Annual Report on NCEA and New Zealand Scholarship Data …...External Assessment 66 Reviews and...

Annual Report on NCEA and New Zealand Scholarship Data and Statistics (2011)

April 2012

3

Contents

Introduction 4

Background 6

Explanation of the Cohorts for which achievement statistics are reported

6

School Roll Cohort 6 Participation Cohort 7 Enrolled Candidate Cohort and Tracked Cohort 7

NCEA Retentions 2004 – 2011 8

Roll Data and Retention 12

Achievement in NCEA and University Entrance

14

Performance of participating cohorts in NCEA and University Entrance

14

Analyses by Gender 15 Analyses by Ethnicity 19 Analyses by School Decile 23

Performance of 2009 Year 11 Cohort 27 Analyses by Student Gender 28 Analyses by Student Ethnicity 31 Analyses by School Decile 34

Endorsements 37

Certificate Endorsement

Percentages of Candidates attaining CertificateEndorsements

37

Analysis by Gender 38 Analyses by Ethnicity 40 Analyses by Decile 42

Course Endorsement 44 CourseEndorsementAchievementRates 44

Literacy and Numeracy 46

Literacy 46 Analyses by Gender 46 Analyses by Ethnicity 47 Analyses by Decile Band 48

Numeracy 49 Analyses by Gender 49 Analyses by Ethnicity 50 Analyses by Decile Band 51

Analysis of School Related Qualifications (SRQ)

52

Results distributions for NZQF standards

54

New Zealand Scholarship 60

Scholarship Monetary Awards 60

Scholarships Awarded in 2011 61

Scholarships Awarded in 2011 by Subject 62

Premier Awards and Outstanding Scholar Awards 65

Scholarship Awards, Single Subject Awards and Top Subject Awards in 2011

65

NCEA Administration Process and Data 66

The role of NZQA in the examination process 66

External Assessment 66

Reviews and Reconsiderations 67

Breaches of the Rules 69

External Moderation of Internal Assessment 73

Moderation agreement rates 74

Appendix A Glossary 78

4

Introduction

NCEA assessments are robust and credible

NCEAexaminationshaveacquiredahighlevelofcredibilityamongstudents,teachersandparentsthankstoarigorousmonitoringofallthestepsinvolvedintheexamination,andbecauseofthehighvalidityandreliabilityoftheresults.

Source: OECD(2012),“Studentassessment”,inD.Nusche,D.Laveault,J.MacBeath&P.Santiago, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: New Zealand: Main Conclusions, OECDPublishing,p.49.

5

Thisdocument,theAnnualReportonNCEAandNewZealandScholarshipDataandStatistics(2011),hasbeenpreparedbytheNewZealandQualificationsAuthority(NZQA).ItsummarisestheattainmentsofNewZealand’sNationalCertificateofEducationalAchievement(NCEA)andNewZealandScholarshipcandidatesin2011withreferencetoprioryearachievement.

Underanystandards-basedassessmentsystemlearnersareassessedagainstestablishedstandards.Theyreceivegradesandattainqualificationsinaccordancewithhowwelltheymeetthosestandards,ratherthanonthe basisofhowwelltheyperformrelativetoothers. Theintroductionofstandards-basedassessmentin NewZealandsecondaryschoolshasdeliveredanassessmentsystemthatcomparesfavourablywithequivalentsystemsinothercountriesandNCEAandNewZealandScholarshiparerecognisedinternationally.

TheNCEAsystemofqualificationshaditseighthyearoffullimplementationin2011.Thelargevolumeofachievementdataaccumulatedsinceitsinceptionenablesdetailedanalysisoftrendsincandidates’engagement,attainmentsofqualifications,andachievementofstandards,aswellasachievementofNCEAcertificateendorsement.

In2011therewereencouragingimprovementsinattainmentofNCEAqualificationsandNewZealandScholarshipoverthoseof2010,atalllevels.TheattainmentgapsbetweenNewZealandMa-oriandPasifikacandidates,andcandidatesofotherethnicities,arenowsignificantlysmallerthantheywerein2004,thefirstyearoffullimplementationofNCEA.AtNCEALevel2,theattainmentgapbetweenmalesandfemalescontinuedtoreduce,andatLevels2and3thegapsbetweenschoolsacrossthedecilerangealsodiminished.Thisisatrendthathasbeenparticularlyevidentoverthelast3years.

InthisreportyouwillfindadetailedanalysisoftheperformanceofenrolledcandidateswhowereinYear11in2009.Thisanalysisreportsontheseoriginalcandidates

through2009,2010and2011astheyprogressedthroughYear11,12and13respectively.Thisanalysisincludesalltheoriginalcandidates,eventhoughtheymayhaveleftschoolpriortocompletingYear13.Thisformoftrackedanalysisprovidesaninterestingperspectiveontheattainmentofcandidates,becauseunlikeotheranalyses,whicharebasedonlyonthosecandidatesstillattendingschool,thetrackedcandidatebaseis,tosomeextent,insulatedfromtheimpactsofretentioninfluences.Thedatainthisanalysisarecomparedacrossgenders,ethnicitiesandschooldeciles.

LastyearbroughtsignificantimprovementinattainmentofNCEACertificateEndorsementwithMeritforNewZealandMa-oriandPasifikaatLevel1.Inaddition,candidates of each gender and decile band attained qualificationswithMeritandExcellenceendorsements athigherratesthaninanypreviousyear,particularlyatLevels1and2.

In2011NewZealandScholarshipattractedagreaternumberofcandidatesthaninanypreviousyear.Forthefirsttimetherewerejustover10,000candidatesparticipatingacross35subjects,totallingslightlyfewerthan20,000individualsubjectentries.

Thisreportalsodiscussesvariousadministrativeprocesses,includingBreachesoftheRulesforexternalassessments,ReviewsandReconsiderationsofexaminationresults,andaspectsofinternalassessmentinschools.During2011wesawacontinuationoftheimprovementinthelevelofagreementbetweenthegradesawardedbyteachersininternalassessmentsandthosecheckedbyNZQAModerators.Theoverallmoderator-to-teacheragreementratesforcandidates’workatboththelevelofcreditandatthelevelofthegradecontinuetoimprove.

TheNewZealandQualificationsAuthorityisverypleasedaboutthesignificantimprovementinperformanceofcandidates.Theirsuccessesreflectverypositively,both onthem,theirteachers,theirwhanauandontheschoolstheyattend.

Richard Thornton DeputyChiefExecutive QualificationsDivision NewZealandQualificationsAuthority

Karen Poutasi ChiefExcecutive NewZealandQualificationsAuthority

6

ThisreportprovidesinformationaboutthesecondaryschoolqualificationsadministeredbyNZQA.Itsprimaryfocusisthemain

NewZealandsecondaryqualification,theNationalCertificateofEducationalAchievement.ItalsoreportsonotherNZQFqualifications

gainedbysecondarystudents,andtheNewZealandScholarshipawards.BecauseNCEAisaNewZealandsecondaryschool

qualification,thestatisticsfocusonNewZealandresidentschoolstudents.

Explanation of the Cohorts for which achievement statistics are reported

Statisticsareusedforvaryingpurposes,includingmonitoringofstandards,studentachievementandthequalityofassessments.Thebasecohortanalysedwillnotbethesameforeachpurpose;itmaybethenationalpopulation,orasub-setsuchasschoolroll,participatingcandidates,orsomeformofcohortthatistrackedasitmovesthroughtheschool,yearbyyear.

Thebasecohorthasamarkedeffectonthecalculatedstatistics.Forinstance,thepercentageof17-year-oldswhoachievedNCEALevel3whencomparedtothenumberofall17-year-oldsinthecountrywillbelowerthanitwouldbeifthecomparisonwasonlywiththose17-year-oldswho,duetothenumberofcreditsforwhichtheywereentered,couldbeconsideredactivelyparticipatinginthequalification.Ifwethinkabout17-year-oldsasanexamplewecanseethatthereare4basiccategorieswhichformthebasisfor4differentcohorts.Theseare17-year-oldsaliveandinNewZealand(sourcedfromStatisticsNewZealandascensusdata),17-year-oldsattendingschool(sourcesfromtheMinistryofEducation

asRolldata),17-year-oldsthatNZQAareawareofviaanactiveenrolment(Enrolledcandidates)and17-year-oldsenteredforsufficientcreditstobeconsideredattemptingtoachieveaqualification(Participatingcandidates).

NZQAdoes,fromtime-to-time,usethecensusdata,forexample,17-year-oldsaliveandinNewZealand,asacohortbutinthisreportnoneofthedataispresentedinthisform.Although the School Roll based cohort is used in the early part of this report as the basis for the retention analysis thedatapresentedwillprimarilybebasedoneithertheParticipatingCohort,theEnrolledCohort,oraTrackedCohort,whichisavariationoftheEnrolledCohort.

TheeffectofusingdifferentcohortstoanalyseattainmentratesisillustratedinthefollowingtablewhichpresentsthepercentagesofcandidatesgaininganNCEAqualificationatsuccessiveyearlevels,forthreedifferentkindsofcohort.Theimportanceofspecifyingthecohortishighlightedbythesignificantdifferenceinthecalculatedpercentagesforattainmentofqualifications.

School Roll Cohort

Eachyearschoolsarerequiredtocompletearollreturnstatingtheirschoolrollasat1July.ThisrollreturnisarequirementoftheMinistryofEducation.ThisdataissubsequentlysuppliedtoNZQAforstatistical reportingpurposes.

The original Secondary School Statistics published by NZQAinJanuaryeachyearupuntil2008weresolely

basedonRollData.ReportingNCEAattainmentratesusingtheRollDataisparticularlyusefulwhenreportingschool-levelstatisticsasitprovidesacommonbasisforcomparison.However,theschoolrolldatadoesnotnecessarilyincludeallstudentsofsecondaryschoolage,nordoesitconsiderthedifferingparticipationbehavioursofstudents.Thismeansthatstatisticsbasedontherolldatacanprovideachievementratesthatappearartificially

Background

% based on Roll-based Cohort Tracked Cohort Participating Cohort

NCEALevel1[Year11] 65% 65% 77%



Table 1. NCEA attainment rates in 2011 by schooling year and cohort type.

7

lowbecausestudentsnotattemptingaqualificationarestillcountedwithinthedenominator.Theimpactonachievementratesofnotincludingstudentswhowerenotcountedonanysecondaryschoolrollcanbethereverse,drivingachievementratesupwhenconsideredinrelationtostudentsofsecondaryschoolage,asthesestudentsaremissingfromthedenominator.From2009onwardsNZQAextendedtherangeofstatisticalreportsavailableandaddedchoicesastowhichcohortscouldbeused.

Enrolled Candidate Cohort

Ideallytheachievementrateforqualificationswouldbereportedagainstcandidatesseekingtoachievethequalification.However,asthereisnoformalprocessforstudentstoenteranNCEAqualificationtwoproxies areused.

Thefirstproxyforentryintoaqualificationandthesecondcohortusedinthisreportisdefinedasbeing anystudentwithoneormoreentriesineitheraUnitStandardorAchievementStandardfortheacademic yearbeingreported.

ThetermenrolledcandidatereferstoastudentwhohashadanenrolmentcreatedwithintheNZQAdatabase.Thisoccurswhenaschoolreportsthecandidate’sdetailstoNZQAandindicatesthestandardsthatwillbeusedtoassessthisstudentand/oranyresults.ThiscohortiseffectivelythestudentsthatNZQAknows.Thiscohortisutilisedinanumberofthedataanalysedinthisreport.

Participating Cohort

ThesecondproxyforentryintoaqualificationandthethirdcohortusedinthisreportisParticipatingCohort.Acandidate is considered to be participating and therefore intheParticipatingCohortforagivenNCEAqualificationiftheyhaveareasonableopportunitytoachievethatqualification.Areasonableopportunity,inthiscontext,existsifthecandidatehassufficientcreditstobeabletoachievethequalificationbytheendofthatyear,iftheyweretoachieveallofthecreditsforwhichtheyareenteredwhenaddedtoanycreditspreviouslyattained.

Ifacandidateisnotenteredforsufficientcreditstobeabletoattainagivenqualification,itispresumedthattheyhavenointentionofdoingsointhatyear.Thepercentages

ofcandidatesattainingagivenqualificationinthefollowingfigurescanthereforebetreatedasanapproximationof the percentage of candidates intending to attain that qualification,whodidinfactattainit.

Thiscohortovercomessomeoftheissuesoftheroll based cohort by focusing on a subset of students whoseentrybehavioursuggeststhattheyarelikelytobeattemptingthequalification.Studentsengagedinsmallerprogrammesofassessmentorhavingalternativeeducationalneedsandobjectivesarelikelytobeleftoutofthiscohort.

Tracked Cohort

The third cohort used in this report is the Tracked Cohort whichisaspecialformoftheEnrolledCandidateCohort.Thiscohortisdefinedbyusingtheenrolledcandidatesataspecificyearlevelinanearlieryearandthentrackingtheirattainmentthroughtothecurrentyear.ForexampleYear11studentsin2009aretrackedsuccessivelytoYear12in2010andYear13in2011.

Calculatingpercentagesofstudentsattainingqualificationsusing a Tracked Cohort takes account of differences in retentionbetweenthedemographicgroupsofinterest.Forexample,ineachyear,agreaterproportionofmalestudentsthanfemalestudentsleaveschoolwithoutNCEALevel1duringYears11and12.ComparingthepercentagesofmaleandfemalestudentswhohaveattainedNCEALevel1bytheendofYear12,overjustthosestudentswhowerestillatschool,wouldthereforeunderestimatetheLevel1performancegapbetweenmalestudentsandfemalestudents.UsingtheoriginalYear11studentsasabasisforcalculatingpercentagesrightthroughtoYear13avoidsthisproblem,becauseallstudentsarecountedindenominatorsforthepercentages,whetherornottheyhaveleftschool.

In this report the Participating Cohort and Tracked Cohortarethemaincohortsusedforanalysis.ThesecohortsarepartitionedbyGender,Ethnicity,andSchoolDecileBandandformasubsetofthestatisticsavailableontheNZQAwebsite,alongwithRollBasedstatistics,whichareonlylightlytouchedoninthisreport.

www.nzqa.govt.nz/statistics

Background

8

Increasingretentionacrossalldemographicsubgroupsprovidesacontextfortheattainmentstatisticsreportedinthissection.Thefollowingdata(Table2)showhowretentionhaschangedinrecentyears.

