NCEA Review -biggest change to the NZ education system for over 20 years

Forums › Off topic › NCEA Review -biggest change to the NZ education system for over 20 years

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#284318 13-Apr-2021 15:47

Hi all

I don't know how many of you are aware but NCEA is currently going through a review and is open to public consultation. If you have children year 9 and below it will affect your children's education. The changes proposed are as big as the changes as when we went from school cert, 6th form certificate and bursary to NCEA.

NZQA/MOE have opened the proposed standards and subject areas to the public to seek feedback. I would suggest that anyone that have children read through the proposed standards and make a submission.

https://ncea.education.govt.nz/

Some of the proposed changes

Reduce the number of science subjects from 6 to 4 by

Combining biology and chemistry
Combining physics and earth space science

Reducing the number of business standards to one by combining Accounting, Business, and Economics

Removing Latin

Here is an example of the new Bio/chem standards

https://ncea.education.govt.nz/science/chemistry_and_biology/assessment

and the new physics/space science

https://ncea.education.govt.nz/science/physics_earth_and_space_science/assessment

and the new Commerce standards

https://ncea.education.govt.nz/social_sciences/commerce/assessment

These new standards are meant to be brought in in 2023, while the level 2 standards (not yet developed) are meant to be released in 2024 and the level 3 standards in 2025.

The submission close date is on the 19th of April having been open for less than a month.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 294

ID Verified

Trusted

#2692204 13-Apr-2021 18:18

I'm concerned that they would try combine some of the fundamental hard sciences. At first look this would appear to make NZ even less appealing for the core science topics and research. There are already few enough opportunities in the science/research sector. They even state they want to help credibility of our education, this seems to be the opposite.

If we are combining these, why not combine the various art topics into one single stream as well, who cares if it's visual arts and dance? Maybe the same for all the music?

k1w1k1d

1711 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1305

#2692226 13-Apr-2021 19:18

Not sure combining chemistry and biology is practical, or a good idea. They were totally different subjects when I did them years ago. Will need to drop half of each subject if they are combined into one.

Also looks like it has a very heavy Maori feel to it?

Full of Maori terms rather than English, eg students are now called Ᾱkonga.

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#2692241 13-Apr-2021 19:44

Submissions close on Monday. If you agree or disagree with the direction this is going then make a submission.

Last year we were going to have a single science subject with no science content standards (only nature of science standards), due to wide spread condemnation this was changed.

Even if you aren't a teacher you can make a submission as a parent or even as a potential employer of students 3-5 years down the track.

https://consultation.education.govt.nz/ncea/public-engagement-survey-phase-1-english/

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

Flickky

303 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Trusted

#2692244 13-Apr-2021 19:52

mrdrifter: I'm concerned that they would try combine some of the fundamental hard sciences. At first look this would appear to make NZ even less appealing for the core science topics and research. There are already few enough opportunities in the science/research sector. They even state they want to help credibility of our education, this seems to be the opposite.

If we are combining these, why not combine the various art topics into one single stream as well, who cares if it's visual arts and dance? Maybe the same for all the music?

It's been well over a decade since I was last in high school, let alone level 1, but I recall doing year 11 science as a collective subject already. Year 12 and 13 was when it split out in to specialisations as you had fewer compulsory subjects.

chevrolux

4962 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2638
Inactive user

#2692248 13-Apr-2021 20:03

I like the idea of a general "commerce" at level 1 (just like general science), but then retain counting and economics at 2 and 3. For me, I remember level 3 economics and accounting being a big step up.

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#2692251 13-Apr-2021 20:13

Flickky:

mrdrifter: I'm concerned that they would try combine some of the fundamental hard sciences. At first look this would appear to make NZ even less appealing for the core science topics and research. There are already few enough opportunities in the science/research sector. They even state they want to help credibility of our education, this seems to be the opposite.

If we are combining these, why not combine the various art topics into one single stream as well, who cares if it's visual arts and dance? Maybe the same for all the music?

It's been well over a decade since I was last in high school, let alone level 1, but I recall doing year 11 science as a collective subject already. Year 12 and 13 was when it split out in to specialisations as you had fewer compulsory subjects.

This is where a lot of the confusion around science has come about.

You may have taken a science "course", but that science course will have borrowed standards from bio, chem, physics, science and ag/hort, from a pool of over 30 standards. Your school will have selected standards to create a course that would give you a broad range of science standards to give you a foundation into your level 2s. They might have selected standards to produce a human bio course or course designed for those that struggle with science.

What is proposed is reducing those 30+ standards down to 16 standards 2 bio, 2 chem, 2 physics, 2 earth space, 4 nature of science (science communication) and 4 ag/hort standards. There are more Dance or Korean standards than there are Physics or Chemistry standards.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2692252 13-Apr-2021 20:15

dumb and dumber comes to mind.

anyway, more time for xbox and netflix i guess

yitz

2238 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 594

#2692262 13-Apr-2021 20:28

Rather than be able to be assessed on a subject's content knowledge alone it seems as if they are trying to shoehorn assessment through a woke lens.

