The findings of an independent review, set up to look into an error in an NCEA examination paper and discrepancies in four other papers last year, have been welcomed by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA).
Deputy chief executive Kristine Kilkelly said the review panel's findings gave NZQA a clear and objective view of the causes of the error.
''We are moving ahead to implement these recommendations to ensure they are fully embedded in our quality assurance processes ahead of the next examination round.''
NZQA commissioned the review in November last year, after an error was identified in one part of a question in the level 3 statistics achievement standard, 91585, and concerns were raised about discrepancies in four other external mathematics and statistics standards.
After NZQA became aware of the error in question 3(b) in the level 3 statistics achievement standard, markers were issued with new instructions for marking the standard to take account of the error.
Results for the achievement standard were consistent with those of previous years, indicating the error did not impact on student achievement.
The distribution of candidates across the possible grades - not achieved, achieved, merit and excellence - for the level 3 statistics achievement standard was similar to recent years, with a slight increase in the rate of Excellence grades in this standard, she said.
''NZQA's overriding concern is for the interests of students. As soon as the problems with the level 3 statistics examination was detected, we put processes in place to minimise any potential disadvantage to students.
''NZQA is committed to ensuring the quality of our examination processes.''
The authority prepares between 600 and 700 examination materials each year, including examination papers, resource booklets, formula sheets and audio files.
Ms Kilkelly acknowledged the stress and confusion the error in the NCEA level 3 statistics achievement standard could have caused the pupils who sat the examination.
''We apologise for that and assure students, teachers and schools that we will work hard to prevent such an error from happening again.''
She said the authority was very grateful to the review panel for the work it has done, and would be implementing the panel's recommendations immediately as part of the authority's work for the 2017 examinations.
Related Stories
Comments
As a previous NCEA marker I have these comments. Of course the profile of grades is similar to previous years. Marking panels manipulate the marking schedule early in the marking process to ensure that there is a profile of grades that meet 'the profile of expected performance'. What the non-teaching public don't know is that this is scaling before marking. It gives about the same % of N, A, M and E grades year after year. It enables marking panels to effectively mark papers which have poor questions or errors in the paper that have not been picked up. NZQA have only had 12 months to produce a properly checked exam paper. Comments by NZQA are made to pull the wool over our eyes that their systems are robust