Anne Tolley inextricably linked success in National Standards to success in NCEA when she wrote in a letter to parents, “The standards have been designed so that a student who meets them is on track to succeed at NCEA Level 2.”
National Standards have not been designed so that a student who meets them is on track to succeed at Cambridge Exams.
So what are primary school teachers who contribute pupils to Auckland Grammar going to use to ensure their boys are on track to pass Cambridge Exams?
Without Cambridge Exam National Standards teachers will not be able to tell parents in plain english reports whether their son is achieving at, above or below the level required to pass Cambridge Exams.
If the Minister is consistent she will in the next few weeks develop a separate set of “Cambridge Exam National Standards” and impose them on all the teachers at Epsom Normal School, Mt Eden Normal and Auckland Normal Intermediate School,etc.
These ‘Cambridge Exam National Standards’ are necessary because according to John Morris, Principal of Auckland Grammar School, NCEA would be provided for his weaker students.
The implication is Cambridge exams are harder than NCEA therefore achievement above the regular National Standards expectation is not a guarantee that a student is on track to achieve above the level expected to pass a Cambridge Exam.
If the Minister does not create ‘Cambridge Exam National Standards’ designed so that a student who meets them is on track to succeed at Cambridge Exams, all the arguments she applied to justify the imposition of National Standards can be thrown back in her face.
If she says the regular National Standards will suffice, then we have proof that Cambridge Exams are no better than NCEA.
NCEA needs to be removed from the equation. Replaced with a system that doesn’t allow infinite resits, or, retooled so that those in the…shall we say…less able classes are either made to do work sufficiently harder than they are currently or made to do more to earn their credits.
Labour always talks about fairness. Well, it’s not fair for a student doing Year 13 calculus to get the same or in many cases less credits than a student doing a far less taxing maths stream made to get them out rather than teach them anything useful. Not to mention the massive disconnect between certain papers and the amount of credits than can be gained therein. And it’s not fair for students to go into the real world undercooked and expecting someone to hold their hand through it, it creates a culture of acceptance of mediocrity rather than one where that just isn’t good enough.
There is an US Army slogan: “Be all you can be”, a great message, but something we’re not instilling in our young people. Instead we’re telling them to just “be”. Even the grading system is silly, they don’t fail, they just get: “Not achieved” and then they can try again over and over.
I’m sorry, but if you fail the job interview once, you’re not getting the job.
I’ve seen the Cambridge Exams, Mr. Davis, and NCEA is no Cambridge exam. If you can pass a Cambridge exam well, you can annihilate NCEA. Why else would grammar impose them if not for the sake of giving the children the best education possible? I think you’re just angry that someone has finally had the guts to dump a rather poor system. And even if the Cambridge exams are no better, that still doesn’t change the fact that NCEA is a terrible system.
@ Gordie, so you definitely agree then that ‘Cambridge Exam National Standards’ will have to be a priority for this government?
I await your fervent lobbying of the Minister for this to happen and for the Cambridge Exam National Standards to be imposed on all the schools who contribute boys to Auckland Grammar School.
Why else would Grammar impose them if not for the sake of giving the children the best education possible?
Well…here goes. A school that survives on the mistaken belief that excellence in education can only be achieved through competition and ranking is always going to hate NCEA. Lets be clear, this is the 21st century and the factory model of education that Grammar supports is long gone. Rather than ‘having guts’ I see this move by Grammar as the sad cry of a dying dynasty.
And as for Cambridge being a harder system..pleeease…I achieved School Cert and UE by exam, did nothing all year, crammed a few days out and passed. Gordie misses the point that NCEA already has exams but it also has internal assessment that demands consistent work throughout the year. My cramming antics would never have survived. But perhaps the best argument against Grammar’s grandstanding is the success with NCEA of schools that have shifted to the 21st century like another big, state, boys school, Wellington College, who have outstanding NCEA results and a high quality curriculum.