Handle9

11922 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9674

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2692328 13-Apr-2021 21:01

yitz:

Rather than be able to be assessed on a subject's content knowledge alone it seems as if they are trying to shoehorn assessment through a woke lens.

Have you read the assessment criteria or are you just making a gross assumption?

Handle9

11922 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9674

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2692332 13-Apr-2021 21:08

blackjack17:

This is where a lot of the confusion around science has come about.

You may have taken a science "course", but that science course will have borrowed standards from bio, chem, physics, science and ag/hort, from a pool of over 30 standards. Your school will have selected standards to create a course that would give you a broad range of science standards to give you a foundation into your level 2s. They might have selected standards to produce a human bio course or course designed for those that struggle with science.

What is proposed is reducing those 30+ standards down to 16 standards 2 bio, 2 chem, 2 physics, 2 earth space, 4 nature of science (science communication) and 4 ag/hort standards. There are more Dance or Korean standards than there are Physics or Chemistry standards.

It's probably appropriate that the number science standards are reduced given that the first principles that are used are relatively well defined and you can't really progress in the subject without them.

Physics and chemistry in particular require quite a well defined structure otherwise the whole thing is a deck of cards.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2692343 13-Apr-2021 21:31

No skin in this game, but they do all look remarkably vague.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 910

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2692415 14-Apr-2021 07:49

Handle9:

yitz:

Rather than be able to be assessed on a subject's content knowledge alone it seems as if they are trying to shoehorn assessment through a woke lens.

Have you read the assessment criteria or are you just making a gross assumption?

when I read "Explore matauranga Maori and Western science understandings of environmental guardianship using knowledge of chemical reactions" yeah I'm thinking woke.

in fact I would go as far as to say this is not science, this is something else entirely

Matthew

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2692418 14-Apr-2021 08:11

I'm not sure I agree with lumping entry level accounting with economics, and then with 'business' (whatever that entails at L1) all into one paper. I can't see how you can cram the fundamentals for understanding three different disciplines into one single paper - especially during Level 1, which is a pretty full-on formative year for many people.

I feel like either the quality of the business lessons or other important stuff like Mathematics/English is going to be collateral damage with this approach.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2692421 14-Apr-2021 08:28

mdooher:

when I read "Explore matauranga Maori and Western science understandings of environmental guardianship using knowledge of chemical reactions" yeah I'm thinking woke.

in fact I would go as far as to say this is not science, this is something else entirely

Maybe if you'd clicked the link instead of being triggered by the headline?

Ᾱkonga will develop a knowledge of patterns in chemical reactions, such as acid-base, combustion, and precipitation reactions. This will include investigating conservation of mass. They will explore chemicals found in their environment and identify positive and negative impacts that chemicals can have, linked to quantities and location. Quantities can refer to, for example, concentration, pH, or dosage.

Seems OK. Chemistry (the way they used to teach it) bored the bejesus out of me at school - I only found it interesting after leaving school. Most people/kids learn concepts and theory better in context of something "real".

Anyway this is all "only" Level 1 NCEA. The major problem teaching at that level probably dealing with kids who eat crayons and attempting to gently undo acquired "knowledge" about 5G, those whacky spherical earthers, unintelligent design theory, and diverting interest for those seeking 101 ways to set up a meth lab in mum's washhouse.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 910

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2692430 14-Apr-2021 08:47

Fred99:

Maybe if you'd clicked the link instead of being triggered by the headline?

Ᾱkonga will develop a knowledge of patterns in chemical reactions, such as acid-base, combustion, and precipitation reactions. This will include investigating conservation of mass. They will explore chemicals found in their environment and identify positive and negative impacts that chemicals can have, linked to quantities and location. Quantities can refer to, for example, concentration, pH, or dosage.

Seems OK. Chemistry (the way they used to teach it) bored the bejesus out of me at school - I only found it interesting after leaving school. Most people/kids learn concepts and theory better in context of something "real".

Anyway this is all "only" Level 1 NCEA. The major problem teaching at that level probably dealing with kids who eat crayons and attempting to gently undo acquired "knowledge" about 5G, those whacky spherical earthers, unintelligent design theory, and diverting interest for those seeking 101 ways to set up a meth lab in mum's washhouse.

Purpose

Students will explore chemicals and their reactions in the context of Papatūānuku, the environment and whenua. Remaining content to be developed.

This is the purpose statement. All the content will be developed around this statement If it doesn't relate to this purpose then it will fail moderation.

Why give Chemistry a context like that? The purpose should be to give students a grounding in the scientific method and sufficient knowledge of chemistry to move on to higher levels.

Matthew

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5