Thursday, 9 November 2006


NZ HERALD: Texting abbreviations 'allowed for NCEA exams'
Students will be able to use text abbreviations in this year's exams, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) has said. Bali Haque, NZQA deputy chief executive of qualifications, said credit would be given in this year's NCEA (National Certificate of Educational Achievement) exams if the answer showed the required understanding
To be frank, why don't we just abandon any pretence that the state's factory schools are there to teach, or that the NCEA system is intended to encourage excellence and to kickstart careers.

Far more honest, surely to simply accept that the factory schools are simply there to turn minds to mush, to promote "desired social ends," to create a broadly compliant underclass, and to keep the braindead off the streets.

Why carry on pretending?

LINK: Texting abbreviations 'allowed for NCEA exams' - NZ Herald
NCEA: Stick a fork in its ass, it's done - Not PC (July, 2006)
NCEA resignations: Et tu Billy - Not PC (May 2006)

TAGS: Education, Politics-NZ

* SHID = Slaps Head in Disgust


  1. "...if the answer showed the required understanding."

    My Maths and Physics teachers never paid too much attention to my spelling.

    From the article:

    "However, Mr Haque said text abbreviations would be penalised in some exams, including English, where candidates were required to show good language use."

    So, like, wtf? Don't get sucked in by alarmist journalism. Nothing has actually changed.

  2. Btw, I agree that NCEA is a stupid qualification that should be dumped, but when I did the International Baccalauraete they had a similar policy.

  3. I had the misfortune to hear Karen Poutasi, CEO of NZQA, speak at the Otago alumni function on Tuesday night. (Why do I go to these things? They don't even have free booze any more.)

    I couldn't follow much of her bullshit-bingo-winning effort as it was content-free. I'm told NZQA is implementing a staircasing framework for learners going forward. No idea what that is in txt-speak or English.

    Having listened for somewhere between fifteen minutes and eternity to what NZQA is up to, am I any the wiser? On the contrary, having had my mind subjected to that mental slop, I suspect I'm actually a bit stupider.

    Sounds to me like NZQA is facilitating a lose-lose paradigm for its stakeholders.

  4. Well, well, Bernard .. the same Karen Poutasi who 'ran' - and I use the term loosely - Wellington Health.

    She screwed health and now she's having a bloody good go at screwing education.

    See. Bureaucrats are nothing if not consistent.

  5. Required understanding? Not in English! Text spelling is poor English and as such should never be allowed in exams (especially English ones)!! Why not accept them making up words, explaining their meaning as long as they "show the required understanding"? That'd have the same effect on further ruining the poor control over the English language that the NZQA is now encouraging. They should be teaching them better control not allwoing them to use worse and get full marks in the exams!! Clearly proper use of the English language means nothing to the NZQA. Clearly they don't see proper use of the Enlish language as useful. It's bad enough that people drop commars a lot and misuse apostraphe's but now they want to allow that? Idiots! Kill the English language why don't you! The fact that the English exams don't accept them doesn't change the fact that they are incouraging bad use of the language, and thus killing it.

    Lol, based on Bernard's comment they don't use English themsleves. Just like him I have no idea what, "staircasing framework for learners going forward" means. Lose-lose? Yep. If not expicately then implicately at least.

    Sus... consistent at being useless and incosistent that is. Subjectivism, which they use, can only get you constitency at being useless and inconsistent. Where as objectivity gets you consistency in being uselful and consistent.

  6. "NZQA is implementing a staircasing framework for learners going forward."

    As opposed to implementing a travellator framework for learners going backwards.

    Utter bollocks.

  7. Before we go overboard, I think it would be prudent to find out whether this announcement means something like:

    a) You can write an answer on, for example, Shakespeare, in txt speak and not be marked down.

    Which would be apalling, or whether this announcement means something more innocouous like:

    b) If you are doing a creative writing piece in an english exam you can use txt speak - e.g. "I picked up cellphone from beside the fruit bowl and texted Cyril 'cul8r m8'" and not be marked down.

    Which I don't think anyone can complain about. Context people.

  8. Hmsh,

    So dat k if u cn only cmmnc8 lke ths bt cn mnge 2 do sme mafs?

    Evn if u can do sme mafs, u shud stl b able 2 wrte basik englsh.

    Thrz a diff btwn spln mstks & wrtn lke ths. ROTFLBBQ YMMV.

    Yours sincerely,
    Craig :-)

  9. I don't give a fuck what the topic is - any of my students using "texting language" in any essay I set them (btw, hehe, I'm in the tertiary sector), will be automatically marked down on these points (marking schedule):

    Lucid in style and organisation.
    Coherent in argument; balanced in judgement and giving attention to all parts of the question.
    Mature, perceptive in evalutation, judicious in personal response.
    Comprehensive in knowledge of the work(s).

    My response would be typically harsh in the first instance - in the words of a lyricist much cleverer than me.

    " if you give 'em a quick short, sharp, shock, they won't do it again. Dig it? "

    But then, the NZQA are run by a pack of namby pamby big girls blouses, more concerned about the little darlings self-esteems.

  10. Having just completed a bunch of painful assesments written by these clowns, I think they must have gone to the Officer Crabtree Scull of Goad Onglish...

  11. Good on you Steve! That's a good marking criteria. Language rules exist for a reason. It's to make language meet it's purpose: to pass along concepts in a way others can understand. I mean I had no idea what Craig said and I have no interest in trying to figure it out even though I could. Or in asking what he said. You are right about the self-esteem.

    Oh, that's funny Oswald!

  12. Surprise, surprise - turns out it's all bollocks. I'd been wondering why no-one's been able to provide a link to the actual "report" that started all this, just the brief summary in the Herald.

  13. I don't this is so much bollocks, but a climb-down:

    "Bali Haque, deputy chief executive of the authority, said there had been no change to guidelines and there was no specific policy about text language.

    "If people are expecting they can come up with an exam script full of text and pass, then they're dreaming.""

    That contradicts what he told television news before everybody reacted. He's backed down. Good.

  14. In that case, can you you or anyone else give me a link to the actual original statement or article that got all of this started? What exactly did he "tell television news before everybody reacted"?

  15. Josh, he said it was too late to backg down on txt language being allowed in exams.

    I am glad he changed his mind about that.


Comments are moderated to encourage honest conversation, and remove persistent trolls.