[kiwizebra]

Hi, we are in South Africa and planning our move to NZ end of 2009. Our boys (twins 14) are studying the Cambridge international syllabus. What syllabus is followed in NZ. I see they have a national curriculum but please don't tell me it is OBE (Outcome based education) because here OBE is substandard.:uhoh:uhoh

[James 1077]

I know that some schools offer Cambridge but I'm not sure on whether they are just private schools.

The national curriculum is called NCEA - wiki link here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Certificate_of_Educational_Achievement)

Oh, and having a look at the site there are some state schools that offer Cambridge - but they are some of the top ones so it may be expensive to buy in their catchment areas!

[Alan]

Some schools such as Westlake Boys in Auckland stream pupils and the top half ability would be pushed towards the Cambridge syllabus.

[kiwizebra]

Hi thanks very much for the information. The NCEA looks very similar to the OBE in SA, the only difference is that New Zealand looks like it has at least tried to improve the system. We started our kids on the Cambridge syllabus to try and maintain a good standard but it is expensive. Not sure whether we will be able to do that in New Zealand especially as we will have two in high school an our youngest son just starting school next year. That was one of the reasons why we choose New Zealand for the standard of education. Does any one have any comments on whether the NCEA is any good? As a matter of interest does Aus follow a similar system? Any comments welcome. Thanks again.

[Billy]

Does any one have any comments on whether the NCEA is any good? As a matter of interest does Aus follow a similar system? Any comments welcome. Thanks again.

Many people will not believe this, but the NZ NCEA system is very highly regarded in progressive educational countries around the world. It is certainly not perfect, and is about to go through some well-needed changes, but it was an innovative system when introduced and hence had many 'teething' problems.

A lot of people complain about the continuous assessment element of some of it being too easy, as opposed to the end of year exam. But for many kids, the fact that they have to be on the ball most of the time, rather than just studying very hard during term 4 is hugely beneficial, not just in terms of their academic achievement, but also in the sometimes forgotten fact that they are actually learning and understanding.

[James 1077]

But for many kids, the fact that they have to be on the ball most of the time, rather than just studying very hard during term 4 is hugely beneficial, not just in terms of their academic achievement, but also in the sometimes forgotten fact that they are actually learning and understanding.

I would do so badly at that! I need the push of exams / a deadline to get things done - otherwise I'm too lazy!

[Tesall]

Before you get swamped by the usual suapects with thier very questionable anecdotal evidence I suggest you read this briallint post by a genius poster from a othewr thread.. shockingly it contains facts... sorry about that :)


These threads comparing education systems aways confuse me.

The only way we can judge education systems with even a slim amount of accuracy is to compare exam results in exams that all the students take from various countries and NZ students consistantly outperform UK students in those measures.

Lerts look at the expert PISA review, I will just highlight the executive summary.



source - http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.ht ml

So if I you compare the NZ with the USA or UK, NZ is far better in the only measurable way.

And because I clearly have nothing better to do on a Sat night... I trawled through those spredsheets and some interesting facts.

--NZ has the best percentage of very advanced science students. 4.0, just pipping Finland, so if your kid wants to be a scientist... NZ is the place!

--Finland gets its revenge in Maths and just pips NZ into second place for advanced students understanding advanced concepts.

--The UK and USA have VERY dissapointing results in both categories.

I noticed someone mentioning that NZ is behind Europe.... err well maybe Finland in some areas (and not in others), but the stats say that NZ is far FAR ahead of Europe.

[dharder]

Before you get swamped by the usual suapects with thier very questionable anecdotal evidence I suggest you read this briallint post by a genius poster from a othewr thread.. shockingly it contains facts... sorry about that :)

The PISA study is a good study in what it provides. It gives you a number of indications of what is broadly happening in some countries. It can tell you trends within countries compared to their results before, it can give you an overall idea of where to place the general average population in a country by country comparison. It tells you something like ‘oh, country x is doing very well for its children in general, and country y is not doing enough’. It is not a guide of ‘where to move to get a good education for my children’. It isnt’ meant to be, so that is not a shortfall at all.

And the reason why this can’t be a moving guide is that no one in any country ever actually IS the average whose result is shown.

