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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] HappyPig@lemmy.nz 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 3 points 11 months ago

I really wish it was