Forinstance,in2006atotalof60,132Year11studentsattemptedoneormorestandards.Ofthose60,132students,82%continuedtobeenrolledinYear12in2007,and59%werestillenrolledinYear13in2008.Thoseretentionswererelativelystableforthe2004,2005and2006Year11cohorts,butrosethereafter.Thetrendsarenoteworthy:overtheperiodreported,Year12retentionrosefrom80%to86%,whileYear13retentionroseproportionallymore,from58%to67%.ThedifferentretentionswillhaveproducedasomewhatdifferentcohortinYears12and13comparedwiththatofsixyearsago.

Trackedcohortsmakeitpossibletoanalysethesetrendswithouttheconfusioncausedbystudentsenteringtheseniorschool,suchasnewstudentsjoiningfromoverseas,butalsorecognisingthatsomestudentsleavepriortoYear13.ThisisachievedintheanalysisbyidentifyingthespecificstudentsinYear11andthentrackingonlythosestudentsthroughtoYear13.IfastudentleavespriortoYear13 theirachievementsarestillcountedandtheyremainwithinthecohort.

NCEARetentions2004–2011

Year 11

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year 11 enrolment 55,300 56,791 60,132 59,897 59,790 59,855

Year12retention 80% 82% 82% 82% 85% 86%

Year13retention 58% 59% 59% 62% 67% 67%

Table 2. Proportions of students who engaged in NCEA in Year 11, and continued to be enrolled in Year 12 and in Year 13.

9


2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 Male 53% 55% 55% 59% 63% 64% Female 62% 63% 63% 66% 70% 71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt

Retention Rates to Year 13 by Gender

Figure 1. Retention rates to Year 13 by gender for 2006 to 2011.

Bothgendershavefollowedthesameupwardtrendovertheperiod,althoughin2011theproportionoffemalesretainedtoYear13continuedtorise,whiletheproportionofmalesstabilised,asshowninFigure1.AsharpriseinYear13retentionin2009and2010isnoticeablewithinthegraph.

10


2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 NZ European 60% 61% 61% 64% 69% 69% NZ Maori 42% 43% 44% 47% 52% 54% Pasifika Peoples 63% 63% 63% 65% 70% 71% Asian 73% 73% 76% 74% 77% 77%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt

Retention to Year 13 by Ethnicity

Figure 2. Retention rates to Year 13 by ethnicity for 2006 to 2011.

Figure2showsthatretentionofAsianstudentsremainedrelativelystable.NewZealandMa-oriandPasifikaretentionstoYear13begantorisein2008,inparallelwiththatofNewZealandEuropeansandhavecontinuedtorise.NewZealandMa-orihadthelargestproportionalrise,from42%in2006to54%in2011.ItisnotablethatPasifikaretentionisslightlyhigherthanthatofNewZealandEuropeans

11


2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 Decile 1-3 51% 50% 50% 53% 61% 61% Decile 4-7 54% 56% 57% 60% 65% 66% Decile 8-10 65% 66% 68% 71% 75% 76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt

Retention to Year 13 by Decile Band

Figure 3. Retention rates to Year 13 by decile band for 2006 to 2011.

Retentionsofalldecilebandshaveincreasedinrecentyearsalthoughtherateofincreasehasslowedslightly.However,whilethemiddleandupperdecileretentionsroseacrosstheentireperiod,thelow-decilebandremainedsteadyforthefirstthreeyears,thenrosemorequicklythanotherdecilebandsuntil2010.Theinter-decilegapinretentiontoYear13ismuchlargerforthemiddleandupperdecilesthanbetweenthemiddleandlowerdecilebands.

Thesetrendsinretentionmustbeborneinmindwheninterpretingtheattainmentstatisticsreportedinthenextsection.Increasedretentionnormallybringsagreaterinfluxoflowerachievingstudents.Inastandards-basedassessmentsystem,onemightexpectthistoresultinlowerattainmentrates.Ifattainmentratesaremaintained,theneithertheinfluxisonaparwiththepreviouscohort,orattainmentshaveimproved.Athirdalternative,aloweringinstandardsisunlikelygiventhecaretakentomaintainthem.

12


Roll Data and Retention

Thissectionbeginswithareviewoftrendsinseniorsecondaryschoolrollssincethefullimplementation oftheNCEAin2004,inordertoprovideacontextforthequalificationsandattainmentdatathatfollow.Inthisreportallrolldataandattainmentdatawerecorrectas at1April2012.

Intheeight-yearperiodfrom2004to2011,rollnumbersintheseniorsecondaryschool(Years11–13)increasedbysome14%,fromaround145,000to166,000.In2011thistotalincluded6,582foreignfee-payingstudents.Figure4showsthattheincreasevariedacrosstheyearsofsecondaryschooling,beinggreatestatYear13,witha35%increasesince2004,andleastatYear11,witha4%increasesince2004.Year12numbersroseby13%duringthisperiod.

Asnearly80%ofYear11studentshaveyettoreachtheageofcompulsoryschoolingthereislesscapacityforincreasedretentionthaninYears12and13.

SomeoftheYear13increaseoverthe2004numbersisaccountedforbyariseintheNewZealandagecohortworkingthroughthesystem,followingcomparatively highbirthnumbersintheearly1990s,aneffectthatpeakedin2008.However,themaineffectinrecentyearshasbeenanincreaseinretentionfromYear11toYear13. ThenumberofdomesticNewZealandstudentsretainedtoYear13in2006wasabout59%oftheYear11cohortin2004,whereastheretentionofthe2009Year11cohorttoYear13in2011hadrisento73%.

13

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 11 60,378 62,324 63,726 62,832 62,394 62,832 62,980 62,527 Year 12 49,679 49,750 50,567 52,911 52,675 54,257 55,482 55,759 Year 13 34,682 35,811 36,620 38,303 40,367 42,899 45,344 46,326

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts

Year 11 to 13 Students on NZ School Roll as of 1 July, 2004 to 2011

Figure 4. Numbers of students in Years 11–13 on the New Zealand School roll as of July 1, from 2004 to 2011. Foreign fee paying students are included.


14

AchievementinNCEAandUniversityEntrance

Performance of participating cohorts in NCEA and University Entrance

ThissectiondiscussestheperformanceofparticipatingcohortsinattainingNCEAandUniversityEntrance.AttainmentofNCEAqualificationsismeasuredintermsof the percentage of the participating cohort for each qualificationattainingthequalificationsduringthetypicalyearfordoingso.

Table3,andthefollowinggraphs(Figures5-16),compareattainmentratesovertime,betweengenders,ethnicitiesanddecilebands,ofNCEAqualificationsandUniversityEntrance(UE)intheyearmosttypicalforattainingeach:Year11forNCEALevel1,Year12forNCEALevel2, andYear13forNCEALevel3andUE.

AcandidateisintheparticipatingcohortforagivenNCEAlevelinagivenyearif,onthebasisofanycreditsalreadyacquiredandcreditsenteredfor,itispossible toacquirethatqualificationbytheendofthatyear. TheUEcohortisdifficulttoidentifybecauseUErequirescreditstobegainedinspecificsubjectconfigurations.Therefore,theLevel3participatingcohorthasbeen takenasanapproximationfortheUEcohort.

NotallcandidateswithsufficiententriestogainNCEALevel3haveaconfigurationofcreditsthatwouldallowthemtoattainUniversityEntrance,andsomecandidatesenteredforsufficientcreditstoattainUniversityEntrancearenotenteredforsufficientcreditstogainNCEALevel3.Therefore,whiletheLevel3participatingcohortisanapproximationfortheUEcohort,itdoesnotmatchtheUEcohortexactly,andthereforethesedatashouldbeinterpretedwithsomecaution.

Theparticipatingcohortforeachqualificationisaproxyforcandidatesintendingtoattaineach,therebeingnoformalentryprocessforNCEAqualificationsor UniversityEntrance.Ifacandidateisnotenteredforsufficientcreditstoattainagivenqualification,itispresumedthattheyhavenointentionofdoingsointhatyear.SomestudentsmaypursuequalificationsotherthanNCEA,includingothersregisteredontheNewZealandQualificationsFramework(NZQF),aswellasnon-NZQFqualifications.Thepercentagesofcandidatesattainingagivenqualificationinthefollowinggraphscanthereforebetreatedasanapproximationtothepercentageofcandidatesintendingtoattainthatqualification,whodidinfactattainit.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

NCEALevel1(Year11) 66% 66% 69% 73% 71% 72% 75% 77%

NCEALevel2(Year12) 73% 73% 75% 77% 76% 76% 80% 82%

NCEALevel3(Year13) 68% 68% 71% 72% 70% 69% 74% 75%

UniversityEntrance(Year13) 64% 64% 67% 68% 66% 64% 66% 67%

Table 3. Percentages of participating cohorts attaining NCEA Level 1 in Year 11, NCEA Level 2 in Year 12, and NCEA Level 3 and University Entrance in Year 13. Note that the participating cohort for University Entrance is defined to be the same as that for NCEA Level 3.

15


Analyses by Gender

Figures5to8comparetheperformanceofmaleandfemaleparticipatingcohortsinattainingNCEALevels1–3andUniversityEntranceinthetypicalyearfordoingso,between2004and2011.

From2006to2011adifferenceofseventoninepercentagepointsinfavouroffemalecandidatesis evidentineachyearasshowninFigure5.Theincrease

inattainmentbetween2006and2007,evidentinTable3,isalsoevidenthereforbothgenders.Between2007and2009thepercentagesremainedroughlystableforbothmalesandfemales.However,in2011thepercentageofbothmalesandfemalesattainingNCEALevel1increasedbyaboutthreepercentagepoints.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 60% 61% 65% 69% 66% 68% 71% 74% Female 71% 70% 73% 76% 75% 76% 78% 81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s

Participating Year 11 Candidates Attaining NCEA Level 1 by Gender

Figure 5. Percentages of Year 11 male and female participating candidates attaining NCEA Level 1 between 2004 and 2011.

16


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 68% 68% 70% 72% 70% 71% 75% 78% Female 77% 77% 79% 81% 80% 80% 84% 86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s



Figure6showsthatbetween2006and2011thereis aconsistentdifferenceinfavouroffemalecandidatesofbetweeneightandtenpercentagepointsineachoftheseyears.Again,thetrendforbothgenderscloselyresemblesthatoftheoveralldatashowninTable3.Therewasanincrease in the percentages of candidates attaining the qualificationfrom2006to2007.Successratesstabilisedataround80%forfemalecandidatesand70%formale

candidatesfrom2007to2009,althoughattainmentratesformalecandidatesin2008and2009wereslightlylowerthantheywerein2007.However,in2011attainmentofNCEALevel2inYear12,forbothmalesandfemales,increasedoverthatof2010bythreeandtwopercentagepointsrespectively.Forbothgenders,thesedatarepresentthehighestpercentagesofYear12maleandfemalecandidatesattainingthequalificationtodate.

17


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 63% 64% 66% 67% 64% 63% 69% 71% Female 72% 72% 74% 76% 75% 75% 78% 80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s



Between2006and2011,asshowninfigure7,thedifferencebetweennineandtwelvepercentagepoints.Duringthisperiod,asforNCEALevels1and2,attainmentofbothgendersincreasedbetween2006and2007.Between2007and2009,however,aslightdeclineinattainmentoffemalecandidatesisevident,withamoresubstantialdeclineformalecandidates.Thesedeclines

resultedinawideningofthegenderdifferencetoover12percentagepointsin2009,reducingtotenpercentagepointsin2011.In2011thepercentageofYear13malecandidatesattainingNCEALevel3(Figure7)increasedbytwopercentagepointsoverthatof2010,whilethepercentageofYear13femalecandidatesincreasedbytwopercentagepoints.

18


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 60% 61% 63% 63% 61% 59% 61% 62% Female 68% 67% 69% 71% 70% 69% 70% 71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s

Participating Year 13 Candidates Attaining University Entrance by Gender

Figure 8. Percentages of Year 13 male and female participants in NCEA Level 3 who attained University Entrance in each year from 2004 to 2011.

ThepatternofUEattainmentevidentinFigure8issimilar tothatforNCEALevel3.Between2006and2011 thedifferencesinfavouroffemalecandidatesofbetweensixandtenpercentagepointsareevident.LikethedataforNCEALevel3,thesuccessrateforUniversityEntranceincreasedbetween2006and2007.Between2007and

2009attainmentofUEdeclinedsomewhatforbothgendersandformalecandidatesespecially.Again,thisdeclineislikelytobeinfluencedbyincreasedretentionintoYear13(seeTable3).In2011thepercentageofbothmalesandfemalesattainingUEincreasedbyonepercentagepoint.

19


Analyses by Ethnicity

Figures9to12comparetheperformanceofNewZealandMa-ori,NewZealandEuropean,PasifikaandAsianparticipatingcandidatesinattainingNCEALevels1–3andUniversityEntrance,respectively.Theserepresentthefourlargestethnicities.Studentsnotidentifyingwithanyoftheseethnicitiesareomittedfromthesedata.

ThedatainthesefiguresshouldbeinterpretedinconjunctionwiththoseshowninFigures13to16, whichshowsimilarcomparisonsacrossdecilebands.Thisisbecauseethnicidentityiscorrelatedwithsocio-economicstatus,suchthatNewZealandMa-ori and Pasifikacandidatesareheavilyrepresentedinlow-decileschools.Therefore,someofwhatappearstobeaneffectofethnicitycouldbeaneffectofsocio-economiclevel.

In2011,Figure9showsthatforallethnicitiesattainment ofLevel1increasedoverthatof2010withtheincreaseforPasifikabeingthegreatestat5percentagepoints. TheincreaseforNewZealandMa-oriwas4percentagepoints,forAsiansitwasthreepercentagepoints,whileforNewZealandEuropeansitwasonepercentagepoint.

ThereisasmalldifferenceoftwotofivepercentagepointsinfavourofNewZealandEuropeancandidatesrelativetoAsiancandidates,andalargerdifferenceoffiveto12percentagepointsinfavourofNewZealandMa-oricandidatesrelativetoPasifikacandidates.However,thesedatapertaintoYear11candidatesonly,andPasifikacandidatesattainNCEALevel1inYears12and13atarelativelyhighrate.

ThereissomeevidencethatthelargedifferencebetweenNewZealandEuropeanandAsiancandidatesononehand,andNewZealandMa-oriandPasifikacandidatesontheother,diminishedbetween2004and2007.Duringthisperiod,ratesofsuccessforYear11candidatesinattainingNCEALevel1improvedforallethnicities,especiallyforNewZealandMa-oriandPasifika.From2007to2011,however,differencesinattainmentratesbetweenethnicitieshavelargelystabilised.Thediminutionoftheethnicity-linkeddifferencesinattainmentofNCEALevel1isthereforeattributabletothesharperincreaseinattainmentforNewZealandMa-oriandPasifikathanforNewZealandEuropeanandAsiancandidates

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NZ European 74% 75% 77% 80% 79% 79% 83% 84% NZ Maori 46% 46% 53% 57% 53% 55% 60% 64% Pasifika 38% 38% 42% 49% 48% 50% 54% 59% Asian 69% 71% 75% 75% 75% 74% 78% 81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s

Participating Year 11 Candidates Attaining NCEA Level 1 by Ethnicity

Figure 9. Percentages of participating candidates in Year 11, attaining NCEA Level 1 across ethnic groups.