What ABG is ignoring is that nations, including the UK, across the world have or are moving to the sort of standards based assessment processes used by NCEA and putting the old style one off examination like Cambridge behind them in an effort to ensure that all benefit from the education offered by the State.
ABG undemocratic decision is nothing but another example of grandstanding by a Principal resolved to remain in the late 19th Century.
Grammar is effectively ‘losing’ under the NCEA system as developed by Bill English ( yes we remember). Other schools are getting better results.
So they like any child who is thwarted, take their toys and go and play elsewhere.
‘Why else would Grammar impose them if not for the sake of giving the children the best education possible?’
Presumably because it creates a point of difference from the other State schools.
I have no idea what education outcomes are for similar schools in the region, but are they achieving at a similar rate? If so what can a school do to try and be ‘exclusive’?
Having said that…is there actually a need for NCEA level one at year 11? It does seem to be a hangover from when some sort of leaving certificate was needed for those who finished schooling at that age.
There is an US Army slogan: “Be all you can be”. The reality though to carry this through is you will be all the ARMY wants you to be. Dont try to be anything the army doesn tlike or “what O”
“I’m sorry, but if you fail the job interview once, you’re not getting the job. ” Respectfully I thinkt hat is the wrong analogy. The right analogy would be if you make a mistake at work, in your job, will you be sacked or do you get a chance to learn and improve?
What percentage of students go from secondary school to University, which is what Cambridge prepares people for even though most univeristy courses are now a combination of exams and internal assessment, a point Mr Morris and others choose to ignore.
“And as for Cambridge being a harder system..pleeease…I achieved School Cert and UE by exam, did nothing all year, crammed a few days out and passed.”
Oh and let’s assume that there is only ONE way to learn. Sat down in front of a blackboard/whiteboard/computer crammed full of facts and learn them off by heart. YUP that’s how everyone learns, and if they dont, we just have to make them or let them work in a factory and later deride them for not making something of their lives.
“Replaced with a system that doesn’t allow infinite resits” – I would like to point out that one does not get infinite resits with NCEA. One resit is permitted (per standard), and these are at the teacher’s discretion as to whether a student can do this. (We had one teacher at school who you’d have to beg for a resit; she’d tell us at the beginning of an assessment that she wasn’t giving us one.) And I think that’s fair; one of the things about NCEA is that you could produce a brilliant piece of work, but you may have forgotten to dot a certain i or cross a particular t, and so you are failed. That’s hardly fair, especially if your mate beside you has produced a half-assed effort and scrapes a pass.
I’m reasonably sure the Minister would be happy with this.
The Auckland Grammar way has always depended on many (40+) resits of test papers from previous years. Students are thus trained to pass, rather than Learn to Learn. At the last view there is little focus on modern Information and Communication Technology ICT at Auckland Grammar, as this would detract from the “memorise and regurgicate facts” system. Auckland is proud of its history but sadly failed to keep up with modern needs and processes.
As for Anne Tolley, she of course will fail to address or enter dialog about AG’s belligerent stance. Bill’s efforts to establish NCEA will be brushed aside in silence. As with the PM not fronting up on important issues so will his troops.
Be fair Ian, the PM managed to rearrange a flight to get into the commentary box at the cricket. What could be more important than rubbing shoulders with current and former sports players? Being down at Greymouth for the meeting by the Receivers with the families I hear you ask?
Tracey: It seems to work doesn’t it. Avoid all clashes. Better to keep silent than risk being found out as a ….umm er not something that your persona claims. And don’t the troops love it. Where as its once more into the valley of death ride we chumps!
I feel certain if the former PM had arranged to sit with a commentary team on a working day some here would be demanding she be back at “work”.
Just a small point while we’re on the matter of Standards and accuracy -there is no such school as Auckland Boys Grammar.
AGS is the boys school.
AGGS and EGGS are the girls schools.
AGGS has been led by visionaries in the past.
Not sure the same can be said of AGS.