You may say that ‘on average’ a or b may be the case, but that says nothing about anyone’s individual circumstances. And since I am not an average, but an individual, I will look at rather more specific cases.

Different school systems provide different things to varying degrees to its individual students. Early streaming in Germany, for example, may be good for the individual student who is in a high stream, it can work against the student in the lower stream. No streaming and comprehensive education may be better for the middle ground or not so academic student, but not for the very bright ones.

If you compare those two systems, you may come up with the comprehensive one slightly ahead of the streaming one on average. You may still have the better education in the higher stream in the streaming system. So it entirely depends on your individual circumstances.

Saying that ‘your individual education will be better in NZ than in the UK/US wherever’ is simply not correct and not supported by the PISA study at all.

Daniela

[Tesall]

The bottom line is that the PISA is the best available information on which to compare educational performance, some people might not like that as it goes against thier own agendas, but that is tough luck. I have read lots of people run down the NZ education system based on flimsy anecdotal evidence. Those types might not like the fact that the best available research contradicts the broad claims they make on narrow experience.

I am more than happy for people to make thier own mind up, if they want to use the information contained in a comprehensive study in which the parameters are clearly defined and explained, great, if they prefer to take the anecdotal evidence of people already bitter about their new home and negative about everything in that country, fine. Their choice, I am just pleased to bring some facts to the debate.

I should also add that anecdotal evidence form people viewing NZ through rose tinted specs carry the same burden of being simply anecdotal . But in this case the PISA report backs them.

[dharder]

The bottom line is that the PISA is the best available information on which to compare educational performance,

I was pointing out that while agreeing that PISA is a good study for what it does, it will tell you absolutely nothing about any individual’s education in any of the countries that participated in. You can be illiterate in Finland and a genius in Bulgaria and PISA will still be a good study because it never claimed to tell you how individuals will perform.

Daniela

[Tesall]

I dont think it is useful to people to point out when they ask about the NZ system to simply say 'we cant say as everyone is different', otherwise nobody would bother aksing questions about NZ on this board! They would never get a response other than 'everyone is different'.. kinda fruitless.

The PISA gives an indication as to the environment that your chold will be entering and how that environment compares. Surely that is the question most immigrants have about education? Nobody seriously expects someone to say 'yes your child will do brilliantly in NZ'... they just want to know what sort of environment they are entering.

Personal anecdotes, both positive and negative, are severly limited in giving this information. Which is when we can get information from a repsected source we should never disregard it because it doesnt suit our personal impression or come with gurantees for every child in the system.

[akp713b]

I did my teacher training in NZ just last year and we were told all about the PISA study and others. The consensus was that in terms of quality NZ's system was ranked 3rd in the world after Finland and Canada, though I've heard a more recent study dropped NZ down a few ranks this year. However the same studies showed that while NZ had 3rd highest quality overall, it also had the 2nd worst score in the OECD on equitable outcomes. In other words while NZ students had a high average, they also had one of the largest divergences between the best students and the worst. The expert refer to this as NZ's "long-tail" of underachieving students. The only country worse was Germany, due to their early streaming system.

Most of the complaints about NCEA that I see come from British immigrants and Kiwis themselves who are used to an end of year exam system. As an American immigrant I have the opposite complaint. I would much, much prefer 100% internal assessment left up to the teacher or school to choose. When I was in high school we did our homework every night because it was 20% of our grade. We contibuted in class because that was 20% of our grade. We studied all year because quizzes came every week and they all counted.

In my department we rarely give homework because there is no incentive for the kids to complete it, so they don't. The first question we get when we hand out a task is "Is this worth credits?". Many kids simply decide they don't need to do any of the internals to get enough credits so they just take up space for the first two terms while half the class works on them. Others decide they'll only do the internals and then one of the three exams because they aren't good at essay writing. So they switch off once we get to the essay writing prep. It really upsets me that they get no grade for my class, only for the Level as a whole. I love history, I made it my career, but if I were in their place in high school history I'd have done the same thing at that age, I'd have done the minimum necessary to get by and I would have stuck to the skills I already knew I was good at.

