More NCEA defections
And even more schools are reported to be planning to offer NCEA alternatives. What is interesting with these schools is they includes ones who have been huge supporters of NCEA but they complain that the Government hasn’t listened to their concerns and, for example, still do not record when a student has a ‘not achieved’. Yes the Government thinks it can abolish failure by refusing to record it.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
March 17th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Just a comment, from a science post-graduate university-educated parent of three, regarding the NCEA.
My son did Level 1 Science last year and is doing Level 2 Physics and Chemistry currently. The courses are comprehensive and compared to my experiences of Cambridge A levels 25 years ago the Level 2 NCEA’s are at least at that level. Heaven forbid I have to “help” my son at Level 3!!
There is a lot of BS talked about NCEA. For example, it is “all internally assessed”: codswallop! The Science paper had 1 out of 6 papers internally assessed and my son was proud of his “Excellence” as plenty of his classmates didn’t make the grade. Furthermore,
I should point out that overall only about 2-4% of candidates achieve “Excellence” in the science papers – it really is that difficult.
I think that should be raised to about 8% but I am being picky. In fact, if you bother to check, around half the kids
FAIL NCEA subjects. OK it is called “not achieved” but employers aren’t that stupid.
With regard to International Cambridge (my daughter is doing these exams) they are NOT the same as those exams taken in the UK. Probably due to the number of subjects taken in NZ, in fact, they are VERY similar to NCEA!!
Maybe the Arts subjects are different? My son who is taking Economics, History and English NCEA is working hard and learning relevant stuff appropriate to the subject. He was quoting Robert McNamara to me this morning
and re-examining the Cuban Missiles Crisis.
Why is St Cuth’s thinking about changing from NCEA? Simple, the rich parents who might send their girls there have lost confidence in the NCEA and are sending them to Dio or Corran etc. The loss of confidence has nothing to do with the NCEA but more the political point scoring running along in the media. I suspect the same is true, even of Avondale College.
Matching NCEA vs Cambridge subject for subject, pieces of knowledge etc I can’t see any meaningful difference. The teachers are teaching exactly the same things. My belief is the Cambridge qualifications are actually easier to get and MUCH harder to fail for the
average IQ child. The NCEA “Excellence” and “Merit” levels seem harder to obtain for the higher achievers than Cambridge A or B grades.
Enough politics in education.
March 17th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
People have to learn to deal with failure because they will come up against that beast all through life. Be it relationships, jobs, business decisions, health. Trying to soft soap failure in academia is therefore merely postposing what can latter be a serious challenge in later life. But the Labour Party indemnifies failure, it gives them all welfare for as long as they want it and nothing is asked of in return.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
I think I was the one of the last School C, SFC, bursary groups, which was hardest? SFC by a mile.. you had to keep going all year, not like a course 100% exam assessed where craming could get a good mark.
University papers are a mix of coursework and exam, how come this can’t work for high school? I know there are moderation issues, but these existed under the old system too..