An Overoptimistic Conclusion for NCEA

The NZ Herald reports on supporters of NCEA cheering the closing of the socioeconomic gap in achievement since the qualification was introduced. While I do not wish to put down the efforts of hardworking teachers, I have doubts about how much this closing of the gap is due to anything particularly special about this qualification.

There are numerous other explanations that could explain the closing of the gap. Some I can think of are:

• Teachers and students getting used to a system
• Modularisation of courses often leads to increased pass rates
• NCEA is dumbed down (the cynical reason, for the record I do not hold this opinion)

What do I mean by getting used to a system? Well, for a few years an exam will not change its format too much. Then one year, they tweak the exam format, and surprise surprise, there is a measurable drop in the performance of the cohort relative to the previous cohort.

Now that NCEA has been around for a while, there are more resources available for exam preparation. Students are now quite likely to have older siblings who did NCEA before them; and may be taught by teachers who did NCEA themselves if being taught by a new teacher. The marketplace providing study guides and textbooks in the NCEA environment has had time to mature. There are plenty of examiners’ reports and previous NCEA exams available.

The strength of this particular part of my argument does rely on being able to show that the change in assessment hurt students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds harder than other students.

In the UK the modularisation of A-levels is said to have increased pass rates. Here is one story by the Independent about this. Compared to A-levels, NCEA has modularisation on steroids, as students are entered for achievement standards (the NCEA equivalent of modules) and not subjects. With A-levels, if I recall correctly, all students entered for a subject will sit the same modules.  But this is not the case under NCEA, as there are no compulsory modules, bar the literacy and numeracy tagged credits. So if one believes that modularisation made A-levels easier, one would have the same belief about NCEA.

Note that the A-levels (and GCSEs) that most students sit in the UK are not the same as the International A-levels and GCSEs, commonly referred to as Cambridge exams that some schools offer in New Zealand. The Cambridge exams tend not have modularity and coursework that the UK domestic ones do. Some schools in the UK (mostly independent or academically focussed) schools have switched to Cambridge exams also for the same reasons that NZ schools have switched to them.

And finally the cynical option, that NCEA is dumbed down. I would disagree that this is the case for anyone who takes a ‘traditional’ maths course at least for NCEA. The cynical case is stronger for the lower levels and anything linked to the literacy and numeracy requirements. The use of Unit Standards as ‘cabbage credits’ to get people to pass  has been controversial. The current work of realigning the NCEA to the current curriculum has taken this into account.

Which leads me to my dislike of the use of Applied Mathematics as a euphemism for ‘cabbage maths’ in schools. At university, Applied Mathematics is a real discipline with academic rigour.

The Myth of Class Mobility, and, School Zoning

One proposed means of achieving an egalitarian society is class mobility. Providing equality of opportunity. A person from a poor family has a decent chance of becoming a doctor or lawyer. But if true class mobility is to be achieved, then it should be just as likely for a person at the top to fall to the bottom than a person at the bottom rise to the top.

But how likely is someone at the top to fall far? Not very likely. If you were a parent wouldn’t you want the best for your children? What if you were a well off parent? While you wouldn’t want them just to coast on your own wealth, wouldn’t you want to provide them with the best education, health care and opportunities in life? Unless you make things so that the well off can’t use their resources to assist their children you are not going to have class mobility.

Class mobility is nothing more than a myth peddled by the middle and upper classes to make us feel better about the fact that some people are poor. The main reason why upwards mobility for the poor was possible in the past was only because of the creation of a middle class or it getting a lot bigger.

A talk of opportunities and education brings me to the old stomping ground of school zoning. It is an issue that comes up every now and then and is never resolved. There is no magic answer to this problem. The status quo is that local students have the right (but not the obligation) to attend their local state school when getting a state funded ‘free’ education. (That is another discussion in itself…) But anyone is free to apply to send their children to other state schools, but they are not guaranteed a place, and have to win a ballot place after all the in-zone students have been allocated places.

However the position of the Labour and Green parties is one that puzzles me. They advocate for this system to be retained. But under this policy only the well off can choose. The well off can afford to buy or rent houses in the school zones they want or pay fees for ‘elite’ private schools. This seems to run quite contrary to social democratic principles these parties stand for.

The ultimate irony is that  Auckland Grammar School (AGS) is probably more ‘elite’ than any private school in New Zealand. A study done by the  Sunday Star Times (I can’t recall when this was done, I would appreciate any assistance in this area) showed it is more expensive to move there than it is to pay private school fees. As an aside, I don’t know many places where living close to a prison (Mt Eden prison) doesn’t seem to dent the demand for real estate in an area.

It is not as if I am promoting the idea of school choice either. To use AGS as an example again, there are more sons whose parents want them to attend AGS than places available. School choice therefore, is a myth.