Zero out of 18 for NCEA - dismal failure

Subscribe To RSSRSS

Every one of eighteen generic and ICT-related NCEA Technology Achievement Standards independently assessed by a panel of senior tertiary level academics under the auspices of the NZ Computer Society, has failed.

Not one of the 18 met the criteria of appropriateness to prepare students for tertiary computer science study, nor for the assessment of end user computing.

Not even one.

What's more, the failure has been acknowledged by the Ministry of Education. "The knowledge and skills associated with Computer Science in particular (are) not being met by the current Unit or Achievement Standards," the Ministry acknowledged.

All this at a time when the shortage of skills is widely recognised as a huge constraint on the usage of ICT by users, let alone the industry.

TUANZ claims some moral authority in this space. Late last year we ran a ”Skills Seminar” specifically on the issue and attracted 75 senior concerned user leaders. And for 12 years we sweated blood to run an annual Education Conference - a travelling road show that brought international luminaries to the cities and provinces of New Zealand. It visited up to a dozen locations a year to inform and inspire primary and secondary teachers about the opportunities of ICT in classroom teaching. Tens of thousands of teachers went through the programme.

This year the Ministry withdrew financial support and endorsement for "strategic" reasons, although we understand a reduction in funding for its ICT unit was also a factor. One wonders where the new strategy has focused. Not, it appears, on any updating of the crucial NCEA standards to meet 21st century needs.

As I write this, thousands of students are opting for law or arts while critical ICT jobs remain unfilled. Tertiary institutions are making computer science tutors redundant because of falling student numbers.

Coincidentally the Board of TUANZ has sought a meeting with the MoE to discuss the concern that in respect of the skills crisis, the government buck seems to stop nowhere. I observed during the panel debate at our Telecommunications Day this month that although there are small pockets of useful activity such as "Accelerating Auckland" there seems to be no single, coordinated, national plan to quantify, analyse and deal with this skills shortage. There is a need for government agencies to take a decisive lead in pulling together a nationwide remedial strategy that embraces ICT in the school curriculum, career guidance, tertiary courses and immigration policies.

Is it too much to expect government agencies to be looking ten years ahead in these fast moving times, instread of twenty years behind?

Good on the NZCS for raising the profile of this issue. TUANZ will give our utmost support to this valuable initiative.

Categories: Education | Events | Innovation | TUANZ policy

ADD YOUR COMMENTS

     

10 comments

  • Mike Styles says:

    Hi there. While I accept with the evaluation of the NCEA achievement standards for Technology as per the NZ Computer Society moderated assessment I must also make another point.
    The ICT sector has no Industry Training Organisation, and therefore part of the problem lies within the ICT sector itself. Specialist education has become som complex now that it is difficult for the compulsory Education sector to keep up.
    Savvy ITOs have realised this and are supporting schools with the specialist parts of the curriculum. In doing so they generate an ongoing supply of recruits to their sector.
    The ICT sector must not just sit back and criticise. It must form its own Industry Training Organisation, and get involved as an active participant in ensuring its own future skilled labour force.

    Added: 27 May 2008, 4:57 p.m. Flag as Spam  |  Flag as Offensive
  • Ariki Gell says:

    The lack of an ITO is the failure of NZQA and TEC and the Labour government, not the industry. The ICT Industry is well represented by the likes of COMPTIA. The NCEA standards are a failure because they have been formed with virtually no industry consultation. NZQA provides NO funding support for new unit standards development, in Australia yet do get funding dsupport fro development of unit standards for AQF, with the support of the likes of COMPTIA. Moral of the story, develop your programmes to Australian standards, get funded in Australia, as long as your students, are available to fill their skills shortages. The industry with any other individual tax payers has a right to criticise NZQA and TEC. By giving polytechs and universities and unhealthy tax payer funded advantage over PTE's, they have failed dismally to ensure our country has the skilled staff to support New Zealand's ICT aspirations. P.S it is the IT and telecommunications sectors we are talking about here, they are two seperate sectors.

    Added: 30 May 2008, 12:57 a.m. Flag as Spam  |  Flag as Offensive
  • Lesta G says:

    I agree with Mike, I used to work for the Ministry of Energy in the 80's. Back then all govt departments were effectively a training ground for trades and prof. careers, for the private sector. With the shakeup/selloff of govt depts in the 80s' (post office, electricorp etc) the stream of qualified staff dried up in 5 years to the private sector.
    In my opinion it took 10 or more years for the “trades” to realise this, hence the ITOs.

    Added: 30 May 2008, 10:28 a.m. Flag as Spam  |  Flag as Offensive
  • David L says:

