Principal’s Nominee Seminar 2018

February / March 2018

Dear Colleagues

2018 Principal’s Nominee Seminar

NZQA would like to welcome you to this year’s regional Principal’s Nominee Seminar.

This year’s seminar has been developed in response to your 2017 seminar evaluations and School Relationship Manager discussions with Principal’s Nominees and Senior Managers. We aim to give you the opportunity to discuss:

ways to manage student and teacher assessment workload by reviewing assessment practice

support for Māori and Pasifika student achievement in STEM

digital assessment: next steps.

We look forward to also being able to update you on changes to NZQA processes and our planned future direction.

NZQA appreciates the work that you do and hopes that the seminar will provide information, guidance and resources that may assist you in your role in leading assessment.

We also hope that the seminar will be an opportunity for you to meet staff from other schools and serve as a valuable means of developing collegial support for one another.

NZQA wishes you and your school community well for 2018.

Warmest regards

Kay WilsonManagerSchool Quality Assurance & Liaison

2

PROGRAMME AND RESOURCES

Session 1 aims to: discuss assessment practice and its impact on teacher and student workload explore how schools are responding to, and managing assessment workload of

students and teachers clarify some assessment practices that could be contributing to assessment

workload.

Session 2 aims to: share NZQA’s Future State plans consider your school’s role in supporting Māori and Pasifika achievement in STEM

subjects review your school’s participation in digital assessment and moderation.

Session 3 will cover: New in 2018 Changes from 2017 Good Practice Reminders.

Resources PagePost Primary Teachers’ Association Poster 4Managing NCEA workload professionally

Good practice guide to: Resubmission 12 - 15 Internal moderation verification resubmission 19 - 20 Managing the assessment workload of unwell students 22

STEM information Communication to schools (February 2018) 23 List of standards for STEM subjects 24

Self-review tools External moderation letter and Process Hints and Tips (February 2018) 28 - 29 External moderation process review 30 - 31 Management of collection and storage of digital student evidence 32

New in 2018 and Reminders Maintaining the approved subject list for University Entrance 34 New Zealand Certificates webpage 36 - 37 Changes to achievement standards for 2018 40

3

4

Terms of Reference for NCEA Reviewwww.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Information-releases/NCEA-Review-Terms-of-Reference.PDF

Opinion Piece: The NCEA would be doing NCEAhttp://educationcentral.co.nz/opinion-josh-williams-the-ncea-would-be-doing-ncea/

Josh Williams, Chief Executive, Industry Training Federation Education Central, 30 January 2018

A qualified achievementhttps://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/qualified-achievement

Bruce Munro, Journalist, Otago Daily Times5 February 2018

5

Assessment programme approach

Potential benefits of this approach

Barriers to making this change and ways to

reduce barriers

1. Students, at all levels, are assessed against a maximum of 100 credits in total each year.

2. Senior leadership sets a maximum of 18 credits in each course of study.

3. A base of 16 credits with 3 optional standards for students to select 1 or 2 from is offered in some subjects.

4. There is a school-wide philosophy of teaching the curriculum but not assessing all of it.

5. The school does not offer Level 1 NCEA.

6

7

Assessment practice/evidence

collection

Potential benefits of this assessment practice

Barriers to making this change and ways to

reduce barriers

1. Minimising the standards where a further assessment opportunity is offered.

2. Providing milestones and feedback/feedforward during assessment process to support students to present their best evidence.

3. A thematic/context approach is used to enable assessment across standards in a number of subject areas.

8

REFLECTION – FOR POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS

9

Reviewing assessment practice in regard to managing teacher and student assessment workload

Do you plan to review any assessment practices at your school that potentially contribute to teacher and student assessment workload? If so how and why?

Resources available to support thisPPTA PosterMythbusters

Gathering evidence Number of credits

Review of resubmission practice

?

10

Using the Resubmission Mythbuster, what are the key requirements when offering a resubmission?

