NCEA is a good qualification – but its shortcomings may be contributing to the cycle of poverty undermining New Zealand’s social progress and equality in the longer run.
A common practice in NCEA is spoon-feeding. This is the intentional streaming of students into soft courses – usually unit standards. These offer credits for menial tasks such as talking to a friend about the weather or picking up rubbish. This is commonly done by schools to artificially inflate their pass rates – often to meet government set objectives. It means that students who would fail under regular conditions are made to pass, improving their school’s pass rate in turn. Logically, higher pass rates and better performing schools should be mutually beneficial. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
Hekia Parata has set the goal for 85% of students to pass Level 2. In an interview with NZ Listener, headmaster of Wellington College, Roger Moses says that schools are now substantially judged on the number of students passing NCEA. This approach almost encourages schools to take shortcuts. On a superficial level, it appears to be working as shown by the 15% increase in pass rates in the last decade. But does that mean our society is now 15% more educated?
The short answer is no. According to government statistics, in that same 10 year period, unemployment went up by two percentage points only and the expected 15%. That may be a case of data correlation rather than cause and effect, but there is a proven link between education and employment. It shows that our secondary qualification is failing its primary goal to get students into tertiary education or work. Despite education quantitatively improving over time, employment has not risen by the same rate. This begs the question, “Are the NCEA curriculum and standards achieving the goal of better employment prospects?”
According to experts, spoon-feeding often limits opportunities despite improving the contents of the curriculum. Moses noted that “It means that students can pass NCEA, but still close down doors.” Students who are spoon-fed are stripped of opportunities whilst still receiving their qualification. It means that they may struggle to find work with the skills they acquired in NCEA which then become mismatched if not inapplicable in many industries. This undermines one major aim of education of improving employment prospects of school-leavers. It also deceives low-income families as I found out when I contacted an organisation called the I Have A Dream Foundation.
The I Have A Dream Foundation is a trust which helps guide low-income students through school. According to founder Scott Gilmour, a significant number of low-income students under the programme are led into dead end subjects. It often deceives families “who dream of future careers and studies after hearing their child passed NCEA, not understanding it’s pushed in fairly meaningless subjects which severely limits their options going forward.”
In short, NCEA can unintentionally contribute to poverty when ambitious schools intentionally spoon-feed students in order to massage and market their performance against rival schools. This generates unhealthy competition amongst schools to the detriment of under performing students. Inevitably, this entrenches poverty as the education they’ve received doesn’t lead to work. Education when spoon fed, however well meaning, lets down students and undermines their future. This has no place in a modern and progressive education system meant to provide an equal, fair education for all students.
The problem starts at government level. The current policy approach to education is based on judging students on measurable values. They seem to emphasise good NCEA scores over a holistic, well-rounded education. Worryingly, that approach has trickled down to student level.
I asked all of my interview subjects the question, “Is your learning primarily driven towards gaining credits or gaining skills/knowledge?” Every response was along the lines of, “I learn almost entirely to gain credits and can’t remember any long-term information.” Replies came from Dean’s Award winners as well as those who find school difficult. Despite vast differences in achievement, their responses were nearly identical. Does this expose a deeper systemic problem?
Not all but many schools partake in spoon-feeding. It’s impossible to give specific figures, but the I Have A Dream Foundation singled out Mt Albert Grammar School for criticism. Whilst some principals would like to see closer scrutiny of schools obtaining 100% pass rate; some schools have taken matters into their own hands. Many schools now refuse to offer certain unit standards. An example of this is Waiau Area School who previously had students attain up to half their credits from easier standards. They dropped easy unit standards in an attempt to improve their problems with student achievement. The change caused NCEA results to drop further and they were scrutinised by local media. However, their drop in achievement is contradicted by the improvement in real world occupation. One year after the change, every student in the schools small year 13 class went on to tertiary study or work. This makes me wonder, should every school be dropping unit standards?
Personally, I think that dropping unit standards is a step too far. However, I think the future implications of the courses selected by students need to be better stated. Roger Moses has said that it may be “beneficial in the long run to fail and repeat a traditional subject (English, Maths) than to opt for a vocational subject instead.” Students are never told this and we often don’t understand that we’re limiting our future opportunities.
Last year, I was planning to take Legal Studies thinking it may lead to a potential career in law, not fully understanding what the course entailed. But later, I was given a tap on the shoulder by Miss Jean-Louis who advised me on a better path towards a legal career. It was something I greatly appreciated and made me question why all students aren’t given the same help. I know the careers advisor exists, but many students like myself aren’t going to actively seek help unless they know they need it, and frankly, I didn’t know I needed careers advice until I fortuitously received it. According to a recent Stuff article, some schools have made careers advice compulsory for students. They found the problem I named above to be more widespread than once thought. With that in mind, should this be standard throughout New Zealand schools?
I think that every student is entitled to a good education. At the same time, every student also expects an education that enhances their future prospects. Is this what our current system promotes? Arguably no. Under the current system, pass rate increases are made redundant by its correlation with rising unemployment, students unbeknowingly close down opportunities due to lack of subject advice and some low-income families are deceived as the content on individual NCEA certificates isn’t equal.
How does this contribute to poverty? According to the, I Have a Dream Foundation, the low-income students they’ve worked with have been susceptible to spoon-feeding which diminishes future prospects. There aren’t any imminent or easy solutions to this problem. But I believe it requires a coordinated effort between schools, NZQA and the Ministry of Education who need to take a step back and remind themselves that secondary school is only a rung on the ladder; but for some students that ladder is being cut short. Worse, some ladders may have no rungs at all.
By Sean Chan
Images attached to this article