(And Roger Douglas is a former pupil… what does that tell you?)
I get quite angry these days when I hear/see media reporting such a school is a “top ” school, and using that as a basis for deciding that because the media have defined the particular school as “Top” then they must know what they are doing!!! I keep asking myself, that criteria have they used to decide this elevated status?
There always seems to be some commonality around these schools.
(1)Majority of parents from upper middle to very high income.
(2)Minimal pupils from low income families(unless accessed via sports scholarships)
(3)Low tolerance to diversity.
(4)Single sex schools
I consider a “top”school to be one that adds huge value to the learning of its pupils, no matter what background/race/religion or where the pupils started their learning journey at that school.
I consider a “top”school to cater for individual needs of its pupils rather than make them fit the system ordained. (I was sad to see John Morris’s comments re the fact he recognied that Cambridge Exams were not for a number of his pupils, but brushed it off as not important.
As far as the denate re NCEA and Cambridge goes its a simple one for me. What is the purpose of these qualifications?
If it is to encourage wider learning attainment, if it is to encourage individual pupils to learn as much as they can on a range of tiopics/subjects, then its NCEA.
If it is to encourage diversity, independence, divergent thinking, individual responsibility for learning etc, then it is NCEA.
If it is to narrow the range of learning to fit an outmoded colonial system to that some employers can use it as a sifting device for employment rather than actually using more valid benchmarks for employm,ent, then its the Cambridge System.
If it is to keep elitisim within the family members, as a means of identifying prospective marriage, business and social partners, then its the Cambridge System!
Its a pity that many parents and politicians have not bothered to really look at what NCEA is about/does/means rather than relying on media reports..
I vote Labour AND I teach Cambridge.
Cambridge is a great curriculum to teach, its knowledge based approach allows my students to learn about the subject in an integrated fashion which means they get an overall understanding of the essential parts of the curriculum.
There is no rote learning or norm referencing and the curriculum allows me to include NZ culture and environment on a regular basis.
Students who apply their own knowledge and personal understanding of the subject get the best marks. Any regurgitation of facts gets very few marks.
I challenge any critics of Cambridge to get on the website http://www.cie.org.uk and download some subject curricula and past examination papers than rely on hearsay.
Auckland Teacher says (with one small change):
“NCEA is a great curriculum to teach, its knowledge based approach allows my students to learn about the subject in an integrated fashion which means they get an overall understanding of the essential parts of the curriculum.
There is no rote learning or norm referencing and the curriculum allows me to include NZ culture and environment on a regular basis.
Students who apply their own knowledge and personal understanding of the subject get the best marks. Any regurgitation of facts gets very few marks.”
Thanks for that Auckland Teacher. You have nailed the essence of NCEA so well.
“Why else would grammar impose them if not for the sake of giving the children the best education possible? I think you’re just angry that someone has finally had the guts to dump a rather poor system. ”
ummm – @G – what ‘proof’ do you have that Cambridge is better and that NCEA (which other countries would like) is a ‘rather poor system’?
It is a frustration for me that Tolley can be so inconsistent – who does she think she is that she can allow Grammar to do what they want and not say boo about it, but threaten primary schools who make a stand for the sake of our countries children with bullying tactics, sacking and by setting the ministry onto boards. Its appalling – and just once I wish the woman would put her money where her mouth is and actually show some consistency. At least the primary schools have research, data and academics internationally known and respected standing behind them – can Grammar say the same?
Come one Kelvin and Trev – call for the woman to be sacked for lack of clarity, inconsistent application of policy and for incompetence – I would love to see you send a press release out asking for it – and then see if she has the kahunas to respond with any clarity – I suspect she wont. And while you are at it – see if you can get a response from smile and wave – after all, as her boss, hes allowing her to hide from the issue. More interestingly, I would be fascinated to see if the media even bothered to pick it up – let alone pick it up with some form of balance.