11

12

RESUBMISSION SCENARIOS

Scenario 1

Mary sat a Chemistry internal at the end of term 2 and was eligible for a resubmission opportunity, but was away on an overseas exchange for 3 months when this took place. On her return to school in October she asks her teacher for the resubmission opportunity.

Scenario 2

Students completed a Physical Education standard in May 2017. All students were given a resubmission opportunity during Term 4 once they had completed the year's course.

13

What advice would you give the Chemistry teacher?

What advice would you give the Physical Education teacher?

Scenario 3

The HOD English comes to you to explain that a Year 11 student has produced a completely different piece of writing for her resubmission. It is still an essay on veganism, but it takes a totally different approach to the first effort. She completed the resubmission within the 24-hour timeframe set.

Scenario 4

A Visual Art teacher describes the following resubmission practice.“I collect all the students’ painting portfolios in for marking and awarding a grade. I then give each student individual feedback on what they need to do to improve their work/grade. Students are given 3 weeks to complete their resubmission. A final grade is awarded at this time.”

14

What advice would you give the HOD English?

What advice would you give the Visual Art teacher?

RESUBMISSION SCENARIOS: POSSIBLE ADVICE

Scenario 1

Mary sat a Chemistry internal at the end of term 2 and was eligible for a resubmission opportunity, but was away on an overseas exchange for 3 months when this took place. On her return to school in October she asks to be given the resubmission opportunity.

Scenario 2

Students completed a Physical Education standard in May 2017. All students were given a resubmission opportunity during Term 4 once they had completed the year's course.

15

What advice would you give the Chemistry teacher? Resubmission must take place close to the assessment completion. This is too long a

time to be valid. Resubmission must be carried out soon after the marking is completed and before

further teaching and learning. Further teaching could have occurred depending on the standard. There are potential authenticity issues.

What advice would you give the Physical Education teacher? The length of time between May and the resubmission in Term 4 is an issue.

Resubmission must take place as soon as possible after marking is completed. Resubmission must occur before further teaching and learning. Resubmission should not be offered to all students – just those on grade

boundaries. There are potential authenticity issues.

A further assessment, involving a new task, should have been offered to all students in Term 4.

Scenario 3

The HOD English comes to you to explain that a Year 11 student has produced a completely different piece of writing for her resubmission. It is still an essay on veganism, but it takes a totally different approach to the first effort. She completed the resubmission within the 24-hour timeframe set.

Scenario 4

A Visual Art teacher describes the following resubmission practice.“I collect all the students’ painting portfolios in for marking and awarding a grade. I then give each student individual feedback on what they need to do to improve their work/grade. Students are given 3 weeks to complete their resubmission. A final grade is awarded at this time.”

16

What advice would you give the HOD English?

This is a totally different approach to the student’s original submission and completed in 24 hours and therefore is not a minor change.

There are potential authenticity issues. Using milestones to guide and support students to present the correct end work can

remove the need for resubmission and a further assessment opportunity. The length of time the students had for the original assessment will provide guidance

of the appropriate time for a resubmission. The conditions for the original assessment and the resubmission must be the same.

What advice would you give the Visual Art teacher?A resubmission requires that:

only general feedback is provided it is for minor errors that can be self- identified and fixed in a short period of time only offered to those on grade boundary.

The teacher appears to be describing formative assessment practice with feedback/feedforward to all students and 3 weeks to produce final piece of work.Language is important – the first grade is indicative if this is part of a feedback/feedforward process.

REFLECTION – FOR NEXT STEPS

17

Resubmission practice

Is resubmission practice and understanding consistent in your school? What evidence do you base this on?

How do you support consistent understanding?

What other actions could you take to support teacher practice and understanding of providing appropriate resubmissions?

Resources available for supportMythbusters

Resubmission Further Assessment Opportunities

18

REFLECTION – FOR POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS

19

Internal moderation verification ensures no teacher works in isolation credible grades are reported the school meets requirements of its consent to assess

HOWEVERneeds to be managed to ensure it is not contributing to unnecessary assessment workload.