20


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s


Figure 10. Percentages of participating Year 12 candidates attaining NCEA Level 2 across the four ethnic groups.


Figure10showsthatattainmentinNCEALevel2increasedin2011overthatof2010forallethnicgroups,withthegreatestincreaseforNewZealandMa-ori - a fourpercentagepointincrease.TheincreaseinattainmentforeachofNewZealandEuropean,PasifikaandAsiancandidateswastwopercentagepoints.

TheparticipatingLevel2cohortisamorerestrictivegroupingthantheoriginalYear11enrolledcohort,becauseitincludesonlythosecandidateswithsufficiententriestoattainLevel2inagivenyear.TheparticipationrateinNCEALevel2forYear12PasifikacandidatesishigherthanitisforYear12NewZealandMa-oricandidates,sothatahigherpercentageofallPasifikacandidatesattainLevel2.However,thesuccessrateforparticipatingYear12NewZealandMa-ori candidates is nonetheless higher than that ofparticipatingPasifikacandidates.

21


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s


Figure 11. Percentages of candidates in Year 13 attaining NCEA Level 3 across the four ethnic groups of interest.


AsisthecaseforNCEALevel1datashowninFigure9,thereisevidencethatthelargedifferencebetween NewZealandEuropeanandAsiancandidatesononehand,andNewZealandMa-oriandPasifikacandidatesontheother,diminishedbetween2005and2007.Therateofsuccessfortheformertwogroupshasbeenquitestableovertime,whereasthesuccessrateforthelattertwoincreasedmarkedlybetween2005and2007,andwasrelativelystableuntil2010and2011,whenNewZealandMa-oriandPasifikaattainmentincreasedsignificantly. In2010and2011,thedifferencesintheNCEALevel2attainmentratesforNewZealandMa-oriandPasifikacandidates,andthoseforNewZealandEuropeancandidates,werelessthaninanyprioryear.

Attainmentincreasedin2011overthatof2010forallethnicgroupsexceptAsians.ForNewZealandMa-ori and PasifikaitwasthreepercentagepointsandtwopercentagepointsforNewZealandEuropeans(Figure11).

ThedifferenceinfavourofNewZealandMa-ori candidates relativetoPasifikacandidatesisconsistentwiththedifferencesobservedforNCEALevels1and2.

Theoverallsuccessrateofparticipatingcandidatesincreasedbetween2006and2007,andthenfellawaysomewhatforallethnicitiesuntil2010.Pasifikaattainmentfluctuateddownwardsin2008beforerisingagainin2009,2010and2011.AsisthecaseforNCEALevel2,asshowninFigure10,thegapbetweenNCEALevel3attainmentratesforNewZealandMa-oriandPasifikacandidates,andthoseforNewZealandEuropeanandAsiancandidates,waslessin2011thaninanyprioryear.

22


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s

Participating Year 13 Candidates Attaining University Entrance by Ethnicity

Figure 12. Percentages of Year 13 candidates, participating in NCEA Level 3, who also attained University Entrance, across the four ethnic groups.


AttainmentofUEincreasedin2011overthatof2010 forallethnicgroups,exceptAsians,buttheincrease wasgreatestforPasifikaatthreepercentagepoints (Figure12).TheincreaseinattainmentforbothNewZealandEuropeanandNewZealandMa-ori candidates wasaboutonepercentagepoint.

AttainmentofUniversityEntrancehasbeenrelativelystableforNewZealandEuropeancandidates,atjustover70%ofLevel3participants.Generally,thedataforNewZealandEuropeanandAsiancandidatesarewithintwopercentagepointsofeachother.AttainmentofUniversityEntranceforNewZealandMa-oriandPasifikacandidatesforNCEALevel3havefluctuated,butarecurrentlyattheirhighestrate.

23

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Decile 1-3 46% 47% 53% 57% 54% 55% 61% 62% Decile 4-7 63% 63% 66% 71% 69% 69% 73% 75% Decile 8-10 76% 77% 79% 81% 81% 81% 84% 87%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s

Participating Year 11 Candidates Attaining NCEA Level 1 by Decile Band

Figure 13. Percentages of participating Year 11 candidates attaining NCEA Level 1, across low-, medium- and high-decile bands.


Analyses by School Decile

Figures13to16comparetheratesofsuccessforparticipatingcandidatesatschoolsinlow-,medium- andhigh-decilebandsinattainingNCEALevels1–3 andUniversityEntranceinthetypicalyearforeach. Dataforschoolswithoutdecileratingsareomittedfromtheseanalyses.

Figure13showsthatthereareconsistentdifferencesinfavourofhigh-decileschoolsrelativetomedium-decileschools,ofbetween10and13percentagepoints,and infavourofmedium-decileschoolsrelativetolow-decileschoolsofbetween12and15percentagepoints,acrosstheperiodcoveredbythedata.

Forallthreedecilebands,attainmentincreasedbetween2005and2007.Attainmentofhigh-decilebandcandidatesremainedsteadyuntil2009.However,candidatesatlow-andmedium-decileschoolsshowedaslightdecreaseinachievementduringthisperiod.Attainmentforthemedium-andhigh-decilebandsincreasedin2011overthatof2010.Theincreasewasgreatestforthehigh-decileband(threepercentagepoints),whileforthemedium-decilebandtheincreasewasabouttwopercentagepoints.Attainmentforthelow-decilesremainedaboutthesameasin2010.

24


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s

Participating Year 12 Candidates Attaining NCEA Level 2 by Decile

Figure 14. Percentages of participating Year 12 candidates attaining NCEA Level 2, across low-, medium- and high-decile bands.


Attainmentforalldecilebandsincreasedin2011overthatof2010.Theincreasewasgreatestfordeciles1-3,fourpercentagepoints,whilefordeciles4–7theincreasewasaboutthreepercentagepoints,andfordeciles8–10itwasaboutonepercentagepoint(Figure14).

Theattainmentofthelow-andmedium-decilebandsincreasedfrom2006to2007andremainedquitestableuntil2009.In2010and2011sharpincreasesinattainmentareevidentforlow-andmedium-decilecandidates.Again,therearedifferencesinfavourofhigh-decileschoolsrelativetomedium-decileschools,andmedium-decileschoolsrelativetolow-decileschools,rangingbetween sixand11percentagepointsfortheformer,andbetween10and14percentagepointsforthelatter.

25


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s

Participating Year 13 Candidates Attaining NCEA Level 3 by Decile

Figure 15. Percentages of participating candidates in Year 13 attaining NCEA Level 3, across low-, medium- and high-decile bands.


LikethedataforNCEAlevels1and2,showninFigures13and14,Figure15showsthatperformanceinNCEALevel3increasedforallthreedecilebandsfrom2006to2007.However,successratesforLevel3declinedsomewhatforalldecilebandsbetween2007and2009,butespeciallyforlow-decileschools.Asnotedpreviously,thismightreflectincreasedretentionintoYear13.Attainmentfordecilebands1-3and4-7increasedin2011overthatof2010,bringingthesuccessratetoalevelsignificantlyhigherthanthatobservedin2007,whichwaspreviouslytheyearwiththehighestrateofsuccess.Theincreasein2011wasgreaterfordeciles1-3,fourpercentagepoints,whilefordeciles4–7itwasabouttwopercentagepoints.

Between2006and2011differencesinfavourofhigh-decileschoolsrelativetomedium-decileschoolsrangebetweeneightand11percentagepoints,whiledifferencesinfavourofmedium-decileschoolsrelativetolow-decileschoolsrangebetween10and14percentagepoints.

26


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f P

art

icip

ati

ng

Can

did

ate

s

Participating Year 13 Candidates Attaining University Entrance by Decile

Figure 16. Percentages of Year 13 participants in NCEA Level 3 attaining University Entrance across low-, medium- and high-decile bands.


Figure16showsthatUniversityEntranceattainmentfordecileband1-3wastwopercentagepointhigherin2011thanin2010,whilethatforeachofdecilebands4-7and8-10wereoneandtwopercentagepointshigherrespectively(Figure16).

Theattainmentofcandidatesinthemedium-andhigh-decilebandsincreasedbetween2005and2007,declineduntil2009,andincreaseduntil2011.Forhigh-decileschools,the2011attainmentrateswerethreepercentagepointshigherthanin2006.Theattainmentofmedium-decilecandidateswastwopercentagepointshigherin2011thanin2006,andthatforlow-decilecandidates wasonepercentagepointlowerin2011thanin2006.

Thegainsforlow-decilecandidatesfrom2009to2010havetakenplaceinspiteofincreasedretentionintoYear13.However,thegainforlow-decilecandidatesissmallerthanthatforlow-decilecandidatesatNCEALevel3,andfactorsotherthansocio-economiclevelarelikelytobeinvolved.ThisisespeciallysoinlightofthesubstantialincreaseinNCEALevel3attainmentforYear13candidatesinlow-decileschoolsasshowninFigure15.Forthesamecohortofcandidates,UniversityEntranceattainmentincreasedveryslightlyin2011.Thisfactsuggeststhat,whiletheattainmentofcandidatesatlow-decileschoolshasimprovedatLevel3,theimprovementhasbeenincombinationsofstandardsthatdonotresultinattainmentofUniversityEntrance.

27


Performance of 2009 Year 11 Cohort Tracked to 2001

Thefollowinggraphs,Figures17to25comparethepercentagesofvariousdemographiccategoriesofstudentfromthecohortofseniorsecondaryschoolcandidates,commencingYear11atthebeginningof2009,throughtotheendof2011.

Thistypeoftrackedanalysisfollowsonlytheoriginal Year11candidatesinordertoquantifytheirattainmentsoverthethreeyearsofseniorsecondaryschooling.Candidatesleavingschoolpriortocompletingallthreeyearsareconsideredpartoftheoriginalcohort,and theirattainmentiscounted.Similarly,newcandidatesenteringatYear12and13donotfeatureintheoriginalYear11cohort,andconsequentlytheirattainmentis notconsidered.

Calculating percentages of candidates attaining qualificationsonthebasisoftheoriginalYear11enrolmentshasanumberofbenefits.First,thisapproachtakesaccountofdifferencesinretentionbetweenthedemographicgroupsofinterest.Forexample,ineachyear,agreaterproportionofmalecandidatesthanfemalecandidatesleaveschoolwithoutNCEALevel1duringYears11and12.Comparingthepercentagesofmale andfemalecandidateswhohaveattainedNCEALevel1bytheendofYear12,foronlythosecandidateswho werestillatschool,wouldthereforeunderestimatetheLevel1performancegapbetweenmalecandidatesandfemalecandidates.

Second,thisapproachprovidesabetterunderstandingofthereallevelofattainmentbecausethedenominatorusedinthecalculationdoesnotchange.Forexample,thecumulativeattainmentofNCEALevel1byYear13candidatesin2011wasover95%.ThisstatisticsuggeststhatthelevelofattainmentofNCEALevel1isextremelyhighand,whenconsideringthosecandidateswhohavecontinuedontoYear13,thisisthecase.However,thetrackedYear11cohortanalysisshowsthatbytheendof2011only81.1%oftheoriginalYear11cohorthadachievedNCEALevel1.

ManystudentsinNewZealandsecondaryschoolspursuequalificationsinadditionto,orinlieuof,NCEAqualifications.SomeofthesequalificationsareregisteredontheNewZealandQualificationsFramework,forexample,theNationalCertificateinComputing,whereasothersarenot.Thus,thedatapresentedinFigures17to25tosomeextentunderestimateoverallattainment rates in secondary schools because they include only NCEAqualifications.

28

2009 (Year 11) 2010 (Year 12) 2011 (Year 13) Male 62.9% 77.1% 78.6% Female 71.1% 82.6% 83.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 2

00

9 Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt

Tracked 2009 Year 11 Candidates Attainment of NCEA Level 1 by the end of 2011 by Gender

Figure 17. Percentages of enrolled male and female candidates commencing Year 11 in 2009, who had attained NCEA Level 1 by the end of 2009, 2010 and 2011.


Analyses by Student Gender

Figures17-19compareattainmentofNCEALevel1–3qualificationsacrossYears11–13forenrolledmaleandfemalecandidates,andshowtheapproximatepercentagesofcandidatesofeachgenderleavingschoolwitheachlevelofNCEA.Forallthreelevels,thesepercentagesarehigherforfemalecandidatesthanformalecandidates.

ThemajorityofenrolledcandidateswhoattainedNCEALevel1didsoinYear11:approximately63%ofYear11malecandidatesand71%ofYear11femalecandidates(Figure17).Approximatelyafurther14%oftheoriginalenrolledmaleYear11cohort,and12%oftheoriginalenrolledfemalecohorthadattainedLevel1bytheendofYear12,withonlyafurtheronepercent(approximately)ofthemaleandfemalecohortsattainingthisqualificationbytheendofYear13.TheslightlyhigherattainmentofLevel1malecandidatesinYear12reducedthedifferenceinthecumulativeattainmentrateinfavouroffemales,fromaroundeightpercentagepointsattheendofYear11,toaroundfivepercentagepointsattheendofYear13.

29


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 2

00

9 Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt




InFigure18weseethataroundtwopercentofenrolledmalecandidatesandonepercentoffemalecandidatesattainedNCEALevel2priortoYear12,with57%ofmalecandidatesand67%offemalecandidatesattainingthisqualificationbytheendofYear12.This10percentage

pointdifferenceinfavouroffemalecandidatesclosedsomewhatbytheendofthefollowingyear,withafurthereightandsevenpercentoftheoriginalYear11cohortofenrolledmaleandfemalecandidates,respectively,attainingNCEALevel2duringYear13.

30


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 2

00

9 Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt




A negligible percentage of candidates of either gender attainedNCEALevel3duringYear11,andlessthanonepercentofbothmaleandfemalecandidatesattaineditduringYear12(Figure19).BytheendofYear13,34%

oftheoriginalenrolledYear11malecohort,and48%oftheoriginalenrolledfemalecohorthadattainedNCEALevel3,adifferenceof14percentagepointsinfavouroffemalecandidates.

