You are here

Students and NCEA course choices and allocations

Seini Jensen, Irena Madjar and Elizabeth McKinley
Abstract: 

The aim of any subject-choice process should be to provide better educational outcomes for all students. This study, however, found that many students do not understand the full implications of their NCEA course choices or course allocations. Māori, Pacific and lower decile secondary school students are particularly at risk of ending up with inappropriate choices if their academic potential is not recognised early enough and they do not receive clear guidance about the best course choices.

Journal issue: 

Students and NCEA course choices and allocations

SEINI JENSEN, IRENA MADJAR AND ELIZABETH MCKINLEY

KEY POINTS

• Students often have a general understanding of the NCEA system (for example, how to navigate the easiest path through the requirements) but most don’t understand the long-term implications of their choices (for example, how their choices impact on their aspirations to attend university).

• Students also need to understand that schools allocating them to alternate versions of subjects, often based on earlier performance, can close doors to the academic pathway.

• In the case study in this article, Sione showed academic promise and intended to go to university to study commerce, but entered into NCEA courses that did not support this goal. He struggled to gain entry to university and then withdrew after one term because his school classes had not prepared him adequately for his choice of university courses.

• Examinations are important. Students need to take achievement standards based on external examinations to achieve the higher grades that gain them places at university. Students also need examination-taking skills and experience to succeed when they reach university.

• Students need clear academic counselling from schools to help them make the best choices. This article suggests a “red flag” system that alerts students when they are at critical points where they risk closing off academic options.

The aim of any subject-choice process should be to provide better educational outcomes for all students. This study, however, found that many students do not understand the full implications of their NCEA course choices or course allocations. Māori, Pacific and lower decile secondary school students are particularly at risk of ending up with inappropriate choices if their academic potential is not recognised early enough and they do not receive clear guidance about the best course choices.

Course choice and course allocation shape a student’s programme of study at secondary school. Under the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), course options are increasingly complex, both for schools to administer and for students to understand. While diversity within the NCEA system attempts to cater for a wider group of learners, its flexibility creates difficulties for students navigating its different options. In our study, Towards University (Madjar, McKinley, Jensen, & Van Der Merwe, 2009),1 we found that many students do not understand the long-term implications of their NCEA course choices. As a result, able students can unwittingly end up in an academic cul-de-sac, or reduce their future study options.

In this article we focus on our findings related to students’ understanding of the NCEA system and the options it provides. We look at common dilemmas students face at critical points on their educational journeys and we use a case study to illustrate how the multiple and poorly signposted pathways in the NCEA system can derail an able student with university potential.

As a result of our findings, we encourage schools to improve the way they communicate with, and monitor and advise students about their NCEA pathways. A school-wide system of academic counselling and target setting can help prevent long-term disadvantage caused by inappropriate subject choices. Timely recognition of risk, and appropriate intervention, can help students proactively shape their pathways in the right direction, towards their educational goals—or even towards goals they might develop later.

Understanding the impact of NCEA course decisions

Making informed decisions about which courses to take remains difficult for students under NCEA. To make appropriate choices, students must be aware of not only the subjects, but also the standards that will allow their progression to higher levels of study at secondary school. In addition, students do not always choose their subjects or courses. Schools may allocate students to particular subjects or versions of subjects, based on the student’s academic achievement and behaviour in the previous year. Consequently, students need to be aware of both their choices and the choices the school has made for them, and how these might impact on their NCEA pathways through secondary school.

Students need to understand which subjects contain the standards that will open up opportunities for further study, and which subjects and standards will restrict the possibility of achieving their educational goals or goals they might develop in the future.

In our study we found that students’ knowledge of the NCEA system varied widely and that many did not have sufficient understanding of how NCEA might facilitate or block their educational aspirations. While some are confident and clear in their understanding, many others are confused or unsure. Only a very small group of students showed an appreciation of the long-term implications of their particular NCEA course choices. These students had clear educational and career goals, and chose their subjects not only to achieve the required NCEA qualifications but also the preparation they needed to be competitive in their chosen field of university study.

