The decision to axe New Zealand’s “damaged” and “tarnished” NCEA has been lauded as “good news for the country” by some principals, while others hope it isn’t political theatre done merely for show.
The Government shake-up proposes that NCEA is replaced with a new qualification focused on English and maths and more consistent teaching and grading that would aim to put students from Kaitāia to Invercargill on equal footing.
It would introduce a clear A to E and 0-100 grading system that Education Minister Erica Stanford claims parents desperately want because no one can make sense of why an E is a higher mark “than an A”.
Yet some principals worry the less flexible regime could disadvantage students, especially those planning on a career in the trades rather than university.
They also questioned the six-week consultation period, lack of firm details and why NCEA needs to be completely rebranded with a new name, with it set to be known as the NZ Certificate of Education.
Auckland Grammar headmaster Tim O’Connor was among supporters of the revamp, saying change was desperately needed.
Many students had coasted under NCEA rather than striving for excellence, he said.
That led to NCEA becoming “tarnished” as the “flexible anything qualification”, with students looking for easy ways to gain credits and more than 250,000 instances of skipped exams last year.
It was critical to rebrand NCEA to restore parent faith, O’Connor said.
He urged everyone to give feedback on the proposed changes because – like NCEA before it – the radical shake-up could affect students for decades to come.
The scheme proposes axing NCEA 1, giving students respite from high-pressure exams in Year 11.
However, they would now be expected to focus on literacy and numeracy in a “Foundational Skills Award” that aimed to provide the base skills to tackle their senior studies.
Year 12 students would then seek to attain the NZCE and Year 13 students the NZ Advanced Certificate of Education.
Students could still potentially take two essay-based assessments and one exam per course as with NCEA, but the Government argued that even essays would be graded in a more standardised way under its new plan.
Common-sense grading, such as awarding As and marks out of 100, would not only make more sense to parents but also employers and universities at home and abroad, it said.
The changes would kick in at Year 11 level in 2028, with the same set of students then moving into the NZCE and NZACE in 2029 and 2030 respectively.
Mount Albert Grammar principal Patrick Drumm was another school leader hailing the changes as a “huge step in the right direction”.
Excessive flexibility in NCEA had meant even science subjects could be taught differently at different schools, he said.
“Doing chemistry at Mount Albert Grammar is not the same as doing chemistry in other parts of Auckland or New Zealand.”
Working together to build more consistent lessons across all schools would help raise the bar across the country, Drumm said.
For too long, students had on average been achieving far different results in different socio-economic areas, he believed.
Improving simple things, such as grading, could be a step forward, he said.
Under NCEA, an A stands for achieved, which is a lesser mark than the E for excellence.
Drumm said overseas universities had called his school up because they were confused by the school reports students had submitted in their uni applications.
They would ask: “What are all these Es?”
Drumm also praised the dropping of NCEA Level 1 as a “no-brainer”.
His school had already dropped out of NCEA Level 1 and created its own curriculum for its Year 11 students this year.
Papakura High School principal Simon Craggs earlier told the Herald that NCEA Level 1 had been poorly designed, and tested students on technical skills, like grammar syntax, that they would never need to remember or use later in life.
Still, he had heard from some principals upset the NCEA Level 1 qualification was being dropped altogether.
That’s because it was the only qualification early school leavers had to show future employers, he said.
Without it, these school leavers had no official school document to add to their resumes.
Craggs also had “mixed feelings” about the wider changes.
One of his biggest concerns was the seeming tilt towards favouring students wanting to enter university.
Practical skills rather than advanced maths were typically more relevant to students pursuing vocational training and a career in jobs like the trades, he said.
“I don’t know about you, but when do you use calculus after school? Why do you need to learn that if that’s not the pathway you’re interested in pursuing?”
Craggs also believed vocational training needed flexibility.
He gave an example of a school located near a unique local industry.
Some students might want to get jobs with that local employer and so would be interested in gaining credits for “learning about health and safety” more than maths, he said.
Drumm and O’Connor agreed striking a balance in an education system that aimed to help all students – from those seeking entrance into Ivy League US universities to those wanting to be plumbers – was a tough and complex task.
Drumm suggested vocational training could be carved out into a different but equally valued education pathway.
He said you only had to look at the utes and work cars parked in front of Coromandel holiday homes to realise how financially successful trade careers could be.
Vaughan Couillault, principal of Papatoetoe High School and a member of the principals’ advisory group working with the Government on the reforms, said there might be less flexibility under the new vocational training system.
However, he said it aimed to provide more rigorous and standardised lessons by bringing in industry bodies to create the curriculum and ensure it included skills employers wanted.
The changes aimed to have “calculus” and “tradie” skills equally valued and marked within the school system, he said.
Looming over the debate are concerns about the process itself, with Craggs questioning the shortness of the six-week consultation period.
He hoped the consultation was genuine “and not just a tick box exercise” with decisions already made.
He didn’t want change to be made merely as a statement for political gain.
“Education has become a real political football.
“It is really wearying on the profession, to be honest, to be constantly going backwards and forwards.”
Education researcher Michael Johnston, from the NZ Initiative, who advised the Government, praised the reforms.
He claimed they equally aimed to raise academic standards and use “industry-designed vocational pathways” to give equal weight to trade and other career paths.
Papatoetoe High School’s Couillault urged everyone to work together as ultimately there may be bigger challenges waiting outside the curriculum itself.
He claimed a digital divide was already threatening to create different classes of students as emerging tech and artificial intelligence gave some students better resources than others.
Using the upcoming consultation period wisely to give feedback was crucial, he said.
“I want to live in a New Zealand where our qualification is... respected nationally and overseas, and gets our kids where they want to go.”