Talk:National Certificate of Educational Achievement

message: Notice to editors editing the Praises and Criticisms section: Please refrain from adding points to the praises and criticisms section.  This article is not a place for debate, it is an article.  If you feel a point must be added, remove the least important point there and please limit all points to 40 words.
I'm requesting this to avoided what happened before: the praises and criticisms section was longer than the others, and had unnecessary elaboration.  Also, the criticisms section was four times the length of the praises section.
The current criticisms section has more points because it represents two different views.
--Neonumbers 10:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice: If you do decide that something is worth adding, then please explain why here.  Points that are there should be those that were actually expressed by proponents and opponents in public debate.  Neonumbers 07:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Changes made by 210.55.230.121 to this section have been reverted accordingly.  Neonumbers 10:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Changes made by PageantUpdater have been reverted accordingly. Neonumbers 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could 'lowering of pass mark' be removed? It seems terribly ambiguous, and I've never heard it in the mass media. 202.89.139.117 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.  Someone else might object, but you've got reason for it, so go ahead anyway.  Neonumbers 10:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could 'Statistical correction' be removed in favour of 'No scaling'? This is personal opinion here, but I feel the fact that it is far easier to obtain credits in say, mathematics, than in history, or english is far more important to students than the pass rate two or three years ago. Nonagonal Spider 05:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please don't add to Praises and Criticisms

message: I made many changes in this edit, so I thought I should outline them here.
*History - used to be called "Previous Qualifications, I expanded this and recounted the phasing-in of NCEA.  I tried to do this from a neutral point of view, however I found it hard to present some issues from a purely neutral point of view - instead I tried to balance the views out.
*Roman numerals to Arabic numerals - NZQA uses Arabic numerals to number the levels NCEA Levels 1, 2 and 3, not I, II and III.
*Marking system - I summarized to the best of my knowledge the marking system of NCEA, and added this.
*Sections - Re-sectioned the article.
*Clarifications and minor corrections where appropriate. Neonumbers 09:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: I'm not trying to defend NCEA, but the criticisms list has now grown longer, and longer, and although it is true each of these has been levied against NCEA at some point, we need to be careful about the neutrality of this article.  So careful, in fact, that I think that the lists need to be evened up.
No two of the criticisms are perfect duplicates, but some could merged or even deleted if there are similar ones on the lists.  Even if consensus is against NCEA, this article by policy still needs to be neutral and should not give a bad impression of NCEA.  The criticisms list is too long and in some ways sidetracked, and it really needs to be summarised.
Also, the praises list could do with some more points.
What does everyone else think? Neonumbers 11:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that NCEA is awful. But, having just gone through the system, I would say that :D. I leave it to someone slightly less biased to balance it. Akchizar 08:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that trying to neutralize the article in this way is wrong, both for the article, and for the reader. The point of Wikipedia is knowledge - there is no point witholding knowledge from people who are likely to be affected by such a system, just so it can `look neutral. It is not. Nothing like this is ever completely neutral, there is always something tipping the scales either way. As somebody who has done NCEA (sort of), I think it is an absolute horror. In my IGCSE year (Form 5) I took Level 2 maths (Form 6). I sat one assessment, and the final exam. From that, I got about a third of the credits I needed to get actually obtain the Level 1 NCEA qualification. From about a third of one subject. And I could have done a lot better, too. In addition, because the standards are dispersed across a whole year, it is up to teachers to mark potentially half a student's work. this leads to huge discrepancies due to leniency, fairness, and interpretation issues. and the level of denial in the system, especially in the first two years of its introduction, were horrendous. I remember, in its first year, NCEA failed about 86% of students sitting a certain subject. For about a week, the educational minister then was going around saying nothing was wrong. Nonagonal Spider 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the article as a whole should side with consensus as to whether NCEA is good or bad, there is a lot of terrible information out there. For example, you note that teachers could mark half a student's work. Well, I hate to tell you, but in School Cert, my English, Maths, and Science teachers did all the marking for my school cert grade. The assessment was all dispersed, and I sat no exam in any of those subjects. And an 86% fail rate wasn't unusual in the old system either. But you'd never here about it because they'd either completely re-write the marking schedule or scale the crap out of it. Probably the biggest difference between NCEA and the old system is that people are actually looking at NCEA critically, whereas very few people very bothered to notice how useless the old system was. --Limegreen 10:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: Praises vs. Criticisms 

message: There is an inconsistency with capitalisation in this article.  The grades Achievement, Merit and Excellence are sometimes capitalised (Achievement) and sometimes not (achievement).  I would go an correct every occurrence but I don't know which to change it to.  Any views on which way to go? Neonumbers 11:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, they're generally capitalised. Akchizar 10:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: "This has been changed for the 2005 interim results notice issued to students. The standards which receive a 'not acheived' will be reported and will count toward the overall grade point average." Is this true? It seems to go against the latest NZQA results policy announcement; I would have thought that a change like this would warrant a release of some sort. Can anyone confirm this? αγδεε (ε τ c) 12:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, that's not latest.  That was last year.  The decision to count failures was this year.  It is true, they are reporting failures, but they don't count towards GPA. Neonumbers 23:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the latest release that I could find, anyway. ;) Thanks. αγδεε (ε τ c) 09:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in interim results reporting? 

