Sadly, one of the fundamental issues with the NCEA is the fact that its structural blueprint derives from the National Qualifications Framework which ushered in an era of atomised learning and assessment via box-ticking which, among other things, was hugely detrimental to our once-proud apprenticeship system (as well as upper secondary schooling. A big thank you to Cedric Hall for leading in the 1990s the critique of unit standards and convincing the National Government to establish a different qualifications register for universities.
The paradox of public education is it seeks to provide a 'one size fits all' program on individuals who often have nothing in common other than finding themselves in the same age cohort. IEP's are most often employed in 'special needs' classes when in reality every student deserves to be provided with one. I hated the introduction of NCEA's unit and achievement standards since both platforms required students perform to a proscribed set of proficiencies that dictated both the question and the outcome. As a national marker for three years I was expected to reward those students who demonstrated an ability to produce answers that confirmed what I was looking for, never to reward or take notice of ability or insights extraneous to this objective. The collective result of this was homogeneity, blandness, mediocrity, and conformity. Hardly the ingredients for academic excellence that should be seeking innovation, individuality, plurality and uniqueness of outcomes. As an educator in the visual arts, it became a recipe in the production of 'wallpaper' art, typified during the time I marked by the cheif visual arts assessor having been a social studies teacher!
In my last years as a classroom teacher my priority was to encourage ownership of the learning process by the student. A student who controlled the nature of their inquiry and dictated the form its outcome became self motivated and driven in a way that did not require me to be the organ grinder.
I think my students were better able to understand and demonstrate critical thinking as a result because they were setting the parameters of the task and making necessary judgements regarding progress at all times.
As a result their outcomes became reward enough, even though the departments results continued to compare favourably with national achievements
Sadly, one of the fundamental issues with the NCEA is the fact that its structural blueprint derives from the National Qualifications Framework which ushered in an era of atomised learning and assessment via box-ticking which, among other things, was hugely detrimental to our once-proud apprenticeship system (as well as upper secondary schooling. A big thank you to Cedric Hall for leading in the 1990s the critique of unit standards and convincing the National Government to establish a different qualifications register for universities.
The paradox of public education is it seeks to provide a 'one size fits all' program on individuals who often have nothing in common other than finding themselves in the same age cohort. IEP's are most often employed in 'special needs' classes when in reality every student deserves to be provided with one. I hated the introduction of NCEA's unit and achievement standards since both platforms required students perform to a proscribed set of proficiencies that dictated both the question and the outcome. As a national marker for three years I was expected to reward those students who demonstrated an ability to produce answers that confirmed what I was looking for, never to reward or take notice of ability or insights extraneous to this objective. The collective result of this was homogeneity, blandness, mediocrity, and conformity. Hardly the ingredients for academic excellence that should be seeking innovation, individuality, plurality and uniqueness of outcomes. As an educator in the visual arts, it became a recipe in the production of 'wallpaper' art, typified during the time I marked by the cheif visual arts assessor having been a social studies teacher!
In my last years as a classroom teacher my priority was to encourage ownership of the learning process by the student. A student who controlled the nature of their inquiry and dictated the form its outcome became self motivated and driven in a way that did not require me to be the organ grinder.
I think my students were better able to understand and demonstrate critical thinking as a result because they were setting the parameters of the task and making necessary judgements regarding progress at all times.
As a result their outcomes became reward enough, even though the departments results continued to compare favourably with national achievements