How Might We Lead Towards a Qualification That Is Driven By Core Beliefs In Our Own School?

Last week I got an email from David Hood and he spoke about the launch of his book From Rhetoric to Reality, and about the work we had done together and the people we had worked with. I attended the book launch in May 2015 and on my return home published the following post:

Principal Possum, May 2015

I almost didn't go to the launch of David Hood's book, The Rhetoric and The Reality: New Zealand schools and schooling in the 21st century, last Wednesday night. It would mean a late afternoon drive to Hamilton to attend the function and then not getting home until 11.00pmish. I'd been feeling a bit flat all week and quite fatigued and nearly talked myself out of it.

I am so pleased I made the effort (and even managed to fit in a roadside-in-Huntly radio interview on the way down. This was supposed to be on an academic's claim that pen and paper should be banned from school but the article was in fact on the need for schools to align, quickly, with the needs of learners and their lives).

For 4-5 years I had been part of a network of principals, Coalition of 21st Century Schools, facilitated expertly by David Hood. It was here that I was introduced to the concept of the Paradigm of One and the much needed Paradigm of Many. It was here, under David's mentorship, that I explored what schooling might look like if we put students at the centre and met their needs and then developed the confidence to put some different things in place.

He exposed us to hard copy readings back then that now flow daily across my consciousness through Twitter. He took us on a study tour to Australia to explore Rich Tasks. It was powerful stuff (the power of which I did not appreciate at the time).

His gentle support (though I always sensed a level of impatience within him - after all he wrote his first book Our Secondary Schools Don't Work Anymore 17 years ago) encouraged me to introduce 3 Day Wananga, 100 Minute Learning Periods, small group Learning Advisories and High Impact Projects at Opotiki College in 2011/2012.

Since that time I have been at HPSS attempting to lead a school that allows a secondary school to work for our students by being relevant for them. The hope has also been that we may influence work in other schools. The Paradigm of One and The Paradigm of Many has become part of my mantra and I had forgotten that it had emerged from the work with David.

The launch was appropriately at Tai Wananga, a school in Ruakura, Hamilton, that David had assisted in establishing. This is a school that not only allows Maori to achieve as Maori but also puts in place a model of secondary schooling that we at HPSS also aspire to.

In David's brief address to the gathering he spoke of the need for schools to place the needs, passions, lives and futures of their students at the centre of curriculum design, pedagogy and decision-making. It was a true tears in my eyes moment and reminded me of the influence he has had.

I was invited to stay and share a meal with him before heading home. Arrival at home was looking further away but I jumped at the opportunity. Over dinner we committed to maintaining our connection with David already booking in to visit us with me committing to taking staff to visit Tai Wananga. It was over dinner that his frustration and impatience with the rate of change in thinking about and practice in secondary schools was occurring.

It was a late arrival home but that short time with David had been invaluable.

In his latest email there still existed a frustration with what had happened with NCEA, the missed opportunity with the Bali Haque led review of Tomorrow's Schools and some wonderings about where the new Government's policies would take us.

Last week I posted my thoughts and suggestions on NCEA Level 1 and I'm sure it was the exchange of communication with David that brought those thoughts to the surface.

Yesterday (Friday 1 March) it was pleasing to see a Letter to the Editor in the NZHerald from David Hood, which I have included below:

History of exams

The main problems with NCEA are firstly the decision to create three qualifications in the last three years of secondary school, the only country in the world to do so.

That is a tremendous load on students and teachers. This is why many schools are abandoning NCEA Level 1, but also because Level 1 has no value in the marketplace. Level 2 is now the base qualification for entry to employment or further education.

Secondly, was the decision to require the achievement of an arbitrary number of credits to be awarded for any one of the three qualifications. This inevitably led to debates on the relative value of different subjects, especially between “academic” and “vocational”.

Neither of these were recommended by the NZQA board back in 1992. NCEA was intended to be one qualification awarded when students graduated from school, and would record all credits achieved at whatever point in time in their schooling.

These recommendations were strongly opposed by a lobby group of mainly “prestigious” state and private boys’ schools. The result is a system now being criticised by James Bentley of St Peter’s College (NZ Herald, Feb 27).

David Hood, NZQA CEO 1990-97.

Imagine if that vision for qualifications described in his second to last paragraph had come to fruition!

I'm keen to keep imagining it as a possibility.