31

2009 (Year 11) 2010 (Year 12) 2011 (Year 13) NZ European 75.6% 85.4% 86.0% NZ Maori 50.4% 66.7% 68.3% Pasifika 48.8% 72.1% 75.3% Asian 68.5% 82.1% 84.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 2

00

9 Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt

Tracked 2009 Year 11 Candidates Attainment of NCEA Level 1 by the end of 2011 by Ethnicity

Figure 20. Percentages of enrolled New Zealand European, New Zealand Ma-ori, Pasifika and Asian candidates commencing Year 11 in 2009, who had attained NCEA Level 1 by the end of 2009, 2010 and 2011.


Analyses by Student Ethnicity

Figures20-22compareattainmentofNCEALevels1–3acrossYears11–13forNewZealandEuropean,NewZealandMa-ori,PasifikaorAsiancandidates,andshowtheapproximatepercentagesoftheoriginalenrolledcohortforeachethnicgroupleavingschoolwitheachlevelofNCEA.Candidates.Candidatesnotidentifyingwithanyoftheseethnicitiesareomittedfromthesedata.

BytheendofYear11in2009,76%ofenrolledNewZealandEuropeancandidates,69%ofAsiancandidates,50%ofNewZealandMa-oriand49%ofPasifikacandidateshadattainedNCEALevel1(Figure20).

BytheendofYear12thegaps,whilestillsignificant,hadclosedsomewhat,with85%ofNewZealandEuropean,82%ofAsian,67%ofNewZealandMa-ori,and72%ofPasifikacandidateshavingattainedNCEALevel1.Pasifikacandidates,similartoNewZealandMa-ori candidates after Year11,werefivepercentagepointsaheadafterYear12.

ThePasifikacohortcontinuedtomakegainsinattainingNCEALevel1duringYear13,withafurtherthreepercentoftheoriginalenrolledYear11cohortattainingthequalification.Incomparison,twopercentoftheAsiancohort,twopercentoftheNewZealandMa-oricohort,andlessthanonepercentoftheNewZealandEuropeancohortattainedNCEALevel1duringYear13.

32


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 2

00

9 Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt


Figure 21. Percentages of New Zealand European, New Zealand Ma-ori, Pasifika and Asian candidates commencing Year 11 in 2009, who had attained NCEA Level 2 by the end of 2009, 2010 and 2011.


Figure21showsthattwopercentorlessofanyethniccohortattainedNCEALevel2priortoYear12.BytheendofYear12,alargeperformancedifferenceinfavourofNewZealandEuropean(69%),andAsian(70%)candidatesrelativetoNewZealandMa-ori(44%)andPasifika(47%)candidatesisevident.DuringYear13thisdifferencediminished,especiallyforPasifikacandidates,withafurther17%oftheoriginalYear11PasifikacohortattainingLevel2duringYear13,comparedwithninepercentoftheNewZealandMa-ori eight percent of theAsiancohort,andfivepercentoftheNewZealandEuropeancohort.

TheNCEALevel1datainFigure20andthoseforLevel2inFigure21showdifferentcomparativeattainmentofthesequalificationsbyNewZealandEuropeanandAsiancandidates.Specifically,thedifferenceinattainmentbetweenNewZealandEuropeanandAsiancandidatesissomewhatgreaterforLevel2thanforLevel1.

33


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 2

00

9 Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt


Figure 22. Percentages of New Zealand European, New Zealand Ma-ori, Pasifika and Asian candidates commencing Year 11 in 2009, who had attained NCEA Level 3 by the end of 2009, 2010 and 2011.


DifferencesbetweenthepercentagesofthevariousethnicgroupsthathaveattainedNCEALevel3bytheendofYear13areevident.About54%ofAsiancandidates

attainedLevel3bythisstage,comparedwith47%of NewZealandEuropeancandidates,23%ofNewZealandMa-oricandidatesand27%ofPasifikacandidates(Figure22).

34

2009 (Year 11) 2010 (Year 12) 2011 (Year 13) Decile 1-3 52.1% 69.9% 72.4% Decile 4-7 66.7% 80.3% 81.7% Decile 8-10 78.0% 88.1% 88.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 2

00

9 Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt

Tracked 2009 Year 11 Candidates Attainment of NCEA Level 1 by the end of 2011 by Decile Band

Figure 23. Percentages of candidates at low-, medium- and high-decile schools, commencing Year 11 in 2009, who had attained NCEA Level 1 by the end of 2009, 2010 and 2011.


Analyses by School Decile

Figures23-25exploreattainmentofNCEAforcandidatesatvariousdecilebands.Itisimportanttorealisethataschool’sdecilegivessomeindicationoftheaveragesocio-economiclevelofstudentsattheschool,butdoesnotnecessarilyreflectthecircumstancesofparticularstudents.

DataforschoolswithoutdecileratingsareexcludedfromFigures23to25.

Decile-relatedattainmentdifferencesareevidentacrossallyearlevelsinFigure23,with52%ofcandidatesatlow-decileschools,67%ofcandidatesatmedium-decileschoolsand78%ofcandidatesathigh-decileschoolshavingattainedNCEALevel1bytheendofYear11. ThedifferencesdiminishedbytheendofYear13,bywhichtimethepercentageswere72%,82%and89%respectively.

35


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 2

00

9 Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt


Figure 24. Percentages of candidates at low-, medium- and high-decile schools, commencing Year 11 in 2009, who had attained NCEA Level 2 by the end of 2009, 2010 and 2011.


Justonepercentofcandidatesatmediumandhigh-decilebandschoolsattainedNCEALevel2priortoYear12,comparedwithnearlytwopercentofcandidatesattendinglow-decilebandschools(Figure24).Thedecile-relateddifferencesinattainmentofthisqualificationattheendofYears12and13aregreaterthanforNCEALevel1.AttheendofYear12,thepercentageofcandidatesattaining

NCEALevel2athigh-decileschools(73%)wascloseto30percentagepointshigherthanthepercentageatlow-decileschools(45%).Thepercentageforcandidatesatmedium-decileschoolswas61%.ThedifferencesinattainmentacrossthedecilebandsreducedslightlybytheendofYear13,being78%forhigh-decileschools,69%formedium-decileschools,and57%forlow-decileschools.

36


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f 2

00

9 Y

ear

11

Co

ho

rt


Figure 25. Percentages of candidates at low-, medium- and high-decile schools, commencing Year 11 in 2009, and who had attained NCEA Level 3 by the end of 2009, 2010 and 2011.


LessthanonepercentofcandidatesatschoolsinanydecilebandattainedNCEALevel3priortoYear13(Figure25).BytheendofYear13,largedifferencesinratesofattainmentofNCEALevel3wereevident.Athigh-

decileschools55%oftheoriginalenrolledYear11cohortattainedthequalification,comparedwith38%atmedium-decileschoolsand25%atlow-decileschools.

37

Endorsements

Certificate Endorsement

PercentagesofCandidatesattainingCertificateEndorsements

CertificateEndorsementforNCEALevels1,2and3 wasintroducedin2007tomotivatecandidatesto developtheirpotential.Toqualifyforanendorsement withExcellence,candidatesrequire50creditsormore at Excellence.AnendorsementwithMeritrequires50 ormorecreditsatMerit (or Merit and Excellence).

ItshouldbenotedthatcreditstosupportCertificateEndorsementscanbeaccumulatedovermorethanoneyearjustasacandidatecantakemorethanasingleyeartomeettherequirementsofanNCEAqualification.ThereforeinanygivenyearsomecandidateswillachievebothanNCEAqualificationandaCertificateEndorsementconcurrently,whilstothercandidatesmayaddmorecreditstowardsaCertificateEndorsement onanNCEAqualificationachievedinaprioryearregardlessofwhetherornottheyachieveanadditionalNCEAqualification.

In the Secondary School Statistics published on the NZQAwebsite,onlyconcurrentlyachievedCertificateEndorsementarereportedatpresent.Forclaritythisreportfollowsthatconvention.

ThepercentagesofNCEAqualificationsateachlevelawardedwithendorsementsofMeritorExcellencewereroughlystableovertheperiodfrom2007to2009.However,thepercentagesawardedwithendorsements atLevels1and2increasedin2010andagainin2011, andtherearevariationsbetweengenders,betweenethnicitiesandbetweencandidatesattendingschools ofdifferentdeciles.ThesevariationsareillustratedinFigures26to34.

NCEA Level 1 Year 11 Candidates



NoEndorsement 53.7 70.3 69.3

MeritEndorsement 33.0 21.6 23.4

ExcellenceEndorsement 13.3 8.1 7.3

Table 4. Percentages of Level 1, 2 and 3 NCEA qualifications attained in the typical year for each with endorsements of Merit and Excellence in 2011.

38

Endorsements

Analysis by Gender

Figures26to28comparethepercentagesofmaleandfemalecandidatesateachlevelofNCEAwhoattainedthosequalificationswithendorsementsofMerit or Excellence.DifferencesinfavouroffemalecandidatesareevidentforbothMerit and Excellenceendorsementsatallthreelevels,withtheexceptionofLevel3Excellence,forwhichthedifferencesareonlyoneortwopercentagepoints.Between2007and2009therewassomefluctuationinpercentagesgainingendorsementsandaslightoverallupwardyear-on-yeartrend,particularlyfor

endorsementswithMerit.In2011therewereincreasesinthepercentagesofqualificationsendorsedwithMerit atLevels1and2,andinthepercentagesofqualificationsendorsedwithExcellenceatalllevels.TheincreaseswereparticularlylargeatLevel1,whereratesofMerit endorsementsincreasedbyfivepercentagepointsformalesandbyfourpercentagepointsforfemales,andwhereratesofExcellenceendorsementincreasedbythreepercentagepointsformalesandbyfivepercentagepointsforfemales.

39

Endorsements

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 24% 23% 22% 24% 29% Female 32% 31% 32% 33% 37%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s

Merit Endorsement NCEA Level 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 15% 15% 15% 16% 17% Female 23% 22% 23% 24% 26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 17% 17% 18% 20% 20% Female 23% 23% 24% 25% 26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 4% 5% 5% 6% 9% Female 9% 10% 10% 12% 17%

Excellence Endorsement NCEA Level 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 3% 3% 4% 5% 6% Female 6% 6% 7% 8% 10%


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% Female 5% 5% 6% 6% 8%


Figure 26. NCEA Level 1 Endorsements achieved by Year 11 Candidates by gender for 2007 to 2011.

Figure 27. NCEA Level 2 Endorsements achieved by Year 12 Candidates by gender for 2007 to 2011.

Figure 28. NCEA Level 3 Endorsements achieved by Year 13 Candidates by gender 2007 to 2011.

40

Endorsements


Figures29to31showthepercentagesofcandidates ofAsian,NewZealandEuropean,NewZealand Ma-oriandPasifikaethnicitiesateachlevelofNCEA, whoattainedthosequalificationswithendorsements of Merit or Excellence.

In2011,bothMerit and Excellenceendorsementrateswereashighorhigherthantheywerein2010forallethnicities,atallthreelevelsofNCEA.Theincreaseswerelargest for MeritendorsementatLevel1,whichincreasedbysevenpercentagepointsforPasifika,sixpercentagepointsforNewZealandMa-ori and by four percentage pointsforNewZealandEuropeans.RatesofExcellence endorsementatLevel1increasedbysixpercentagepointsforAsians,fivepercentagepointsforNewZealandEuropeans,andonepercentagepointforbothNewZealandMa-oriandPasifika.

41

Endorsements

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 NZ European 31% 30% 30% 32% 36% NZ Maori 15% 15% 15% 17% 23% Pasifika 12% 10% 12% 14% 21% Asian 36% 35% 34% 37% 37%

0% 5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s



0% 5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s



0% 5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s








Figure 29. NCEA Level 1 Endorsements achieved by Year 11 Candidates by ethnicity for 2007 to 2011.



42

Endorsements

Analyses by Decile

Figures32to34showthepercentagesofcandidates ineachdecilebandateachlevelofNCEA,who attainedthosequalificationswithendorsementsof Merit or Excellence.

ThepatternsofperformanceevidentinFigures32to34largelyreflectthepatternsofoverallattainmentshowninFigures13to16(pages23to26)atallthreelevelsofNCEA.Candidatesatdecile8–10schoolsattainthegreatestproportionsofcertificatesendorsedwitheitherMerit or Excellence,followedbycandidatesfromdecile 4–7schools,andthendecile1-3schools.

In2011,bothMerit and Excellenceendorsementrateswereashighorhigherthantheywereinanyyearsince2007foralldecilebands,atallthreelevelsofNCEA. Again,theincreaseswerelargestforMeritendorsement atLevel1,whichincreasedbysevenpercentagepoints fordeciles1-3,byfivepercentagepointsfordeciles4-7,andbythreepercentagepointsfordeciles8-10.

Rates of ExcellenceendorsementatLevel1increasedbysixpercentagepointsfordeciles8-10,threepercentagepointsfordeciles4-7,andbytwopercentagepointsfordeciles1-3.

43

Endorsements

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Decile 1 - 3 13% 11% 11% 13% 20% Decile 4 - 7 25% 24% 24% 25% 30% Deciel 8 -10 35% 36% 36% 37% 40%

0% 5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s



0% 5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s



0% 5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s








Figure 32. NCEA Level 1 Endorsements achieved by Year 11 Candidates by decile band for 2007 to 2011.



44

Endorsements

Course Endorsement

CourseEndorsementisanintegralpartoftheNCEAimprovementspackageandwasintroducedin2011 asawaytorecogniseacandidate’sstrengthinan individualcourse.

TogainCourseEndorsement,candidatesmustgainaspecificnumberofcredits,includingbothinternalandexternalcreditsinasetofstandardsdefinedbytheirschoolasacourse.

A course is assessed using a set of standards intended toreflectacoherentprogrammeoflearningwithinasingleyear.Coursesmayhavenamesthataresimilartotraditionalsubjects,butbecausetheycanbeassessed using different collections of standards it is not possible tocomparespecificcoursesbetweenschoolsornationally.

CoursescanbeendorsedateitherMeritorExcellence atLevels1,2and3.FormoreinformationabouthowcoursesaredefinedandthecriteriaforachievingMerit orExcellenceendorsementrefertotheNZQAwebsite.

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/about-us/publications/newsletters-and-circulars/secqual/course-endorsement

CourseEndorsementAchievementRates

As2011isthefoundationyearforthisnewfeature ofNCEAnotallschoolswillhavefullyimplementedCourseEndorsement.Ofthenearly160,000enrolledcandidatesinYear11,12and13,over130,000hadone ormorecoursesthatmetthecriteriaforbeingableto beendorsed.

Table5belowshowsthepercentageofcandidatesbyyearlevelwithoneormorecoursesthatcouldbeendorsedandthepercentageofthesecandidateswhoachievedatleastoneendorsement.

2011 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13

Courses able to be endorsed

89% 82% 80%

Achievedoneormoreendorsements

41.2% 31.1% 30.0%

Total Candidates 59,875 54,485 44,635

Table 5. Percentages and number of all enrolled candidates achieving at least one endorsement in 2011.

