Talk:National Certificate of Educational Achievement

Please don't add to Praises and Criticisms
Notice to editors editing the Praises and Criticisms section: Please refrain from adding points to the praises and criticisms section. This article is not a place for debate, it is an article. If you feel a point must be added, remove the least important point there and please limit all points to 40 words.

I'm requesting this to avoided what happened before: the praises and criticisms section was longer than the others, and had unnecessary elaboration. Also, the criticisms section was four times the length of the praises section.

The current criticisms section has more points because it represents two different views.

--Neonumbers 10:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Notice: If you do decide that something is worth adding, then please explain why here. Points that are there should be those that were actually expressed by proponents and opponents in public debate.  Neonumbers 07:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Changes made by 210.55.230.121 to this section have been reverted accordingly. Neonumbers 10:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Changes made by PageantUpdater have been reverted accordingly. Neonumbers 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Could 'lowering of pass mark' be removed? It seems terribly ambiguous, and I've never heard it in the mass media. 202.89.139.117 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Someone else might object, but you've got reason for it, so go ahead anyway.  Neonumbers 10:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could 'Statistical correction' be removed in favour of 'No scaling'? This is personal opinion here, but I feel the fact that it is far easier to obtain credits in say, mathematics, than in history, or english is far more important to students than the pass rate two or three years ago. Nonagonal Spider 05:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there some POV-free introduction that could be added to this section, explaining what the combatants (for want of a better word) see as the main reasons to oppose or support NCEA? For example, I think that both proponents and opponents agree that NCEA is standards based -- they disagree on whether this is approporiate for school qualifications. This seems to be an objection of a different nature to complaints that the actual implementation has been flawed, which seems to be the basis of many of the complaints. Reading the article it doesn't seem very clear as to why the NCEA was introduced, nor why people oppose it. I haven't made any changes beacuse 1) I can't think of a good way to do it and 2) I don't want to waste time adding something which will just get reverted or worse start a flurry of other ill-considered edits. Neil Leslie 19:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes
I made many changes in this edit, so I thought I should outline them here.


 * History - used to be called "Previous Qualifications, I expanded this and recounted the phasing-in of NCEA. I tried to do this from a neutral point of view, however I found it hard to present some issues from a purely neutral point of view - instead I tried to balance the views out.
 * Roman numerals to Arabic numerals - NZQA uses Arabic numerals to number the levels NCEA Levels 1, 2 and 3, not I, II and III.
 * Marking system - I summarized to the best of my knowledge the marking system of NCEA, and added this.
 * Sections - Re-sectioned the article.
 * Clarifications and minor corrections where appropriate. Neonumbers 09:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Umm the marking part of this article needs changing. Thats the old system of marking, that they changed in 2009. You now need to answer a majority of questions to atleast achieved level to get achieved. Some papers, like the 2010 Level 2 astronomy paper, only have 3 excellence level questions on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.129.123 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV: Praises vs. Criticisms
I'm not trying to defend NCEA, but the criticisms list has now grown longer, and longer, and although it is true each of these has been levied against NCEA at some point, we need to be careful about the neutrality of this article. So careful, in fact, that I think that the lists need to be evened up.

No two of the criticisms are perfect duplicates, but some could merged or even deleted if there are similar ones on the lists. Even if consensus is against NCEA, this article by policy still needs to be neutral and should not give a bad impression of NCEA. The criticisms list is too long and in some ways sidetracked, and it really needs to be summarised.

Also, the praises list could do with some more points.

