Concerns of teachers, particularly with regards to workload, credit counting and overloaded courses (among other things) have been taken into account in the Change Package. The concerns around overloaded courses speaks to a practice that is assessment focused, a practice that is in the face of the potential of NCEA as an assessment for learning tool. Many of us have been in institutions that have struggled to move away from the industrial standards-based model of transactional practice towards assessment as a measurement of learning, even at times when the institution is committed to bringing ‘innovative’ (this word I find problematic, because it’s context specific, has blanket connotations and without contextualisation is vague - but you know what I mean) pedagogical practices to the forefront. 

Many of us have found ourselves perpetuating a methodology where assessment sets the condition for learning or retention, rather than our subjects, or a combination of subjects  providing a rich context and opportunity for meaningful assessment, even when our core beliefs about what teaching and learning should look like is in conflict with our practice. 

I wonder, if it is these experiences have poisoned our thinking of what ‘external’ assessment looks and feels like. I wonder if our distrust of those, in the ivory tower, with decision making power, who make decisions to us and for us have prevented us from considering the potential for positive change. 

The government has vehemently suggested that external assessment does not necessarily mean more exams at the end of the year. In fact, it has suggested that the external nature of the assessment means that marking occurs externally, relieving the marking burden that teachers have strongly communicated, a burden that has (it would seem) been taken into account. 

What if, external assessments meant that the marking load was eased? What if the best practitioners were given opportunities to take responsibility for this marking at different times through the year, as it already occurs in some subject areas? What if the 50/50 split and the more even distribution of credits in internal assessments, meant that we could teach richer and deeper and our students could be awarded for the considerable time put into internal assessment? What if, God forbid, assessment became an inherently meaningful exercise, because we had more time to invest in the context of the assessment, rather than needing to crack on in pursuit of more credits? 

I completely understand the argument that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I don’t agree that NCEA is necessarily broke, but I do know and believe strongly that malpractice and poor handling of NCEA means that it is a tool that supports disparity and inequity. If there is the chance that these changes support the type of practices and assessment that give learners, in those institutions where NCEA is abused, the potential to find a more equal footing then I want to learn more.

I’m simply not convinced that the Change Package is a bad idea. I am convinced that the Change Package is not trusted and that we are fearful of a continued, or potentially exacerbated practice that is a numbers game. At this point I am interested in learning more and I am interested in the problematic language and the language charged with meaning and implication to be defined further.  What do you think?