Most commonly, we found that even able senior students faced a number of problems when making subject-choice decisions. Some were clear about what they did not know, admitting to not understanding the difference between unit standards and achievement standards, between approved subjects and other subjects, or not knowing all the requirements of NCEA qualifications at Levels 1, 2 or 3 or University Entrance (UE). A number of students, including senior students, reported feeling generally confused about the entire secondary school qualifications system. But there were also students who didn’t know what they didn’t know. These students talked confidently about the NCEA system, but were not aware that their comments included serious errors of fact. For example, a Year 12 student talked confidently about how he had already met the requirements for UE, despite his record of achievement showing that he had not taken any Level 3 subjects, which are essential for the UE qualification.

Most students had some general understanding of the NCEA, particularly in navigating its choices for the greatest ease of progression. That is, they understood the credit system and how they could earn the credits they needed, that unit standards were different from achievement standards, and that external assessments were different from internal assessments. Most knew how to avoid external examinations by gaining credits throughout the year, which subjects would give them more credits for less effort, and when they had fulfilled the minimum requirements for a qualification (without striving for higher “grades” or testing their abilities to their full potential).

However, these navigational skills did not usually translate into good long-term decisions. Students often failed to appreciate the full implications of their course choices or course allocations. Many were not aware of the importance of achievement standards, approved subjects (and approved standards) and external assessments to their goals of attaining UE. Students who took unit standards and avoided external assessments were not always aware that these choices could jeopardise their achievement of UE and spoil their chances of entering and succeeding at university.

Allocation to particular subjects or versions of subjects is also an important process that some students understand, but others do not. Some students knew about the implication of their allocation to particular versions of a subject. They understood that allocation to (or choice of) “academic” versions of subjects, which draw on achievement standards and external assessments, gave them a clear advantage in preparation for university study. For instance, most students understand that the class code indicates the type of standards and level of achievement available to students. At Level 1, English 101 is usually the “academic” version of English, consisting solely of achievement standards and external assessments. The “02” and “03” versions of the same subject contain mainly unit standards and internal assessment, but only the “01” classes give students the best opportunity to earn higher grades:

’Cause achievement standards are worth more than just Achieved, like a Merit and Excellence as well. So, like, 102 and 202 classes, that means you mainly do unit standards and internal assessment, that means you don’t do externals most of the time. So then that would mean you don’t get as high a grade as those in 101. (Overseas-born Asian Year 12 female student)

Other students did not understand the implications of choosing or being allocated to a particular version of a subject. Others became aware only later. Some students were aware that the choice of, or allocation to, a unit-standards-only class would limit their future options, but they were not necessarily able to act on this knowledge to achieve a more appropriate allocation. This student seemed caught:

When I was Year 10 … I wanted to go to uni[versity] but I didn’t have the right qualifications ’cause of the subjects I took and, like, other things, getting put in the wrong classes, ’cause of what the deans had to say and all that. ’Cause that year … Year 10, Year 11, when I was doing, what is it, unit standards for maths, I’d fly through the class. It was … real easy for me. And the teacher knew, there was a group of us that were doing these and they still didn’t do anything about it [i.e., moving students to an academically more challenging class]. (New Zealand-born Kiribati Year 13 male student)

Decisions about NCEA subjects, standards, credits and levels all need to be considered together in terms of possible academic repercussions. If a student is to make appropriate NCEA course choices to successfully enter and succeed at university, they need to understand the requirements for NCEA qualifications at Levels 1, 2 and 3; the requirements for the UE qualification; the prerequisites required to enter subjects at each NCEA level; and which subjects will provide the best preparation for their specific course of study. They need to also know whether they are taking subjects or versions of subjects in mathematics, English or science that will allow progression into approved subjects and approved standards at Level 3.

This degree of knowledge was not apparent among many of the students in our study. Consequently, many were not in a position to understand the long-term implications of their course choices or course allocations. They might be unaware that they are on a pathway that will not allow them to realise their educational goals; but even if they are aware, they might not know how to remedy the situation.