What does everyone else think? Neonumbers 11:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that NCEA is awful. But, having just gone through the system, I would say that :D. I leave it to someone slightly less biased to balance it. Akchizar 08:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at it. Check it out, get back to me, but take note of the notice at the top of this page. Neonumbers 04:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that trying to neutralize the article in this way is wrong, both for the article, and for the reader. The point of Wikipedia is knowledge - there is no point witholding knowledge from people who are likely to be affected by such a system, just so it can `look neutral. It is not. Nothing like this is ever completely neutral, there is always something tipping the scales either way. As somebody who has done NCEA (sort of), I think it is an absolute horror. In my IGCSE year (Form 5) I took Level 2 maths (Form 6). I sat one assessment, and the final exam. From that, I got about a third of the credits I needed to get actually obtain the Level 1 NCEA qualification. From about a third of one subject. And I could have done a lot better, too. In addition, because the standards are dispersed across a whole year, it is up to teachers to mark potentially half a student's work. this leads to huge discrepancies due to leniency, fairness, and interpretation issues. and the level of denial in the system, especially in the first two years of its introduction, were horrendous. I remember, in its first year, NCEA failed about 86% of students sitting a certain subject. For about a week, the educational minister then was going around saying nothing was wrong. Nonagonal Spider 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the article as a whole should side with consensus as to whether NCEA is good or bad, there is a lot of terrible information out there. For example, you note that teachers could mark half a student's work. Well, I hate to tell you, but in School Cert, my English, Maths, and Science teachers did all the marking for my school cert grade. The assessment was all dispersed, and I sat no exam in any of those subjects. And an 86% fail rate wasn't unusual in the old system either. But you'd never here about it because they'd either completely re-write the marking schedule or scale the crap out of it. Probably the biggest difference between NCEA and the old system is that people are actually looking at NCEA critically, whereas very few people very bothered to notice how useless the old system was. --Limegreen 10:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation
There is an inconsistency with capitalisation in this article. The grades Achievement, Merit and Excellence are sometimes capitalised (Achievement) and sometimes not (achievement). I would go an correct every occurrence but I don't know which to change it to. Any views on which way to go? Neonumbers 11:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, they're generally capitalised. Akchizar 10:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Level 2 literacy and numeracy requirement
My understanding (contrary to that of Scott Gall) is that there is no literacy or numeracy requirement for level 2. Unless it changed over the summer and they haven't updated the website, this source should be correct: http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/qualification/index.html. Neonumbers 09:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your information is correct. There are numeracy and literacy requirements for Level 1 (8 credits for each subject), but not for level 2 or 3Nonagonal Spider 05:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need Level 2 literacy nor numeracy credits to achieve NCEA Level 2, but you do need 8 literacy credits (4 for reading and 4 for writing) to be able to gain University Entrance. Is that in there? ConspiracyMonkey 02:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC+12)

Change in interim results reporting?
"This has been changed for the 2005 interim results notice issued to students. The standards which receive a 'not acheived' will be reported and will count toward the overall grade point average." Is this true? It seems to go against the latest NZQA results policy announcement; I would have thought that a change like this would warrant a release of some sort. Can anyone confirm this? &alpha;&gamma;&delta;&epsilon;&epsilon; (&epsilon; &tau; c) 12:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dude, that's not latest. That was last year.  The decision to count failures was this year.  It is true, they are reporting failures, but they don't count towards GPA. Neonumbers 23:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the latest release that I could find, anyway. ;) Thanks. &alpha;&gamma;&delta;&epsilon;&epsilon; (&epsilon; &tau; c) 09:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms section
"Lowering of pass mark: The pass mark for the old system was about 46%. Under NCEA, a subject is passed if 14 of 24 credits are achieved. This means the pass mark for a subject is about half of half, which is only 25%."


 * Maybe I've misread or misunderstood this point, but if 14 out of 24 (or 7 out of 12) is about 58%, how exactly does this point arrive at the figure of a "half of half", or 25%? If this is indeed incorrect I suggest this point either be removed or corrected. Cheers, --Loopy 00:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You only need to get 50% of the assesment correct ( In the ones i've been doing it is much lower; with many being excellence questions ( that is, questions that need only be answered if the student is attempting to get a excellence pass mark ) ) to pass and you only need to pass half the assesments. --2mcmGespräch 08:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you raised a good point, it's not 25% because NCEA doesn't have marks &mdash; it's roughly 25%. I'll change it accordingly.  Neonumbers 10:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems that this 25% figure is fairly hypothetical, as it requires that the person had 0 knowledge on each of the credits for which they did not 'acheive'. So while in theory, you could pass with 25%, it seems likely that most would have some knowledge in the other areas. (Surely you don't keep re-hashing your not-acheived and miss out any learning on the other credits??) Also, under the old system, it was usually possible to use targeted studying (such that you might only be studying a proportion of the year's learning, which would not be too discrepant from a 25% pass?. (From a graduate of the old system, but with an interest in measurement).Limegreen 22:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Errrr... sorry, you lost me after the first couple of sentences. Okay, on a more serious note, to be honest, I haven't actually seen this critcism explicitly expressed in the media, so its removal wouldn't bug me.  NCEA and SC/Bursary are fundamentally different in many ways.
 * You're probably right that it is fairly hypothetical, to say the least. I'm happy to leave that item at your discretion.  Neonumbers 09:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No statistical correction: There is no predetermined proportion of passes or failures. This means that the pass rate is not constant between years or standards. If everyone has the certificate then it becomes worthless.