    Hi, I agree with Lesta re the skills sourcing in the 80's. In the 90's the IT / Telco skills came from square pegs in round holes people - those who got in in the late 70's / early 80's as say computer engineers / ex telecoms / tv techs / ex Defence Force personnel "skill offsets" - migrated to datacomms then to PC / IBM networking then to TCP/IP skillsets , multi O/S, IT system security - with branches off to Sales Support / Marketing - if that way inclined. The problem with ITO's is that they're too bloody inflexible, at least within NZ, as the skillsets update far too quickly. Two Solutions suggested. 1 - Constant exchange programs (real & virtual (via KAREN & TRADENZ) with advanced technology countries eg Finland Ireland Singapore, US and yes China. (eg China upgraded its skills by sending truckloads of undergrads to the US in the 80's - result Huawei etc) . 2. Positioning NZ between FirstWorld and ThirdWorld as an enabler / catalyst / analyst country - solving problems using our great General Knowledge oriented education. Major success stories include adaptable ENEX (Engineering Exporters). Given that Jim Anderton has apparently given up on NZ as a High Technology country - "won't be a Switzerland of the South Pacific" we'll have to satisfy ourselves as an advanced Cow Country ie "Fonterra NZ" on steroids. At least it gives us a stable 'localised industry base' to build sustainable technologies eg Advanced dairy food differentiation (2000 + value-added products) / Energy efficiencies via on-farm Carbon offset Methane Digester / Gas turbine (CHP) technology, & pollution clean-up technologies (Nitrogen runoff - algae bloom mitigation - all relevant to an Agricultural base economy (NZ) and an increasingly polluted world internationally. Regrettably NZCS and TUANZ need to bury their jeolousies and get with the program - a hell of a lot of industry skill has already got up and left NZ and what's left needs to regroup and fight for a new future.

    Added: 30 May 2008, 7:29 p.m. Flag as Spam  |  Flag as Offensive
  • Tj says:

    NZCS deserves appreciation for raising this genuine issue effecting educators and learners both. There is a dire need to acknowledge IT as a separate stream in schools and not merely a neglected and negligible proportion of Technology Curriculum.

    The future New Zealand Curriculum was forced to change from the previous form to make it compatible with advancement of IT developments. The irony is that it is only IT which was ignored while everyone was using it the most. The educators can not be absolved of neglecting their duty when comments were being invited.

    Unless the Unit Standards and the Achievement Standards are designed with realistic skills, matching industrial job demands, that encourage creative abilities; nothing will change. Even NZCS will remain an unwanted intruder.

    The IT Unit Standards and NCEA Standards demand review/ revision every year instead of three or four year periodicity. National Certificates in Computing deserve the same priority.

    Added: 30 May 2008, 10:00 p.m. Flag as Spam  |  Flag as Offensive
  • The_Q says:

    It's true that there is not a specific ITO for the ICT sector, but ETITO (Electo-tech?) has an ICT strand in the NC Telecommunications. Have they ever been asked to look at a full blown National Certificate in ICT ? In the hardware side they have lots of experience and look like a good candidate, They were involved in the ICT project in canterbury working with IPENZ, and I see they have contact centres (TUANZ too), perhaps we could have a home there? As for ITO's being flexible, I just sat in on the Telecom Review with these guys, and they had no issues with making changes. With a well planned qualification (with wriggle room in how we do on-job evaluations), and a support body, like Tesso is for Telecom, an ITO could support us very well. As far as I can find out, the first step is for industry groups to ask the ITO to cover their industry. So what group needs to ask them.

    Added: 3 June 2008, 11:05 a.m. Flag as Spam  |  Flag as Offensive
  • Ariki Gell says:

    ETITO has not done a good job. The lack of skills training and the resulting skill shortages is proof of that. ETITO's claim to fame in our sector (ICT) is that they support units standards for the underpaid and over worked telco cablers. (incidently, ETITO has a limited liability company that develops units standards??) I dare anyone at TUANZ or ETITO to criticise Telecom or telstraclear about this. No, what our industry needs is its own ITO. Please help, Dr Paul Hutchison? Don Robertson can chair it, I nominate Dave Lane to be secretary, George Marr to make the tea.

    Added: 20 July 2008, 6:42 p.m. Flag as Spam  |  Flag as Offensive
  • Ariki Gell says:

    Im adding again to this thread in the last hope anyone actually reads it before I realise we need a seperate body for I T. (1) Why dont we have an ITO for I T? And why dont we have a modern apprenticeship programme for IT? Ive had enough ive NZQA's feeble excuses!!! My organisation and its partner COMPTIA are going to launch a modern apprenticeship programme thats recognised by COMPTIA and the AQA. SO NZQA arent relevant.(2) One of their first objections will be localisation, well we are focusing on increasing Maori participation in the sector. Not something NZQA and TEC are even interested in. Parekura Horomia has proven that! Infact TUANZ or the digital strategy group even know Maori are participating in the ICT industry, havent seen a lot of anything on this website to refute that!

    Added: 20 October 2008, 11:08 p.m. Flag as Spam  |  Flag as Offensive
  • Ernie Newman says:

    Ariki, Maori are actively and well represented on the Digital Development Council in the person of Antony Royal and Mavis Mullens - see http://ddc.org.nz/digital-development-council-members

    Added: 21 October 2008, 7:16 a.m. Flag as Spam  |  Flag as Offensive
  • Ariki Gell says:

    Hi Ernie, Maori are not well represented by these two people. They are both involved in an organisation that squandered $5 million in tax payers money, supposeable to set up a maori owned mobile phone company that has failed to deliver any of its stated objectives. Antony was also involved in the Maori Information technology Council, that also failed to achieve anything except the expenditure of te puni kokiri funding. I queried David Cunniliffe on The Hautaki Trust, mainly because Parekura Horomia continued to ignore and refuse my requests under the Official Information Act on such things as the voting process of the 'Maori Electoral College,' which decided the founding members of this trust. In the end it was just another Labour party tax payer funded rought like the Digital Development Council, full of yes men and sympathisers.

    Added: 10 November 2008, 5:29 p.m. Flag as Spam  |  Flag as Offensive
  • Comments are now closed