Thefollowingtable(Table6)showsthebestendorsementachievedbycandidatesasapercentageoftheenrolledcandidatesineachyearlevel.AcandidatemayachievemorethanoneCourseEndorsementbutinthisdatatheywillonlybecountedoncebasedonthebestendorsement.

2011 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13

ExcellenceatLevel3 <0.1% 0.1% 3.0%

MeritatLevel3 0.1% 0.3% 26.5%

ExcellenceatLevel2 <0.1% 2.4% <0.1%


ExcellenceatLevel1 2.2% 0.1% <0.1%


Noendorsement 58.8% 68.9% 70.0%

Total Candidates 59,875 54,485 44,635

Table 6. Best endorsement achieved by candidates as a percentage of the candidates in each year level in 2011.

46

LiteracyandNumeracy

Literacy

Figures35to37comparethepercentagesoftheenrolmentcohortwhoachievedLiteracybytheendofYear11,ineachyearfrom2008to2011.Dataarereportedbygender,byethnicityandbyschooldecile.

AllthreefiguresshowrelativelystablepercentagesattainingLiteracyfrom2008to2010,andasignificant risein2011.Thisriseislikelytobelinkedtothechanges in2011,wherethesourcesofevidenceforLiteracy werebroadenedtoincludestandardsoutsidethe Englishlearningarea.

Analyses by Gender

Figure35showsstableLiteracyattainmentformalesandfemalesfrom2008to2010,consistentlyfavouringfemalesbyaboutsevenpercentagepoints.In2011,Literacyattainmentroseby3.5percentagepointsforfemales andfivepercentagepointsformales.Asaresult,the sevenpercentagepointdifferenceinfavouroffemalesfrom2008to2010narrowedto5.5pointsin2011.PossiblythisnarrowingisduetotheuseofLiteracyevidencefromstandardsoutsidetheEnglishlearning areabeingmoresignificantformalesthanforfemales.

2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 77.9% 78.3% 78.3% 83.1% Female 85.0% 85.7% 85.1% 88.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s

Cumulative Percentage of Year 11 Candidates attaining NCEA Level 1 Literacy by Gender

Figure 35. Percentage of candidates who attained Literacy by gender for 2008 to 2011.

LiteracyandNumeracyarekeyachievementsinYear11,bothasprerequisitesfortheNCEALevel1qualification,andintheirownright.ThestandardsthatcancontributeevidenceforLiteracyandNumeracychangedin2011, sothatcautionisneededwhencomparingthe2011statisticswiththoseofpreviousyears.

AchievingLiteracyandNumeracyisarequirementforachievingNCEALevel1.However,achievingNCEALevel1isnotarequirementofachievingeitherLiteracyorNumeracy.ConsequentlyacandidatemaynotbeclassifiedasaparticipantinrespecttoNCEALevel1butwillstillbeconsideredinthereportingofachievementratesforLiteracyandNumeracy.ThereforethedenominatorforLiteracyandNumeracyachievementratesistheenrolmentcohort.

47


Figure36showsthatallethnicitiesattainedhigherLiteracyratesin2011thaninpreviousyears.NewZealandEuropeancandidatesachievedthehighestLiteracyratesinallfouryears,risingin2011toover90%oftheenrolmentcohort.Approximately85%oftheAsiancohort,79%of

thePasifikacohortand77%oftheNewZealandMa-ori cohortmettheLiteracyrequirement.TherisesinLiteracyattainmentweregreaterforPasifikaandAsiansthan forothers.

2008 2009 2010 2011 NZ European 86.7% 86.8% 87.4% 90.6% NZ Maori 72.2% 74.3% 73.3% 76.9% Pasifika 72.8% 73.2% 71.4% 79.2% Asian 78.1% 78.8% 78.0% 85.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s

Cumulative Percentage of Year 11 Candidates attaining NCEA Level 1 Literacy by Ethnicity

Figure 36. Percentage of candidates who attained Literacy by ethnicity for 2008 to 2011.

LiteracyandNumeracy

48

Analyses by Decile Band

Figure37showsaconsistentpictureofhigherLiteracyattainmentinhigherdecilebandsandincreasedLiteracyratesin2011.Whilethehigh-andmedium-decilebands

maintainedaseparationof5–6percentagepoints, bothrisingaround4-5%,thelow-decilebandshowed atwopercentagepointrise.

2008 2009 2010 2011 Decile 1-3 73.7% 74.0% 74.3% 76.2% Decile 4-7 82.3% 82.2% 82.5% 86.6% Decile 8-10 87.2% 88.7% 87.9% 92.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s

Cumulative Percentage of Year 11 Candidates attaining NCEA Level 1 Literacy by Decile

Figure 37. Percentage of candidates who attained Literacy by decile band for 2008 to 2011.

LiteracyandNumeracy

49

Numeracy

Figures38to40comparethepercentagesoftheenrolmentcohortwhoattainedNumeracybytheend ofYear11,ineachyearfrom2008to2011.AsforLiteracy,Numeracyattainmentsarereportedbygender,byethnicityandbydecileband.

Analyses by Gender

Figure38showsalargelystablepatternofNumeracyattainmentoverrecentyears.Femalesoutperformedmalesby1-2percentagepointsovertheperiod.Aslightdecreaseinperformanceamongmalesin2011maybeattributedtothereducedrangeofstandardsallowed tocontributeNumeracyevidencein2011.

2008 2009 2010 2011 Male 87.5% 88.1% 88.2% 87.5% Female 88.7% 89.9% 89.8% 89.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s

Cumulative Percentage of Year 11 Candidates attaining NCEA Level 1 Numeracy by Gender

Figure 38. Percentage of candidates who attained Numeracy by gender for 2008 to 2011.

LiteracyandNumeracy

50


Figure39showsthattherankorderofLiteracyattainment(NewZealandEuropean,Asian,PasifikaandNewZealand Ma-ori)isalsoevidentforNumeracy.ThereducedrangeofstandardsthatcontributetoNumeracyhashadno significanteffect.

2008 2009 2010 2011 NZ European 92.1% 92.2% 92.8% 92.6% NZ Maori 79.7% 82.0% 81.4% 80.6% Pasifika 82.6% 84.3% 83.8% 83.5% Asian 87.2% 89.4% 89.5% 90.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s

Cumulative Percentage of Year 11 Candidates attaining NCEA Level 1 Numeracy by Ethnicity

Figure 39. Percentage of candidates who attained Numeracy by ethnicity for 2008 to 2011.

LiteracyandNumeracy

51

Analyses by Decile Band

Figure40showsthattheapparentstabilityinNumeracyattainments,observedinthepreviousfigures,isnotquitematchedfordecilebandattainments.Whilethemedium-decilebandhasseenlittlechangeinNumeracyrates,theattainmentofthehigh-decilebandhasrisenslightly,and

thatofthelow-decilebandfellslightlytothelevel ofthreeyearsago.Possibly,thelossofsomesources ofevidence,usedinthepasttoassessNumeracy forstudentsatlow-decileschools,hasaffectedthat attainmentrate.

2008 2009 2010 2011 Decile 1-3 81.6% 83.5% 83.3% 81.1% Decile 4-7 89.8% 90.0% 90.8% 89.6% Decile 8-10 91.2% 92.7% 92.6% 94.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f C

an

did

ate

s

Cumulative Percentage of Year 11 Candidates attaining NCEA Level 1 Numeracy by Decile

Figure 40. Percentage of candidates who attained Numeracy by decile for 2008 to 2011.

LiteracyandNumeracy

52

Whilethequalificationsgainedbyschoolstudentsin2011weremainlyNCEAqualifications,morethan121,000otherNationalCertificateswereawarded.OverhalfofthesequalificationswereawardedtostudentsinYear13.

Approximately88%ofallnon-NCEANationalCertificateswereawardedinscienceandmathematics,whichaccountedfornearlytwo-thirdsofthetotal(Figure41).Morethan1000qualificationswereawardedineachofmechanicalengineering,computing(includingbusinessadministration),building,constructionandalliedtrades,drama,andtourism.Inaddition,over250qualificationswereawardedineachofelectronicstechnology,performingarts,andmusic.Someeightpercentof non-NCEAqualificationsweretrade-oriented.

Thebalancebetweengenderswasnearlyeven,malesgaining51%andfemales49%ofthe121,000qualifications.Partitionedbyethnicity,thepercentagesreceivedwere asfollows:NewZealandEuropean(64%),NewZealand Ma-ori(11%),Pasifika(6%)andAsian(17%).

Studentsatdecileband8-10schoolsreceived48%ofthenon-NCEAqualifications;thosefromdecileband4-7receivedanother40%;whilethosefromdecileband1-3received10%.Thelowerpercentageforthelow-decilebandsuggestslessemphasisonnon-NCEAqualificationsthanmighthavebeenexpected.

1124

1316

1365

1499

2875

5233

27183

80239

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000

Tourism

Drama

Building, Construction

Other

Computing

Mechanical Engineering

Science

Mathematics

Non-NCEA National Qualifications awarded in 2011

Figure 41. Number of non-NCEA National Qualifications awarded in 2011.

AnalysisofSchoolRelatedQualifications(SRQ)

54

TheNZQFstandardsusedinsecondaryschoolsfallintothreecategories:

• Unitstandards,whichareinternally-assessedandtypically carry grades of Not Achieved and Achieved,althoughafewalsocarrygradesofMerit.

• Internally-assessedAchievementStandards,whichcarrygrades of Not Achieved,Achieved,Merit and Excellence.

• Externally-assessedAchievementStandards,whichcarrygrades of Not Achieved,Achieved,Merit and Excellence.

Externally-assessedAchievementStandardsareassessedbyexaminationorportfolioinanannualexaminationround,lateintheacademicyear.

Tables7and8andFigures42and43showdataontherelativeuseof,andresultsdistributionsfor,thethreetypesofstandardin2011.

Table7showsthenumberofentriesandassessedresultsforeachtypeofstandardwiththeoverallresultsdistributionoftheassessedresultsin2011.Collectively,thethreetypesofstandardgeneratednearly4.6millionresultsin2011.

Anassessedresultisdefinedasanyentrywherearesultofassessmenthasbeenreported.Thereareanumberofreasonswhyanentrymaynothaveanassessedresult. Forexternally-assessedAchievementStandardstheseincludethecandidatebeingabsentfromtheexaminationsessionornotsubmittingworkforassessment(absent),orhavingattendedtheexaminationbutnotattemptingthestandard(void).Forinternally-assessedstandardstheschoolmaynothavereportedaresultbecausenoassessmenthasoccurred.

ResultsdistributionsforNZQFstandards

Entries

Number of Assessed Results

Percentage Not Achieved

PercentageAchieved

PercentageMerit

PercentageExcellence

Externally-assessed AchievementStandard

1,562,986 1,297,519 26.5 39.9 23.5 10.1

Internally-assessed AchievementStandard

1,914,621 1,846,630 19.6 37.5 24.8 18.0

Unit Standard 1,520,738 1,425,894 19.1 80.8 0.1 0.0

Table 7. Percentage distributions of results for secondary school candidates in externally-assessed Achievement Standards, internally-assessed Achievement Standards and Unit Standards, in 2011.

55

Table8showsthattheproportionofassessedresultsforUnitStandards,andAchievementStandardsvariesatdifferentlevels,asdoestheproportionofinternally-andexternally-assessedresults.


Decile 1–3 Decile 4–7 Decile 8–10

Level 1

Externally-assessedAchievementStandard 16.2% 24.6% 32.4%

Internally-assessedAchievementStandard 44.8% 47.6% 50.2%

Unit Standard 39.0% 27.8% 17.4%

Total Results 326,156 884,836 782,853

Level 2



Unit Standard 55.3% 43.1% 28.6%

Total Results 247,502 723,035 691,517

Level 3



Unit Standard 43.4% 31.4% 18.8%

Total Results 111,198 353,448 390,684

Table 8. Percentages and total numbers of assessed results by level at Deciles 1–3, 4–7 and 8–10 schools by standard type: externally-assessed Achievement Standards, internally-assessed Achievement Standards and Unit Standards.

56

Figure42comparestheresultsdistributionsforexternally-assessedAchievementStandardsacrossthethreedecilebands.


Decile 1 -3 Decile 4-7 Decile 8-10 Not Achieved 46% 33% 24% Achieved 38% 41% 41% Merit 13% 20% 25% Excellence 3% 6% 10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f ass

ess

ed

resu

lts

Distribution of Externally-assessed Achievement Standard Results By Decile

Figure 42. Percentage distributions of results for externally-assessed Achievement Standards in 2011, by school decile band.

57

Figure43comparestheresultsdistributionsforinternally-assessedAchievementStandardsacrossthethreedecilebands.


Decile 1 -3 Decile 4-7 Decile 8-10 Not Achieved 27% 22% 16% Achieved 43% 39% 35% Merit 19% 24% 27% Excellence 11% 15% 22%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f ass

ess

ed

resu

lts

Distribution of Internally-assessed Achievement Standard Results By Decile

Figure 43. Percentage distributions of assessed results for internally-assessed Achievement Standards in 2011, by school decile band.

58

Figure44showsanabruptchangetothepatternofuseforLevel1standardandassessmenttypesin2011.ThischangeisadirectconsequenceofthechangesimplementedatLevel1asaresultoftheAlignment of Standards with the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) review project.Thisproject,commonlyreferredtoasStandards Review,isprogressivelyreviewingallstandardsinrelation totheNewZealandCurriculumstartingwithLevel1 in2011andcompletingLevel2and3in2012and 2013respectively.

In2011thegeneraleffectwastoreducethenumberof Unit Standards used in schools and to reduce and rationalisethenumberofexternally-assessedAchievementStandards.FormoredetailsaboutthisprojectrefertotheNZQAwebsite.

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/providers-partners/assessment-and-moderation/tertiary-moderation/manual-for-teo/general-information-alignment-of-standards/

ThereductionintheuseofUnitStandardsatLevel2overthelasttwoyearsmaybeattributabletoschoolspreparingforthechangestostandardsatthislevelthatwillbeimplementedin2012aspartoftheStandardsReview.


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Externally Assessed Achievement Standard 851629 810952 773414 750017 747153 526531

Internally Assessed Achievement Standard 614908 598632 729939 739163 741528 968157

Unit Standard 645365 682225 921664 939330 893454 526095

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

Nu

mb

er

of

Resu

lts

Number of results by Standard Type and Assessment at Level 1

Figure 44. Number of results by standard type and assessment method at Level 1 from 2006 to 2011.