 * The last sentence is a conditional. Clearly either "everyone does have it" is true, in which case it should be re-written minus the conditional, or if it is false, then the sentence is meaningless speculation. I'm removing it, pending some clarification. Limegreen 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct. However, it's our job to present what was said, not to take on the arguments ourselves.  Before 2002, there was indeed a concern about the abolishment of failure &mdash; the results at the end of 2002 were of great shock because, lo and behold, failure wasn't abolished.  After four years of NCEA, we now know that it's false &mdash; at the time, it wasn't so.  I'll leave that sentence to your discretion.  Neonumbers 09:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Modules can be excluded from a subject: Previously, whole subjects were sat, with no optional modules. Under the NCEA, students have the choice of excluding modules they do not want to enter.


 * Previously, there were optional areas of learning in subjects such as calculus, which only serious scholarship contenders were directed at. Whether this discretion is larger under the NCEA I can't comment, but this needs revision. Limegreen 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The discretion is definitely larger, but I don't know what the option situation was in Bursary. In NCEA, standards can be excluded, for example, in calculus, a school can decide not to enter their students in, say, trigonometry.  I was told of a school (I won't say which) that didn't enter any of their year 12 students in the sequences paper.  So, instead of sitting the 24-credit recommended course, (say) 22 credits are sat.  (If you didn't get that, tell me and I'll try and give a better explanation.)  I don't know what the situation was in Bursary, can you please tell me?  Neonumbers 09:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Poor internal assessment: The criteria for achievement are often inconcise meaning that teachers have difficulty assessing work. Also, some schools allow varying numbers of resits, but others do not. Moderation is poor as incorrect grades are not actually changed.


 * This seems to directly contradict one of the praises points!Limegreen 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is correct. Indeed, many points of the two sides contradict; remember that not all of them are listed in this article.  I left a note at the top of the section to warn readers that contradicting points will be there.
 * Again, it is our job to present what was said, not to say it ourselves. Proponents did argue that internal assessment was strengthened, and critics did argue that moderation is poor.  So, nothing we can do there.  Neonumbers 09:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing those out, Limegreen. If anyone's feeling up to it, I don't like the bullet-point format of that section, I'd much prefer it in written paragraphs &mdash; if no-one else does, I'll get to it, eventually, one day... (i.e. never, lol) Neonumbers 09:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, incorrect grades are changed. I have had several of my grades changed through moderation. Where does this come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.15.198 (talk • contribs)


 * Internal assessments results are at the sole discretion of the school. While in most instances schools will accept a moderator's judgement, this is not always the case, and schools are not obliged to accept the moderation result.  Neonumbers 09:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

link
the link from school certificate, redirects to an australian qualification —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsawayoflife (talk • contribs)


 * That's interesting... there currently doesn't seem to be an article to do with the former NZ School Certificate. If anyone knows of its existence, please change the link accordingly... otherwise, at the moment, I've made them redlinks.  Neonumbers 10:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

-doesn't ncea also include a level 4 (scholarship) and levels 5 to 7 that one sits at polytech or through workplace training not just the 3 stated in the introduction. Its not a big thing but seeming one of ncea's goals is to have like a unifed assement thing throughtout someones life something should probaly be said somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.96.188 (talk • contribs)


