The Government deciding to abolish NCEA as part of the most radical overhaul of secondary school teaching in decades should not be seen as shocking or even unexpected.
The overall package of reforms presented today is in line with the Government’s general position on education policy and follows a string of damning reports about NCEA’s credibility, including multiple briefings revealed by the Herald.
Gutting NCEA and replacing it with more traditional assessments is also likely to be popular if parents’ confusion with the current system is anything to go by. According to the Education Review Office (ERO), about half of parents don’t understand it and feel unable to help their children.
The timing of today’s announcement probably couldn’t be any better in terms of pulling the attention away from an assortment of challenges the Government has recently faced. Although, it should be noted, these changes have long been in the works and aren’t a sudden attempt at distraction.
It doesn’t hurt to have a policy that will probably strike a chord with middle New Zealand mums and dads as the cost-of-living rebounds as a political issue and the Government faces criticism over everything from butter prices to quietly greenlighting significant increases to Crown board members’ fees.
The proposal does, however, represent massive upheaval for a sector that has faced its fair share of stop-and-start in the past few years and is a step away from the flexibility beloved by some in the education community.
The Government’s proposal would lead to two new certificates being established for Years 12 and 13 that are more structured and subject-driven than the current standards-based model.
Instead of students trying to grab every credit they can across disparate standards like kids in a money booth with paper notes blowing around in the air, they will be tested and marked on their knowledge of an entire subject.
The return of an “out of 100” and A to E letter grade is intended by the Government to be a clearer indication to parents, employers and tertiary education providers of a student’s knowledge.
The package is one of the most consequential steps the coalition has taken this term and will likely be remembered as a landmark moment in this Government’s approach to education.
Pending any last-minute adjustments during consultation, these changes will have a direct impact on the readiness of future generations entering the workforce and tertiary education.
When the Government talks about tackling the infrastructure deficit, improving productivity and ultimately achieving its prized economic growth, there are, of course, short-term initiatives to get the ball rolling.
But long-term, it’s students in class right now who will have a lot to contribute.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who has spent considerable time working overseas and is known to be personally passionate about education, is clearly concerned NCEA isn’t preparing Kiwi kids to be the top of class internationally.
You only have to look at an OECD study released last year that found New Zealanders aged 16 to 24 had below-average literacy, numeracy and problem-solving skills. The results have worsened compared to a similar study in 2014-15.
Asked by the Herald last month about possible fixes, Luxon made it clear the Government was readying for a “fundamental overhaul” of secondary school assessments.
This hasn’t come out of nowhere.
Stanford has been looking to make changes to NCEA for years, including when she was National’s education spokesperson in Opposition.
The then-Labour Government announced a programme of work to deal with various issues facing NCEA. It devised new literacy and numeracy co-requisites and fewer standards to refocus students, but there were delays as the sector asked for more implementation time.
Stanford believed the change programme was “fundamentally flawed” and thought simply making tweaks wasn’t enough. After taking office in late 2023, she pushed out the introduction of some reforms.
But the new minister didn’t have enough time to halt the Level 1 amendments set to begin just a couple of months later.
So she later commissioned a review by the Education Review Office (ERO), which found that despite the overhaul, Level 1 remained “difficult to understand” and was not preparing students for future achievement. It said one option was to drop it entirely.
That report was hugely influential and formed the basis for discussions about what to do not just with Level 1, but the entire qualification.
Stanford told the Herald last month that ERO “unearthed a lot of things that we weren’t possibly expecting”.
Over the following year, Stanford received more briefings, including papers from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) the Herald got hold of.
They warned of a credibility crisis over “overused” flexibility, a lack of coherent vocational education pathways and an over-reliance on internal assessments.
They also showed nearly half of Year 12 students who achieved Level 2 last year did so “without engaging in a full programme of coherent subject-based learning”. About a third of Year 12 and 13 students who achieved Level 2 or 3 relied on unit standards from “disparate” subjects.
While this was happening behind the scenes, Stanford was beginning to announce reforms focusing on primary and intermediate schools.
This sequencing was important. Stanford believed to address issues with students at high school, you first had to start with the challenges facing them earlier in their school life.
The Government instructed teachers to spend an hour a day teaching reading, writing and math. Structured literacy and numeracy was rolled out, while standardised testing was brought in much earlier in a child’s school life.
The actions showed the Government’s prescriptive approach. Today’s secondary school qualification proposal keeps to that pattern, rolling back some flexibility and replacing it with more direction.
The Opposition sees this as the Beehive enforcing “one-size-fits-all” and has argued the minister is moving too fast.
But the Government thinks the “back to basics” style is easier for students and parents to understand, and also simpler for teachers.
Stanford wants an overall education package driven by consistency, with the hope children can move between schools and expect the same level of learning, driven by the same assessments and standards.
Whether that works out will depend on how well the changes are implemented and if the minister is able to bring those in the sector along with her.
Stanford is critical of how reforms were being rolled out under Labour, though Chris Hipkins – current Labour leader and former Education Minister – says they were disrupted by factors such as Covid-19. He believes Labour’s work provided insights into NCEA’s issues.
Labour’s main point of concern on Monday was not directed at the substance of the proposed changes, but instead around the uncertainty caused and ensuring teachers, parents and others had an appropriate period to share their views.
The Post-Primary Teachers’ Association responded to the proposal by saying while no system is perfect, the current one has “clear advantages” over the previous qualification and no changes should be made “for change’s sake or political legacy”.
“The lack of adequate support for, and political flip-flopping on, NCEA means teachers are left trying to fill the gaps. We need stability and certainty.”
Consultation will take place over the next six weeks, while any new qualification won’t be introduced until the end of the decade.
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.