NCEA Overhaul: Demolition or Sympathetic Renovation?
Education at a Crossroads in a VUCA* World
*Volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity
The New Zealand government has announced a significant reform of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), proposing to replace it with new national qualifications by 2030. These proposed changes are far-reaching, including the removal of NCEA Level 1, which will be superseded by a foundational literacy and numeracy award at Year 11. Furthermore, NCEA Levels 2 and 3 are slated to be replaced by the New Zealand Certificate of Education (NZCE) and New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education (NZACE), respectively. The new system also signals a shift towards a more structured, subject-based assessment approach, introducing mandatory English and Mathematics at Year 11, and requiring students to undertake five subjects and pass at least four in Years 12 and 13.
The reaction across the motu has been swift and passionate. Some teachers and principals being 100% in favour and some 100% against, with a mix in between. What has been consistent across the reactions is a feeling of overwhelm.
The government's stated rationale for these substantial changes centre on addressing perceived issues within NCEA, such as its excessive flexibility, complexity, and inconsistency. Officials argue that these characteristics have led to concerns about the qualification's credibility among employers and tertiary providers and have contributed to struggles with foundational literacy and numeracy skills among students.
While acknowledging that NCEA, like any large-scale educational framework, has its imperfections and areas ripe for improvement, my argument against this radical overhaul is that it risks discarding the system's valuable attributes alongside its identified weaknesses.
This concern is being seen as ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ which is showing up frequently in discussions and articles on the topic. This metaphor underscores the potential danger of an overcorrection, where the pursuit of reform, however well-intentioned, inadvertently leads to the loss of beneficial elements crucial for a robust and future-oriented education system. Education often falls prey to the ‘pendulum effect’ … we go too far left and then swing too far right, very rarely finding the balance that is needed for progress, continuity and support.
These reforms are being proposed at a time when the global landscape is increasingly characterised by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity - a phenomenon often referred to as the VUCA world. This dynamic worldwide environment necessitates educational systems that are inherently adaptable, capable of fostering critical thinking, and nurturing innovative mindsets. The rapid, indeed exponential, growth of artificial intelligence (AI) further accelerates these transformations, profoundly reshaping industries and the very nature of work at an unprecedented pace. Something that I see frequently in the corporate coaching and leadership work that I do.
In this VUCA context, education must evolve to prepare students not merely with static knowledge, but with ‘future-proof’ or ‘durable’ skills that are uniquely human and resilient to automation. If a career can be automated or replaced with AI, then it is unlikely to stay as a career option for future school leavers.
Crucially, this evolution must also ensure that educational systems are inclusive, catering to the diverse learning needs and styles of all students, including neurodivergent learners and those impacted by trauma, to truly prepare them for an uncertain and continually changing future.
A fundamental tension underlying the proposed NCEA reforms lies in the differing interpretations of ‘flexibility.’ Government statements highlight NCEA's flexibility as a core problem, asserting it leads to complexity and inconsistent outcomes. Conversely, educators, including the Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA), emphasise NCEA's flexibility as a foundational strength, enabling tailored student learning, diverse pathways, and the recognition of individual strengths and varied learning styles. This directly responds to a phrase in the disability sector of ‘when you cater for the 20%, 100% get catered for. If you cater for the 80%, 20% are left out.’
This philosophical divergence presents a critical policy dilemma: how to strike a balance between standardisation and consistency, which may offer perceived clarity, versus the flexibility and individualisation that can foster innovation and cater to diverse student needs, particularly those of neurodivergent learners. The beneficial adaptability that allows for a responsive and inclusive education could be inadvertently stifled if this balance is not carefully managed. And in a world where educators and whānau are struggling to get students to attend school regularly, a shift in this balance may see greater disengagement and ‘school can’t’ behaviours.
Compounding this challenge is the pattern of chronic policy instability within the NZ education sector. There is a history of ‘previous rushed overhauls’ that have, at times, led to students being ‘guinea pigs for failed change’. Schools have already contended with numerous policy shifts under the current government, including rapid curriculum changes and new assessments.