Kuzu- I think some people maybe missing the point around the conceptual understanding around assessment. It’s invalid to say that Cambridge/I.B/AP/ is better than NCEA, vice versa. There’s evidence that NCEA in schools (decile 1)are doing better and are just finally getting their heads around this. The NCEA curriculum is a task based approach to learning with an inquiry focus on the subject matter. If anything offer the schools choices TO implement whatever curriculum they like. Schools don’t like been told what to do so why not offer them a choice since thats the way we are heading to. The IB curriculum/Cambridge/AP (North American Placement/NCEA)etc…KiaOra koutou…ko koe ki tena ko ahau ki tenei kiwai o te kete-Soifua, xiexie.
You got a decent quote in the Herald. But here you haven’t done much more than create a straw man and barely address the issues that would actually make your argument better. I was going to comment more, but it turned into a blog post.
Auckland Teacher – you have probably outlined the purpose of Cambridge and your intentions in that regard. I have two nephews to whom I am very close and know many of their friends. Rote learning and regurgitation is the main method they use to pass Cambridge. Half work well throughout the year and half go to school because they have to and do the minimum to get by. Their marks have some variation but not much on the whole. Example one may get 56% in a math exam, but 72% in English while another, the reverse.
I see room for both systems because I believe that all children do not learn the same way and all children are not headed to University but some are.
Given this is an anonymous forum I am intrigued as to at which school you teach?
Tracey: I bet you a shilling that Auckland Teacher teaches at AG or is its chief apologist. (Must check Mr Morris’s writing style.)
“Schools don’t like been told what to do so why not offer them a choice since thats the way we are heading to. ‘
Actually, is that not the point of the new curric – to allow schools to develop a curriculum that suits the needs of the students/community – to accurately and positively respond. Nat stds dont do that and that dissolves the element of choice – I have no problem with Grammar choosing to offer choice – the issue I have is that the Minister is inconsistent and will pull primary schools up for dumping something they know to be rubbish, but not sanction Grammar. That is the problem. Her lack of transparency and her blatant double standards.
Hear hear Paul – this is not an issue about choice it’s about consistency of Tolley and her Govt’s reaction. Easy measure
Tolley in face of those opposing NS
Tolley in face of those/him opposing NCEA
This entire thread is really as simple as that.
To my mind the Govt should move quickly to refine/restructure NCEA so that its main weak points are dealt with. It needs a gutsy restructure, not a weak one. Why is this such a big ask? Such a move would rapidly kill Cambridge and other ‘alternative curricula’. This would simply involve creating a more sharply defined assessment grading system (within the current A/M/E) so that students know more precisely what they have achieved. And a more prominent extension curriculum for high achievers would help too. Also for the problem of having enough credits to pass- so no more study required- a more rigorous overall achievement grading system would deal to that issue. Finally, the silly binary of achievement standards and unit standards should be abolished. Just have achievement. If its not good enough for a grade, that checks how well you have done, its not good enough. What do you think?
Auckland Herald Editorial today:
“The questions (NCEA) involve research rather than rote learning. They reflect a curriculum that aims to encourage inquiry and discovery rather than the transmission of accepted wisdom.
If this system does not suit the teaching style of Auckland Grammar School, that is rather sad.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10700741
@ Dave – I believe (and correct me if I’m wrong people) that unit standards are being removed from schools – it’ll be compulsory for all subjects to be achievement standards. This is for subjects such as English, where you can have either unit or achievement standards; however for subjects that are comprised solely of unit standards then they will remain.
Clearly Johnny Morris is getting exactly what he was looking for. Lots of spotlight on the basis that all publicity is good publicity. He may not know what percentage want to opt out of Cambridge.
There are economies in teaching one system, to the extent that I think some schools have “Cambridge staff” and “NCEA staff”. Has this been looked at?
Boys that are in the region of 11G and “below” at AGS should not be involved with Cambridge at all. The results of raising the bar as proposed may not be pretty – that is if 90% of parents decide to go with Johnny, distinguished NZ football goalkeeper.