Are there areas/subjects in your school where verification practice is contributing to unnecessary assessment workload? Where are they?

What actions do you plan to support teachers’ understanding of verifying a purposeful and sufficient selection of student work?

Does your staff handbook provide sufficient guidance? YES/NO

Resources available to support thisMythbuster – Internal Moderation2016 and 2018 Principal’s Nominee Seminar Resources

Verification Practice What feedback would you give regarding this practice

Teachers purposefully select 8 samples for achievement standards and 4 samples for unit standards to verify.

Eight (8) or four (4) may not be sufficient or could be too many.

The selection needs to be sufficient that teacher is confident marking is consistent with the standard and across classes.

In some instances, this can lead to confusion with external moderation.

An inexperienced teacher may have more than 8 samples at grade boundaries or they are unsure of.

An experienced teacher may have only 3 at grade boundary or where unsure.

All student work at grade boundaries or where the teacher is unsure of their judgement is verified.

Selection needs to be strategic, that is, at grade boundaries.

If a teacher is experienced and a sample of their grade boundaries confirms decisions are consistent with the standard then the rest of their grade boundaries would not need to be verified.

Where a teacher’s marking is not consistent with the standard professional guidance should be provided and the teacher should re-mark. The TIC should not be re-marking all the grade boundaries where a teacher’s marking is not consistent with the standard. Developing the teacher’s understanding of the standard should be encouraged and supported. Following the re-marking a further sample should be checked by the TIC.

Large departments have a marking meeting to discuss the assessment schedule, then teachers mark their own class. All teachers meet again to discuss and confirm grade boundary samples. Finally, 8 random samples from each teacher are selected for verification by the TIC and to document the verification process.

Any selection for verification should be purposeful, that is at grade boundaries.

Documenting the discussion at the grade boundary confirmation meeting can be your verification sample.

Documenting the discussion at the grade boundary meeting removes the need to do additional verification to document this process.

The check by the TIC is unnecessary if the first step is robust. In any event, there is no need to verify 8 samples.

More samples are verified by the HOD or subject expert when:

a poor external moderation agreement rate occurs

a department assesses a new standard for the first time

assessment is carried out by PRTs or teachers new to the subject/ level.

These are examples of good school practice to ensure assessment decisions are consistent with the standard, but are not an NZQA requirement.

Additional verification samples should always be a purposeful selection.

20

Sole teachers (who may only have 8-15 students in their class) take all samples of student work for verification to their cluster meeting or verifier.

Only take/send a purposeful and sufficient selection.

Taking 8 to an outside verifier when only 3 are at a grade boundary or the ones a teacher is unsure of could be a workload for the verifier.

Moderation turnaround times may be quicker if only 4 or 5 grade boundaries are sent compared to all 10 pieces of work.

The HOD/TIC verifies all Excellence grades in addition to a selection of grade boundaries from each teacher.

Grade boundary Merit and Excellence samples should be selected for verification. This is an unnecessary assessment workload for the TIC. However, this practice can be justified when the additional selection is in response to:

poor external moderation feedback around the Merit / Excellence boundary

the HOD wanting to support the development of teachers’ understanding of what excellence work “looks like”

a departmental focus on increasing the level of excellence grades.

A teacher does not internally moderate because they always get 8/8 for external moderation.

Verification must occur. It is a requirement of the school’s Consent to Assess and the Assessment Rules.

No teacher is to assess in isolation.

21

Managing the Assessment Programmes of Unwell Students

22

Managing the Assessment Programmes of Unwell StudentsNZQA has noted increasing special assessment conditions and derived grade applications for students who are suffering from anxiety, other mental health concerns, head injuries (e.g. concussion) and long-term illnesses (e.g. glandular fever). We wish to raise awareness about this matter and ask schools to consider how they manage the overall assessment workload of unwell students. Each SAC and DG application will continue to be assessed on its merits.We all have a duty of care for students.

