NCEA isn’t perfect but NZ shouldn’t forget why it was introduced in the first place

Education Minister Erica Stanford has called time on “credit counting”, announcing plans to scrap the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA).

Under the proposed changes, from 2028 NCEA Level 1 will be replaced by foundational literacy and numeracy tests, dramatically reducing the amount of assessment in Year 11. Levels 2 and 3 will be replaced by a New Zealand Certificate of Education and an Advanced Certificate.

The current achieved, not achieved, merit and excellence grades will give way to marks out of 100 and traditional letter grades: A, B, C, D and E. Students in Years 12 and 13 will be required to study at least five complete subjects and pass four of them in order to gain each certificate.

The reforms are meant to address long-standing concerns over how students accumulate credits to complete their qualifications. With NCEA, students can opt out of assessments, including final exams, once they have accumulated enough credits.

But as the government seeks to address the “gaming” of the system, it shouldn’t lose sight of why NCEA was introduced in the first place – and who it was designed to help.

While the system has its flaws, a return to an exam-based model may not make the grade either.

Addressing uneven achievement

NCEA was introduced between 2002 and 2004 to replace the School Certificate, Sixth Form Certificate and Bursary qualifications.

Its aim was to broaden educational success, recognising diverse forms of learning as legitimate. The previous qualifications primarily valued traditional academic subjects because those were, in large part, the only ones available for assessment.

NCEA represented a shift away from viewing vocational learning – for example, in trades or creative subjects – as less valuable and not a viable path to formal qualifications.

It also marked a departure from “norms” based assessment, which scaled student results to fit predetermined pass and fail rates. In contrast, NCEA was “standards” based: if a student could demonstrate the required skills or knowledge, they received the credits.

But since the early days of NCEA, there have been concerns students could achieve the qualifications without really having gained an adequate education.

The flexibility of NCEA – allowing schools, teachers and students to tailor learning pathways – is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. It has been criticised for being confusing, inconsistent and lacking credibility.

Last year, Mike Grimshaw, an associate professor of sociology at Canterbury University, raised concerns that students were entering university “functionally illiterate”. He said New Zealand was “under-educating but over qualifying”.

Concerns such as this over NCEA have fuelled repeated calls for reform.

Whiplash for schools

While few dispute changes are needed, the scale and pace of the government’s proposals are another matter.

Schools have already contended with numerous policy shifts under this government, including rapid curriculum changes and new assessments in primary and secondary schools. Now they are being told the entire NCEA framework will be replaced. The sheer volume and speed of these changes puts significant pressure teachers.

This is not the only concern.

Under NCEA, a Year 12 student who worries they might fail the calculus “standard” can still do maths, knowing they have the option not to sit the calculus exam. Under the new system, this sort of flexibility disappears. Students will either take Year 12 mathematics – or they will not.

This inflexibility raises the stakes. It may deter students from taking certain subjects altogether for fear of failure.

The renewed emphasis on exams is also problematic. Research has shown exam outcomes can be influenced by gender, anxiety and even personal circumstances on exam day. In other words, exams are not necessarily the “credible” measure of learning they are made out to be.

There are also important questions that the government’s policy consultation proposal does not answer. What are the options for a student who fails the certificate on their first attempt? Will schools still be able to tailor internal assessments to suit their students?

Room for some optimism

There are, however, reasons for cautious optimism. The government has promised to retain the NCEA standards-based approach.

Preserving the integrity of whole subjects means students are more likely to learn topics, such as algebra, that keep academic options open but are often left out in NCEA.

But this will come at a cost. The stakes will feel higher and students will face greater pressure to succeed.

NCEA delivered on the promise that we shouldn’t automatically assume half of our population will fail. Over the past two decades, more young people have left school with qualifications. But did they learn more? That remains an open question.

The new system will likely bring consistency and arguably credibility to high school qualifications. But some students will pay the price of this higher-stakes approach to education.

David Pomeroy receives funding from the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI).