{"id":5218,"date":"2018-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-12-11T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/blog\/cw_post\/insights-from-aotearoa-new-zealand-credentialing-learning\/"},"modified":"2020-02-05T13:07:02","modified_gmt":"2020-02-05T18:07:02","slug":"insights-from-aotearoa-new-zealand-credentialing-learning","status":"publish","type":"cw_post","link":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/cw_post\/insights-from-aotearoa-new-zealand-credentialing-learning\/","title":{"rendered":"Insights from Aotearoa New Zealand: Credentialing Learning"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
From Youth Guarantee http:\/\/youthguarantee.net.nz<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This is the eleventh article in the series <\/span><\/i>Baskets of Knowledge from Aotearoa New Zealand<\/i><\/b>, which highlights insights from a totally different education system about what is possible in transforming our education system. Read the first article <\/span><\/i>here<\/span><\/i><\/a>.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

One of the key features of a competency-based system that CompetencyWorks has identified is a transparent framework of learning. Every school making the transition takes the time to build shared understanding of either a competency framework or the state standards. This includes building understanding of what depth of knowledge the standards are set at to align instruction and assessment, as well as building a shared understanding of what proficiency looks like for the grade level being taught (in addition to the standards above and below that students might need to or are ready to tackle). <\/span><\/p>\n

However, in most cases, these transparent competency frameworks are primarily organized within a school or perhaps across a district. Only a handful of states have developed a full K-12 competency framework. And as far as I know, there is no place (yet) where higher education has been willing to construct a transparent framework that might extend from K-13 or even K-16.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, there is both inspiration and insight to be gleaned from New Zealand\u2019s nearly seamless and highly transparent framework of achievement objectives and qualifications. (See the previous article looking at <\/span>Key Competencies<\/span><\/a>.)There are essentially three overlapping structures that connect from Year 1 (our kindergarten) all the way through the tertiary system of post-secondary education and training. Below is the best I was able to understand of this framework organized around performance levels. However, I remain confident that there are plenty of nuances that I didn\u2019t catch. If anyone sees errors in my description, please let me know and I will correct. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"Curricular Levels<\/b>: There are 13 grades, from 1-13 (similar to our K-12), in New Zealand. From what I understand, students can enroll at the point they turn five (compulsory education starts at age 6) with what seems to be rolling admissions. Rather than have 13 curricular grade levels, one for each year of school as we have in the U.S. state standards, the <\/span>New Zealand Curriculum<\/span><\/a> for English-medium schools has 8 curricular levels. (There are two curriculum that make up the National Curriculum outlining the expectations for learning and teaching. <\/span>Te Marautanga o Aotearoa <\/span><\/i><\/a>is for M\u0101ori-medium schools.)<\/span><\/p>\n

For the first five years, these are essentially <\/span>overlapping multi-year bands with the assumptions that students are in different places in their learning<\/span><\/a>. In about Year 11, when students start to focus on the NCEA, the curricular levels are organized more closely around one-year bands. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The NZ Curriculum identifies academic domains. It starts with what is the domain, why it is important, the structure of the domain, and the <\/span>achievement objectives<\/span><\/a> for each curricular level. These are higher granularity than the American state standards. In fact, several educators in primary schools said that even though the testing and the labeling of students was in conflict with the principles and values outlined in the NZ Curriculum, it was helpful to build greater capacity around the more precise skills and knowledge students needed to develop in order to successfully master the achievement objectives.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