For students who are:I. unwell during the 2017 examination period. Should their overall assessment programmes for 2018 be

reviewed to be more manageable for them given the reason they are unwell?

II. diagnosed during the 2018 year. Should their overall assessment programme be reviewed at the time they become unwell to support them to get well by managing their assessment programme?

A review of a student’s assessment programme could include: reduced credits in their programme possibly no assessment at all an internally assessed programme to reduce the stress/anxiety of externals discussion on how vital the results are in particular standards to future school progress?

Other considerations:1. Does the person supporting the student understand the flexibility of the NCEA qualification so that they can

best advise students and parents on ways to manage their assessment programme?

2. Who is the best member of staff to engage with parents to:a. ensure realistic expectations of a student’s assessment programmeb. negotiate, in consultation with the student, an assessment programme (if appropriate) that supports their

child’s wellbeing c. explain derived grade eligibility criteria, clarifying that an ongoing condition does not usually meet the

eligibility criteriad. explain SAC options and whether these are suitable?

3. What role do Deans and Guidance Counsellors have in discussing changes to student assessment programmes?

4. How will you inform classroom teachers (while protecting the student’s privacy) of a changed programme so they do not put undue pressure/expectations on the student?

5. Is a SAC application necessarily the best option? Should a student:a. with a head injury be placed under examination stress for an additional 30 minutes? Would reducing the

number of standards be better? b. suffering with anxiety be placed under external examination stress? Examinations are stressful. The provision

of separate accommodation will not mitigate examination stress.

6. Should the school request a medical certificate that not only confirms the student’s injury but expressly provides medical clearance for the student to sit the external examination?

7. Schools may, late in the year, become aware that a student has been battling a mental health issue. There may be confidentiality concerns. Are there ways to identify these students who may need support earlier in the year?

23

24

STEM letter to schools

E te Tūmuaki, tēnā koe

Ngā mihi nui ki a koe i runga i ngā āhuatanga o te wā nei.

Dear Principal

As part of its Future State Programme, NZQA has committed to partnering with education system agencies to support a 50% lift in Māori and Pasifika student achievement at NCEA Level 3 in one or more STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subject related areas by 2020.

Growing New Zealand’s economy relies on a workforce that is qualified, innovative and has 21st century skills. It is predicted that almost all jobs in the future will require some STEM knowledge. International research forecasts that the majority of future STEM jobs will require some form of post-secondary education or training.1 NZQA’s Future State Programme has been developed to respond to this need alongside other drivers influencing the education sector, such as technology and globalisation.

As part of this, we are providing schools with a view of the comparative achievement data in STEM subjects. Data for your school is attached. This may be helpful in the work you are doing to lift achievement of Māori and Pasifika students in your school. We welcome any feedback and suggestions about the usefulness of this data.

At the Principal’s Nominee seminar, being held in late February and early March 2018, attendees will be invited to share ideas of actions schools could take to address differences in participation and achievement levels for Māori and Pasifika students. Ideas from the seminar will be collated and sent to all schools.

A copy of your school/kura STEM data for the last four years is attached. 2 This includes an explanation of how the data is calculated.

Ngā manaakitanga a te mea ngaro ki runga i koutou katoa. Nā reira ka nui te mihi.

Nāku noa, nā

Kay Wilson

CC Principal’s Nominee

Attached Copy of your school’s data

1 A study by Georgetown University in the US predicts that by 2018, over 90 percent of STEM jobs will be for those with at least some postsecondary education and training and that almost two-thirds of STEM job openings will be for those with Bachelor’s degrees and above. CARNEVALE et al, STEM, Centre on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University, 2014.2 The 2017 data is provisional, as are all reports at this time of the year

