Benson-Pope David: Urgent Debates — New Zealand Scholarship Examination—Future 
Benson-Pope David: Urgent Debates — New Zealand Scholarship Examination—Future 
[Volume:624;Page:19453] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to correct some of the misinformation around this issue that is constantly being peddled by the National Party spokesman in the short term for education. Clearly—and it has become clearer as the days have gone by including through the newspaper article I quoted at question time—Mr English has demonstrated that he is out of step not only with the mainstream of New Zealand educational thinking but also with the educational philosophy of his own party. Equally clearly as I said in this Chamber last night that will be a short-term situation because Mr Allan Peachey Mr English’s soon-to-be colleague in the Parliament holds a view that is diametrically opposed to the one Mr English has been peddling around the community. 
It is really important to acknowledge first of all that the introduction of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) took place in the time of this Government’s predecessor the former National Government. And it is sad given that fact that the current National Party spokesman has been so grossly irresponsible in his negative contributions about the issue. No one could find in any of Mr English’s advocacies statements or comments to date anything positive about NCEA or any positive suggestion for improving issues that everyone in the country would acknowledge need addressing—issues around scholarship and lesser but nonetheless important issues around the whole qualifications system—so that everyone is confident that the system is as robust as we have reason to require it to be. 
The ultimate sadness for me and for a lot of education professionals is that Mr English while being out of step with the majority mainstream view in his own party on this matter has now painted himself into a sad corner as the public voice of the anti-NCEA lobby. 
Hon Bill English 
: Oh! 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Well the covers are off now because of Mr English’s statements up at the Kapiti coast the other day about scaling. One of the most heinous things the previous assessment system did was manipulate the results of our young people to ensure that 50 percent of every cohort failed. That is what it did and that is why education professionals in this country demanded year after year—as did responsible business leaders—a more useful educational qualification that was not designed to disadvantage 50 percent of our community. That is why listening to reason the former National Government in 1998 introduced the NCEA the system we have now. 
Given the pressures put on the Qualifications Authority by the simultaneous introduction of the scholarship exam and the level 3 qualification I am delighted that we have had such a positive response from the working party I nominated and invited to consider these matters. Just so that there is no confusion on the part of Mr English on this matter—because one of Mr English’s constant problems is getting it wrong as the community again and again acknowledges—let me affirm that looking at the issues around 2004 issues such as the allocation of any current scholarships outstanding was not part of the terms of reference of that working party. The terms of reference of that working party referred to the responsibility that it took on to make sure that we could have no repetition at the end of this year and in early 2006 of what happened in 2004. 
The first thing I said when welcoming the first meeting of that working party was that Cabinet could not allow or in any way entertain a repetition of a clearly unsatisfactory state of events at the beginning of this year. I am very proud to be part of a Government that responded extraordinarily quickly and totally appropriately to the potential disadvantage that came from what had always happened in the scholarship exams once scaling was removed. The saddest thing in all of this is that after that demonstration of how negative scaling is the education spokesperson for the National Party Bill English made it so clear that he now advocates—unlike his party presumably—a return to scaling. 
I will spend a little bit of time setting out exactly what the outcome of those considerations is. It is an outcome that was approved by Cabinet yesterday. First of all I will dwell on the essential difference between the New Zealand Scholarship 2004 and what is being proposed for students sitting exams this year. The key recommendation of the review group is that the scholarship will now be awarded to a set percentage of students in each subject. That will not vary from subject to subject in general although I will make a qualification to that shortly. Depending on further Cabinet work on the quantum of scholarships—the number and amount to be awarded—there will be a decision made by the review panel that has been set up by the group on where that percentage is set. 
Because that figure will be based on the cohort—the number of students—studying that subject at level 3 of the NCEA it will be necessary to depart from the target percentage from time to time; otherwise it would be impossible to preserve the integrity of the exam. For example with small scholarship entries in a large cohort and so on every member in the House could see the potential for everyone who entered a scholarship exam on a raw percentage situation to be a successful candidate. Clearly that would not be acceptable. 
Equally because the exam remains standards-based it is absolutely essential that the review panel has the capacity to check that standards are being met. So a second level of intervention will also be possible to ensure as the top candidates are ranked that all people being awarded scholarships in whatever subject have met a satisfactory scholarship standard. 
So is this a fair way of allocating scholarship money? The review panel of very distinguished educators from both sides of the NCEA fence believed so and Cabinet agreed. The recommended solution ensures there is a similar proportion of scholarship awards in each scholarship subject relative to the number of students studying at level 3. This means that students performing at the top of their subject all have an equivalent chance of receiving a scholarship. Furthermore there will also be top scholar awards retained as recommended by the review group. 
The key question that seems to trouble Mr English is whether this is still standards-based assessment. Yes it is. Given that NCEA is based on standards-based assessment it seems to me that that is not only entirely desirable but consistent and logical. 
It is true that the Scholarship Reference Group recommended neither for nor against standards-based examination. Given that its recommendations were by consensus given that it did not vote on these issues and given that there were representatives of both sides of the NCEA argument on that panel that is hardly surprising. That is one of the reasons why I think the panel members are to be most highly complimented on their performance because they did not allow their particular partisan views which they are entitled to hold and hold very strongly to influence unreasonably the deliberations of the panel. I think what they produced is a bit of a beacon for how we can ensure good relationships in education and sensible decision-making. I am sure that that is one of the reasons Cabinet so welcomed the panel’s recommendations. 
I turn now to what will happen beyond 2005. Following the interest and public focus on this most important matter the House can be assured that the Government will continue to closely monitor the developments in this examination the performance as the years go by and the implementation this year. The ministry will report to Cabinet on awards criteria for the next 3 years on a regular basis to ensure that the recommendations of the group are being properly followed. 
Furthermore the scholarship review group also recommended the establishment of a national scholarship monitoring panel. The exact detail of its interrelationship with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is being worked out now. That group will have the responsibility of monitoring the consistency and cohesion of the scholarship awards and giving assurance to and confidence in the authority’s and the ministry’s processes to the community to students to teachers and to the Government as a whole. 
That panel has two arms. First of all the monitoring and implementation group will do the detailed work in respect of the examination. Secondly an independent advisory group will have a wider policy development role. 
I think this is a very good outcome. Like most people we would have preferred the events at the start of this year not to have happened. Like most people we are assuming that they may well have occurred because of the simultaneous pressure of level 3 being introduced at the same time as the scholarship exam. Whatever the cause which will be revealed by the State Services Commission inquiry that is also in train I am confident that there is no likelihood or possibility of a repetition of the unfortunate events of the start of this year. I am sure that most members of the community are very pleased that the Government has acted as quickly as it has and with as much consultation as it has in an appropriate time frame to fix up the problem.