59




Unit Standard 484876 516780 710022 748752 715883 661666

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

Nu

mb

er

of

Resu

lts





Unit Standard 132154 150658 223276 237215 244876 238133

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

Nu

mb

er

of

Resu

lts



60

NewZealandScholarship

TheNewZealandScholarshipawardswereintroducedin2004,andthepresentsystemformarkingtheScholarshipexaminationsin2006.ScholarshipisintendedtochallengeNewZealand’smostablesecondaryschoolstudents.Therefore,theexaminationsareverydemanding,evenforthehighest-performingstudents.Scholarshipstudentsareexpectedtodemonstratehigh-levelcriticalthinking,abstractionandgeneralisation,andtointegrate,synthesiseandapplyknowledge,skills,understandingandideastocomplexsituations.

Generally,ScholarshipcandidatesareYear13students,mostofwhomarealsostudyingtowardsNCEALevel3.EachScholarshipsubjectassessmentcarriestwopassinggrades–Scholarship (S) and Outstanding Scholarship (O),nottobeconfusedwiththeScholarshipAwardandtheOutstandingScholarAwardwhicharemonetaryawardsgiventohighachievingcandidatesbasedonoverallperformanceintheScholarshipexaminations.

Asageneralrule,thenumberofScholarshipsawardedineachsubjectrepresentsabout3%ofthenationalLevel3cohortinthatsubject.Thenationalcohortforeachsubjectcomprisesthesetofcandidateswhoareenteredforatleast14creditsinthatsubjectatLevel3.

AssessmentforScholarshipisheldattheendofeachschoolyear.Formostsubjects,assessmentinvolvesathree-hourwrittenexamination.However,Dance,DramaandMusicalsoinvolveassessmentbyrecordedperformance,andVisualArts,TechnologyandGraphicsareassessedentirelythroughportfoliosofwork.

Scholarship Monetary Awards

TherearesixclassesofawardforScholarship,includingfivethatcarrymonetaryawardsranginginvaluefromasingle$500paymentthroughto$10,000perannumforthreeyears.

PremierAwardsrewardthetop5to10candidateseachyear.TheOutstandingScholarAwardsaregiventothenexttop40to60candidates.In2011tenstudentsreceivedPremierAwardsand51studentsreceivedOutstandingScholarAwards.

In2011atotalof34TopSubjectScholarAwardsweregiven.Thisistheonlyawardthatcanbeachievedmorethanonceorcanbegiveninadditiontoanotheraward. In2011onecandidatewasawardedtwoTopSubjectScholarAwards.ThereweresevencandidateswhowereawardedaTopSubjectScholarAwardinadditiontoanotheraward.

Atotalofapproximately$3.7millionwillbepaidoveraperiodofthreeyearstothe2,304candidateswhoachievedoneormorescholarshipsubjectorawardsin2011.Thesepaymentsaremadetothosecandidateswhoaregoingontotertiarystudyandareintendedtoprovidesomeassistancetosupportthisstudy.

FordetailsaboutscholarshipandtheawardsseetheNZQAwebsite.

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/awards/scholarship/

61


Scholarships Awarded in 2011

In2011some10,271candidateswereenteredintheNewZealandScholarshipexaminations.Thesecandidatesmade19,780scholarshipsubjectentriesfromwhich3,449subjectscholarshipswereachievedateitherScholarshipgrade(3,050)orOutstandingScholarshipgrade(399).

ThetotalnumberofcandidatesenteringforoneormoreScholarshipsubjectexaminationshasrisensince2006from7,850to10,271in2011.Thereisacorrespondingincreaseofsubjectentriesfrom15,900in2006to19,780in2011.AcrossthesameperiodthenumberofsubjectsachievedateitherScholarshiporOutstandingScholarshipgradehasincreasedfrom2,950to3,449.Theobservedriseinnumbersofscholarshipparticipants,entriesandachievementsparallelstheincreasesintheLevel3subjectcohorts,fromwhichthenumbersofScholarshipstobeawardedineachsubjectarecalculated.

Table9showsthatthereweremorefemalecandidatesthanmales,andfemalesenteredmoreScholarshipsubjects;however,theyproducedfewerassessedresults(thosewhoactuallyattemptedtheexamination),andreceivedfewerScholarshipandOutstandinggrades thanmales.

Foreachgender,21%oftheassessedresultsproducedScholarshipgrades.However,therelationshipdiffersatOutstandinggrade.Atthisgrade,3.1%ofassessedmaleresultsweregradedOutstanding,comparedwith2.3% offemaleresults.Themale/femaledifferenceof63Outstandinggradesin2011issimilarto2010,butdiffersfrompreviousyears,wherethedifferencefavoured malesbyonly10-20grades.ThedifferencefavouringfemalesinNCEAachievementisnotreflectedintheScholarshipexaminations.

Number of

Candidates Entries Assessed resultsScholarship

gradesOutstanding

grades

Male 4,620 9,580 7,359 1,540 231

Female 5,649 10,199 7,211 1,508 168

Table 9. Candidates, entries results and outcomes for Scholarship in 2011. Three candidates with “unknown gender” have been omitted from this table.

62


Scholarships Awarded in 2011 by Subject

Table10belowgivesabreakdownofScholarshipentriesandresultsfor2011acrossall35subjects.TheLevel3cohort,fromwhichthenumbersofScholarshipstobe

awardedineachsubjectarecalculated,variedfrom26 forLatinand58forTeReoRangatira,to15,230forStatisticsandModellingand14,030forEnglish.

Subject Level 3 Cohort Scholarship Outstanding Total %

Accounting 2606 71 9 80 3.1%

Agriculture&Horticulture 423 8 1 9 2.1%

ArtHistory 1897 49 6 55 2.9%

Biology 8505 230 34 264 3.1%

Chemistry 7421 202 25 227 3.1%

Chinese 280 7 1 8 2.9%

Classical Studies 5220 141 21 162 3.1%

Dance 470 13 2 15 3.2%

Design 3093 80 12 92 3.0%

Drama 1903 54 6 60 3.2%

Economics 4147 117 16 133 3.2%

English 14030 380 46 426 3.0%

French 826 22 3 25 3.0%

Geography 6546 184 20 204 3.1%

German 328 9 1 10 3.0%

Graphics 1481 43 5 48 3.2%

History 5910 165 21 186 3.1%

Japanese 645 17 2 19 2.9%

Latin 26 3 2 5 19.2%

MathematicswithCalculus 7504 186 27 213 2.8%

MediaStudies 3012 85 10 95 3.2%

MusicStudies 1112 30 4 34 3.1%

Painting 3249 87 12 99 3.0%

Photography 3004 79 11 90 3.0%

Physical Education 4057 79 4 83 2.0%

Physics 7008 183 25 208 3.0%

Printmaking 265 8 2 10 3.8%

Samoan 296 9 1 10 3.4%

Science 1017 25 4 29 2.9%

Sculpture 202 6 1 7 3.5%

Spanish 377 11 1 12 3.2%

StatisticsandModelling 15230 412 56 468 3.1%

TeReoMa-ori 557 17 2 19 3.4%

Te Reo Rangatira 58 3 1 4 6.9%

Technology 1771 35 5 40 2.3%

Table 10. Cohort size and results for Scholarship in 2011.

63


Thenumberofsubjectentries(19,782acrossallsubjects)variedfrom26forTeReoRangatira,to1,886forEnglishand1,747forStatisticsandModelling.

ManyoftheLevel3cohortforeachsubjectdonotenterforScholarshipinthatsubject,andanumberofstudentsnotincludedinasubjectcohortnonethelessenterScholarshipinthatsubject.TheneteffectofthesetwofactorsisthatthenumberofentriescanexceedthesizeofthecohortaswasthecaseforLatinin2011.

Otherthanforverysmallsubjects,orsubjectswherestudentachievementsfallshortofscholarshipstandard, thenumberofscholarshipsawardedinasubjectisexpectedtobecloseto3%oftheLevel3cohort.Therefore,thecalculatedpercentageoftheLevel3 cohortachievingaScholarshiporOutstandingScholarshipgradeinasubjectwithaverysmallnumberofentries(suchasLatinandTeReoRangitira)canbehigherthan3%.Ingeneral,someflexibilityisallowedindecidingthenumberofscholarshipstobeawardedinverysmallsubjects.Table10showsthatmostsubjectsareclosetotheexpected3%figure;exceptionsareexplainedbysubjectsizeorfewachievementsreachingscholarshiprequirements.Withinthisfigureof3%,Outstanding gradesarenormallyawardedto0.30-0.35%ofthe Level3cohort.

WhereasTable10showstheScholarshipandOutstandingScholarshipachievementinrelationtotheLevel3cohort,thenexttableusesassessedresultsasitsreferencepoint.

ThedifferencebetweenentriesandassessedresultsarisesbecausenotallstudentswhoareenteredforaScholarshipassessmentactuallysittheexamination;eitherbecausetheydonotattend(absent)orbecausehavingattendedtheychoosenottoattempttheexamination(void).Thismeansthatthefinalnumberofassessedresultsislowerthanthenumberofentries.In2011therewere14,570assessedresults,varyingfrom20ineachofSculptureandTeReoRangatira,to1,441inEnglishand1,411inStatisticsandModelling.

Foreachsubject,Table11showsthenumberofentries,absences,andassessedresults.Theseassessedresultsarepartitionedintotheir3grades:NotAchieved,Scholarship,andOutstandingScholarship,shownbothasanumberandasapercentage.

Thirtypercentormoreoftheentrieswerenotassessedinnearlyone-thirdofthesubjects.Thesehighabsentandvoidratesweremostoftenfoundinsubjectsclassifiedinthelearningarea‘TheArts’.

64

Subject EntriesVoid or Absent

Assessed Results

Not Achieved ScholarshipOutstanding Scholarship

Qty% of

Assessed Results

Qty% of

Assessed Results

Qty% of

Assessed Results

Accounting 524 159 365 285 78.1% 71 19.5% 9 2.5%

Agriculture&Horticulture

45 12 33 24 72.7% 8 24.2% 1 3.0%

ArtHistory 330 84 246 191 77.6% 49 19.9% 6 2.4%

Biology 1492 352 1140 876 76.8% 230 20.2% 34 3.0%

Chemistry 1525 320 1205 978 81.2% 202 16.8% 25 2.1%

Chinese 115 14 101 93 92.1% 7 6.9% 1 1.0%

Classical Studies 790 200 590 428 72.5% 141 23.9% 21 3.6%

Dance 123 53 70 55 78.6% 13 18.6% 2 2.9%

Design 684 373 311 219 70.4% 80 25.7% 12 3.9%

Drama 401 182 219 159 72.6% 54 24.7% 6 2.7%

Economics 764 161 603 470 77.9% 117 19.4% 16 2.7%

English 1886 445 1441 1015 70.4% 380 26.4% 46 3.2%

French 220 33 187 162 86.6% 22 11.8% 3 1.6%

Geography 1111 242 869 665 76.5% 184 21.2% 20 2.3%

German 86 9 77 67 87.0% 9 11.7% 1 1.3%

Graphics 342 37 305 258 84.6% 43 14.1% 5 1.6%

History 932 244 688 502 73.0% 165 24.0% 21 3.1%

Japanese 159 29 130 111 85.4% 17 13.1% 2 1.5%

Latin 29 3 26 21 80.8% 3 11.5% 2 7.7%

MathematicswithCalculus

1491 279 1212 999 82.4% 186 15.3% 27 2.2%

MediaStudies 503 185 318 223 70.1% 85 26.7% 10 3.1%

MusicStudies 166 40 126 92 73.0% 30 23.8% 4 3.2%

Painting 667 301 366 267 73.0% 87 23.8% 12 3.3%

Photography 637 304 333 243 73.0% 79 23.7% 11 3.3%

Physical Education 630 236 394 311 78.9% 79 20.1% 4 1.0%

Physics 1316 244 1072 864 80.6% 183 17.1% 25 2.3%

Printmaking 59 27 32 22 68.8% 8 25.0% 2 6.3%

Samoan 86 17 69 59 85.5% 9 13.0% 1 1.4%

Science 272 51 221 192 86.9% 25 11.3% 4 1.8%

Sculpture 39 19 20 13 65.0% 6 30.0% 1 5.0%

Spanish 96 16 80 68 85.0% 11 13.8% 1 1.3%

Statistics and Modelling

1747 336 1411 943 66.8% 412 29.2% 56 4.0%

TeReoMa-ori 153 24 129 110 85.3% 17 13.2% 2 1.6%

Te Reo Rangatira 26 6 20 16 80.0% 3 15.0% 1 5.0%

Technology 336 175 161 122 75.8% 35 21.7% 5 3.1%

Table 11. Entries and results for Scholarship in 2011.


65


Premier Awards and Outstanding Scholar Awards

OtherthanthePrimeMinister’sAwardforAcademicExcellencethePremierAwardsarethemostprestigiousofalloftheScholarshipawardsandcarrythegreatestmonetaryawardof$10,000perannumforthreeyears.Table12belowgivesthetotalnumbersofPremierAwardwinnersbygenderfrom2006to2011.

Overthesixyearperiodfrom2006to2011,atotalof 55PremierAwardswereallocated,41tomalesand14 tofemales.

Year Females Males

2006 3 7

2007 3 5

2008 3 7

2009 1 7

2010 1 8

2011 3 7

Total 14 41

Table 12. Number of Premier Award winners by gender from 2006 to 2011.

In2011,atotalof17candidatesmettheminimumrequirementsforconsiderationforaPremierAward(i.e.threeormoreOutstandingScholarships),whichisrestrictedtothetop5–10candidatesacrossthecountry.Tenofthese17candidatesreceivedthePremierAward.Theremainingsevenwereamongthe51whoreceivedanOutstandingScholarAward.Inaddition,fourPremierAwardeeswereamongthe34whoreceivedaTopSubjectScholarAward.

Scholarship Awards, Single Subject Awards and Top Subject Awards in 2011

Intotal,204studentsreceivedScholarshipawards,havingearnedthreeormoreScholarships,ascomparedwith195in2010.Inaddition,2,023receivedaSingleSubjectawardand34candidatesreceivedaTopSubjectaward.In2010theSingleSubjectawardsfigurewas1,587and32candidatesreceivedaTopSubjectaward.

MoredetailsaboutthePremierAwardeesandTop SubjectScholarsandtheirschoolscanbefoundontheNZQAwebsite.

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/about-us/news/scholarship-premier-and-top-subject-award-winners-for-2011/

66

NCEAadministrativeprocessanddata

The role of NZQA in the examination process

EachyearNZQAdesignsandproducesexaminationpapersfortherelevantstandards(373standardsin2011)andorganisestheexaminationtimetable.NZQAcoordinatesandadministersexamcentreoperation,marking,resultpublication,thereturnofallexaminationbookletstocandidates,andtheprocessingofrequestsforreviewandreconsiderationofresults.