25

List of standards for STEM subjects

STEM Subjects Level 3 Achievement Standards

Biology 91601, 91602, 91603, 91604, 91605, 91606, 91607, 91818, 91819

Calculus 91573, 91574, 91575, 91576, 91577, 91578, 91579, 91587

Chemistry 91387, 91388, 91389, 91390, 91391, 91392, 91393

Digital Technologies 91632, 91633, 91634, 91635, 91636, 91637, 91638, 91639, 91640, 91641, 91642 (DigiTech), and 91608, 91609, 91610, 91611, 91612, 91613, 91614, 91615, 91616, 91617, 91618, 91619, 91836, 91837, 91838 (Hangarau)

Hangarau See Hangarau/Technology below

Mathematics/Pāngarau 91573, 91574, 91575, 91576, 91577, 91578, 91579, 91587 and 91580, 91581, 91582, 91583, 91584, 91585, 91586

Physics 91521, 91522, 91523, 91524, 91525, 91526, 91527

Science/Pūtaiao 91601, 91602, 91603, 91604, 91605, 91606, 91607 (Biology), and 91387, 91388, 91389, 91390, 91391, 91392, 91393 (Chemistry), and 91521, 91522, 91523, 91524, 91525, 91526, 91527 (Physics), and 91818, 91819, 91820, 91821 (Pūtaiao)

Statistics 91580, 91581, 91582, 91583, 91584, 91585, 91586

Technology/Hangarau 91608, 91609, 91610, 91611, 91612, 91613, 91614, 91615, 91616, 91617, 91618, 91619, 91836, 91837, 91838 (Hangarau) and 91632, 91633, 91634, 91635, 91636, 91637, 91638, 91639, 91640, 91641, 91642 (DigiTech)

26

It is predicted that all jobs in the future will require some STEM knowledge.To address the skills gap between job openings in STEM-related occupations and insufficient graduates with the right skills to fill them, we need to lift engagement.Economic success for Māori and Pasifika is economic success for New Zealand.

27

Draft survey results released 22 December: Pilots 24% response rate: “Respondents were positive about completing a Digital Pilot Examination, with 98% (967 of 990) agreeing or strongly agreeing it was a positive experience.  More respondents strongly agreed that it was a positive experience (54%) than agreed (44%). “

28

Co-Managed Trials:- intent was to widen NZQA’s knowledge and understanding of how digital examinations are

managed, and the nature of the experience for staff and students- staff and student focus groups leading up to, and after the digital examination experience- examinations invigilated and marked by NZQA.

Case studies: www.nzqa.govt.nz/trials-pilots

29

External ModerationDear colleague

External moderation

Thank you for your patience and support while we made changes to the external moderation process in 2017. Ongoing improvements have been made over the year and we are currently working on providing you with the ability to export and print moderation reports and other process refinements.

We recognise that users did not share a common experience and would like to check with you:

what worked well; what did not; and other improvements you might like using a brief online survey for feedback.

The survey link is open and will close on Friday 9th March 2018. Please share this link with others in your school.

The following information may assist in both responding to the survey and smoothing your processes for 2018.

Why did we change the external moderation process?

We wanted to provide moderation services that better meet your needs, by

changing how we moderate, to improve the relevance of what we do using technology to optimise the process.

What did we want to achieve?Our changes aimed to:

maintain the strength of the external moderation process; reduce the time taken to receive moderation feedback and to query or appeal a report for digital

submissions; provide clear messages about moderation outcomes; and help schools more easily target moderation where assurance of assessment decisions is most needed.

We recognised the need for the solution to allow schools to submit student evidence physically, until student digital evidence collection becomes universal practice.

Where have we got to?

We are pleased that:

the moderation plan now provides an online one stop shop to submit moderation; details, attach digital evidence, monitor moderation progress, view reports, carry out queries and appeals and get an overview of moderation outcomes;

the volume of standards submitted digitally has significantly increased from 5 to 29%; schools can easily request standards they want externally moderated using the application; schools submitting student work digitally report faster feedback from moderators; and reports now use the same criteria and format for all moderation systems.

During last year we identified some useful tips and hints that help with the process. These are attached to this email. 

