An Education Review Office report says NCEA Level 1 is not motivating all students to achieve “as well as they can”. Photo / Brett Phibbs
An Education Review Office report says NCEA Level 1 is not motivating all students to achieve “as well as they can”. Photo / Brett Phibbs
The Education Review Office has called for the reform of NCEA Level 1, saying it is “not a fair or reliable” measure of knowledge and skills and while it is manageable for students, it does not always motivate them to achieve or continue studying.
It comesafter significant changes to the main qualification for Kiwi high school students were rolled out at the start of 2024 and Education Minister Erica Stanford in April requested the Education Review Office (ERO) review the revised NCEA Level 1 and document its findings.
In a report released today, the ERO said the qualification “needs substantial reform” and less than 75% of schools plan to offer it next year. Eighty-seven per cent of schools offered NCEA Level 1 this year.
“Three in five teachers and almost half of school leaders told us that NCEA is an unreliable measure of knowledge and skills,” ERO head of Education Evaluation Centre, Ruth Shinoda said.
NCEA Level 1 difficulty varies between subjects and schools, meaning students have different amounts of work and chances of achieving, she said.
Education Minister Erica Stanford said the significant changes to NCEA rolled out this year meant reforms would be delayed by two years. Photo / Mark Mitchell
“Three-quarters of school leaders told us that credit values are not a reliable indicator of how much work is required. Last year, students were almost twice as likely to achieve an excellence grade on an internal assessment than an external assessment.”
The report found NCEA Level 1 “isn’t always preparing students” with the knowledge needed for NCEA Level 2, with 71% of school leaders reporting it didn’t.
Another key finding the ERO found “concerning” was that the Level 1 qualification is not motivating all students to achieve “as well as they can” and doesn’t keep students studying until the end of the year. Sixty-four per cent of school leaders agreed it doesn’t motivate students to achieve.
“For students leaving after NCEA Level 1, we are concerned that employers aren’t valuing [the qualification]. Seven in 10 employers don’t think it is a reliable measure of knowledge and skills and nine in 10 don’t think it’s a reliable measure of attitude to hard work,” Shinoda said.
“NCEA Level 1 is also not helping students make good choices for their future, and nearly half of parents don’t know what is required and say they are unable to help their child make the right choices.”
The ERO says NCEA Level 1 is not motivating all students to achieve “as well as they can”. Photo / File
Shinoda said the qualification was “not working and needs substantial reform”.
“We need to first consider NCEA levels 1, 2 and 3 together and decide if we want assessment across all three years — most other countries do not have that. We then need to decide if we drop NCEA Level 1 entirely, make it a foundational qualification, or make it more challenging to better prepare students for Levels 2 and 3.
“If we keep NCEA Level 1, we need to reduce flexibility so there is more consistency and students don’t miss out on key knowledge, and reduce variability so different subjects and assessments are an equal amount of work and difficulty. We also need to make sure that students keep studying for the full year.”
ERO also recommended “quick changes” be made to address fairness and reliability and make things better for students and schools next year, as well as more information to help parents better understand NCEA Level 1.
The findings come after the Post Primary Teachers’ Association Te Wehengarua (PPTA) in September conducted a “pulse check” on how the new NCEA Level 1 was being rolled out, which its president Chris Abercrombie said had “shocking” results and dubbed the rollout a “shambles”.
PPTA Te Wehengarua president Chris Abercrombie last month described the rollout of the new NCEA Level 1 a "shambles".
The survey, completed by teachers across more than 200 schools, found respondents said resources were arriving too late, they were dissatisfied with exemplars and support from the Ministry of Education and Qualifications Authority (NZQA), and they were frustrated with the lack of clear guidance on assessments.
Abercrombie said the survey results confirmed concerns that had been voiced consistently by subject associations about the implementation of the new NCEA Level 1.
“Students deserve a great introduction to NCEA and secondary teachers had very high hopes for the changes. We fully support NCEA being more accessible, providing equal status for mātauranga Māori, having fewer and larger standards, and a simpler structure.
“However the rollout has been a shambles. The lack of adequate support and resourcing at the national level is taking a huge toll. It’s making the NCEA system confusing for students and making the workloads of many teachers completely unsustainable. Subject associations are trying desperately to fill the gaps, however they are volunteers, and the resources provided by the Ministry have been inadequate.
“If the Ministry and NZQA only do one thing adequately for secondary schools, surely it should be to ensure that a comprehensive change programme for our national qualification is fully developed, resourced and implemented,” Abercrombie said.
In April, Education Minister Erica Stanford said the significant changes to NCEA rolled out this year meant reforms would be delayed by two years.
NCEA Level 2 and a revised NCEA Level 1 would be in place by 2028, and NCEA Level 3 by 2029, she said.
Benjamin Plummer is an Auckland-based reporter who covers breaking news. He has worked for the Herald since 2022.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Reporter Martha and friends are in Minginui introducing us to their favourite four-legged neighbours, wild but friendly horses that have had free reign of the place since 1870.