Some4,000staffnationwideareemployedinrunningtheexaminationprocess.Duringtheexaminationseason,NZQAreceivesspecialreportsrelatingtoexaminationirregularities,ensuringthatrelevantreportsaresenttomarkersandthatpotentialbreachesofexaminationrulesareinvestigated.

External Assessment

ThetermExternalAssessmentreferstoassessmentactivities,typicallytime-limitedexaminationsrunbyNZQAattheendofeachyear,butalsoincludingportfoliosofcandidates’work,submittedforassessmentorverificationbyapanelofexpertsappointedbyNZQA.

Theannualexaminationprocessinvolvesthousandsofstaffadministeringandmarkingassessmentsformorethan143,000candidatesacrossalllevelsofNCEAandNewZealandScholarship.Thefollowingarethekeyfactsandfiguresforthe2011examinations:

• 143,417candidatesmadeatotalof1,582,766entriesacross373NCEAstandards

• Therewere64,636candidateswithentriesatLevel1,and56,169withentriesatLevel2,and39,430at Level3

• Atotalof10,271candidatesenteredforNewZealandScholarship,providing19,780entries

• TheexaminationwiththelargestnumberofentrieswasinLevel1English,with43,342entries

• Therewere1,846markers

• Therewere405examinationcentres.

In2011therewasaslightdeclineinthetotalnumberofcandidatesforexternalNCEAassessments,butanincreaseinthenumberofcandidatesforNewZealandScholarship.ThemarkedreductioninnumbersofNCEAentriesoverthatof2010(1,837,032)reflectsthereducednumberofexternally-assessedLevel1standardsin2011,asaresultoftherecentstandardsreview.ThereducednumberofNCEAstandardsandentriesatLevel1ledtoareductioninthenumberofmarkers(1989markersin2010),butnottoasignificantreductioninthenumberofexaminationcentres.

67

Reviews and Reconsiderations

Allanswerbookletsforexternally-assessedstandardsarereturnedtocandidates.Tohelpcandidatesunderstandtheirresults,theJudgementStatementsusedbymarkersaremadeavailableontheNZQAwebsite.Aftercandidateshavereceivedtheiranswerbooklets,theycanapplyforarevieworreconsiderationoftheirresults.

If the candidate thinks there has been a processing error heorshecanrequestareview.Examplesofprocessingerrorsincludeoneormoreunmarkedsectionsinananswerbookletorportfolio,inaccuratecalculationoffinalscore,orincorrecttransferofgrades.Areviewinvolvescheckingthatallsectionsofthebookletorportfoliohavebeenassessedandthattheresultshavebeenrecordedandtransferredcorrectly.Itdoesnotinvolvere-markingthescript.

CandidatescanaccesstheformtoaccompanythepaperstheywishtohavereviewedfromtheNZQAwebsite.TheformsandpapersforreviewmustreachNZQAbyaspecifieddate.Forthe2011examinationroundthiswasFriday17February2012forNCEAandFriday16March2012forScholarship.Thereisnochargeforareview.

Ifthecandidatethinksthattheiranswerbooklethasnotbeenassessedcorrectly,theycanapplyforareconsideration.Thisinvolvesreassessingtheportfolioorallanswersintheanswerbookletusingtheoriginalassessmentschedule(inotherwordsre-markingit)andalsocheckingmechanicalprocessessuchasthetransfer ofresults.

Table13showsthenumbersofapplicationsforreconsiderationsofresultsfromthe2006–2010examinationrounds.Atthetimeofpublicationthe2011reviewandreconsiderationprocesswasnotcomplete,sodatafor2011arenotavailablehere.BoththenumberofapplicationsandnumberofapplicationsupheldhasincreasedsteadilyoverthisperiodforNCEA,butthepercentage of successful reconsideration applications fellfrom24%in2006to19%in2010.ThenumberofapplicationsforreviewofScholarshipresultsfellbetween2006and2008,risingsharplyin2009anddecliningagainin2010.Generally,thepercentageupheldhasremainedatapproximately11%,exceptfor2008whenthepercentagewas15%.


NCEA Scholarship

YearNumber of applications

Number successful

Percentage successful

Number of applications

Number successful


2006 4,559 1,082 24 429 47 11

2007 5,010 1,183 24 443 50 11

2008 6,501 1,296 20 336 52 15

2009 7,970 1,602 20 482 51 11

2010 9,121 1,777 19 401 47 12

Table 13. Total numbers and success rates for Reconsiderations for NCEA and Scholarship for 2006 to 2010.

68


Table14showsthenumbersofapplicationsforreviews ofresultsfromthe2006–2010examinationrounds.Higherpercentagesofapplicationsforreviewareupheldthanapplicationsforreconsideration.Unlikereconsiderations,applicationsforreviewofNCEAresultshavetendedtodecreaseinnumber,butthepercentageupheldhasfluctuatedsomewhat,droppingto68%in2009andrisingto71%in2010.Thenumbersofapplicationsforreview ofScholarshipresultsaretoosmalltoindicateany reliabletrends.

AsofApril2012NZQAhadreceivedatotalof7926applicationsforreviewsandreconsiderationsofresultsarisingfromthe2011examinationround,including: 7027applicationsforNCEAreconsiderations,616forNCEAreviews,275forScholarshipreconsiderations andeight(nochange)forScholarshipreviews.Asof April2012,the2011reviewsandreconsiderationsprocesswasincomplete.

MoreinformationaboutreviewsandreconsiderationscanbefoundatthefollowingURL:

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/ncea-results/reviews-and-reconsiderations

NCEA Scholarship

YearNumber of applications

Number successful


Number of applications

Number successful


2006 1,276 1,033 81 11 9 82

2007 1,081 800 74 6 5 83

2008 755 609 81 13 3 23

2009 832 563 68 9 5 56

2010 679 482 71 16 15 94

Table 14. Total numbers and success rates for Reviews for NCEA and Scholarship for 2006 to 2010.

69


Breaches of the Rules

EveryyearNZQAinvestigatesreportsofpossiblebreaches of the rules and procedures of external assessment.Actionswhichareinbreachofthe rulesinclude:

• Failuretofollowinstructions

• Influencing,assistingorhinderingothercandidates,orotherwisedisruptingtheconductoftheexamination

• Dishonestpractice,includingalteringexternalassessmentmaterialspriortoseekingarevieworreconsideration

• Performance-basedauthenticityissues,includingimpersonation.

WhenNZQAreceivesareportofapossiblebreach, aninvestigationisinitiated.Aletterissenttothepersonorpersonsinvolved,accompaniedbycopiesofanyrelevantinformationorreportsaboutthepossiblebreach.Theperson(s)is/areinvitedtomakewrittencommenttoNZQA.Investigationsmayincludeconsultationwiththeschoolorotheragencies,and/oraface-to-facemeetingwiththeperson(s)concerned.NZQAusesanindependentcontractortorecommenddecisionsin face-to-facemeetingsandadviseonprocess.

It should be noted that in 2012 the reporting of certainclassesofbreachchangedfromthatofpreviousyears.Communicating with another candidateisnowreportedundertwoclasses,Following Instructions and Influencing/Assisting/Hindering.Breachesrelatingtocandidates possessing pre-prepared notes during examinationsessionsarealsonowreportedundertwoclasses,Dishonest Practice and Following Instructions dependingonthenatureofthebreach.

Table15summarisesthebreaches-of-examination-rulesdatafor2011.Atotalof376situations(the2010figurewas359)werereportedinwhichapossiblebreachofexaminationrulesoccurred,ofwhich288werereportedbyExaminationCentreManagers(266in2010),83bymarkers(89in2010)andfivebyothers(fourin2010).Asof1March2012,340reportshadbeenresolved.Insixcases,althoughabreachwasknowntohaveoccurred,therewasinsufficientevidencetoattributethebreachtoanyparticularcandidate.In35casesnoactualbreachoftheruleswasfoundtohaveoccurred.

Numberofcandidatesforwhomabreachwasestablished

299

Numberofbreachesnotattributedtoanycandidateduelackofevidence

6

Numberofreportsforwhichnobreachoccurred

35

Decisions pending 36

Total reported breaches 376

Table 15. Status of breaches-of-rules procedures for 2011 as at 1 March 2012.

70


Table16providesinformationinregardtothenatureofthereportedbreaches.Consistentwithpreviousyears,failuretofollowinstructionsisthemostcommontypeofbreachreported.

Nature of Breach Number of cases

DishonestPractice(96) Cell phone use 6

Notes 59

Altering/accesstoanswerbooklet 0

Communicatingwithanothercandidate 6

Other 25

FailuretoFollowInstructions(186) Cellphoneinexaminationroom 77

Inappropriateoroffensivematerial/language 36

Havingnotes 16

Unauthorisedmaterial 39

Unauthorisedabsencefromexaminationsession 6

Other 12

AuthenticityorImpersonation(64) Similaranswerstoanothercandidate 2

Authenticity 58

Multiplehandwritinginananswerbooklet 1

Other 3

Influencing,AssistingorHindering(30) Disturbance 17

Communicatingwithanothercandidate 13

Other 0

Total 376

Table 16. Numbers of candidates with reported breaches of examination rules in 2011 by type of breach.

71


Table17showsthenumbersofcandidatesforwhombreachesoftheexaminationruleswerereported,foreachgeographicregionofNewZealand.

Breaches by Region Number of reported breaches

Auckland 185

Bay of Plenty 27

Canterbury 37

Central Plateau 0

East Coast 0

HawkesBay 7

Manawatu 14

Nelson/Marlborough 19

Northland 16

Otago 9

Southland 3

Taranaki 4

Waikato 23

Wairarapa 2

Wanganui 1

Wellington 29

Cook Islands 0

Total 376

Table 17. Numbers of candidates with reported breaches of the examination rules in each geographic region.

72


Table18showsthenumbersofreportedbreachesoftheexaminationrulesin2011foreachsubjectandNZQFlevelandforeachNewZealandScholarshipsubject.Inadditiontothereportedbreachesbysubjectbelow,onereportedbreachwasnotassociatedwithanyparticularsubject.

FurtherdetailonbreachesoftherulescanbefoundontheNZQAwebsite.

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/ncea-exams-and-portfolios/external/breaches-of-examination-rules/

Breaches by Subject and level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Scholarship

Accounting 2 8 0 0

Agriculture&Horticulture 0 0 0 0

ArtHistory 0 0 5 0

Biology 5 8 4 0

Calculus 0 0 2 0

Chemistry 4 6 2 0

Chinese 0 0 0 0

Classical Studies 0 8 7 0

Dance 4 0 0 0

Drama 1 3 0 0

Economics 3 2 5 3

English 35 38 6 0

French 0 0 0 0

Geography 5 6 8 1

German 0 0 0 0

Graphics&Design 2 3 0 0

HealthStudies 3 2 3 0

History 6 1 1 0

HomeandLifeSciences 2 1 0 0

InformationManagement 0 0 0 0

Japanese 0 0 0 0

Mathematics 30 18 1 1

MediaStudies 1 3 3 0

Music 2 0 0 0

Physics 2 0 5 0

Samoan 1 0 2 0

Science 21 7 4 0

Social Studies 1 0 0 0

Spanish 0 0 0 0

StatisticsandModelling 1 0 7 0

TeReoMaori 10 1 1 0

Te Reo Rangatira 2 1 0 0

Technology 23 0 12 0

Visual Arts 0 0 2 0

MCAT 9 0

Totals 175 116 80 5

Overall Total 376

Table 18. Numbers of breaches of examination rules reported for each subject and NQF level.

73


External Moderation of Internal Assessment

ExternalmoderationofastandardinvolvesNZQAmoderators,whoareassessmentexpertsineachsubject,reviewingbothassessmentmaterials(assessmenttasks andactivities)andassessmentjudgements(markingofstudents’work).Thereare34full-timeequivalentmoderators,supportedby207contract-for-servicemoderatorswhoworkonapart-timebasis.NZQAmoderatorsarecurrentorrecentteacherswith expertiseinstandards-basedassessment.

NZQAoffersregionalworkshopsforsecondarymoderation,knownasBestPracticeWorkshops. Thepurposeoftheseworkshopsistoraiseteacherconfidenceandexpertiseinmakingassessmentjudgementsatthenationalstandard.Theyarenot designedtoberepeatedbyeachteachereachyear,andnotallteachersneedtogo.Theyareaimedatbeginningteachers,teachersnewtotheNCEAandteacherswhoneedtoimprovetheirmoderator/teacheragreementrates.Theseworkshopshaveprovedhighlysuccessfulandverypopular.DetailsabouttheseworkshopsandwhatNZQAofferscanbefoundat http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/bestpractice

NZQAhastheobjectiveofexternallymoderating10%ofassessorjudgementsforinternally-assessedstandards.Christchurchschoolsweregiventheoptionofsendinginadditionalmaterialsforexternalmoderationasaresultoftheearthquakes.Evenso,in2011thetotalvolumeofworkmoderatedwasonlyslightlyhigherthan10%.

NZQAselectsthestandardstobemoderatedateachschool.ThesampleofworktobemoderatedforeachstandardisselectedrandomlybyeachschoolusingasamplingprocessapprovedbyNZQA.Foreachstandardtobemoderated,amoderatordetermineswhethereachassessmentjudgementisaccurateoverallwithrespecttothestandardandwhethertheassessmentmaterialsusedbyateacheraresuitableforassessingthestandard.

AformalmoderationreportispreparedbyNZQAsubjectmoderatorsforeachstandardselectedformoderationateachschool.Eachmoderationreportindicateshowmanyoftheteachers’assessmentjudgementsareaccuratewithrespecttothestandard,andprovidesadvicewithrespecttothosethatarenot.Thereportalsoindicateswhetherornottheassessmentmaterialsaresuitableforassessingthestandard,orwhethermodificationsarerequiredbeforethosematerialsareusedagain.

Ifateacherdisagreeswithaspectsofthemoderationreport,heorshecaneitheraskforclarificationorelseappealthedecision.FormalappealsarereviewedbyanotherNZQAmoderatortoestablishwhetherthereportwasaccurate,orwhetheranychangesarerequired.Thenumberofformalappealsisverylow.In2009,2010and2011fewerthanonein1,000moderatorjudgementsresultedinsuccessfulappeals.

Moderatorsalsodevelopresourcesthatarehostedon thesubject-specificweb-pagesoftheNZQAwebsite.

74

Moderation agreement rates

In2011some97.5%ofthematerialsusedtoassesscandidatesweredeemedtobesuitableforassessingtherelevantstandard,eitherunmodified,orwithonlyminormodification.In2010thisfigurewas96.7%andin2009itwas92.6%.

