Literacy, numeracy tests as NCEA requirement 'detrimental' to learners
Literacy, numeracy tests as NCEA requirement 'detrimental' to learners
A leading education researcher warns new high-stakes NCEA literacy and maths tests could do more harm than good.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
Critical thinking is measurable. I'd agree with you on the other two though.