The following case study shows how an academically able and diligent student can be cut off from reaching their aspirations by inappropriate subject choices and lack of timely academic guidance.

Case study

When we interviewed Sione (a pseudonym) he was an articulate and able Year 13 student who held several leadership positions at his school. He wanted to achieve UE and enrol in a Bachelor of Commerce degree at The University of Auckland. His parents supported him in doing well at school and in his ambition to attend university.

Despite these qualities and aspirations, Sione finished his secondary education without adequate preparation in core academic subjects and without sufficiently developed academic skills, such as in exam taking. Although Sione’s early NCEA results indicated a need for academic guidance, he did not ask for it, and made inappropriate NCEA subject choices. His parents were not aware that the subjects he was taking would not give him adequate preparation for university.

In Year 11, Sione’s NCEA course choices were guided by personal interest. His record suggests that he was an able and diligent student. As Table 1 shows, he achieved a total of 115 credits (including 13 at Level 2), well over the minimum 80 credits required for NCEA Level 1. Although he achieved 25 credits with Merit or Excellence, he failed to achieve 21 externally assessed credits, suggesting that he needed support to improve his performance in external assessments.

In Year 12, Sione took Level 3 social studies, suggesting recognition of his academic ability, and he performed well in English. However, he was allowed to take almost a third of all credits in hospitality and service sector subjects, and a further 21 credits in physical education (see Table 2), none of which were relevant to his eventual plans to study commerce at university. Just as importantly, the choice of these subjects severely limited his options in Year 13, since he did not have the prerequisites for the subjects he needed to take. His performance in external assessment worsened in Year 12 and he failed most of his externally assessed standards.

At the start of Year 13 Sione clarified his intentions to enrol in a commerce degree, and was then advised to take subjects from the approved subject list (subjects, domains2 and standards that allow students to gain the credits necessary to achieve UE). Sione was also advised to enrol in the Young Enterprise Scheme (YES), a non-NCEA, experientially based course. He did not take accounting, economics or another approved subject that might have provided him with better preparation for university studies in commerce.

As shown in Table 3, Sione completed the year with just enough credits for the Level 3 certificate—but only after applying to the NZQA under rule 7.33 for “credit inclusion” from the YES course to count towards his Level 3 Certificate. However, under the rule governing YES credits, these could not count towards UE Level 3 requirements.

Image

Image

Image

In Year 13 Sione gained 16 credits with Merit or Excellence, but he failed to gain any Level 3 credits in social studies, failed all externally assessed standards in statistics and history and passed only one of his externally assessed standards in English. Throughout the three years of NCEA, Sione maintained a 100 percent pass in internally assessed standards but his performance in external assessments deteriorated from 59 percent to 7 percent. In the end, Sione did manage to gain enough credits for the Level 3 component of UE (counting the Level 3 credits in social studies gained in Year 12).

A barrier to university

Although he achieved Level 3 NCEA and UE, Sione’s results meant that he was not accepted into his preferred course of study, a Bachelor of Commerce degree that required a minimum of 16 credits in each of a specified list of Level 3 subjects. Sione had gained 21 credits in English, but only nine in history and 14 in mathematics with statistics, so in his own words, he “didn’t meet the entry requirements”. Determined to get to university, Sione was allowed to enrol in a business degree at another university, but only after special approval from the head of school.

In his final year of secondary school, Sione commented that he chose hospitality and service sector subjects in Year 12 because of a general interest in tourism and the hospitality industry. It seems that the nature of his interest was not clarified—for example, whether it lay in food preparation, guest service or management. He was not aware (or advised) that the content of the courses he took would not be helpful in preparing him for degree-level study.

During his first semester at university,4 Sione felt “lost” and struggled to keep up with his accounting, economics and law classes. The language and terminology of these subjects was completely new to him. He felt more comfortable in his statistics class, a subject he had studied at school. Sione’s confidence was undermined by feelings of isolation as well as doubts about his ability to make up for the lack of adequate academic preparation at school. In hindsight, he realised that he should have chosen an academic pathway that included “all 301 classes” in Year 13. Settling for hospitality, service sector and physical education subjects in Year 12 in fact closed the doors to accounting, economics and other academic subjects in Year 13.

