Blank Doc with SSC Logo and RDMS Doc Number - State Services ...

teachers no longer had a single point of entry into the system where they could take their
concerns. Instead responsibility was split between the two agencies. This resulted in a
noticeable communication problem for the 2004 Scholarship. The Review Team also
believes that the disestablishment of the QDG weakened the implementation focus for
Scholarship from 2001.
25 Following the disestablishment of the Qualifications Development Group, the
responsibility for NCEA implementation oversight (but not actual implementation), fell
primarily to the Joint Overview Group (JOG) of senior and mid-level managers from the
Ministry and NZQA. However, JOG’s mandate was fluid, involving principally
information exchange and discussion of operational policy matters. Throughout 2004,
the focus of JOG was on broader matters associated with NCEA and a number of wider
issues like the draft Secondary Education Work Programme. Scholarship received little
attention.
26 At the explicit request of Ministers in 2002 the two agencies adopted a number of
measures to reduce role confusion. 2 Again, the focus on Scholarship was weak and
confusion over roles remained for external stakeholders. The lack of well-focused
implementation for Scholarship drawing on expertise from both agencies contributed to
the drift into implementation without adequate analysis of the strategic implementation
risks.
27 The work of the Qualifications Development Group, the Joint Overview Group, and the
other initiatives noted in paragraph 26 did, however, significantly improved the climate
of cooperation and collaboration between the Ministry and NZQA.
28 The Review Team concludes that a dedicated implementation team should be established
by NZQA for the 2005 Scholarship, and that this team should include people with
academic expertise in the area, senior practitioners, and key representatives from the
Ministry of Education.
29 Given the magnitude of the change from the old Scholarship arrangements to the new,
which involved introducing a separate standards-based examination at Level 4 for 27
subjects, some of which had never been tested at Scholarship level before, the Review
Team would have expected there to have been:
• a formal handover of completed policy specifications from the Ministry to NZQA,
with supporting documentation that clearly explained the policy to be
implemented and the expected outcomes,
• a comprehensive implementation plan for Scholarship developed by NZQA, with
an analysis of implementation risks and strategies to deal with them, a
communications plan and a plan to monitor progress.
30 Neither eventuated. The absence of this documentation meant that the identification and
addressing of issues in the design and implementation of Scholarship was inadequate (see
1.2 below), and the confusion over which agency was leading the change continued for
external stakeholders.
31 The Review Team concludes that for 2005 and beyond the policy settings should be
formally communicated to the NZQA Board in a letter from the Associate Minister of
Education, together with an expression of the expected policy outcomes. NZQA should,
in turn, develop a detailed implementation plan that is formally approved by the
2 These included joint publication of NCEA Update, enhancement of the integrated NCEA Website, and joint chairing of
the Leaders Forum from May 2003
5