We can go close to this in our own schools under the current and new system simply by:

• dropping NCEA Level 1 (and not replacing it with anything else!)
• moving the focus to students spending their 2 or 3 years in the senior school achieving their quality qualification by the time they graduate. This requires:
• a rejection of the focus on calendar year qualifications and shift to a focus on the qualification at graduation. This will take some courage as such a process is not represented well in league tables
• a change in the mindset of teachers in the senior school to that similar to those in the junior school which has them focusing on deep, engaging learning programmes rather on the assessment event
• reporting in the senior school to be on progress through the Curriculum Levels and to not include Achievement Standard results (these are already accessible in real time on schools' LMS's)

All of these are simple to bring about, but they do need to align with your own and your school's core beliefs about teaching, learning, engagement and qualifications.

Here I go again - NCEA Level 1!

For the first time in twenty years I didn't spend the summer break with some concerns about the upcoming school year nagging away at me like a rock under my towel on the beach. 

Every prior summer would have me worried about things like staffing, resourcing, property and also my own sense of my own capability and capacity. Retirement from principalship has brought some advantages (though I still miss the impending excitement for a fresh year with students and staff!).

I still got riled up about the seasonal issues that rise to the surface such as the cost of school uniform (who needs it?), the growing anxiety that some students would be experiencing as they grappled with the institutional demands of their school (uniform, jewelry, hair styles, fear of not fitting in, lack of connection) - obviously not all students, but apparently an increasing number.

Last week I came across this post on LinkedIn:

I got the dreaded question very early in my course this year - “When do we start NCEA?” Oh dear. How did we get to this point?

We have our young people so focused on outcomes we are in danger of losing the importance of learning for the sake of it. This has been recognised in the NCEA review of course. However, I am unsure whether that will change anything without teachers thinking a little differently.

To be clear, I was a big supporter of NCEA when it was introduced. I supported standards based assessment and influenced by David Hood’s excellent “Our Secondary Schools don’t work anymore”, was fired up for a major change to our education system for the good. There has been some. The increased flexibility and customisation of NCEA has enabled some innovation in both assessment and curriculum. The shift to internal assessment has created a far more equitable environment. 

However, NCEA seems to have become the curriculum. Topics are presented as standards. Teachers when meeting their students for the first time, show the NCEA standards. I generalise of course. It isn’t all like that. And once again, this is something the NCEA review is supposed to solve. We shall see.

I can think back to teaching Bursary, which for History was 40% internally assessed so it wasn’t all on the exam. The exam still dominated. However, at least none of my students rocked up asking when we start Bursary. It wasn’t like that.

NCEA is a system of assessment (and accreditation). It is there to assess student understanding. Not to drive learning. Not to become the sole focus. It isn’t that difficult to shunt into the background. It really isn’t. However, I rarely see that. It is ever present.

My question to teachers and schools is, do you feel the NCEA change will solve this?

 Anyone who's ever read or listened to me about this topic know my view, a view that we brought to life at Hobsonville Point Secondary School and brought about deep learning, quality qualifications and meaningful pathways for all:

• NCEA Level 1 is a qualification with no currency
• It is not needed for any job, further training or pathway
• It is not needed prior to achieving Level 2 or Level 3
• NCEA Level 1 is damaging to learning
• It moves the focus from learning to being assessed
• It creates the credit counting amongst students we are frustrated with
• It creates the culture of asking how many credits something is worth before a student commits to any effort
• It creates stress that impacts learning and engagement because of the continual focus on high-stakes assessment
• NCEA Level 1 is damaging to teaching
• It creates a culture of 'teaching to the test'
• It creates massive teacher workload with it's incessant moderation
• NCEA Level 1 takes time away from learning and teaching
• Mock exams eating into learning time
• Marking eating into teaching time

I posted my response to the Linkedin post as follows:

It doesn't matter whether it's the old or new NCEA it's the school/ teacher mindset that needs to change. We don't introduce learning episodes to students below NCEA by showing them the assessment, we should definitely describe the learning outcomes and then get on with the learning. We need a similar approach in qualification years. Clarify and share the learning outcomes, do the learning, and then collect evidence against the Learning Objectives. 

A couple of simple things I would do are:

1. Don't offer & assess L1 in Year 11. This only creates the culture of learning for credits a year too early for a qualification not 1 student needs. (see in post above). If your school is not open to this then:

2. Stop using formal reports to parents to report NCEA achievement. They can see the results in the LMS! This only reinforces that the most important outcome is the Achievement Standard when it should in fact be the learning. Report achievement against the Learning Objectives, preferably in relation to the NZC levels (as we do at every other year level).