Teachers have expressed deep frustration about ‘political flip-flopping on NCEA’ and a desperate need for ‘stability and certainty.’ This echoes similar concerns about ‘political interference’ and ‘quick fix’ approaches in other sectors, such as immigration, which have led to significant long-term impacts. Such frequent, large-scale, and often under-resourced, policy changes create considerable strain on schools, leading to increased teacher stress and burnout, confusion regarding implementation, and a loss of energy and resources away from direct teaching and learning.
This instability becomes a profound barrier to delivering high-quality teaching, irrespective of the intrinsic merits of any particular reform. The process and pace of reform, along with the absence of a stable, long-term bipartisan educational vision, are as critical as the specific content of the policy changes.
Photo: Supplied / Ministry of Education
NCEA's Enduring Strengths: Beyond the Credit Count
It is important to acknowledge that NCEA has faced legitimate criticisms over its two-decade tenure. Concerns have been raised regarding its perceived complexity, particularly for parents who find it difficult to understand their children's progress. The practice of ‘credit counting,’ where students might strategically accumulate credits from easier standards rather than pursuing deep, holistic learning, has also been a point of contention.
Furthermore, reports indicate inconsistencies in literacy and numeracy outcomes among NCEA graduates, suggesting that the qualification may not always accurately represent students' foundational skills. Some employers and parents have also expressed a lack of trust or understanding in the qualification's reliability. Even students themselves have voiced confusion about recent Level 1 changes and a perceived disconnect between NCEA levels, highlighting implementation challenges.
Despite these criticisms, NCEA was initially introduced in 2002 as a progressive ‘flexible and inclusive model.’ It explicitly replaced a more rigid, norm-referenced system that inherently had a ‘built-in failure rate.’ At the time of introduction, teachers were definitely not in support of it. My teacher-training fell right on the borderline of change – where we knew School C and Bursary were going and NCEA was coming it. But we had no idea what it would look like. I went overseas to teach after my training, only to find myself running Year 13 classes in their first NCEA year on return.
NCEA's foundational design was rooted in the principles of equity, aiming to ensure that all students, regardless of their background or learning style, have opportunities to succeed and realise their full potential. A significant strength of NCEA is its recognition of diverse forms of learning, including vocational pathways, which were historically undervalued in traditional academic qualifications.
This flexibility is particularly beneficial for neurodivergent learners, who often thrive with varied approaches to demonstrating knowledge. It empowers students to engage with subjects that genuinely interest them and to demonstrate their knowledge through a variety of assessment methods, such as project work, performance, or written assessments, rather than solely relying on high-stakes exams. As we see ‘processing speeds’ and ‘working memory’ scores dropping across the majority of students, this differentiated approach to success only grows in importance. And in an AI world, do we really need to regurgitate information in a 3-hour exam to find success in work life?
This standards-based approach also grants teachers greater professional autonomy to design meaningful, responsive programmes tailored to their students' unique needs and interests, including those of neurodivergent students. Furthermore, NCEA actively supports ‘pathways’ for students, recognising that learning is a lifelong, non-linear journey that extends beyond school into further education, training, employment, and life itself. It aims to help students understand the direct relevance of their learning to their aspirations and future endeavours, fostering engagement and ownership of their educational journey. After all, ‘education is what is left after you forget what you studied for the test.’
The proposed reforms intend to replace the familiar Achieved, Merit, Excellence (AME) grading system with letter grades (A-E) and a numerical score out of 100. The government posits that this shift will make results ‘easier to understand’ for parents and employers. However, the NCEA's AME system, while sometimes perceived as complex by those unfamiliar with it, provides qualitative descriptors that convey the depth and quality of understanding: ‘Achieved’ indicates basic understanding, ‘Merit’ signifies in-depth understanding, and ‘Excellence’ denotes comprehensive understanding of the material tested.
This qualitative information offers a more nuanced and potentially more valuable insight to employers and tertiary institutions than a generic number score. It describes what a student is capable of doing and how well they can do it, rather than just how much they scored. For instance, knowing a student achieved ‘Merit’ in a specific standard often provides more actionable information about their capabilities than a score of 70/100, which might not differentiate between various levels of mastery within a subject. This level of detail can be especially crucial for understanding the specific strengths and areas for growth of neurodivergent students, allowing for more targeted support and recognition of their unique abilities.
