NCEA in the spotlight again

for Bay News 17 September 2008.


The New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association has raised two very important issues for its annual conference in October, the first a review of “Tomorrow’s Schools”, and the second, a review of the number of credits required for Level I NCEA and the quality of the mathematics standards available at that level.

New Zealand has developed a unique system of managing its schools though each school having its own board of governors. It allows for more direct community involvement in the school and greater autonomy for the way the school can be run through the partnership of the Principal and the Board of Trustees.

My recent experience of attending a Principals’ Leadership programme at Harvard University, gave me the opportunity to meet with many American principals, and listen to and compare different ways of governing schools. On the whole, the American principals were envious of the autonomy that we have in our schools to manage our budgets and decide within the school how finances should be prioritised, appoint principals, senior staff and teachers, and set our own school goals and develop our curriculum from national guidelines. In other words, we can run our schools to meet the needs of our students.

In America, the district superintendent has a huge say in how the school will spend its budget, set its goals and meet its targets, appoints the principals and staff. And sets the consequences if targets are not met. The high stakes “No Child Left Behind” policy of George Bush puts added pressure on the schools to meet targets set by the district, rather than the school. The principals (administrators) seem removed from looking at the individual achievement of students and personalised learning, and are more focussed on lifting the results of their “building” (school).

While there are schools that struggle to find the right mix for their boards of trustees, on the whole, we have a system that works. It allows schools to focus on the needs of its students first, and look towards national targets as a means to measure progress as those needs are met. My own experience with the boards of trustees that I have worked with at Mount Maunganui College has been extremely positive. They have been committed to supporting the principal and staff in providing the best education we can for our students.

The second focus is worth a close look. We need to consider what is the right balance for students in terms of national examination requirements, and what is a reasonable national standard for our students in numeracy and literacy. On September 5, the Los Angeles Times reported that only 48% of the high schools met the federal standard, and then only because the state used easier standards for high schools than for elementary and middle schools so targets could be reached. Setting targets in the NCLB (No Child left Behind) programme become meaningless when standards are dropped simply to meet targets.

NCEA must be protected from similar criticism and standards must be such that they meet the needs of students moving into employment that requires good skills in numeracy and literacy. With three years of national examinations, we are out of step with the rest of the world. Perhaps it is time to consider whether or not we should drop level 1 NCEA and raise the bar on leaving qualifications for our students. We must also ensure that the required credit balance is right for each NCEA level so we continue to personalise learning and not see education as a means of simply achieving targets as has happened in America and England. If this happens, teachers will teach to examinations and critical thinking and the acquisition of relevant knowledge and skills will of less importance.