3. Do not include a list of Achievement Standards on any course outline students get at the start of the course. Concentrate on what they will learn about and master in your course. You could include a generic statement that says students will be prepared to be successful in sufficient ASs to enable them to achieve their Qualification.

 I feel very strongly about the negative impact NCEA Level 1 has on most learners (despite most of them achieving it) and on most teachers (who end up being the most reluctant to look at removing it - until they actually experience it!). I also know I spend a lot of time pushing it uphill when it comes to this issue.

Anyway, if you want to explore how your school could explore this just reach out. It's simpler than you think.

How Might We Lead With a Set of Common Beliefs (about learning!)

 

While exploring the Education Leadership group on Linkedin I came across this:

•  "A competent curriculum leader is able to clearly articulate their philosophy on 'how students learn best.' They and their team need to lead with a common belief."

This jumped out at me as I've been spending some time delving into what seems to be the most important factors/principles that determine whether a school is effective or efficient (see previous post). What I have discovered to be one of the most important principles is no surprise as it has driven my work as an educational leader and has been the area where I have been focusing most of my work with schools and organisations with my consultancy HMWLead.

The number one principle seems to be that effective schools have clearly articulated and shared beliefs about learning that are lived in every classroom (Modern Learners). The simple bit might be determining what the shared beliefs about learning should be. Often, the harder bit is ensuring that they are lived in every classroom. The Education Leadership quote above, in my view, is pointing the way towards this happens - it is, in fact, by everyone leading with these common beliefs. If this happens then the practices to ensure it is happening in every classroom will emerge.

The quote also points to the fact that it is important that the core beliefs that drive a school should be about learning and about how people learn. It is all very well to have a set of core beliefs and values that are largely behavioural (eg respect, honesty, integrity etc) but learning beliefs and values should be front and centre in a school.

Determining what these shared beliefs about learning are should start with answering the question:

• "How do children and adults learn most powerfully and deeply in their lives?" (Modern Learners).

The investigation I am carrying out certainly supports the assertion made by Will Richardson and Bruce Dixon from Modern Learners that without a collaboratively created/developed belief system about what makes learning powerful that is lived each day through classroom norms for learning and a common language, schools cannot develop each child to their potential as a learner.

If we accept that being a self-directed and self-determined learner is the most important skill to develop within our learners then it is vital that we take the time to discuss how we can create the conditions in our schools for these skills to develop. And when we have settled on the principles/beliefs that we believe create these conditions we have to make sure that they are visible everywhere in our school, in the language we use and the classroom practices we adopt.

Based on what we see in the research about what makes for powerful learning for today's students what are examples of some elements that could be the core of our beliefs about learning? Here are a few:

• Know your students (Education Leadership, Bishop)
• Learners at the centre (OECD, Innovation Unit)
• Student agency (Education Leadership, Wenmouth)
• Connect learning horizontally and to the real world (Innovation Unit, OECD)
• Inquiry based approaches (OECD, Innovation Unit)
• Experiential learning (Centre for Strategic Education, Innovation Unit)
• Promote collaboration and interaction (Fullan, Education Leadership, OECD)
• Measure what matters/A4L (Innovation Unit, OECD)
• Stretch and support all learners (OECD, Education Leadership)

This is by no means an exhaustive list and cleverer people than I will be able to add to it. It is a good starting point for discussion as groups of teachers interrogate their beliefs and the beliefs of others about what makes for deep learning.

The key, of course, is then to discuss and agree what impacts these beliefs would have on our teaching practice. For example:

• truly knowing my students and how they best learn will mean I'd have to adopt a relationship based approach to my pedagogy and implement culturally sustaining practices
• knowing my students would mean I'd be aware of their needs, interests and passions and would incorporate them into my learning design, and my belief in student agency would have me co-constructing learning and assessment programmes with individual learners
• belief in connected learning (across subjects and with the real world), inquiry-based approaches and experiential learning would have me exploring a relevant project-based learning model
• promoting collaboration and interaction would mean incorporating appropriately organised and structured co-operative group work throughout my learning design
• a belief that we should measure what matters will require me to search for ways to track how well my learners are collaborating, showing self-determination, being resilient in their learning etc. I will also need to ensure that all learners know what is expected of them and why that is expected
• if I'm wishing to stretch and support all learners I will need to be designing learning according to the principles of Universal Design for Learning

In the end, it doesn't matter too much what the core beliefs about learning are (though I'll cover that in another post). What matters is that the core beliefs about learning are known, understood, shared and drive the learning in all classrooms.