A significant observation is the ‘credibility gap’ concerning NCEA. While the government cites reports indicating that ‘less than a third of employers believed that NCEA worked well’ and that it is ‘not as credible as other countries' senior secondary qualifications’, NCEA is explicitly ‘recognised by employers and tertiary education providers in New Zealand and overseas.’
New Zealand universities also have well-established processes for calculating rank scores from NCEA grades for admissions, demonstrating its quantifiable nature and acceptance by tertiary providers. This suggests that the perceived lack of credibility might not stem from an inherent flaw in NCEA's ability to measure and convey student achievement, but rather from a lack of widespread public understanding and trust in the system's consistency and transparency. This lack of public understanding is impacted by the media’s portrayal of NCEA and favouritism of touting schools that exist in a “compliance is learning” echo chamber.
The proposed shift to percentage grades might simplify the reporting format, making it superficially ‘easier to understand,’ but it may not fundamentally enhance the information conveyed about a student's actual skills or depth of understanding. The core issue could be one of effective communication and ensuring consistent application of standards across all schools, rather than a need to abandon the qualitative richness that AME provides regarding student capabilities.
Another critical observation relates to the unintended consequences of ’gaming the system.’ The government's reforms explicitly aim to address issues like ‘credit counting’ and the perceived ‘gaming’ of the system. This implies that the flexibility inherent in NCEA, while intended to broaden educational success and cater to diverse learners, has inadvertently created ‘loopholes’ or incentives that encourage superficial learning strategies over genuine, deep understanding. This points to a deeper systemic challenge that goes beyond the grading structure itself. The problem is not necessarily the standards-based assessment model, but rather how it has been implemented and interpreted, leading to a focus on credit accumulation rather than mastery.
A more effective solution might involve refining the design of standards, strengthening moderation processes, and ensuring pedagogical practices emphasise depth over breadth, rather than a wholesale replacement of the qualification structure. This would allow the system to retain its beneficial flexibility while mitigating the negative incentives that lead to ‘gaming.’
Table 1: NCEA Grading vs. Proposed Percentage/Letter Grades: A Comparative Insight
This table directly addresses the query regarding the equivalence of numerical scores and AME grades. It visually demonstrates that while numerical scores provide a quantitative measure, the AME system offers qualitative descriptors that articulate the depth of a student's understanding and what they are capable of doing. For employers and tertiary institutions, this qualitative information can be more actionable than a generic numerical score, as it provides specific insights into a student's mastery of particular skills or knowledge areas.
As one principal questioned, “What's the difference between 54 and 58, what does it really tell you?". This highlights that while numerical scores might appear simpler on the surface, they can obscure the qualitative understanding of skills that the AME system aims to convey. The ‘clarity’ gained might be superficial, leading to a loss of rich information about student capabilities that NCEA's standards-based approach provides. This could make it harder for employers and tertiary providers to truly understand what a student can do beyond a generic numerical rank, potentially reducing the actionable intelligence derived from qualifications.
The Peril of Over-correction: Unpacking the Proposed Reforms
The government's proposed NCEA reforms are extensive, aiming to fundamentally reshape secondary qualifications. Key changes include the complete removal of NCEA Level 1, with Year 11 focusing on foundational literacy and numeracy skills through a new award or test. The stated intent behind this is to reduce ‘high-stakes assessment’ at an earlier stage and ensure students acquire essential foundational knowledge. Levels 2 and 3 are to be replaced by the New Zealand Certificate of Education (NZCE) and the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education (NZACE).
Under these new qualifications, students will be required to take five subjects and pass at least four to attain each certificate. This represents a significant shift towards a more ‘structured subject approach’ and away from the current standards-based model, with a new national curriculum for Years 9-13 outlining what students need to learn in each subject. Additionally, the new grading system will feature marks out of 100 alongside letter grades (A-E), aiming to make achievement clearer for students, parents, and employers. There is also a stated focus on strengthening vocational pathways, with new subjects and standards to be co-designed with industry experts.