I find it disturbing that only about half of students achieve Level 3 NCEA qualification. The achievement rate for High School Diploma in the US is closer to 90%. Even the terminology used shows the different importance put on finishing school in the two countries. In the US they call it "dropping out" while in NZ it is the much more euphemistic term "leaving school". It is far more acceptable here not to finish education. This is reflected in the fact that only half as many students finish Univeristy in NZ as in the US (as a proportion of the pop. that is).

Perhaps the US sends far too many students to university unnecessarily. But the numbers show that univeristy graduates in the US at least make significantly higher wages than high school grads. I would imagine the stats in NZ would be similar.

I think NCEA is a somewhat better system than Cambridge because it is skills based and it at least has some internal assessment. NCEA gets a bad reputation largely due to the simplistic Unit Standards used in the lower level classes, but none of the students preparing for Univeristy are doing these simple assessments. I like the NZ curriculum and teaching methods, I believe they are far superior to the US system. But I feel that the US assessment system is far superior to the NZ one. If only we could have a combination of the two.

[macs gold]

I guess in his day and age of most people doing tertiary education of some form, then secondaryu school assessment probably takes on lesser importance. For example, we tend to onlyrecruit graduates at my place of work, and we look closely at university grades and test numeracy, literacy and problem solving skills ourselves. Secondary education is just a stepping stone for most talented students.

[akp713b]

Except that only 18% of Kiwis get a Bachelor level or higher degree compared to 30% of Americans. NZ ranks slightly below the average for the OECD nations in this respect. Also in NZ only 78% of students finish high school compared to 91.5% of Americans. This does not mean that 78% got NCEA level 3 of course, only that they finished secondary school.

I recently had an argument with a colleague from another high school because I said all students should aspire to tertiary education and they were failing themselves if they left school without any qualification. He thought I was putting to much pressure on my students with such high expectations. I was shocked at his attitute because it was the opposite of everything I grew up hearing in the US. You know "stay in school" from every celebrity etc. and now Obama giving a speech saying every American has a duty to commit to some tertiary education. He kept telling me that way didn't work in NZ and most kids weren't meant to go to University. His views were backed by a colleague from my own school as well. I think NZ needs a bit more of the US attitude in this regard, not necessarily University, but some kind of qualification beyond high school should be the aspiration of all students. If they fall short so be it, but as teachers I think it's what we must expect of them.

[JandM]

I'm a parent, grandparent, former teacher in school and still a part-time freelance educator. Myself, I obviously did tertiary education, did further degree-level qualifications through home study, then went back for a higher degree as a mature student after my children were grown. This was all my own choice, and suited me.

However, I don't think formal education in institutions (schools/colleges/universities) is the answer for everybody, and it definitely doesn't suit everyone's way of thinking and learning. In fact, compulsion, or social pressure which comes close to it, is a sure-fire way to make many people close their minds. My high expectation of everyone is that they should make themselves useful, in whatever way they are best fitted for by their talents, and only some life-paths actually need post-school study to start out upon. (Extra knowledge can always be added in to the mix by many means later, when the need arises.)

I'm well aware this isn't a fashionable view from on high at the moment. I am cynical enough to believe that a lot of politicians, at this time of recession, would LOVE to have as many people registered as students as possible, so they don't feature in the unemployment statistics, and that official policies can arise from such considerations.

[Tesall]

Except that only 18% of Kiwis get a Bachelor level or higher degree compared to 30% of Americans. NZ ranks slightly below the average for the OECD nations in this respect. Also in NZ only 78% of students finish high school compared to 91.5% of Americans. This does not mean that 78% got NCEA level 3 of course, only that they finished secondary school.



But thise are meaningless statistics. That could just mean that it is easier to graduate high school in the US. Or tertiary entry is easier to obtain. You cant compare stats like that in any meaningful way at all. Thats where universal testing on the SAME standard comes into it, and PISA does that.



I recently had an argument with a colleague from another high school because I said all students should aspire to tertiary education and they were failing themselves if they left school without any qualification. He thought I was putting to much pressure on my students with such high expectations. I was shocked at his attitute because it was the opposite of everything I grew up hearing in the US. You know "stay in school" from every celebrity etc. and now Obama giving a speech saying every American has a duty to commit to some tertiary education. He kept telling me that way didn't work in NZ and most kids weren't meant to go to University. His views were backed by a colleague from my own school as well. I think NZ needs a bit more of the US attitude in this regard, not necessarily University, but some kind of qualification beyond high school should be the aspiration of all students. If they fall short so be it, but as teachers I think it's what we must expect of them.