I wonder if all schools can say they have a set of clearly articulated and shared beliefs about learning. If they do, I wonder if they know that they are truly lived in every classroom. I also wonder if all leaders lead with those common beliefs. I know that I couldn't have answered 'yes' to those questions throughout much of my leadership.

Once again, this looks like demanding work, but it also looks like rewarding and exciting work.

Time to Question Calendar Year Qualifications - relieve stress and workload and deepen learning

Last year I published a post entitled How to Manage NCEA in a Covid Affected 2020. At that time (April 2020) there was a lot of uncertainty, but by year's end NZQA had responded with a delayed start to examinations, Recognition of Learning Credits and an amended UE requirement. Also, some universities were open to allowing Principal recommendation for UE. As a result, I know that for our school, achievement levels were strong and that students were not disadvantaged. This is not to say, however, that it wasn't a big struggle for teachers and many students.

A lightbulb moment for many of my Year 12 students was when I gathered them all together on return from the first long lockdown and asked them to raise their hand if they were returning in 2021. As expected, in excess of 90% raised their hands. That's when I told them that since they were returning they had no need to be anxious about NCEA L2 because they only needed to focus on their graduation qualification and that they had a further year to gain that. I pointed out that if, as a result of their year being affected by Covid, that after doing their best they had achieved only 65 of their 80 credits by year's end, they would simply return the next year, undertake a Level 3 programme and that when they earned their first 15 credits they would be awarded their NCEA L2 and be 15 credits on their way to the 60 they needed for Level 3.

The advantages from them having this understanding included reducing their levels of anxiety and allowing us to focus on those students who were graduating at the end of 2020 (our Year 13s and a small number of Year 12s). This relieved a lot of workload and stress for my staff. Of course, it was also important to communicate this to our parents.

We have always said at our school that we have no interest in calendar year qualifications, especially a structure that builds them in over a very stressful final 3 years of secondary school. Of course, there is always some sort of 'cost' for this. This year I have already had to wade in and defend our school from an ignorant Linkedin post from an academic who saw that we had close to 100% non-achievement at NCEA L1 which meant that our 'experiment' with a different pedagogical approach was an absolute failure and that myself and the Board needed to be held to account. A quick analysis of our leavers' qualifications and very high levels of Excellence and Merit Endorsed qualifications at Level 2 and 3 would have saved him his embarrassment.

It is our firm view that 3 years of calendar year qualifications do not lead to deep and engaged learning and do not contribute to positive student wellbeing. That is why we have never offered NCEA L1 as a Year 11 qualification. Rather our Year 11 students start out on their first year of a 2 to 3 year journey to get their quality graduation qualification. During 2020 it was a huge relief to not have to drive a whole cohort (Year 11) towards a meaningless qualification while trying to do our best for our graduating cohort. For our Year 11s we just stuck with our existing target of 20 quality credits towards their quality Level 2 qualification.

I encourage schools once again to revisit how they manage qualifications because our new and once again Covid-affected reality means we should look at things differently.

Up here in Auckland we don't know when we will be returning to on-site school. We do know that NZQA and MOE will create processes once again to allow for the interruptions to on-site learning such as a delayed start to NCEA, Recognition of Learning credits and amendments to UE requirements. That helps put us at ease. 

At some point we will return to our physical schools and our students and staff will return to our sites affected by a number of issues: 

• some will be grieving
• many whānau will be affected by health issues
• many students' whānau will be facing employment uncertainty
• most whānau will be faced with financial hardship
• all students will be spread across the full range on the continuum of what learning progress they made while off-site. Some may have flourished and soared, many may have managed to just keep up, and many more will have struggled

Areas we will need to focus on

• Whakawhanaunga - welcoming our staff and students back into the physical space and re-inducting into how we now work in our kura

• Accommodating the full range of well-being situations all will be in

• Establishing the full range of learning progressions and differentiating so that we can accelerate those who have struggled while maintaining the momentum of all