Despite these stated intentions, there are significant concerns about the potential negative consequences of such a radical overhaul. A primary apprehension is the potential narrowing of the curriculum and a considerable loss of flexibility. School principals fear that a more rigid five-subject model could reduce the current breadth of subjects that schools can offer, which stands at around 67. The existing flexibility of NCEA allowed schools to combine achievement and unit standards to create diverse learning pathways tailored to individual student needs, a feature that might be lost under the new system. This inflexibility could deter students from taking certain subjects altogether for fear of failure, especially for those neurodivergent students who may struggle with traditional, high-stakes exams.
NCEA's flexibility, while leading to some variability, was also intentionally designed to promote equity by recognising diverse learning styles and pathways, particularly for students from ‘poorer communities’ who might not have thrived in previous, more rigid systems. While some experts suggest NCEA created an ‘illusion of educational equity,’ they also acknowledge that ‘teaching for equity across a diverse population in an unequal society is difficult.’ A move towards greater consistency and a more rigid, subject-based approach, while potentially improving perceived credibility for some stakeholders, risks reintroducing a ‘built-in failure rate’ and disproportionately disadvantaging students who thrive in more flexible, project-based learning environments, or those from lower socio-economic backgrounds who historically benefited from NCEA's broader pathways. This reform could inadvertently exacerbate existing educational disparities by favouring a single, rigid framework.
Another major concern is the increased pressure on students and the creation of a ‘qualification cliff-edge.’ Removing NCEA Level 1 concentrates all formal qualification opportunities into Years 12-13. For students who struggle academically or leave school early, this could create a significant barrier to gaining a recognised qualification, potentially worsening educational inequality.
The renewed emphasis on exams, with a return to high-stakes assessment, is viewed as incredibly stressful for many students, particularly those who are neurodivergent or have anxiety issues, and whose performance can be influenced by factors beyond their knowledge on exam day. Wellington Girls College principal Julia Davidson explicitly raised this concern, asking, "What happens to your kids who are neurodiverse, what happens to your kids who have got anxiety issues, what happens to kids who fall apart on the day. There has to be more flexibility." This highlights how a rigid, exam-centric system can disproportionately disadvantage neurodivergent learners who may excel in alternative assessment formats that allow them to demonstrate their understanding in ways that align with their strengths. And it is these strengths that will find them success in their work life.
Furthermore, there is a real fear of creating a ‘guinea pig’ generation due to rushed implementation. Concerns about the haste and speed of the proposed changes are widespread. Past ‘rushed overhauls,’ such as national standards, have indeed led to students being ‘guinea pigs for failed change.’ Teachers have already reported that the recent Level 1 changes were poorly planned, with assessment standards altering mid-year and a severe lack of resources, leaving students feeling unprepared for Level 2. The proposed timeline, with a new curriculum next year and new qualifications rolling out from 2028 through 2030, is seen as ‘incredibly tight’ and demanding substantial support, which has not always materialised in previous reforms. This added with the current lack of clarity with the curriculum change will increase issues among our schools.
Photo: Supplied / Ministry of Education
Undermining the Foundation: Teacher Dysregulation and External Influence
The current NCEA reforms are not occurring in a vacuum. They are set against a backdrop of ongoing concerns about teacher dysregulation, burnout, teacher shortages and the impact of all of this on the education system. A recent workforce survey revealed that nearly three-quarters of early childhood teachers believe their sector is ‘heading in the wrong direction.’ They express overwhelming concern about the effect of minimum teacher-child ratios and increased workload on children's education, fearing further deregulation could worsen conditions.
Historically, shifts in state formation have reorganised the education system into a market-based model, which has significantly impacted teacher unions and led to enormous increases in teacher workloads. While schoolteachers have largely managed to retain national collective agreements, there has been a notable erosion of professional autonomy in the classroom due to managerialist performance agendas and their exclusion from policy input. A ‘one-sized fits all approach’ is being marketed and it is not working. This increased workload has directly contributed to higher stress levels among teachers and educators with many schools already struggling to satisfy basic health and safety requirements with increased violence in schools, external pressures from the ministry and a lack of relief and permanent staffing.
A significant concern raised by education professionals is the perceived influence of individuals or groups without direct education expertise driving these systemic changes. The government's rationale for the reforms frequently refers to feedback from ‘frustrated parents’ and ‘employers,’ and the framing of the changes often emphasises ‘growing the economy, creating jobs, lifting wages.’ While industry experts are slated to help design vocational subjects, the overall direction of the qualification system appears to be heavily influenced by political and economic considerations rather than deep pedagogical expertise or extensive, meaningful consultation with those on the ground - the teachers and students themselves.