Some people dont want to go to university. Why would you shoe horn them in, or lower standards? I agree that they should aspire to some sort of post school training, but that happens so I dont see the drama.

A friend of mine lectures at Notre Dame, previously Berkley, and he was appalled at the standard of studentr that can get into the under grad programs. He say most of those students simply dont have the standard of education to succeed at tertiary level, but get helping hands to help the stats. Clearly this his is only one mans opinion and anecdotal, but it has helped fashion my opinion.

[James 1077]

I'm a great believer that, for most people, Tertiary education is pointless and is simply a way to keep the youth unemployment figures down.

[akp713b]

At the risk of being called out for throwing out more 'meaningless' statistics. Here are a few more stats from the US Bureau of Labor found at http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab7.htm

These are for 2008 in the US. It is trickier to find good stats for NZ, but they are likely to be similar.

Average Weekly Wage for:
Non-High School Graduate $426 Unemployment rate: 9%
High School Graduate: $591 Unemployment rate: 5.7%
Bachelor's Degree: $978 Unemployment rate: 2.8%

Education thru traditional pathways (e.g. High School and Univeristy) is still the best pathway to monetary success in life, not to mention expanding of the mind purely for learning's sake.

Politicians push education because it is proven to reduce unemployment and not just by making the unemployed into students. That may work in NZ where education is so well subsidised, but in the US recession means no money for expensive schools and no more easy student loans.

I agree that we need a standardised test to show how systems compare. I agreed with the PISA study. It's that sudy that showed NZ is the second worst country of those studied when it came to equitable outcomes for students.

It isn't a question of easier or harder when it comes to finishing high school, if 13% more Kiwis drop out than Americans our system is at fault. From my experience, and this is only anecdotal evidence, the NZ system is much easier than the US. As a statement of fact though, the NZ discipline system is far more relaxed than the US system. If anything this should encourage more students to stay in Kiwi high schools, yet it does not.

As far as university entrance goes, NZ is actually much easier than the US. American schools of the same caliber as the University of Auckland have acceptance rates under 20% while NZ has open admission to Stage One papers for students over 21. And the figures I gave are not for the number of students who enter programmes, but for those who succesfully complete them.

I think NZ does a great many things heaps better than the US. Healthcare for example. But this is one area where NZ needs to improve it's numbers.

[seattle]

Thank you akp713b for your informative posts. I know the discussion/comparison of NZ education can be a bit touchy but I appreciate your insight.

[Tesall]

At the risk of being called out for throwing out more 'meaningless' statistics. Here are a few more stats from the US Bureau of Labor found at http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab7.htm

These are for 2008 in the US. It is trickier to find good stats for NZ, but they are likely to be similar.

Average Weekly Wage for:
Non-High School Graduate $426 Unemployment rate: 9%
High School Graduate: $591 Unemployment rate: 5.7%
Bachelor's Degree: $978 Unemployment rate: 2.8%



But these are meaningless when you have nothing to compare to, unless you are just illustrating that in thr US you more likely to be unemployed if you are less educated, but given the intelligence of your posting in this thread, I doubt that obvious statement would be your point.




Education thru traditional pathways (e.g. High School and Univeristy) is still the best pathway to monetary success in life, not to mention expanding of the mind purely for learning's sake.



100% disagree. Many of the wealthiest and entreprenurial people in the world didnt go to university. Of course many of the wealthiest and entreprenurial have gone to iniversity as well. University degrees if anything are just a faster rout to middle class. I personally dont consider middle class as having monetary success.




I agree that we need a standardised test to show how systems compare. I agreed with the PISA study. It's that sudy that showed NZ is the second worst country of those studied when it came to equitable outcomes for students.

Doesnt this just backup the theory that high school dilpomas in the US are easier to get?



It isn't a question of easier or harder when it comes to finishing high school, if 13% more Kiwis drop out than Americans our system is at fault. From my experience, and this is only anecdotal evidence, the NZ system is much easier than the US. As a statement of fact though, the NZ discipline system is far more relaxed than the US system. If anything this should encourage more students to stay in Kiwi high schools, yet it does not.



