Information released by NZQA to the media earlier this month detailed 330 "exam breaches" last year, including an incident at St Hildas where two girls were said to have shared an answer in their NCEA level 2 biology exam.
The St Hildas case was listed as a breach which was resolved.
Tony Sizemore said he "saw red" when the list was published in the Otago Daily Times.
His daughter, Alicia, was one of the St Hildas pupils investigated, but she and the other girl were exonerated and he said he was "very, very annoyed" the list did not accurately reflect that.
NZQA should have made it clear in its report the case involving his daughter was an alleged breach which was found to have no basis.
"They basically accused the girls of cheating. This is pretty serious... Although the girls weren't named in the article, it stirred it all up again for my daughter, my wife and myself."
The reason the girls had an almost identical answer was because their teacher had advised the whole class to memorise the answer to a particular question, he said.
Almost all the class wrote down the same answer, but only Alicia and one other girl were investigated.
His concern was backed up by St Hildas principal Melissa Bell, who said on Monday she found NZQA's terminology "hard to cope with".
An investigation into an alleged breach was not the same thing as a breach, she said.
"Once I got involved in the investigation, things were sorted out very quickly and it was accepted there was a straightforward and logical explanation. To call what happened a breach is incredibly misleading. I feel for the girls involved, and it is not helpful for the school."
Ms Bell said she had written to NZQA suggesting it should clearly differentiate between investigations and breaches in their annual report.
Alicia (17) said on Wednesday dealing with NZQA over the allegation had been "frustrating".
Even when the investigation was completed, the letter sent to her was "not nice", she said.
It said NZQA "regards all breaches of its examination very seriously" and reminded Alicia to be careful in the future not to do anything which could be interpreted as breaching the rules.
"The letter was pretty accusing. The investigation proved we had not done anything wrong, but the letter still implied we had. It was a bit rude."
Asked whether NZQA would change its reporting system next year to make it clear which cases were actual breaches and which had turned out to be unproved allegations, NZQA deputy chief executive (qualifications) Bali Haque said NZQA will continue to review all its policies and procedures on an annual basis and this review will occur in due course in time for the next examination round.
Its present terminology - "breach resolved" and "breach proven" - distinguished between the result of a breach, he said.
