Photo: Getty Images
An Education Review Office study has found most principals believe new literacy and numeracy tests are making the NCEA more reliable but many teachers are yet to be convinced.
The review office report panned other aspects of the revised NCEA Level 1 that kicked in this year, going so far as to recommend overhauling or axing the qualification.
It said the tests should stay, even though schools struggled to organise them and pass rates were low - just 59 percent for reading, 56 percent for writing and 46 percent in numeracy.
"There is a risk that, when the co-requisite becomes compulsory, many students who leave school aged 16-17 will leave with no qualification, unless there is an uplift in teaching and learning in Years 0-10," the report said.
The report said the tests standardised the way students were assessed for NCEA literacy and numeracy requirements and schools valued that.
"The large number of standards that could previously be used to assess literacy and numeracy were varied and didn't always directly assess literacy and numeracy. Consequently, students may have achieved them but weren't necessarily prepared for tertiary education or the workplace," it said.
But the figures provided by the report were not overwhelming.
It said 38 percent of the teachers it surveyed agreed the co-requisite made Level 1 more reliable, 43 percent said it made no real change and 19 percent said it made Level 1 less reliable.
Among the school leaders surveyed for the report 51 percent agreed the co-requisite made Level 1 more reliable, 15 percent said it made no real change and 34 percent said it made Level 1 less reliable.
"The flow-on effect of the literacy and numeracy co-requisite has been working quite well. We're working through with those literacy classes for our junior years," a school leader told the report.
"The co-requisite literacy and numeracy CAAs are not inclusive. There are many other ways to measure literacy and numeracy than a one-hour high stakes exam. I love the idea of gaining a literacy and numeracy qualification but not as an exam," said another.
The report said schools and families were worried earlier teaching had not prepared students well for the co-requisite tests known as common assessment activities (CAAs).
The report said until 2027 students could attempt alternative achievement standards in order to meet the requirements, but even those were a lift in requirements.
Challenging to deliver
It said most schools found the tests challenging to deliver.
"Due to the large numbers of students sitting the co-requisite CAAs, schools find them challenging to administer. Just over three in five leaders (61 percent) report their school doesn't have the staff capacity to carry out the external assessments and just over a half of leaders (53 percent) say they don't have the physical space for external assessments."
The report said the online tests did not work well for all students and the Qualifications Authority should remind schools that paper-based versions of the tests were available.
"We heard that the co-requisite being delivered as one-off digital tests have not been accessible. They have been challenging for a range of students, including students who have low digital literacy, neurodiverse students, students who don't cope well with exam stress, and for students who had not been exposed to the language or contexts used in the exam questions," it said.
"People sometimes think that a test on computer makes it easier. But for our very bottom group, it doesn't. They haven't got computers and can't practise anything at home, even just practising typing an essay," a school leader told the report.
The report recommended funding schools for the added work of arranging the co-requisite tests and providing students' results faster so teachers could prepare students for the next round of tests.
It also recommended extending the transitional period for allowing students to meet the co-requisite standard by completing 20 approved standards beyond 2027.
"The co-requisite helps improve the quality of the NCEA qualification but risks high failure rates and students leaving school with no qualification. More time is needed for teaching and learning to be lifted in Years 1-10 and for interventions to be put in place in Years 11-13 for students who need them," the report said.