Yes it is a question of wether it easier or harder. I personally dont want an education system that lowers standards to get a higher pass rate. I am sure that isnt what you want either, and you def havent said you do... however that is what would happen, and what I believe has happened in the US. It is the path of least resistance. The same thing is happening in the UK, the exams just get easier and easier... the results go up.. and the system is applauded by the academics... and bemoaned by nearly everyone else for churning out high school grads who can barely tie thier shoe laces.
I accept your anecdotal evidence as I am not in your shoes, it is interestng that I have been told the exact opposite however.



As far as university entrance goes, NZ is actually much easier than the US. American schools of the same caliber as the University of Auckland have acceptance rates under 20% while NZ has open admission to Stage One papers for students over 21. And the figures I gave are not for the number of students who enter programmes, but for those who succesfully complete them.



You are comapring apples and oranges, which a bit mischievious. Mature students have entirely different criteria. You should comapre 18 year olds directly out of school.

[BkyMonster]

the standard of studentr that can get into the under grad programs. He say most of those students simply dont have the standard of education to succeed at tertiary level, but get helping hands to help the stats. Clearly this his is only one mans opinion and anecdotal, but it has helped fashion my opinion.

This is very true from my experience.
Most universities in the US (that don't require 1500+ SAT scores that is) in fact now have to offer high school (or lower) equivalent courses in math and english at the very least because students aren't getting the necessary skills while in high school. For example, in the US university system college english/maths start at the 100 level for course numbering (this is standard nationwide afaik). For math 100 is generally algebra, pre calculus and similar. Calculus is generally in the 200's, with I think number theory and statistics in the 300 range (ie more specialist the higher the number- a typical US undergraduate degree generally goes up to and includes 400 level classes in your area of specialization).
There are assessment tests when you enter university and thus the universities have been forced to implement math/english 90, 60 and even 30, which translates to pre-algebra or below, because incoming students don't meet the basic requirements they were able to meet even 10-15 years ago.
I know I never learned any grammar (formally) until I got to university and a very frustrated technical writing teacher spent a few weeks teaching us. This is despite being in advanced placement english/writing classes throughout high school.

[macs gold]

Average Weekly Wage for:
Non-High School Graduate $426 Unemployment rate: 9%
High School Graduate: $591 Unemployment rate: 5.7%
Bachelor's Degree: $978 Unemployment rate: 2.8%

Education thru traditional pathways (e.g. High School and Univeristy) is still the best pathway to monetary success in life, not to mention expanding of the mind purely for learning's sake.


I'm very reluctant of using stats like these to infer the pathway is the defining factor in monetary success. They ignore the fact that there is a huge selection bias in people who do go on to higher education. They are often more talented, and in many other ways more advantaged with a stronger base for going on to succeed in their careers.

I agree that its a good time for NZ to encourage more tertiary education, but funnily enough ....without doing anything the rolls of most universities are up this year because of the recession. But I'd hate us to become like the Germans - they seem to collect postgrad qualifications almost as standard, and end up joining the real world very late on, still at the same entry points as would have been standard 30 years ago. I really don't like how some university education is now so much about differentiating qualifications, rather than picking up good life and vocational skills. MBAs for example are the latest trend...

[James 1077]

Average Weekly Wage for:
Non-High School Graduate $426 Unemployment rate: 9%
High School Graduate: $591 Unemployment rate: 5.7%
Bachelor's Degree: $978 Unemployment rate: 2.8%


This is the problem with statistics. People use them as backup for their own viewpoint without doing further research into them. All that this shows is that there is a correlation between when you leave education and your employment opportunities and wages - the earlier you leave the more likely you are to earn less and be unemployed.

It doesn't, however, say anything about the reason you are likely to earn less and be unemployed.

My take on it is that, due to modern society pushing people into further education, people who start working earlier or "drop out" are more likely to be less intelligent and from poorer backgrounds. You would therefore expect lower wages and more unemployment from this social class.

People who go through to finish university are more likely to be intelligent and / or come from families who push them educationally and through to employment.

However there is nothing in these statistics that allows you to compare an intelligent, middle class kid who goes straight to work with an intelligent middle class kid who goes through university.