Auckland Teacher – not so. Cambridge Exams are all about bredth and not depth. As such, they basically require memorising of information rather than critical thinking. I am not sure what subject you are teaching, but humanities and arts subjects are certainly anchored around the skills of recall.
Tolley should stop the funding of Auckland Grammar School. If they are not willing to teach the national assessment system that (after the realignment) has been developed to work alongside our national curriculum they do not deserve public funding.
What is ironic is many of the criticisms of NCEA have been/ are being rectified through the realignment. The challenge question has been addressed through Merit/Excellence endorsements, the external/internal problem is being addressed through an increase in the value of external standards and focus on achieving these in order to meet literacy/numeracy requirements and current testing is being completed on addressing the ‘blunt’ grading – each grades having a 1, 2 or 3 attached to it so more discretion is possible.
AGS have saved themselves a bunch on marketing through this. Pity they had to undermine every other public school in the country and all those students who have worked so very hard to achieve.
AGS would be better served developing the skills of their teachers, rather than throwing their toys and leaving the game because they are not doing as well as they should. They have the power to rectify that – but they are simply choosing not to.
I hope that the principal continues to enjoy his international junkets as the Chair of Cambridge Schools New Zealand. They will fight against research that clearly proves that students that are successful in NCEA are successful at tertiary study. Good luck to them.
Cambridge exams are far better than NCEA in almost every respect. My son was in this programme overseas. Then we came back to NZ for his secondary schooling. Particularly in the all important areas likes science , maths and English , the Cambridge programme was about four years ahead. The same science my son had learned at about ten in Asia , he was expected to learn in year ten in NZ…He just continued to lose interest and every day in a NZ school he lost more and more of the work ethnic he had acquired in Asia. Fortunately he has now come right and is performing as expected in a civil engineering programme but we nearly lost him to wasteland that is the current NZ education system. Without the solid grounding in maths and science in Asia , he would probably not be able to study engineering. If we had had a choice when we returned to NZ , no questions asked , we would have put him into the Cambridge programme. Please note , even the Cambridge programme is behind the Singaporean and Korean maths and science programmes. Hopefully this gives you some idea of just how far behind NZ really is.
@ theresaj:
“Without the solid grounding in maths and science in Asia , he would probably not be able to study engineering”
No disrespect, but how do the majority of NZ Engineering students manage to cope with the work at uni then? Presumably many came through NCEA, surely there would have been a huge uproar if NCEA students got to Engineering at university and found they couldn’t cope? Or is your son studying outside NZ?
“Please note , even the Cambridge programme is behind the Singaporean and Korean maths and science programmes.”
I had a friend who came to New Zealand as an international student from South Korea, she stayed at my school for a year (mine was an NCEA school). Upon her arrival, for a while I believe, she studied until late at night (midnight perhaps) and would then get up at 5am every morning to study. A habit she lost when we pointed out to her that this kind of thing really isn’t healthy – the pressures from those systems really aren’t healthy for students (or anyone, for that matter…). To cut to the chase, after studying for a year under NCEA, she was pulling a combination of Merits and Excellences at Level 2 maths, a few months later sat an entrance exam for a Japanese university and I’m pretty sure she passed. Not sure that NZ is really that far behind, therefore…
Absolutely no disrespect or anything is meant by this comment, I’m just querying some of the points you make
@ theresaj
I would agree with Ella on this. Have you actually had a look at the Maths and Physics level 3 NCEA papers over the past few years? They are very rigorous–a lot more rigorous than the old UE/Bursary system. I would say world class in terms of standard for this level. Students have been succeeding in Engineering studies for years now following their NZ education studies at school and Canterbury/Auckland Engineering has a world-class reputation. I think you need to say more clearly how NCEA and Cambridge are inferior to those other international courses. From reading your story it seems it was probably other factors that led to the diminishing attitude your friend had at school in NZ.