Sione withdrew from university after only one semester. Although not the sole reason for his withdrawal, poor academic preparation at school was by far the most important reason. Even though his academic ability and his leadership skills were recognised and used by the school, in his NCEA course choices Sione was allowed to drift without a clear sense of direction. The academic advice he received came too late and some of it was inaccurate (for example, that the YES course was on the list of approved subjects for UE). He needed assistance and guidance to clarify his possible career plans earlier, and to identify both those subjects that would limit his educational options and those that aligned with his university aspirations.

Recommendations for schools: A red flag system

Students with aspirations or potential for tertiary education need to be actively engaged in shaping their academic pathways through secondary school. To do so, they need to be informed about the different options within NCEA, the implications of making particular course choices or accepting course allocations made for them, and the consequences of leaving the path to their educational aspirations. Students and their parents would benefit from clear information tools, to help identify the most appropriate subjects, standards and pathways within the NCEA system. Greater transparency in the naming of different types of subjects (for example, “academic” or “vocational”) would help students identify the subjects essential to their preparation for university study—and the subjects to avoid or take in addition to, rather than in place of, core academic subjects.

One way to minimise negative outcomes is through the provision of systematic academic counselling and guidance for students. Students with academic ability, such as Sione, who begin to close off more advanced study options and drift away from the path towards university, need to be identified, provided with academic counselling and helped to get back on track. Adequate student tracking should identify, or red flag, the critical points at which students with academic potential are likely to fall behind or be diverted from the academic path.

A red flag system would indicate when students are making inappropriate subject choices, need to be encouraged to choose externally assessed standards, need help to develop exam skills or are in danger of being unable to make timely corrections to their study programme. The following, identified in the Towards University study (Madjar et al., 2009), are potential red flag situations:

Low Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning (asTTle), Progressive Achievement Test (PAT) or similar scores in Years 8 and 9: These assessments are often used to stream students, and may unfairly disadvantage a student or cut off their educational options. Students (and their parents) need to be aware of the implications of these tests, so they are in a position to discuss streaming decisions that may adversely impact on their educational goals and future options.

Average or below-average academic performance in Year 10: Because NCEA for most students starts at Year 11, students may not be aware of the importance of doing well in Year 10. Results in Year 10 are vital because they determine allocation of students to versions (academic or vocational) of core subjects.

Allocation to vocational, or unit standard, versions of core subjects in Year 11: While this allocation may be based on specific test results or academic achievement in Year 10, it might also be based on nonacademic factors, such as the student’s behaviour the previous year. Taking subjects consisting entirely of unit standards prevents students from achieving at Merit or Excellence level and does not expose students to external examinations.

Enrolment in inappropriate subjects in Years 11 and 12: Some students are encouraged or allowed to enrol in subjects that do not assist them in realising their educational aspirations and plans. These students not only miss out on learning content aligned to their educational goals but may also be prevented from completing the prerequisite standards required for more advanced study.

Failing to attempt and complete “subject passes” in required standards: Students who are not aware of the long-term implications of their choices can easily miss or fail to complete the standards (and therefore earn the necessary credits) needed to “pass” a subject at a particular level.

Failing to attempt and complete sufficient credits in Level 3 subjects from the approved list: To increase their chances of success in achieving UE and in applying to limited-entry courses at university, students need to attempt and complete more than the minimum number of credits in these subjects.

Failing to attempt and complete achievement standards at all levels: Students who begin avoiding achievement standards, or fail some early, might not attempt them in later years, or be guided away from them. This can impact on their educational options as they fail to meet the prerequisites for advanced (Level 3) study and are likely to miss out on learning important content.

Failing to attempt and complete external assessments: If students aim to enter and succeed at university they need to complete a significant number of externally assessed achievement standards. If students are allowed to avoid externals, their chances of completing UE are jeopardised and they might have inadequate grounding in a subject central to their university studies.