message: Although there has been little in the press I understand from my children that major changes are afoot.Most Unit standards are gone as they were far too easy being largely yr3 or 4 work. So much for the level playing field! Achievement standards on the other hand have been made more difficult as they are now they at curriculum level 6, whereas previously they were curriculum level 5.So this makes them all about say 10-15% harder? Also thee is some evidence that in subjects like science and maths there is now a very large literary component because they are trying to fit the material into "real world" situations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.39.79 (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not strictly true. The changes to the standards were to realign them with the new curriculum. This has had the effect of meaning that teachers of the 2009-2013 cohort and the cohort themeselves have, to a large extent, been flying blind... particularly with internals. I've made reference to the realignment when adding paragraphs on GSM and course endorsements (other 2011 changes). However, I have not yet added any actual discussion of the realignment. In fact, it and other 2011 changes (such as new ways of gaining literacy and numeracy credits, i.e. from subjects like PE for Level One... to better reflect the fact that written communication is not limited to just English, and that other forms of written communication exist outside the domain of English) probably deserves its own section. These are, after all, the most significant changes for a number of years. If someone else wants to step in, these links may help. http://www.edgazette.govt.nz/Articles/Article.aspx?ArticleId=8439 and http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/ncea-cheating-and-exam-shunning-on-the-rise/ Note, calling internals weaker than externals ignores the fact that some internals are essentially externals or that they're looking at totally different skills that would not be suitable for an exam (such as research standards). 219.88.89.99 (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to NCEA 2011 

message: This section - which I've just re-deleted - was added in a series of edits by 122.58.190.90 in July 2012 and, apart from a cleanup of that user's characteristic typos, has seen no improvement since. It was effectively an extended rant with no references and  I've just spent some time looking for references which might add some credibility - but to no avail. Sprinkling  entries all through it will hardly help, so I've zapped it again. There is probably something worth saying about Maori school performance, but it needs to be done with some references (surely someone in government or academia looked at this?), probably in some other article, and not "under" "Unit Standard Changes" heading. Snori (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance of Maori Students 

message: Recently I've removed some section which make claims apparently unsupported by sources. See WP:42 for why this material cannot stay in wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. The content has remained there, unreferenced, for far too long. For material to remain it must be supported by a source in some manner. Adabow (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent cleanup 

message: It's a nice idea but the image is, really, far too large and, additionally, seem out of place. It would be better to select, for the example of the questions, one of the sample exams that demonstrates GSM.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.89.99 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Exam Photo 

message: Given the controversy that still surrounds NCEA, the total absence of sources (which I don't think exist as some of the facts being there are relevant to other sections of the article and aren't mentioned there) I think that this is probably some ideologically motivated vandalism. Also, I have never encountered the idea that unit standards (in approved subjects) can't count towards tertiary education. That approved subjects exist is a potential source of confusion and also something that I now realise the article is lacking. I haven't removed it myself as I am potentially personally biased in my interpretation of the edit's contents. 219.88.89.99 (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged the added material as needing citations. If suitable sources are not added within a reasonable period of time, I think it would be reasonable to remove it. If no sources are added in about a month, post here again and I'll do that if you would prefer not to do so yourself.-gadfium 09:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension of History 

message: The difference between "unit standards" and "achievement standards" and how credit is awarded to either one is not clear to readers from outside New Zealand like myself. Could you please clarify and edit the article accordingly ? 161.24.19.44 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Credit is not awarded. Credits are a theoretical unit that can be understood as quantifying a candidate's having passed a standard. They exist at different levels in such a manner that Excellence credits can count as merit credits and both of those can count as achieved credits. That is, if you passed NCEA Level One with a 154 credits, you may have done so in a manner whereby you had 84 excellence credits, 49 merit ones and 21 achieved credits. Alternatively, another pupil who sat and passed all the same standards as that one but merely reached achieved in doing so would have 154 achieved credits. I'm not sure if this bit is article relevant but I hope that the alterations I have made to the article resolve the problem.122.58.222.27 (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unit and Achievement Standards