Address to the National Secondary School Qualifications Conference, 2006, Massey University College of Education

By Karen Poutasi - Chief Executive, New Zealand Qualifications Authority

4 July 2006

This has been a really stimulating symposium - the theme "Assessment Supporting Learning" has brought out many of the strategic issues that are critical to our journey forwards.

Colleen Douglas's opening words were "this conference is about kids" - and I noted the conference's frond logo symbolising the support assessment provides for learning and that there are many different pathways to growth and development. Kids are our focus, and I heard that consistently throughout the conference - my congratulations on that commitment.

Phil O'Reilly, from Business New Zealand, got us off to a great start by reminding us that standing still is not an option; that New Zealand needs fluid nimble employees; that cross cultural competencies are important to exporting; that university is not the only option; and that we need to move forward in a spirit of partnership. 'Education for What?' was one of his themes.

Our next keynote addresses were delivered by Rose Hipkins and Kay Hawk. Rose took us into our research theme and reminded us of entrenched history and the persistence of bell curve thinking. She referred to the lingering pejorative between unit and achievement standards.

Rose also pushed us to recognise that learning for the future should be at the forefront - that today's success is tomorrow's motivation.

Kay took us back over the implementation years of NCEA and gave us the quote "amazing start for a complex system". She reviewed the start-up issues and then what has changed looking back from 2006. A lot has, but there is still a way to go. 'Achieved with Merit' is the assessment and we still need to get to 'excellence'. We need to work more on parental understanding and encourage the full use of the NQF, among other challenges.

The Minister challenged us to deliver "a flexible system that embraces the needs of learners." It is not about filtering people out; it is about tailoring learning to learners. He felt we should have confidence that we are on the right path - I heard that from many others as well - but we need to address some outstanding issues.

Luanna Meyer and Judie Alison provided the next two keynote addresses. Luanna described the research released by the Ministry of Education today entitled "Student Motivation and Student Learning" which covers 6000 students and 20 schools and gives us both quantitative and qualitative information. This again reinforces the importance of research and evidence. Some of the issues related back to Rose's presentation yesterday, and important questions were raised.

Judie took us well back in history - into the 1970s and traced events from there. She mentioned that policy makers may have been looking through a wide lens and teachers through a narrow lens - in any event, what is needed is comprehensive engagement and I think that is epitomised by the length and breadth of this conference.

If I might comment briefly on the workshops and discussion groups - they have been a very good opportunity to learn and to network and share, and certainly very useful to me as a new CEO. There is much in this 2006 conference for all of us to think about, and to take home with us.

Finally I would like to make some general comments. I have been in this sector for just a very short time. As I have said to some of you, I have permission to ask the naive questions. But there are some very general themes that I have already picked up, and that have been explored over the past 2 days.

Firstly, in relation to secondary assessment, we are now in an evolutionary, as opposed to revolutionary, phase. We spent three years introducing NCEA. We brought in a new form of New Zealand Scholarship, struck difficulties and, second time round, found a formula that works. Now our focus is on refinements - smoothing off the rough edges, addressing the outstanding issues. Most importantly, knowledge of how the new system works in practice is growing all the time, and this makes our task easier.

For any new assessment system a key question is how will people behave in response - what unintended consequences and unexpected incentives has the new system created?

As we make refinements we can now more confidently predict the results. If the devil is in the detail, we are now getting the detail sorted. For that reason our confidence is growing. The public too can now have more confidence that a durable assessment system in the secondary sector is settling in and stabilising.

So too it must be with the Qualifications Authority. To quote the Education Review, which was quoting me, what I want is to see is the authority put back in the Authority. As you know, we are making a series of structural and cultural changes that we think will help us significantly lift our game. This is not being done for its own sake. For the assessment system in secondary schools to be effective, it needs a broad level of sector and public support. For the most part, this comes from the public's experience of what schools are doing in their communities and you are doing some brilliant things. But also, the public expects that there is an assessment administrator and quality assuror that sits in the background as a "blue chip" guarantor of assessment, a bit like a bank standing behind a currency. In education that's NZQA as it has to be.

Looking more broadly, as has this conference, we are reminded that assessment is a means and not an end in itself. Most assuredly, we must not countenance assessment systems that, as an unintended consequence, constrain or conflict with education in the proper sense - that is the enhancement of human capacity, that out keynote speakers have talked of.

At the conference, the Ministry of Education and the Qualifications Authority together released research papers looking at how secondary students perceive the way they are assessed at school. The research shows a mixed bag.

The ideal is that our assessment system helps positive change in the classrooms; that the students and their teachers respond to what they see as a constructive challenge. But if students or teachers are incentivised to constrain curiosity and lateral thinking because these things aren't being assessed - then, to put it very mildly, that's not right. In terms of the issues we need to look at, the question of student motivation needs careful thought.

As Phil O'Reilly canvassed with us, the global economy nowadays rewards innovation, creativity, lateral thinking, even playfulness.. It does not reward habitual behaviour and dull compliance. If students make pragmatic decisions about "just giving the system what it wants", then we have a problem. So we need to listen to what the young, through these studies, are saying.

We likewise need to address the sense of injustice that sometimes emerges about consistency between standards. The MoE and Qualifications Authority have a consistency review in progress. Anxiety about inter year variability also needs to be looked at. As always, some will arise from real issues that must be addressed and some from perceptual issues.

I am advised that in 2005 we had one standard - a Level 3 technology standard "Explain knowledge that underpins a biotechnology outcome" - in which there was only one candidate, who sadly didn't achieve. So, depending on what happened the year before, for that standard we could have inter-year variability of 100 per cent or nil. Of course, if the unsuccessful candidate was a boy then we could panic and say this 100 per cent failure rate is further evidence of the system failing boys. I mention this only to cover the risk of misusing data, as perceptions do matter.

Another issue raised by the research is that the way we present the results of student's efforts doesn't meet some needs. The information-rich Records of Learning, which list every standard achieved, do indeed provide teachers and other education professionals with wonderful data about each student's achievements. However, for an employer, especially a small to medium size employer, they are not ideal. For an employer who wants a broad overview of a job seeker's capacity, something simpler is required and we are working on meeting that need as well.

Let me end by thanking all participants in this conference and its organisers. For me, as a new comer, it has been extremely rewarding. And in talking with many of you I know I am not alone. Colleen mentioned she saw NCEA as a teenager. Kay gives us an 'achieved with merit'. So I need all your assistance, as my extended education family, to develop an NCEA that is a mature adult, has Achieved with Excellence, and is blue chip!

Mixed metaphors - but valid none the less. I look forward to working with you. Thank you.