Yours sincerely

Kay WilsonManagerSchools Quality Assurance and LiaisonNew Zealand Qualifications Authority

30

EXTERNAL MODERATION: PROCESS TIPS AND HINTS

The external moderation application was updated in November and all actions such as editing a submission and reading a report are done through right clicking on the standard or the Actions drop down.

Don’t use the back button in your browser. Use the Save, Save and Exit or Cancel buttons.

If you use Google Drive or another sharing platform, the most straightforward process is to copy and paste a link to the moderation materials into a document and then to upload this document into the external moderation application.

o Upload this document in the Task/Activity field and the same document against one of the learners (we suggest Learner A).

o Don’t forget to add all learners and their individual grades in the Assessor Judgements field.

o Ensure that the sharing settings of the links are set to allow anyone with the link to view.

Where 2017 external moderation submissions were digital, schools generally reported having experienced a smoother and speedier process.

When student work is presented digitally for assessment, you are encouraged to send it digitally for external moderation. It is NOT important for moderators to see evidence of the marking process on the provided samples, though you can make use of the comments section in Learner Evidence.

If scanning double-sided material, check that both sides of each page has been scanned.

Check that the material uploaded or sent physically matches the standard that has been submitted in the external moderation application.

If you want to submit physical material early, or run out of courier bags, then they can be requested through the ams@nzqa.govt.nz mailbox.

For physical submissions ensure that you write the name of your school and the standard number either on the material submitted or on the outside of the courier bag.

Field Māori and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa standards are moderated in a kāhui. These happen four times a year, so depending upon when you make a submission the report may take longer than others to be completed.

31

Reviewing your school’s external moderation processes: Where to from here?

CHANGES FOR 2018: improvements, addressing workload

ESAA Moderation Application Access:

Who has what levels of access, and why?

Assessment Plan:

Who selects what standards to request?

How do teachers request standards for external moderation?

What is the purpose of the selection?

Is there any focus on areas of school concerns and if so, what does that look like?

Moderation Plan:

How is the Moderation Plan shared with HODs and teachers?

How do teachers request changes to the Moderation Plan?

Preparation of materials for submission:

Who prepares the submissions within the application:- digital?- physical?

How are the school and standard number identified on physical submissions?

Who checks all material is there?

Do teachers understand that the material sent does not need to show evidence of the marking process i.e. original digital submission can be sent?

32

Do teachers know that uploading a link to cloud based storage with appropriate share settings may be more convenient than uploading material, particularly with large files?

Moderation reports:

How did teachers access their reports?

Do teachers know when and how to query and appeal a report?

Digital submission:

Did you meet your 2017 goal?

What is your goal for 2018?

Are you encouraging digital submission?

Digital storage:

How is storage of digital evidence managed?

Do appropriate storage protocols (naming, share settings) exist?

Is work always easily accessible for external moderation?

Communication:

How are NZQA communications managed:- notifications re addresses for physical submissions- couriers contacted?

External Moderation outcomes:

How was the outcome information shared and used?

How was the dashboard used to summarise outcomes and target support?

33

MANAGEMENT OF COLLECTION AND STORAGE OF DIGITAL STUDENT EVIDENCE

CONSIDERATIONS: What would this look like in your school?

What guidelines are needed on use of devices and internet access?

How will the correct sharing settings be organised?

What file naming conventions need to be developed?

What are the expectations of teacher feedback?

What protocols will be established for marking digital assessments?

How will authenticity be ensured?

What school protocols will be needed for the secure storage of student work, including external moderation samples?

How will security and privacy of digitally completed work be maintained?

What precautions will be taken to ensure students do not lose their work?

How will SAC students’ needs be accommodated?

How will the school access to stored student work be ensured, including when a teacher leaves the school?

Other considerations / comments:

34

Review of the list of assessment standards that meet University Entrance literacy requirements 2018An outcome of the UE Requirements Review 2016 – 2017Based on an evaluation of English-medium achievement standards against a definition of academic literacy (see consultation document). Māori Medium excluded as recently added in October 2016. 2020 is the proposed implementation date with full application by 2022. Separate from the review of NCEA, which concurrently is being carried out by the Ministry of Education. NCEA Review specifically excludes UE requirements.