Failing to attempt and complete sufficient credits: Some students run the risk of missing their qualifications by gaining a few credits short of the requirements for the Level 3 Certificate or UE qualification. Attempting more than the required minimum, and schools offering more than the required minimum credits for each subject, can make a difference to students who fail even a small number of standards. For example, while it is possible to achieve UE by taking only two approved subjects, this is a risky strategy because a failure to achieve at least 14 credits in each of them will mean a failure to gain UE. Starpath research has shown that students who take more than the minimum number of approved subjects (3, 4 or 5) increase their chances of achieving the UE qualification.

Schools can, and do, play a positive role in students’ subject choices. The above points can be addressed in different ways, with local solutions in individual schools and communities. One of the schools in our study introduced target setting and academic counselling to attempt to keep students on the best academic pathways. This programme involves not only the students but also their parents, their subject and form teachers and deans. The programme challenges each student to set goals, improve his or her academic performance and stay on track by choosing subjects and accumulating credits best suited to their academic aspirations.

Conclusion

In the Towards University study (Madjar et al., 2009) we found that many students do not successfully navigate their way through the NCEA system. While the NCEA framework has many positive aspects, including providing a greater range of options for students with diverse abilities and interests, its very flexibility can create barriers for some students. Māori, Pacific and lower decile school students are particularly at risk, if their academic potential is not recognised (and encouraged) early enough, and they are not guided to keep their study options open. The availability of multiple, complex and sometimes poorly signposted pathways can make it easy for some students to fall off the track that leads towards their educational goals and aspirations.

Without adequate systems of academic assistance, able students will continue to find themselves in NCEA subjects and standards that do not match their potential for tertiary study. Students aiming to achieve UE, and to enter and succeed in degree-level study, need timely and systematic guidance to reach these goals. Such guidance will allow students (and their parents) to make informed decisions and actively shape their educational pathways, focusing on subjects that will provide the best possible preparation for their chosen field of future study, or where appropriate, keeping their academic options open. After all, the aim of any subject-choice process should be to provide better educational outcomes for all students.

References

Madjar, I., McKinley, E., Deynzer, M., & Van Der Merwe, A. (2010). Stumbling blocks or stepping stones? Students’ experience of transition from low-mid decile schools to university. Auckland: Starpath Project, The University of Auckland.

Madjar, I., McKinley, E., Jensen, S., & Van Der Merwe, A. (2009). Towards university: Navigating NCEA course choices in low-mid decile schools. Auckland: Starpath Project, The University of Auckland.

NZQA Assessment and Examination Rules and Procedures for Secondary Schools. (2010). Retrieved 6 July 2010, from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/ncea-rules-and-procedures/secondary-schools/7-certification-rules-and-procedures/

Notes

1 More information about the study is given in the companion article in this issue of set: “NCEA subject choices in mid–low-decile schools: What schools and parents need to know about the university pathway”.

2 A domain is part of the classification system used to group unit and achievement standards. The classification system uses three categories: field is the broadest category, then sub-field and then a domain. For example, Humanities is a field, English is a sub-field and “English written language” is a domain. Under the domain “English written language” will be a group of specific unit and achievement standards.

3 NZQA Assessment and Examination Rules and Procedures for Secondary Schools (2010), rule 7.3 Credit Inclusion (in part):

The NCEAs have provision for recognition of credit equivalents from other qualifications that are quality assured …

Credit equivalents from credit inclusion do not appear on the Record of Achievement. They may be used only once and do not contribute to the University Entrance level 3 requirements, except for The Waikato Certificate of Studies, English …

4 The data on Sione’s university experience is taken from another Starpath study in which Sione took part (Madjar, McKinley, Deynzer, & Van Der Merwe, 2010).

SEINI JENSEN is a qualitative researcher on the Starpath Project, The University of Auckland.

Email: seinijensen@gmail.com

IRENA MADJAR is the Deputy Director of the Starpath Project, The University of Auckland.

Email: i.madjar@auckland.ac.nz

ELIZABETH MCKINLEY is the Director of the Starpath Project and an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland.

Email: e.mckinley@auckland.ac.nz