modern world as to be a human right.
Do you want to be a laborer on a building site? You better be able to read those safety rules, otherwise you will not be able to be employed.
How about a cleaner; there are a lot of different bottles that you need to handle with various cleaning products…which pink liquid was the dishwash and which was the floor cleaner?Though thinking about it; I would add three more pillars; empathy, team work and critical thinking.
NCEA was built to move the focus away from the make or break exams that the previous system had. I don’t have a particular opinion on how good NCEA is but I feel like at some level it’s an improvement, even if not perfect.
I would say with your examples, these people don’t actually need to read. Your supervisor tells you what you can and can’t do. It’s no different from the many labourers in NZ (and other English speaking countries) that can hardly speak English but all the rules are written in English. It doesn’t prevent them getting a job, but does prevent them getting promoted.
Now as for whether reading, writing, and maths are pillars of education, well I can’t fault that but I am trying really hard to play devils advocate to the idea that teaching these skills is the goal of schools. We should have life goals that we aim for and skills we teach towards those goals. Do we measure a society on whether its people are happy? Ethical? Rich?
Reading, writing, and maths may be critical to reach the goals, but I don’t think we as a society have goals. Some people want their kids to have high paying jobs, others just want them to be happy. What kids need from school may be different for these different goals, but with a broad brush approach what we get is most kids not succeeding in either.
The make/break exam system wasn’t the best, but it did have the advantage that you could get a better idea about someones skills. An A in math and C in English told you something.
One other issue with the exam system was that it didn’t reflect the “real world”, where NCEA was “better” in this regard. There isn’t really make/break in the world of work, except when there is.
I have looked at the research; especially boys are being failed by the education system.
The main issue NCEA was trying to solve was that these exams severely hindered certain students. Many students have all these skills and can demonstrate them, just not in a test environment. Standardized tests lead to an emphasis on teaching the test and how to pass instead of the actual skills. As an example my son has ADHD is very bright and an excellent reader, but it will be probably years of work to get him to successfully sit an exam or test. Whereas other forms of assessment could easily pass him right now. He has many skills, how important is it that he’s able to sit quietly and write answers on a sheet within a time period?
I think tests simulate a lot of work environments; big project - months or years of work, has a specific deadline. Annual shuts on industrial sites, consulting type jobs.
But it isn’t great for lots of students.
NCEA style internal assessment simulates a more regular type of work; show up - do good work most days and you’ll be fine. Office job style.
But it isn’t great for lots of students.
It is difficult to cater to all, when we use methods that favour specific people.
Yeah, it’s a hard one to solve without putting significant resources into the education system, which we know isn’t high on anyone’s priority list.
I really wish it was
I would add three more pillars; empathy, team work and critical thinking.
Soft skills like that are quite difficult to objectively measure though.
Critical thinking is measurable. I’d agree with you on the other two though.
Empathy is difficult, team work isn’t too hard and critical thinking is already part of the syllabus kinda.
Maybe fold empathy into social and emotional intelligence. Or ethics.