35

Maintaining the approved subjects list for University Entrance

NZQA has developed these processes and criteria for:

a) modification to the list of approved subjects for University Entrance (i.e. the addition and/or removal of subjects and standards).

Key dates

Application to NZQA Decision to Applicant

Addition of standards to a current subject/subjects on the list

28 February 2018 By 31 August 2018

Addition of a new subject to the list

31 May 2018 By mid- May 2019

b) a regular periodic review of the list of approved subjects for University Entrance.

Key dates

Process Indicative Timelines

NZQA call for submissions February 2018

Information to NZQA By 31 August 2018

NZQA notification of the outcome of the Review 31 August 2019

36

National Certificates are expiring at the end of 2017 and 2018. If the student does not complete all the standards for the National Certificate by the end of the year of expiry, the Certificate can still be awarded.Information provided in Circular A2016/026 – 1 Dec 2016 and A2016/025 30 Nov 2016.2017 PN’s Seminar provides details re Programme Approval and Accreditation.

Important and accepted teaching and learning practice. NZQA has published exemplars of candidates’ work since the 2006 examinations.Internally assessed exemplars, are annotated extracts and focus on E, M, A grade boundaries to support teacher assessment judgements.Externally assessed exemplars illustrate E, M, A grades aiming to develop teacher understanding and scaffold students to higher grades.

37

New Zealand Certificates for secondary schools (webpage)

New Zealand qualifications at levels 1 – 6 (non-NCEA) in a school-based setting

New Zealand Certificates

New Zealand Certificates are progressively replacing National Certificates.  New Zealand Certificates are approved by NZQA and sit at Levels 1 to 6 of the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF).

Schools wishing to provide a programme of study leading to a New Zealand Certificate must apply to NZQA for programme approval and/or accreditation.

Programme Approval

Schools can develop, and seek NZQA approval, for their own programmes to meet the graduate outcomes of a New Zealand Certificate. The following documents may be useful in developing applications for programme approval:

Checklist for preparing a New Zealand Certificate Programme for Approval (DOCX, 23KB)

New Zealand Certificate Programme Approval - Mapping Exercise for Programmes based on standards (DOCX, 25KB)

Programme Accreditation

If a school wants to deliver a programme approved for another educational provider, they can gain permission from the owner of that programme to be accredited to deliver the programme. Programme accreditation must also be approved by NZQA.

Programme Delivery

Approved and accredited programmes can only be delivered by schools with consent to assess the standards offered in the programme. This is not required for New Zealand Certificate programmes that are not based on achievement or unit standards.

Applications for both programme accreditation and programme approval are made online through the high security applications button on school’s NZQA website.

Reporting the completion of a New Zealand Certificate to NZQA

A key difference between National Certificates and the new qualifications is that students must be undertaking an approved programme of study which is designed to lead to the graduate outcome in the certificate. This means that a New Zealand Certificate cannot be awarded solely on the basis of a student having achieved particular standards (as it could for National Certificates).  The student must now have undertaken an approved programme of study.

This change means that schools with programme accreditation will need to report the successful completion of a New Zealand Certificate to NZQA. The school will continue to be the awarding body, as it is now for National Certificates. Reporting the achievement to NZQA will enable NZQA to issue the certificate to the student and to maintain the student’s New Zealand Record of Achievement.

38

Schools will need to:

enrol their students in the normal way, through the submission of student enrolment data in a data file to NZQA by 1 December each year; and

email NZQA a spreadsheet of students and certificate completions by 8 December each year.

NZQA will verify that any standards-based New Zealand Certificate has been correctly awarded. 

Assuring national consistency of graduate outcomes of New Zealand Certificates

All New Zealand Certificates will be scheduled for a consistency review which will be facilitated by an independent reviewer.  NZQA will administer the review schedule, appoint the reviewers and work with qualification developers and schools to prepare for the consistency review. NZQA will not charge schools a fee for consistency reviews. NZQA will also review a school’s records and arrangements through the MNA process.

