Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8266] 
8.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why is he “leaning towards” listing “Not Achieved” on National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) students’ qualifications? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: Yesterday the Minister reported that 168 recommendations from the 2005 reviews of NCEA had already been addressed though he is still considering further changes to the design. One of these is reporting the standards that students have attempted and failed to achieve. The Minister is expecting a report on possible changes including in respect of this issue this weekend. 
Katherine Rich 
: When did the Minister have his road to Damascus experience that led him to lean towards reporting “Not Achieved” on a Record of Learning because in September 2006 he dismissed the idea saying: “There’s no place on such a list for the things that people have not yet attained or perhaps not even attempted.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that externally assessed standards already carry a “Not Achieved” on students’ results notices. The information now is that that should be extended to internal assessment. What has emerged in the interim is a concern that if there is not a clear listing of “Not Achieved” then employers in particular and others do not have any idea about what standards people actually are not capable of achieving as opposed to those that they have sat and achieved. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister believe that a school that offers the full range of NCEA subjects but also allows selected students to sit up to two Cambridge International Examinations papers at year 11 or one paper at year 12 is demonstrating a rejection of the NCEA system as suggested by a recent  
New Zealand Herald  
article? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No clearly that is not necessarily a rejection at all of NCEA but merely an acknowledgment that there are other purposes for which one might want to sit a limited range of the Cambridge International Examinations. It is worth reminding ourselves that the name is somewhat misleading. This has nothing to do with the old entrance examinations for Cambridge University. The sort of elitism that is now being applied to this qualification is completely misplaced in terms of its standards and content. 
Katherine Rich 
: How credible was he when last September he said that failure had no place in the reporting of standards-based assessment or on the Record of Learning yet last night he said he was leaning towards deciding to put such failure on a student’s Record of Learning? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Of course one of the elements of standards-based achievement is that sometimes one can resit and achieve the standard. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister believe that the decision to include unit standards in NCEA credits which was not in accordance with the original proposals has enhanced the credibility of NCEA assessments in the eyes of the public who are after all the ultimate users of NCEA? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and I am particularly aware of the contribution that member has made to a discussion on the development of the whole NCEA system which was of course begun—let us recognise—under the previous National Government and most of the changes introduced were in fact in response to concerns about a dumbing down of the system. 
Katherine Rich 
: What has made the Minister change his mind on the fundamental issue of reporting failure because it looks like he has crumbled in the face of political pressure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said before students’ results notices already carry a “Not Achieved” for an externally assessed standard. The question is whether it goes on the Record of Learning as the member rightly implies. I think what has happened is it is very clear that there is a degree of public concern if the “Not Achieved” element is able to be entered on the Record of Learning. Therefore the acceptability of the system which is a very good system and much better than the Cambridge International Examinations system for New Zealand purposes needs to be looked at. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is panicking and ringing up schools to ask what it will take to stop further defections; if not why are not his officials keeping him informed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot confirm that. Perhaps the member should note the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is not responsible for the design features of NCEA; it is a Ministry of Education responsibility. 
Katherine Rich 
: How credible is it to talk about increasing the reporting of failure when the Minister’s officials hand out information to principals asking the question whether they are avoiding predictable failure where possible which is code for avoiding kids sitting external exams? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No it is not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it is. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is rather akin to suggesting there is not much point in Dr Smith sitting an examination on literacy because he is doomed to fail.