• Progress towards qualifications 

Our approach in any year, Covid-affected or not, results in the following

• on average, students at the end of Year 11 have 20 Level 1 credits and 10 at Level 2
• during their Year 12 year, after picking up a further 50 credits (usually at Level 2), they are awarded Level 1 and are close to achieving Level 2
• at the end of Year 12 many students may well not have met the requirements for Level 2 (though we ensure those graduating at the end of Year 12 achieve Level 1 or 2 - whatever is appropriate for them). This is not a concern for us because on their return the following year as a Year 13 student they meet the requirements of Level 2 (usually early in the year) and most go on to achieve Level 3.
• very high levels of Excellence and Merit Endorsed qualifications

Positive outcomes are the reduction in teacher workload (setting, marking, moderating, resubmitting), the creation of more time to focus on learning, a reduction (though not complete elimination) of student stress and anxiety in relation to assessment and qualifications, the uncoupling of the assessment 'tail' waving the learning 'dog', and an increase in the quality of qualifications achieved.

More and more schools are moving towards not offering NCEA Level 1 as a full year Year 11 qualification and I know for many school leaders that they see this as a step too far for them as they worry about their staff and parent reaction. I'm happy to talk with any leader/teacher about these issues.

What I do encourage school leaders to consider is the focus on calendar year qualifications. Simply by moving your focus to graduate qualifications you free up the yoke of assessment overload for students, assessment overload for staff and the pressure of league tables as they are not relevant for schools who do not aim for calendar year qualifications.

Such a strategy slows the assessment journey down which allows for learning to go more deeply.

I'm always happy to be contacted to discuss how these ideas work in reality.

Old Thinking vs New Thinking: NCEA Frustrations and MIssed Opportunities and the Power of Language - a brief gripe

We've missed a huge opportunity with the opportunity to review NCEA. Many of the changes have cemented old thinking and old ways of structuring learning in schools when there is a desperate need for new thinking.

While it's awesome to have Achievement Standards that support Maori Performing Arts and that they qualify for UE why are we insisting on calling Te Ao Haka a new 'subject'? This is old thinking. New thinking acknowledges there is a suite of standards that can be grouped together to create a programme of learning for students and that these programmes are not subjects.

I'm not even sure why we have Course Endorsements which are, in reality, Subject endorsements. This old thinking reinforces subjects as the main structure for delivering learning programmes. New thinking has schools developing connected learning programmes which still deliver across them important subject specialist skills and knowledge.

Even if we accept Course Endorsements are a good idea the criteria for them reinforces that external assessment is vital in any learning programme. For some students, a programme almost entirely made up of internal assessments, with very few external assessments, is the best programme for them. But old thinking says that they cannot qualify for this thing called Course Endorsement.

Why are we still talking about 'subject lists' at each level? This is old thinking. New thinking would provide a suite of Achievement Standards grouped into Learning Areas which are used to assess the learning that emerges from the programmes for qualifications.

And this 50/50 split of internals and externals for each 'subject' is so arbitrary and old thinking. New thinking, incorporating the principles of UDL, allows for a broad range of methods of collating evidence of understanding.

I know cleverer people than me will have answers to these, but all of the answers I have seen definitely sit in the old thinking paradigm!

Gripe over (for now)!

How to Manage NCEA in Covid-affected 2020

A Rider
I want to start by saying that I have no ulterior motive for putting forward the following suggested strategy. My focus is entirely on the well-being of students and staff and strongly believe the positive outcomes would easily outweigh any perceived negative outcomes. As well, I can't help but draw on our experience at Hobsonville Point Secondary School over the last 7 years where I have witnessed a deep engagement with learning and high quality qualification achievement by our learners, But, also, I cannot help but draw on my previous 20 years experience as a school leader in a decile 1 school (where, by the way, I would be implementing a strategy similar to that described here).

Covid-affected 2020
At some point we will return to our physical schools. At this stage we are not sure whether our students would have missed out on 3, 4 or more weeks of on-site, physical school. It is very important to remember that whatever that time of off-site is, the actual lost time to that important on-site face-to-face learning will be much longer.

Here's why:
Our students (and staff) will return to our sites affected by a number of issues:

• some will be grieving
• many whānau will be affected by health issues
• many students' whānau will be facing employment uncertainty
• most whānau will be faced with financial hardship
• all students will be spread across the full range on the continuum of what learning progress they made while off-site. Some may have flourished and soared, many may have managed to just keep up, and many more will have struggled

Areas we will need to focus on

• Whakawhanaunga - welcoming our staff and students back into the physical space and re-inducting into how we now work in our kura

• Accommodating the full range of well-being situations all will be in

• Establishing the full range of learning progressions and differentiating so that we can accelerate those who have struggled while maintaining the momentum of all

• Progress towards qualifications

As far as 2020 qualifications are concerned we must have the time and energy to focus on those students who are graduating this year, while ensuring we keep building the foundations for quality qualifications for those students not graduating this year.

