Succeeding to Fail

Grade Inflation

The NZ Herald has analysed how well high school students are achieving according to the government schools qualification standard ("NCEA).  It turns out that internal assessment (tests and assignments) delivers a far higher rate of achievement than external examinations.  To put the matter simplistically: if students are asked to sum 2+2, they get the answer right more often when their teacher asks them in class, than when they are sitting an external exam.

Students do much better when they are internally assessed than when they are put under the pressure of an exam, a comprehensive Weekend Herald analysis of NCEA entries reveals.  Internal assessments are becoming increasingly important to secondary school students as the place of old-fashioned exams fades - and they generally result in better achievement.  The difference in achievement rates between the two types of assessment can be nearly 50 per cent, although the gap differs according to subject, level and school decile.

To take one example: students in decile one schools who were studying maths with calculus achieved 83 per cent of internal assessments at Level 3 in 2012. The achievement rate for external assessments was much lower, with only 34 per cent of entries achieved.

This sounds great.  Achievement rates 50 percent higher when students are internally assessed.  Ah, not so fast.

One person to have raised concerns about internal assessments is Professor Dale Carnegie, head of engineering and computer science at Victoria University.  A vocal critic of NCEA who advocates a return to percentage scores, he said there were well-founded concerns over the moderation of internal assessment.  As a result, engineering departments at Victoria University and the University of Auckland had moved to insist students completed specific external assessments.  "In essence, we do not trust the internal assessment anywhere near as much as the external," Professor Carnegie said.

The universities have felt compelled to introduce their own competency testing for applicants because it has emerged that often (under NCEA) the applicants lack required maths abilities, skills, and competence.  The market place is finding the NCEA qualifications are deceptive and misleading and replacing them with its own.

But the government educational monolith is persisting.

Rowena Phair, the ministry's deputy secretary, viewed the data and said it reflected NCEA's flexibility and relative complexity as opposed to the old exam-based system.  There were several factors that contributed to students achieving better results in internal assessment, Ms Phair said:

• Students could be assessed at a time when they were ready for assessment, rather than months later at the end of the year,
• A reassessment opportunity might be available following further study,
• A wider sample of student evidence could be used in making the final judgment on student achievement.

"The difference in achievement rates between internally and externally assessed standards can be seen across other subjects and has not changed substantially over time."

Ah, yes.  A student studies a particular subject, say the manipulation of quadratic equations.  At the end of the module, he or she is internally assessed.  They pass.  Then they promptly forget what they have studied, as they move on to other things.  But the student facing an external examination at the end of the year knows he or she needs to keep remembering, revising, holding the information as best they can.  End result: the latter student emerges having learned and retained much, much more.  Folks, this is definitely not rocket science.

The government educational monolith is increasingly driven by achieving NCEA credits, not by learning and mastering a subject.  The two are not necessarily the same at all.

Internally assessed standards allow teachers to give students much more explicit guidance, which was one logical explanation for the general pattern that internal results were higher. "Remembering that we are concerned with recognising achievement and not selecting an elite, it should be understood as a better directed assessment process rather than any reduction of rigour."

And how will these accredited students do when they move out of school into the real world where they no longer have access to "explicit guidance" of their teachers.  Not too good.  But note the rider in the above citation: NCEA is focused upon recognition of achievement, not upon actual achievement.  Assume we are studying German.  The task/achievement is German vocabulary.  We study and learn three hundred German words, complete an assessment helped along by the explicit guidance of the teacher.  We achieve the requisite standard.  Then we move on to something else, and promptly forget eighty percent of the learned vocab.  We have achieved (that is, been recognised) in NCEA-speak, but learned very little. 

But the educational establishment is driven by "recognition" rates. 

The Government has set a target for 85 per cent of 18-year-olds to have NCEA Level 2 or an equivalent qualification in 2017.  Allan Vester, chairman of the NZ Secondary Principals' Council and head of Edgewater College in Pakuranga, said internal assessments allowed different skills to be assessed than in an exam and generally had lower rates of non-achievement.  That meant it was likely that they would be seen by schools as a way of meeting the 85 per cent target.

Another factor was a desire to perform better in "league table"-style comparisons with other schools. That was not necessarily negative if handled correctly, he said, and safeguards included a rigorous and improved moderation process.  However, Mr Vester said, if the push for achievement went to unrealistic levels there was risk that public perception of NCEA would suffer.

The government monolith announces an achievement target.  As always, the unintended consequences are the fly in the ointment.  Schools are racing to meet the achievement targets.  The actual, unintended result?  The standard undergoes "grade inflation" and becomes progressively worthless.

Is the situation hopeless?  No, but correcting it will be painful.  Because New Zealand's government education system is now being ranked internationally in league tables, the current slippage in rankings is likely to exacerbate.  Eventually, this will lead to a revolt--firstly, by the universities (as is happening in some disciplines and faculties now), and secondly, by parents themselves.  If the upshot is parents standing up and firing the government educators, and assuming responsibility to select and provide for their children's education, it will be a very, very good thing.