Further information

Further information can be found in Assessment Matters A2016/025 30 November 2016 or you can contact your School Relationship Manager.

39

In a written examination: the quality of response is more important than the length of the essay. Submitted reports: candidates should present well-structured reports within the page limit.

A subcontracting arrangement occurs where a formal relationship occurs between a consented school and a non-consented party who is carrying out the teaching of the students enrolled in the consented school.The subcontractor has the specialist resources or facilities that are needed to teach and/or assess the learners.The consent holder is responsible for the assessment and moderation of the student work which is reported using its provider code.

40

The Ministry of Education has approved the introduction of these new achievement standards for 2018. These were published on the NZQA website on 12 December 2017 and are available for assessment in 2018. Level 1 Hangarau standards are currently under review by Ministry of Education.

New versions of the standards were published in 12 December 2017.This information was published in EmaiLink 8 issued in December 2017.

41

NZQA Appendix: Changes to Achievement Standards for 2018 November 2017

Subject Ref AchievementStandard

Ver Int/Ext

Change and Reasons for Change

Ag/Ht 2.6 91294 3 Ext Add new EN 3. This defines livestock in a broad way so that agribusiness contexts can be used for assessment.

Ag/Ht 3.3 91530 3 Ext Amend EN 3 replacing “agricultural or horticultural” with “primary industry”, so that agribusiness contexts can be used for assessment.

Drama 2.3 91215 3 Ext Amend EN 3 by removing “purpose”, for clarification, so that purpose is distinct from “features”.Drama 3.3 91514 4 Ext Amend EN 4 by removing “purpose”, for clarification, so that purpose is distinct from “features”.English 1.2 90850 4 Ext Amend EN 8 by adding an extra bullet “digital/online text”, to add a further option for text type.English 2.2 91099 4 Ext Amend EN 6 by adding an extra bullet “digital/online text”, to add a further option for text type.Geography 1.6 91012 3 Int Amend EN 2 by replacing “assessing” with “describing in detail” in the second bullet for Merit. This is

consistent with expectations in other standards for Merit.Geography 2.2 91241 3 Int Amend EN 2 by replacing “explaining” with “describing” in the first bullet for Achieved and in the first

bullet for Merit. This clarifies what is required. Currently the first and second bullets both ask for an explanation.

Geography 2.3 91242 3 Ext Amend EN 3, fifth paragraph, by replacing “and” with “and/or”. This allows for case studies where the factors are mainly cultural or natural. The “and” proved to be too restrictive.

Geography 2.5 91244 3 Int Amend EN 2 by adding “/or” to the fourth bullet for achieved. This now becomes a more realistic expectation at L2, compared to what is expected at L3.

Geography 2.6 91245 3 Int Amend EN 2, third bullet for achieved, so that one or more viewpoints is required. This is because not all viewpoints change over time. Subsequent amendments are then needed for the second bullets for both Merit and Excellence.

Geography 2.7 91246 3 Int Amend EN 2 by replacing “causes” with “the factors and/or processes”, and removing reference to “causes” from EN 3. This is to align with similar wording in both the L1 and L3 standards.

Note: EN means Explanatory Note

42

All assessor support options will be under the Best Practice workshops brand and will largely be provided on request, including:- Workshop or Presentation: face-to-face or online- Cluster Meeting: face-to-face or online, on request: aimed at offering a region the

opportunity for targeted assessor support across a multitude of subjects- Making Assessor Judgements Workshops: face-to-face- Making Assessor Judgements Workshops: online, scheduled- Transforming Assessment Praxis (TAP) Programme: online.

The on-request options require just 10 participants if hosted by a school or organisation. Teachers from other schools/organisations within the region must be invited as NZQA is unable to provide support for just one school/organisation.Dates and information for registration are on the Best Practice Workshop pages.

43