In devising our strategies for how we navigate our way through the reality of what impact Covid 19 has had on our schools and learners, and will continue to do so, and which allow us to have the focus described above we may need to be reminded of the following points made in the latest NZQA Update which included a slide show (unfortunately these important points were buried as bullet point 4 on slide 8 under the heading NZQA advises you consider):

• using the flexibility of the qualification. 
• Students don't need to complete a lower level qualification before moving to the next level. If students don't manage to achieve sufficient credits, those they subsequently achieve from a higher level can fill any gaps in achievement at a lower level.
  
• Students can catch up and be awarded their certificate in 2021 if they are returning to school.

These points are a reminder that

• students do not need to achieve Level 1 to gain Level 2 or Level 3 and, in fact, don't need L2 to get L3. 
• on the way to achieving their final qualification students do not need to complete each lower level in a calendar year

HPSS example of the above in practice

• on average, students at the end of Year 11 have 20 Level 1 credits and 10 at Level 2
• during their Year 12 year, after picking up a further 50 credits (usually at Level 2), they are awarded Level 1 and are close to achieving Level 2
• at the end of Year 12 many students may well not have met the requirements for Level 2 (though we ensure those graduating at the end of Year 12 achieve Level 1 or 2 - whatever is appropriate for them). This is not a concern for us because on their return the following year as a Year 13 student they meet the requirements of Level 2 (usually early in the year) and most go on to achieve Level 3.

All such an approach takes is an acceptance of the NZQA advice above, a mindset that rejects calendar year achievement of each qualification level and a lack of concern for league tables. At our school, we believe the most important measure is the quality of qualifications of leavers, not the steps along the way.

Positive outcomes are the reduction in teacher workload (setting, marking, moderating, resubmitting), the creation of more time to focus on learning, a reduction (though not complete elimination) of student stress and anxiety in relation to assessment and qualifications, the uncoupling of the assessment 'tail' waving the learning 'dog', and an increase in the quality of qualifications achieved.

What about those who only achieve Level 1?

Once again I can only call on my last 7 years at HPSS and the 20 years in my previous decile 1 school.

The latest statistics I can find are as follows:

• 10% of students leave school without at least Level 1
• 10% leave school with Level 1 as their highest qualification

At least we know that by doing things differently we can't have a more negative impact on the first group than we are already having. (I do believe, however, that with a much less focus on NCEA in Year 11 eg not exposing struggling learners to a year of 100-120 credits, then we have more chance in engaging them in school and learning and increasing the possibility they might return for a 4th year and have more chance of gaining their Level 1. That is certainly my current experience). However, in the meantime let's accept at least we won't be making their situation worse.

Quite rightly, the focus is on the second group and the actual percentage will differ across schools. I encourage schools to examine the pathways of those students who have left to determine whether Level 1 was necessary for them to be on that pathway. We have students who leave our school with Level 1 as their highest qualification, most of them on appropriate pathways, but none of them actually needed Level 1 to get onto that pathway, so they would not have been disadvantaged without achieving Level 1. As well, it is my experience that many of the students who currently leave with just Level 1, if they are on a slower assessment journey, largely focused on their intended pathway, actually end up achieving Level 2 after the end of 4 years at school.

A Strategy Worth Considering? - Slow it down and go more deeply

I shudder to think what the reduced 2020 school year will look like for our Year 11 learners if they are still faced with programmes based on assessing them against 120 credits. So I suggest the following as worthy of consideration:

1. Depending on a school's particular context it considers suspending NCEA Level 1 as a full qualification for its Year 11 learners for 2020.

But what would their year, and the year of the teacher look like?

• Teachers would not have to amend their programmes. They would still teach the full important concepts, skills and knowledge of their specialist subject, laying strong foundations for success in the following year at Level 2
• The large amount of time usually dedicated to the assessment of NCEA standards would be freed up for more learning
• Schools could decide that each subject can offer a maximum of 2 standards per subject so that students are still progressing the qualification ladder (or whatever maximum suits them best in consultation with each Learning Area).
• Because of more time allowing for deeper learning, schools may find that they can offer some of their Year 11 students assessment pitched at Level 2.
• Feedback and reporting to students and parents could be as it currently is for Years 9 and 10 - against Level 6 of the NZC

2. Ease up on the credit chase for Level 2 for students in Year 12 who you know will be returning in 2021 as they will gain Level 2 during their Year 13 year.