NCEA Levels<\/b>: The <\/span>National Certificate of Educational Achievement<\/span><\/a> levels indicate three different performance levels that students earn during their secondary years. I\u2019ll be writing more about NCEA tomorrow, but for now you just need to understand that students earn credits by demonstrating that they are at a minimum proficiency in an achievement objective. If they earn enough of the right mix of credits, they are awarded the certificate for either Level 1, 2, or 3. Students must achieve NCEA Level 3 and the University Entrance requirements for particular programs in order to apply for admission. For example, students seeking to pursue a college degree in engineering must take external assessments to demonstrate mastery in order to apply for admission to university. Thus, you can often see remains of a more traditional system within schools serving higher income students who seek to go to top-tier universities. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Although most secondary schools have organized themselves so that students focus on earning Level 1 in Year 11, Level 2 in Year 12, and Level 3 in Year 13, there is nothing inherent in the NCEA policies, managed by the <\/span>New Zealand Qualifications Authority<\/span><\/a> (NZQA), that requires it to be sequentially structured. Students can earn Level 2 without earning Level 1, Level 3 without Level 2. A few high schools are venturing down the path of focusing on helping students to focus on \u201cquality credits\u201d that lead directing to Level 2. <\/span><\/p>\n

For Americans, it isn\u2019t easy to grasp that the NCEA levels are not the same as a diploma. Although we grant a diploma to every student who completes high schools (and, in some states, passes a graduation exam), it doesn\u2019t mean that every student knows the same thing. We value the equality of everyone getting a diploma even though it is relatively meaningless in terms of what a student is prepared for or the opportunities it opens upon graduation. <\/span>New Zealand has constructed a system in which the secondary school certificate is part of the adult or tertiary system<\/b>. A bus driver enthused about NCEA because the levels were part of the tertiary system of higher education and training providers. \u201cI got to Level 1. It\u2019s great, I can continue on to Level 2 whenever I want.\u201d The NCEA has been constructed to intersect with university as well as vocational pathways.<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

New Zealand certainly wants to increase the number of people receiving a certificate of achievement and the number of students receiving Level 2 and 3. It also cares deeply about improving educational attainment for M\u0101ori and Pasifika students. Although there is a strong concern about equity, there also appears to be a general comfort among educators with the idea that students enter with different knowledge and skills and that they will therefore leave school with different levels of achievement. I only met two educators who were thinking about how they could accelerate learning or structure more time for learning so that students who enter at lower curricular levels could still compete for Level 2 and 3. Most secondary educators looked entirely surprised at the idea of adding an additional year for students who had entered at lower curricular levels but aspired to reaching Level 2 or 3 certificates of achievement. <\/span><\/p>\n

Comparison of the Three Performance Levels: Curricular, NCEA, NZQA<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"
\n(adapted from the report Comparison of Senior Secondary School Qualifications<\/a>)<\/p>\n

NZQA Qualifications Framework<\/b>: New Zealand established the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to manage credentialing of learning and skills in the tertiary (post-secondary education and training) system. The <\/span>New Zealand Qualifications Framework<\/span><\/a> is organized around six levels of certificates and diplomas.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The NZQA plays several critical roles, of which I will highlight two. First, NZQA manages the National Certificate of Educational Achievement described above. It offers resources about the <\/span>assessment specifications for each of the three levels<\/span><\/a> for each subject as well as r<\/span>esources regarding both external and internal assessments<\/span><\/a>. It plays a critical role in <\/span>managing the external assessment<\/b> examinations (except for the IB and Cambridge exams) and <\/span>moderating the internal assessments<\/b>. It was not always so. In the early implementation of the NCEA, a mid-course correction was required to build a much stronger moderation mechanism in response to high variability in credentialing credits. This moderating capacity contributes to the \u2018competency-based\u2019 characteristics the NZ education system as there is a high degree of reliability across schools of what it means for secondary students to earn Level 1, 2, or 3. <\/span><\/p>\n

The other critical functions that NZQA plays is to approve tertiary programs that result in certificates and diplomas and to ensure consistency of expectations within the six levels to ensure that students will build the skills, knowledge, and attributes upon completion of the qualification. Thus, they play a critical role by stewarding a policy structure across the intersection of employers, workforce development, tertiary providers, and secondary schools. Interestingly, even without Andrew Carnegie shaping their culture and education system, the qualification system is still based on a <\/span>credit system that draws on a learning hours<\/span><\/a> based on:<\/span><\/p>\n