Dataontheratesofagreementbetweenteachersandmoderatorsareconsideredintwoways.Thefirstisagreementatthelevelofcredit,andthesecondisagreementatthelevelofthegrade.Calculationofthefirstagreementrate(credit)treatsamoderationoutcomeasagreement,providedthattheteacherandmoderatoragreedonwhetherornotstudents’workwasatthestandardforgainingcredit,eveniftheydisagreedabouttheexactgradethatoughttohavebeenawarded.

Forexample,ifateacherhadgivenaresultofMerit,andthemoderatorhadjudgedtheworktobeattheAchieved level,thiswouldbetreatedasagreement,becausebothMerit and Achievedgradesresultincredit.However,iftheteacherhadgivenagradeofAchieved,butthemoderatorhadjudgedtheworktobeNot Achieved,thiswouldbetreatedasdisagreementbecausetheteacherhadawardedcredit,whereasthemoderatorjudgedthatcreditoughtnottohavebeenawarded.

Agreementatthelevelofthegradecomprisescases inwhichtheteacherandthemoderatoragreedontheexactgrade.Casesinwhichtheydidnotaretreated asdisagreement.

Table19showstheagreementratesbetweenassessorandmoderatorjudgementsforstudents’workineachcurriculumareaforeachNCEAlevel,bothatthelevel ofcreditandatthelevelofthegrade.Notethat,forUnitStandards,thetwotypesofagreementarethesamebecausealmostallUnitStandardsembodyonlyAchieved (credit gained) and Not Achieved (no credit gained) as possibleoutcomes.

Itisimportanttonotethatagreementratesarebasedonsamplesratherthanonallavailablework.Asisthecaseforanysample,theagreementrateforthemoderationsamplesislikelytovaryfromtheactualagreementrateacrossallinternally-assessedwork,theextentoftheprobablevariationreflectingthesizeofeachsample. Forclarity,thisyearNZQAisreportingtheactualagreementratesfortherelevantsamples,ratherthantheestimatedconfidencebandsthatwerereportedinpreviousyears.


75


LEVEL 1 Unit StandardsAchievement Standards

At the level of Credit At the Level of Grade

The Arts 85% 96% 88%

English 77% 98% 95%

HealthandPhysicalEducation 85% 92% 85%

Languages 94% 97% 89%

Mathematics 95% 92% 81%

Science 94% 95% 86%

Social Sciences 80% 94% 84%

Technology 95% 93% 89%

Total: 87% 94% 87%



The Arts 80% 97% 87%

English 80% 98% 96%




Science 90% 95% 85%



Total: 82% 93% 87%



The Arts 87% 95% 85%

English 77% 98% 96%




Science 90% 93% 84%



Total: 81% 91% 85%

Table 19. Teacher-moderator agreement rates at the level of credit and at the level of the grade in 2011, by curriculum area, standard type and level. Note that data for Achievement Standards in English, Mathematics and Statistics, are based on comparatively small numbers of standards.

76

Table20showsgeneralimprovementinoverallagreementratesoverthelastthreeyears,atboththelevelofcreditandatthelevelofthegrade.However,directyear-on-yearcomparisonsmustbeinterpretedcautiously.

2009 2010 2011

Credit 82.9% 90.5% 92.1%

Grade 75.8% 83.9% 86.0%

Table 20. Overall moderation agreement rates, both at the level of credit and at the level of the grade, from 2009 to 2011.

Inthe2011moderationroundmuchofthemoderatedworkwasactuallyassessedin2010.In2011and2010therewasafocusonselectingamorerepresentativesampleofstandardsacrossalllevels,ratherthanfocussingonanyparticularlevel.However,emphasiswasstillplacedonselectingthosestandardsforwhichassessorswerehavingthemostdifficultyinmakingassessmentdecisions.Thisapproachensuresthatassessorsgetthemostvaluablefeedbacktosupporttheirfutureassessment.

In2011NZQAcontinuedwiththeinitiativesthatweredesignedtoprovideanincreasedlevelofprofessionalsupportformakingassessmentdecisions.Theseinitiativesincludedthefollowing:

• BestPracticeworkshops,whichin2011involved3,762teachersin221workshopsthroughoutthecountry

• Subject-specificweb-pageshostinginformationandlinkstoassessmentresourcesat:

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/

• Annotatedstudents’workexemplifyinggradeboundaries for internally-assessed standards requiringclarification

• Greaterclarityandbalancedfeedbackin moderationreports

• Theopportunityforteacherstosendinadditionalcandidateevidenceandaskmoderatorsspecificquestionsabouttheirassessmentjudgements

• Regular,subject-specificnewslettersforteachers

• Documentstoguideteachersintheirinterpretation ofstandards.

Moderators’annualreports,newsletters,clarificationdocumentsandannotatedexemplarscanbefoundon thesubjectspecificpagesat:

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/ncea/subjects/


78

Appendix A Glossary

Achieved Astandardisachievedwhenacandidatehasmettherequirementsofthestandard.CandidatescanreceiveNot Achieved,Achieved,Merit or Excellence grades for AchievementStandards.TheycanreceiveeitherNot Achieved or AchievedgradesforUnitStandards.CreditforaparticularstandardisawardedforaresultofAchievedorhigher.

Achievement WithinthisreportthetermachievementreferstospecificallygainingaqualificationorachievingagradeofAchieved,Merit or Excellenceinastandard.

ThetermcanalsobeappliedtohavingmettherequirementsofUE,LiteracyorNumeracy.

Achievement Standard Asof2010,anAchievementStandardisanystandardderivedfromtheNewZealandCurriculum.

Answer Booklet Apaperbookletprovidedtoacandidateforexternalexaminations,inwhichthecandidateprovideswrittenresponsestoexaminationquestions.

Assessed Results Results in internally or externally-assessed standards that areeither :Not Achieved,Achieved,Merit or Excellence;thatis,resultsinwhichassessmenthasoccurred.

Assessment Reports Summaryreportsprovidedbyexaminersontheworkofcandidatesinexternally-assessedstandards.

Attainment Thetermattainmentreferstothemoregenericsenseofhavingachievedsomeoutcome,suchasachievingastandard,orqualification,orhavingbeengivenanaward.

Breaches of the Rules Anybehaviour,inrelationtotheassessmentofexternally-assessedAchievementStandards,prohibitedbytheNZQArulesthatgoverntheseassessments.

Check Marking Checkmarkingistheprocessbywhichallmarkershavethequalityoftheirmarkingcheckedbyaseniormarker.Theseniormarkerwillchecktoseethatthemarkerismarkingtothenationalstandardandfollowingtheassessmentscheduleappropriately.Thisqualityassuranceprocessisongoingthroughoutthemarkingcycleandeachmarkerwillsubmitsamplesoftheirmarking4or5timesduringmarkingconstitutingabout8-10%oftheirtotalmarkingallocation.

Cohort Agroupoflearners,designatedaccordingtooneor morecriteria.

Course Endorsement CourseEndorsementprovidesrecognitionforstudentswhoperformexceptionallywellinindividualcourses.ThisendorsementisintheformofeitherMeritorExcellence.

Decile Aratingthatisallocatedtoschoolsforfundingpurposes,basedonarangeofsocio-economicfactorsthatincludehouseholdcrowding,householdincome,andhighesteducationalattainment.Decileratingsarealsogroupedintobands. Low-decilereferstodeciles1-3; medium-decilereferstodeciles4-7; high-decilereferstodeciles8-10. Thisapproachenablescomparisonofaschool’sperformancewiththatofotherschoolsofsimilardeciles.

Denominator Thenumberbelowthelineinanyfractionorpercentage.

Endorsed Certificate (Certificate Endorsement) AnendorsementonaNCEAcertificaterecognisingthatacandidatehasgainedsufficientcreditsateitherMerit or Excellence.ToqualifyforanendorsementwithExcellence,candidatesrequire50creditsormoreatExcellence.AnendorsementwithMeritrequires50ormorecreditsatMerit (or Merit and Excellence).

79

Enrolment Data Dataoncandidates’attainmentofqualifications,basedonthenumbersenrolledatsecondaryschools.Enrolment-based percentages include all enrolled candidates gaining aNCEAcertificatebytheendofagivenyear.Acandidateiscountedasenrolledwhenasecondaryschoolreportsthecandidateasenrolledatthatschool,andthereisanexpectationthatthecandidateintendstoattemptNCEAorNewZealandScholarshipassessments.NZQAenrolmentdataincludesonlycandidatesinYear11andabove.Sinceeveryparticipantmustalsobeenrolled,thenumeratorsforbothenrolment-basedandparticipation-basedpercentagesarealwaysidentical.

Examination Centre Alocation,usuallyasecondaryschool,atwhichcandidatescanundertakeexternalassessment,usuallyintheformofanexamination.

Excellence ThehighestpossiblegradeforanAchievementStandard.

External Assessment AssessmentconductedbyNZQA,includingnationalexaminationsheldattheendoftheschoolyear.

External Moderation Nationalexternalmoderationprovidesassurancethatassessmentdecisionsaremadeatthenationalstandard.

Further Assessment Opportunities Opportunities for candidates to be re-assessed in an internally-assessedstandard.Nationalguidelinesstatethatcandidatesmaybeofferedamaximumofonefurtherassessmentopportunityforagivenstandardperyear.Itisnotcompulsoryforaschooltooffermorethanoneassessmentopportunityforanygivenstandard.

Grade Score Marking (GSM) GradeScoreMarking(GSM)isasystemformarkingNCEAexternalassessments,firstintroducedin2011forNCEALevel1andduetoberolledouttoLevels2and3.

Thesysteminvolvesallocatingscoresofbetween0and8toeachassessmentitem,aggregatingallitemscorestoproduceatotalscore,andfinallysettingcutscoresthatdefinethetotalscorerangesfortheawardofAchieved,Merit and Excellenceforeachscript.

Internal Assessment Assessmentconductedbyschoolsduringtheschoolyear.

Judgement Statements StatementsfromPanelLeadersspecifyinghowitem-orquestion-levelinformationistobeaggregatedacrossapapertoproduceeachavailablefinalgrade.

Literacy AkeyachievementinYear11,bothasaprerequisitefortheNCEALevel1qualification,andinitsownright.

ReadingliteracyisdefinedintheProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment(PISA)astheabilitytounderstand,useandreflectonwrittentextsinordertoachieveone’sgoals,todevelopone’sknowledgeandpotential,andtoparticipateeffectivelyinsociety.(OECD).

Merit Thegradeawardedinrecognitionofachievementabovetheminimumrequiredtoachievethestandard.

Managing National Assessment reports (MNA reports) ReportspreparedbyNZQASchoolRelationshipManagerstoevaluateaschool’sQualityManagementSystemsformanagingallassessmentsthatcontributetowardsnationalqualifications.

Moderation TheNZQAprocessusedtocheckandimprovethequalityofinternalassessmentmaterialsandteachers’assessmentdecisions.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) NationalqualificationsforseniorsecondaryschoolcandidatesthatcanbeattainedatLevel1,2or3.

Appendix A Glossary

80

Not Achieved Thegradegiventocandidateswhoseassessmentevidenceisnotsufficienttomeettherequirementsofastandard.

Numeracy AkeyachievementinYear11,bothasaprerequisitefortheNCEALevel1qualification,andinitsownright.

MathematicalliteracyisdefinedintheProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment(PISA)asthecapacitytoidentify,understandandengageinmathematics,andtomakewell-foundedjudgementsabouttherolethatmathematicsplaysinanindividual’scurrentandfutureprivatelife,occupationallife,sociallifewithpeersandrelatives,andlifeasaconstructive,concernedandreflectivecitizen.(OECD)

Numerator Thenumberabovethelineinanyfractionorpercentage.

NZQF TheNewZealandQualificationsFramework(NZQF),isaframeworkthatcontainsthelistofallqualityassuredqualificationsinNewZealand.

Participation Data Dataoncandidates’achievementofqualifications,basedonthenumbersparticipating,ratherthanonschoolrolls.AparticipantforagivenlevelofNCEAiscandidatewho,onthebasisofentriesinagivenyear,cangainthatlevelduringthatyear,takingintoaccountanycreditsgainedinpreviousyears.Participation-baseddataareintendedtobetterrepresenttheperformanceofschoolsinwhichmanystudentsdonotpursueNCEA.

Profiles of Expected Performance (PEP) Tools that are used to assist in ensuring that externally-assessedstandardsaremarkedfairlyfromyeartoyear.

Reconsideration Re-markingofacandidate’sworkforanexternally-assessedstandardwherethecandidatebelievesthathisorherworkmaynothavebeenassessedcorrectly.Reconsiderations are conducted in response to applicationsfromcandidates.

Review A check for possible errors in processing of the results for anexternally-assessedstandard.Reviewsareconductedinresponsetoapplicationsfromcandidates.

Roll TheSchoolRollincludesstudentsattending(i.e.enrolled)atschoolsasat1July.

Roll-based data Dataoncandidates’achievementofqualifications,basedonschoolrolls,ratherthanonnumbersparticipatinginNCEA.Roll-baseddataincludetheoverallnumbersandpercentagesofdemographicsubgroups(i.e.gender,ethnicityanddecile-basedsubgroups)attainingNCEAqualifications.Roll-baseddataarenotavailableinthisreport.

Scholarship Externalassessmentsforthehighest-performingsecondarystudents,requiringstudentstodemonstratehigh-levelcriticalthinking,andcarryingmonetaryawardsforsuccessfulcandidates.

Theassessmentformostsubjectscomprisesathree-hourwrittenexamination,althoughDance,DramaandMusicalsoinvolveassessmentbyrecordedperformance,andVisualArts,TechnologyandGraphicsareassessedentirelybyportfolio.

Socio-economic Atermthatmeans“relatingtosocialandeconomicfactors”.Withinthisreporttheschooldecilebandisusedasaproxyforsocio-economicstatusofcandidates.

Unit Standard Asof2010,aUnitStandardisanystandardthatisnot derivedfromtheNewZealandCurriculum.However,untilthepresentreviewofstandardsiscompletetherewillstillbesomeUnitStandardsthatarederivedfromtheNewZealandCurriculum.

University Entrance (UE) UniversityEntranceistheminimumrequirementtobeadmittedforenrolmentataNewZealanduniversity.

AlthoughUniversityEntranceisnotaqualificationitistreatedasequivalentinasimilarwayinthisreport.

Appendix A Glossary

84

125TheTerracePO Box 160

Wellington6140NewZealand

Tel:6444633000Callfree:0800697296

Fax:6444633112

www.nzqa.govt.nz

Annual Report on NCEA and New Zealand Scholarship Data …...External Assessment 66 Reviews and...

Documents

Transcript of Annual Report on NCEA and New Zealand Scholarship Data …...External Assessment 66 Reviews and...