Issues

There are lots, but the biggest shift is a mindset shift from school leaders, who then lead the mindset shift for their staff, students and parents. Putting a well-being lens over such a strategy is hard to argue against.

As well, if you are considering such a strategy it's good to know you are not alone. Over the last 10 days I have hosted 2 Zui (Zoom Hui) with 30 secondary school leaders who are seriously exploring suspending NCEA Level 1 as a full qualification this year and I want to thank them for sharpening my thinking and giving more detail to this proposed strategy.

It seems to me that the Ministry and NZQA are reluctant to message that a valid strategy for schools to consider, depending on their context, the suspension of Level 1 as a full year qualification in 2020. The closest to that we can get is the NZQA message above.

If you want to explore this type of strategy further, make contact and I can link a few people together.

What will replace secondary schools?

Ka pū te ruha ka hao te rangatahi

What will replace secondary schools?

We've long past the time when we can still be asking if secondary schools need to change.

"There's no longer a good fit between the education we are currently providing and the education we need" MOE 2012! As well, we need only to look at the transformational change that is sweeping through every industry and profession at an accelerating rate (music production, newspaper and the media, health care, public transport, private transport, retail, finance and banking, service provision etc). Why would we think secondary schooling will be bypassed?

As well, we have no excuse to be unaware of what skills seem increasingly necessary for people to thrive in not only the working world, but the world itself.

This graphic shows the top 10 skills important in the workforce. While the two groupings are quite similar, which you would expect as they are only 5 years apart, it’s interesting to note that Complex Problem Solving remains at the top but big movers are Critical Thinking from 4th to 2nd and Creativity from 10th to 3rd. And new entrants on the list are Emotional Intelligence racing into 6th and Cognitive Flexibility moving onto the list at 10th.

Are our schools consciously developing these skills within our learners or are we still putting all of our eggs in one basket - academic qualifications?

I've been hugely motivated by Valerie Hanon's book, Thrive, which sets out a blueprint for how secondary schools could adapt and respond to the pressures for change. Her vision for schools is to have a vision which focuses on students learning to thrive in a transforming world.

Students need to be able to thrive at 4 levels:

Thrive as a planet

Our young people need to know how to live sustainably, how to protect earth's biodiversity and to develop respect for and empathy of other cultures. This needs to be at the centre of our curriculum.

Thrive at societal level

She notes that in the most equitable countries of the world there is a higher level of thriving. Our young people need to be equipped to navigate in a fast changing job landscape, to learn and unlearn, and they must love learning. How can democratic values and values of equity be explored in our schools

Thrive at interpersonal level

Schools need to be places where young people can explore how to have and create great relationships. Schools must create learning environments where young people can develop respectful and caring relationships.

Thrive at intrapersonal level

Schools need to create environments where young people can discover who they are. Students must be able to explore their identity, find personal meaning and be valued for whom they are.

What will replace secondary schools?

Right now I'm thinking we could start with a vision similar to:

Learn to thrive in a transforming world

and then develop a curriculum focusing on the 4 levels of Thrive outlined above.

My view of what secondary schools of the future need to concentrate on is as follows:

• Secondary schools must place student well-being at front and centre of every thing they do
• This means the end of billboards skiting about achievement and attendance rates (imagine how this feels for those students who, despite their best efforts, can't achieve or attend at that level who see that reminder every day)
• This means the end to archaic rules and punishments, including those in relation to personal appearance
• This means an end to assessment and homework practices that detract from deep learning and lead to distress
• Secondary schools of the future must reject being institutions of measurement and embrace being institutions of engagement and deep learning
• Secondary schools of the future must embrace new definitions of success for them as an institution, for their staff and for their students.
• Ask parents to describe the graduate they want from your school! Their answers won’t surprise you. Does your school really focus on these things? How much does the front half of the NZC feature in how your school goes about its business and considers its effectiveness?
• Secondary schools of the future will invite students to be partners in the learning design process.
• Own the important bits of content, knowledge, concepts and skills of your specialist subject but relinquish control over the context for the learning to occur in and even how students might evidence their understanding.

At Hobsonville Point Secondary School we're trying to explore these ideas. Our foundation principles of:

• personalised learning
• powerful partnerships
• deep challenge and inquiry

are driving our practices in these areas.