 * No, NCEA has only three levels. You might be thinking of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF), which has standards registered at (I believe) ten levels.  While standards higher than level three can count towards the NCEA, there is no such thing as a "NCEA Level 4", "NCEA Level 5" or so on.
 * The NZ Scholarship award is not part of the NCEA and is covered in a separate article, New Zealand Scholarship.
 * NCEA's goal was never to have unified assessment throughout someone's life, but one of its goals was to unify the vocational and academic fields at certificate level. In the old system, School Cert and Bursary made it a "two-tier system" with unit standards which could be confusing and troublesome to work with.  If you want, you can research it and write a short paragraph about it :-).  Otherwise, I'll get to it, one day... Neonumbers 08:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes to NCEA 2011
Although there has been little in the press I understand from my children that major changes are afoot.Most Unit standards are gone as they were far too easy being largely yr3 or 4 work. So much for the level playing field! Achievement standards on the other hand have been made more difficult as they are now they at curriculum level 6, whereas previously they were curriculum level 5.So this makes them all about say 10-15% harder? Also thee is some evidence that in subjects like science and maths there is now a very large literary component because they are trying to fit the material into "real world" situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.39.79 (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not strictly true. The changes to the standards were to realign them with the new curriculum. This has had the effect of meaning that teachers of the 2009-2013 cohort and the cohort themeselves have, to a large extent, been flying blind... particularly with internals. I've made reference to the realignment when adding paragraphs on GSM and course endorsements (other 2011 changes). However, I have not yet added any actual discussion of the realignment. In fact, it and other 2011 changes (such as new ways of gaining literacy and numeracy credits, i.e. from subjects like PE for Level One... to better reflect the fact that written communication is not limited to just English, and that other forms of written communication exist outside the domain of English) probably deserves its own section. These are, after all, the most significant changes for a number of years. If someone else wants to step in, these links may help. http://www.edgazette.govt.nz/Articles/Article.aspx?ArticleId=8439 and http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/ncea-cheating-and-exam-shunning-on-the-rise/ Note, calling internals weaker than externals ignores the fact that some internals are essentially externals or that they're looking at totally different skills that would not be suitable for an exam (such as research standards). 219.88.89.99 (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Performance of Maori Students
This section - which I've just re-deleted - was added in a series of edits by 122.58.190.90 in July 2012 and, apart from a cleanup of that user's characteristic typos, has seen no improvement since. It was effectively an extended rant with no references and I've just spent some time looking for references which might add some credibility - but to no avail. Sprinkling  entries all through it will hardly help, so I've zapped it again. There is probably something worth saying about Maori school performance, but it needs to be done with some references (surely someone in government or academia looked at this?), probably in some other article, and not "under" "Unit Standard Changes" heading. Snori (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent cleanup
Recently I've removed some section which make claims apparently unsupported by sources. See WP:42 for why this material cannot stay in wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I support this. The content has remained there, unreferenced, for far too long. For material to remain it must be supported by a source in some manner. Adabow (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition of Exam Photo
It's a nice idea but the image is, really, far too large and, additionally, seem out of place. It would be better to select, for the example of the questions, one of the sample exams that demonstrates GSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.89.99 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Extension of History
Given the controversy that still surrounds NCEA, the total absence of sources (which I don't think exist as some of the facts being there are relevant to other sections of the article and aren't mentioned there) I think that this is probably some ideologically motivated vandalism. Also, I have never encountered the idea that unit standards (in approved subjects) can't count towards tertiary education. That approved subjects exist is a potential source of confusion and also something that I now realise the article is lacking. I haven't removed it myself as I am potentially personally biased in my interpretation of the edit's contents. 219.88.89.99 (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I tagged the added material as needing citations. If suitable sources are not added within a reasonable period of time, I think it would be reasonable to remove it. If no sources are added in about a month, post here again and I'll do that if you would prefer not to do so yourself.- gadfium 09:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Unit and Achievement Standards
The difference between "unit standards" and "achievement standards" and how credit is awarded to either one is not clear to readers from outside New Zealand like myself. Could you please clarify and edit the article accordingly ? 161.24.19.44 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Credit is not awarded. Credits are a theoretical unit that can be understood as quantifying a candidate's having passed a standard. They exist at different levels in such a manner that Excellence credits can count as merit credits and both of those can count as achieved credits. That is, if you passed NCEA Level One with a 154 credits, you may have done so in a manner whereby you had 84 excellence credits, 49 merit ones and 21 achieved credits. Alternatively, another pupil who sat and passed all the same standards as that one but merely reached achieved in doing so would have 154 achieved credits. I'm not sure if this bit is article relevant but I hope that the alterations I have made to the article resolve the problem.122.58.222.27 (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)