NCEA: A Curriculum in Disguise?

Today I thought I would share my thoughts on education and learning in New Zealand. With the general election coming up it seems that our national assessment NCEA is the punching bag de jour with recent articles from the NZ Herald suggesting it is no longer fit for purpose as a Level 1 curriculum. However, I think the principals advocating for this change and their reasons behind it are flawed in their understanding of what NCEA actually is. So, is NCEA Level 1 a curriculum or an assessment?

For those readers who are not familiar with NCEA, it stands for National Certificate of Educational Achievement, and it is the main qualification system for secondary school students in New Zealand. NCEA Level 1 is usually taken in Year 11 or tenth grade for my American friends, and it covers a range of subjects and standards that students can choose from.

But what exactly is NCEA Level 1? Is it a curriculum that guides what students should learn and how they should learn it? Or is it an assessment that measures what students have learned and how well they have learned it?

This question is not just academic, it has real implications for how we design and deliver education in New Zealand. For example, if NCEA Level 1 is a curriculum, then we should focus on ensuring that it covers the essential knowledge and skills that students need to succeed in the future. We should also make sure that it is coherent, relevant and engaging for students and teachers. On the other hand, if NCEA Level 1 is an assessment, then we should focus on ensuring that it is valid, reliable and fair for all students. We should also make sure that it is flexible, transparent and meaningful for students and employers.

The problem is that NCEA Level 1 is seen as a curriculum by some and an assessment by others. This is where the debate gets heated. Principals of 'top schools' like the one outlined in the article above argue that NCEA Level 1 is too broad and vague as a curriculum, leaving too much room for interpretation and variation across schools and teachers. They say that it does not provide enough guidance and support for students to develop the core competencies and values that are essential for future employment. Are these educators correct?

According to the Ministry of Education, curriculum is "the sum total of the experiences, activities and events, whether direct or indirect, which occur within an environment designed to foster children's learning and development" An assessment is "the process of gathering information about what students know and can do" from the curriculum. A curriculum guides what to teach and learn, while an assessment checks how well it has been taught and learned.

Based on these definitions, it's obvious that NCEA Level 1 is an assessment, not a curriculum. NCEA Level 1 does not provide any experiences, activities or events for students to learn and develop. It only measures what students know and can do in various subjects. NCEA Level 1 does not design or foster any learning environment for students. It only sets standards and criteria for students to meet. NCEA Level 1 does not cover the whole range of learning areas and key competencies that are part of The New Zealand Curriculum. It only focuses on literacy and numeracy requirements and a few optional subjects. NCEA Level 1 is not a prescribed curriculum that tells teachers and students what they have to teach and learn. Rather, it is a flexible framework that allows schools and students to design their own curriculum based on their interests, needs and goals. 

NCEA Level 1 is more accurately described as an assessment system that recognizes and credits students for their learning across different subjects and standards. Students can earn credits by achieving unit standards (which are based on specific skills and knowledge) or achievement standards (which are based on broader areas of learning). Students need to achieve at least 60 credits at level 1 or higher to gain NCEA Level 1 in 2024.

The advantage of NCEA Level 1 as an assessment system is that it gives students more choice and flexibility in what they learn and how they are assessed. Students can tailor their learning program to suit their strengths, interests and aspirations. They can also choose from a variety of assessment methods, such as internal assessments (which are done throughout the year) or external assessments (which are done at the end of the year).

However, NCEA Level 1 as an assessment system also has some challenges and criticisms. Some of these include:

- The quality and consistency of internal assessments may vary across schools and teachers.

- The level of difficulty and demand of some standards may not match the level of achievement expected at level 1.

- The literacy and numeracy requirements may not be sufficient or rigorous enough to prepare students for further study or work.

- The credit system may encourage students to focus on quantity rather than quality of learning.

- The flexibility and choice may confuse or overwhelm some students who need more guidance and structure.

Due to these challenges, some schools will no longer assess at NCEA Level 1. For example, as outlined in the article St Cuthbert’s College has announced that it will ditch NCEA Level 1 in favor of its own Year 11 diploma from next year. The school says that the new diploma will provide more depth, breadth and challenge for its students than NCEA Level 1, based on the erroneous belied that NCEA level 1 is a curriculum not an assessment. Other schools have ditched NCEA level 1 as an assessment preferring to focus on learning rather than assessing at this year level as very few countries have high stakes assessment for 3 years in row which can create undue stress on students and detract from focusing on learning being a process and students seeing obtaining credits as the focus of learning. 

In conclusion, NCEA Level 1 is not a curriculum but an assessment system that allows schools and students to design their own curricula based on their interests, needs and goals. It has some advantages and disadvantages as an assessment system, which have led to some changes and reforms over time.