Our focus at the moment is on exploring different definitions of success which has resulted in the work we are doing on developing a graduate profile. The current prototype has our school values of innovation, inquiry, collaboration and connectedness as the key elements of this graduate profile. Sally gives a full description of this work in the last section of her latest post

We're looking forward to discussing this work with ERO in Week 8.

NCEA Review - Let's have one qualification, not 3.

Like a lot of education people I've thought deeply about the opportunity we have had to contribute to the review of NCEA. I have included in this post the submission I ended up making.

NCEA Submission

I submit that NCEA needs to be looked at as a single qualification, not three, which has three levels of attainment. I also submit that we have to move away from looking at NCEA qualifications as calendar year events that have to be achieved within the calendar year of Years 11, 12 and 13.

This can be achieved by thinking of Years 11, 12 and 13 as a 2 or 3 year journey to a quality qualification. For some this will be the equivalent of the current L3 and for some the equivalent of the current L2. I submit that results should only be uploaded at the point of leaving secondary schooling and mid year in Year 13 (for those still at school if universities still require to use our qualification for entry).

• A person leaving school mid-year 12 would have their results submitted at that point and the level of qualification achieved awarded.
• This would be the same for any student leaving during Year 13.
• All students enrolled in Year 13 would have their results submitted at a point in the year required by universities for pre-enrolment and then on completion of their Year 13 year.

This breaks the calendar-year mindset and prevents the creation and publishing of calendar year, qualification level league tables. The only league tables that could be produced would be in relation to qualifications gained by all leavers in any one year.

This raises the question of what to provide for those who leave school before achieving the equivalent of the current L2. These students typically move into further training or employment. These students should graduate with a personal Statement of Capabilities which provides a summary of evidence of important capabilities. These capabilities would emerge from exploring the ‘soft skills’ from the front of the New Zealand Curriculum and be informed by input from the employer community. A template to be used by all schools across the country could easily be created with guidelines on how to summarise the evidence for each element. Students would collate the evidence over their total secondary school journey and have it finalised on graduation. Such a ‘document’ would be beneficial for all graduates, but for the 10 - 15% who currently leave without L2 it would have even more value and definitely more value than a completed or partially completed L1.

I also submit that it is important not to require the achievement of any literacy and numeracy requirement (either foundation or academic) in a single calendar year. Students should be free to collect the evidence of their level of literacy and numeracy throughout their qualification journey, however long that may be. As well, there should be no exclusions between Unit and Achievement Standards for the achievement of Literacy and Numeracy - eg students should be able to achieve the literacy requirements with a combination of Unit and Achievement Standards.

Rather than making project-based learning a compulsory requirement I submit that there be created a suite of standards (inquiry, collaborative problem-solving, communication etc) that could be used in a cross-curricula, authentic project for those schools who are well-placed to use such an approach. Digital, cultural and financial literacies could be incorporated in such a suite of standards.

I submit that subject endorsement be removed as it supports the siloisation of Learning Areas. The endorsement of qualifications at Merit or Excellence is sufficient to acknowledge deeper levels of learning and higher achievement.

I submit that all state schools should have to provide access for all students to NCEA and that for those schools who do not to be considered not as state schools and have their funding affected accordingly. State schools should not be allowed to opt out of providing our national qualification.

Further Discussion

I think there is much value in moving to one qualification to be awarded on graduation which is the point at which results would be uploaded to NZQA (obviously they will already have records of any externals).

The single qualification could have a range of levels of endorsement which would reflect the level of the NZC at which the learning is evidenced. Such a mechanism would recognise student performance at Levels 7 and 8 (+) and also incorporate the concepts of Merit and Excellence as the present system does.

Schools, obviously, would be tracking learners' achievements as they do now for Years 9 and 10 learners and would be required to report such information to parents and BOT. By not reporting qualification assessments to NZQA until graduation then we move away from the "league tables" issue where schools and communities freak out about how their school will rank against other schools in relation to how their 15 year olds were going, a full 2 years before they graduate! I know for a fact that some of my colleagues show reluctance to bring about teaching, learning and assessment changes in their schools which they know will benefit deeper learning and reduce student stress and teacher workload simply because of league tables. That tail should definitely not be wagging the dog.

I also think there is huge value in creating a national "Statement of Capabilities" (needs another name) for each learner. This will enable schools to embrace the powerful dispositions, principles and values from the front end of the NZC.

Interested in any thoughts.