English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:623;Page:18575] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his reported statement that there was nothing unexpected in this year’s NCEA results? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is important to remember that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a quite separate examination from the New Zealand Scholarship. I am advised that at the end of a 3-year process implementation of NCEA levels 1 to 3 has gone relatively well. I stand by the advice I have received that the results for NCEA are within expected parameters. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that level 2 standard 90380 is one of the standards included in literacy and numeracy requirements for university entrance and is he aware that in 2003 28 percent of students failed that standard in 2004 57 percent of students failed that standard and is this difference of 10000 students what he expected? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would have hoped by now that the member would understand that in a standards-based assessment regime—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have that shouting out. That is quite enough. The Minister will have an opportunity to answer the question. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would have hoped that by now the member would understand that in a standards-based assessment regime— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will please come to the answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: —with lots of variable factors such comparisons between years and cohorts are absolutely meaningless. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has he seen from the education sector about the implementation of NCEA? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am able to quote Chris Haines president of the School Trustees Association who said on 18 January: “It was clear the former system had long outlived its usefulness as a fair measure of student learning. What we have now is a system which more fairly recognises student achievement. This change was huge by any world standards and the fact it was achieved in a tight timeframe is a credit to all those concerned especially secondary teachers stakeholder groups and NZQA. … With any new system there will always be some fine-tuning.” 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Associate Minister provide the House with the chronological sequence with rough dates if possible of when the New Zealand Qualifications Authority management recognised a problem with the variance in the NCEA level 4 results when the New Zealand Qualifications Authority board was informed of that when the board advised its Ministers and when the Ministers passed that information on to the Prime Minister and Cabinet? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I do not have that information at hand at this time but will be happy to provide it to the questioner in due course. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does the Minister realise that 30 out of 50 students—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is too much comment. There is to be no comment at all while a question is being asked. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does the Minister realise that 30 out of 50 students who sat NCEA level 4 Maori got scholarship but only nine out of 1000 students who sat biology got scholarship; if so was that not an unexpected result either? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I think that the most useful response I can give is to quote two statements from a Cabinet paper as follows. Firstly: “An NCEA Level 4 ‘scholarships’ will be introduced for the highest achieving students. The nature of assessment for this will require further consideration and consultation with … secondary schools …” and secondly: “There will be no inter-subject scaling of the external assessment. This has been a source of dissatisfaction for some time because of the distortions that occur …”. Those statements were made by Wyatt Creech on the introduction of those exams in 1998. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very interesting to know what Mr Wyatt Creech thought about the NCEA but that cannot be regarded as an answer. The Minister was asked about his own statement that the results were not unexpected. He was asked quite a simple question about whether he expected 30 out of 50 students who sat Maori to pass and only nine out of 1000 who sat biology to pass. That was a simple question and I would have thought he would say either yes or no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable Minister can come to the answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I made it clear in my answer to the primary question that I was referring to NCEA levels 1 2 and 3 and that the scholarship exam is quite a different issue. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Why is the Minister surprised that extending a standards-based system to scholarship exams has created those problems when the scholarship awards scheme requires students’ results to be compared and ranked yet standards-based assessment is designed to focus on individual achievement; and what would have been so difficult about retaining the old-style approach for the scholarship exam as it is separate from NCEA level 3? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I was certainly surprised as I believe most of the community was about the wide variety of results generated in that exam and at presumably the lack of moderation and control systems to ensure that that was not the case. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House that all comparisons between years and subjects are meaningless; and what does he think that those students who were among the 10000 extra students who failed one of the literacy and numeracy standards—which may have made the difference between them getting university entrance or not—will think of that? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I think that students who have been spending some considerable time and effort working successfully with NCEA clearly have a greater understanding than has been demonstrated by the member opposite. They understand only too well—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will answer the question. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The students understand only too well that they pass a standard if they reach the set standard and if they do not reach that point they fail. That is the simplicity of the system. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister therefore explain to the House why in 2003 around 8000 students failed the standard for reading an unfamiliar text but in 2004 around 18000 students failed it; what went wrong for those 10000 students—did the teaching go through the floor or are they just dumb? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Clearly there are a number of factors involved. They would relate to the size of the cohort any change in the standard and also I could suggest the origin of some of the students setting those literacy standards in particular. I would be happy to obtain and provide that detailed information for the questioner in due course. 
Hon Bill English 
: Would the Minister care to elaborate for the benefit of the House and also for the benefit of those 10000 students just what he meant by the expressions “change in the standard” and “origin of some of the students” as an explanation for 10000 more students failing that standard this year compared with the number last year? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: What I specifically meant was the role of foreign fee-paying students who are speakers of other than English as a first language in some of those results. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure you are not going to accept an answer from the Minister that suggests 10000 foreign fee-payers are the reason why the figures are different. In any event he failed to answer the question about what he had said to the House was a change in standards. I think that is pretty important and he should give us an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is a political point not a point of order.