Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)
The survey, carried out last month, was completed by teachers, across more than 200 schools.
Eighty-three percent of respondents said resources were arriving too late, and 80% were concerned about the availability and usefulness of resources.
Eighty-one percent of respondents said they were dissatisfied with the exemplars – models of assessments – and 75% were dissatisfied with the support from the Ministry of Education and New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA).
Respondents commented they were frustrated with the lack of clear guidance on assessments, resulting in work having to be repeated and confusion about what meets the standards. Many teachers commented they were feeling overwhelmed, especially in smaller schools where resources are stretched thin.
Almost 80% of respondents said they were happy with the support for the changes that they received from their own subject department in their school, and 70% were happy with the support they received from their own subject assocation.
Another new aspect of the NCEA is the literacy and numeracy co-requisites; students need to achieve these in order to attain the NCEA. The survey found that almost 80 percent of respondents were concerned about what would happen to students who could not attain these credits.
Chris Abercrombie said the survey results confirm concerns that had been voiced consistently by subject associations about the implementation of the new Level 1. “Students deserve a great introduction to NCEA and secondary teachers had very high hopes for the changes. We fully support NCEA being more accessible, providing equal status for mātauranga Māori, having fewer and larger standards, and a simpler structure.
“However the rollout has been a shambles. The lack of adequate support and resourcing at the national level is taking a huge toll. It’s making the NCEA system confusing for students and making the workloads of many teachers completely unsustainable. Subject associations are trying desperately to fill the gaps, however they are volunteers, and the resources provided by the Ministry have been inadequate.
“If the Ministry and NZQA only do one thing adequately for secondary schools, surely it should be to ensure that a comprehensive change programme for our national qualification is fully developed, resourced and implemented.”
A paper to PPTA Te Wehengarua annual conference this week calls for an urgent development of an improvement plan for the implementation of NCEA Level 1 and a thorough evaluation of the implementation to ensure that Levels 2 and 3 are rolled out effectively.
NCEA Level 1 pulse check – September 2024
Respondents
- All members of PPTA Te Wehengarua
- 87% fully implementing Level 1
- 10% partially implementing Level 1
- 3% no offering Level 1
- (a further?)1.5% not offering Level 1 in 2025
Summary of results
- More respondents generally do not feel they can confidently implement theNCEA changes for Level 1.
- More respondents are generally dissatisfied with support received
- Exemplars 81% dissatisfied
- Communication from MoE 77% generally dissatisfied
- Communication from NZQA 73% generally dissatisfied
- Clear assessment guidelines 74% dissatisfied
- Assessment activities 67% dissatisfied
- Marking schedules 66% dissatisfied
- Moderation support and feedback 63% dissatisfied
- Authentic assessment with GenAI 56% dissatisfied
- Teaching and learning notes 53% dissatisfied
- More respondents are concerned about the following in relation to their Level 1 NCEA programmes (than are comfortable)
- Increasing workload 86% concerned
- Resources arriving too late 83% concerned
- Availability of useful resources 80% concerned
- What will happen for students who don’t get lit-num? 78% concerned
- Meeting the needs of diverse learners 71% concerned
- What is happening in assessment in my subject 64% concerned
- Robustness of moderation 58% concerned
- Having literacy and numeracy co-requisites 41% concerned
- General Agreement with the following statements
- The lack of resources and late resources increase workload 93%
- Making changes to my programmes is increasing workload 88%
- The current lack of clarity about the changes is unsettling for students 87%
- The literacy and numeracy co-requisites increase workload 72%
- Common Assessment Activities (other than literacy and numeracy) will increase workload 64%
- General Disagreement with the following statements
- The changes will better meet the needs of diverse learners 62%
- Fewer achievement standards will decrease workload 58%
- Support received – generally helpful
- My department 78%
- My subject association 70%
- My own professional networks 66%
- My school 64%
- Support received – generally unhelpful
- Ministry of Education 81%
- NCEA Implementation Facilitators 47%
- NZQA 73%
Summary of comments
The implementation of the new NCEA Level 1 standards has generated significant frustration among teachers. Many feel that the standards are poorly designed, leading to a perception that students have learned less this year. The changes have increased workloads, with insufficient support from NZQA/NCEA, and the provided exemplars often do not align with assessment specifications.
Teachers are particularly concerned about the transition to digital common assessment activities, citing issues like assessment posting failures, difficulties in ensuring authenticity, and excessive time spent on plagiarism checks. There’s also frustration over the lack of clear guidance on assessments, resulting in rework and confusion about what meets the standards.
Additionally, many teachers are feeling overwhelmed, especially in small and/or schools where resources are stretched thin, and the presence of untrained staff compounds stress.
Overall, the rollout has led to a general sense of uncertainty and distrust in the system, with concerns about the adequacy of preparations for Level 2 and the impact on diverse learners. Educators are calling for clearer communication, better resources, and support to help navigate these changes effectively.
Selection of comments
- The stress over the last 18 months has pushed me (an experienced classroom practitioner of 38 years) nearly to the edge.
- lack of communication or communication received too late
- The implementation has been dreadful – poorly resourced, vague, assessment tasks that don’t reach the criteria i.e. The assessment was at Level 5 of the curriculum but it clearly states MUST be at Level 6.
- The exemplars do not reflect the diverse range of students – none that can technically be shown to students match anywhere near how my school students write/approach work.
- The workload has been unrealistic, not sustainable, and unsupported.
- Too much information comes out too late at a big school like ours.
- Massive increase in workload. Requires so much additional workload for all department personnel who teach Year 11. Timing of resource release has been a shocker.
- It has been a bloody mess
- Overall, this roll-out needed strong exemplars for ALL standards across the board, as it is frustrating for ākonga and kaiako to try to teach and learn and provide evidence when you have nothing as a basis for what is ‘correct’. The guidance provided is “give some things a try but we’ll tell you when it’s wrong” which is not the sentiment we should be expecting or desiring from the MOE and NZQA.
- I am answering this survey having just run the Sci 1.4 internal-external assessment. There were no resources to support me that were directly relevant to the standard. I had the (expired) pilot assessment, and some articles my HoD had found to help me out. I have no idea how the paper will be marked, I don’t even know what is meant by “science conventions”! I literally had to introduce the standard by telling students that I am as in the dark about this as they are because there is no way I could feign confidence. I am also extremely frustrated about the lack of a common assessment portal for students to write reports in to.
- My mental health has never been worse. Too stressed about ensuring we are doing the right thing, but no one seems to know what that is… kids stressed too.
- Our school is taking the opportunity provided to back away from offering NCEA L1 as a qualification. Rather we are offering limited standards to give students a taste for formal assessments but not enough to give them a qualification. This colours my feelings about the changes, which would be more negative if we had to fully implement them.
- I mark numeracy and have been on the pilot programme for L1 maths and Numeracy for three years prior to implementation. This whole experience has been a nightmare. Our most vulnerable learners are left out on a limb and our anxious learners are suffering.
- I am a Principal’s Nominee. I am concerned about pathways for students who don’t get Lit/Num co-req. I know they are extending the transition period another 2 years but it is a bandage not direction for this issue. The workload of CAA’s and Internal/Externals is not sustainable. The MOE and NZQA are expecting PN’s/ schools to absorb the provision of these.
- Curriculum first. Then Assessment. Level 1 should be removed all together and rename L2 and L3 as leaving qualifications
- The NIFs are FANTASTIC!!!!!! [note NIF = NCEA Implementation Facilitators]
- Managing AI has seriously added to our workloads and made teaching a subject like English very unattractive (as we struggle to ensure authenticity of student work).