A critical observation here is the growing disconnect between policy intent and ground-level reality. The government aims to ‘restore excellence’ and ensure students have the skills for a ‘thriving economy.’ However, teachers report feeling unheard, under-resourced, and burdened by rapid, uncompensated changes. The ‘poor implementation plan of Level 1,’ for instance, demonstrably caused ‘a lot of stress on schools and teachers.’ A top-down approach to reform, lacking genuine teacher input and adequate resourcing, risks undermining the very professionals who are critical to successful implementation. This creates a cycle of policy instability and teacher burnout, ultimately compromising the quality of education delivered to students, regardless of the policy's theoretical merits. The ‘dysregulation’ extends beyond mere ratios to encompass the erosion of professional autonomy and voice, which are vital for a healthy education system.
This situation also illuminates the potential risk of politicising education policy. The ‘political interference’ observed in immigration processes, where ‘quick fix’ solutions have led to ‘greater impacts over that longer term,’ serves as a cautionary tale. The NCEA changes were announced by the Prime Minister and Education Minister with a strong economic framing. Opposition parties express concern about ‘change for change's sake or political legacy’ and suggest that ‘engineered fear’ about NCEA may be influencing the debate. When education policy becomes a political football, driven by short-term electoral cycles or immediate economic agendas rather than long-term educational philosophy and evidence-based practice, it invariably leads to instability and a lack of coherent vision. This can result in reforms that are not fully thought through, poorly resourced, and ultimately detrimental to student well-being and long-term learning outcomes.
Future-Proofing Our Youth: Creativity, Critical Thinking, and the AI Era
New Zealand has demonstrated notable international success in fostering creativity and critical thinking among its youth. In the latest (2022) OECD PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) creative thinking results, New Zealand teenagers ranked fifth globally out of 81 countries. This strong performance is attributed, in part, to New Zealand classrooms adopting a “hands-on, practical approach to learning that encourages students to express their ideas, and to think critically and collaboratively". The current New Zealand curriculum explicitly promotes critical thinking and critical action, encouraging students to "examine, question, evaluate, and challenge taken-for-granted assumptions" and to "generate innovative solutions". While one report suggests that schools "do not actively foster or encourage creative environments" and that creativity might decline as students’ progress through schooling, the PISA results indicate a robust foundation and a cultural valuing of these skills.
The rapidly evolving VUCA world, accelerated by the exponential growth of AI, demands a specific set of ‘future-proof’ or ‘durable’ skills that are uniquely human and cannot be replicated by technology. These include:
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: While AI can process vast amounts of data, humans retain the unique ability to interpret abstract information, make nuanced decisions, and solve complex, ill-defined problems. Engaging in strategic games, riddles, and brain teasers can actively build these abilities.
Creativity and Ingenuity: AI can generate intriguing ideas, but human originality, storytelling, and the capacity to inspire emotional resonance remain unmatched. Companies increasingly require "imaginative innovators" to drive new product ideas, marketing strategies, and business solutions.
Adaptability and Self-Growth: The ability to adjust perspective, view setbacks as learning experiences, and embrace a flexible, growth mindset is crucial for navigating a workplace continually disrupted by AI.
Social and Emotional Awareness, Leadership, and Teamwork: Interpersonal relationships, conflict resolution, compassionate leadership, and the ability to guide and empower teams are vital for organizational success - skills that AI fundamentally lacks.
NCEA's flexible, standards-based approach, which allows for diverse assessment methods (e.g., project work, performance) and tailored learning experiences, is inherently better suited to cultivating these complex, non-rote skills than a rigid exam system. By focusing on demonstrating understanding and the application of knowledge, rather than just recalling facts, NCEA encourages deeper engagement and the development of higher-order thinking, which are foundational to creativity and critical thinking. Any change in the system needs to keep this at the forefront. This approach is particularly beneficial for neurodivergent students, who often demonstrate strengths in creative problem-solving and unique perspectives when given flexible avenues to express their knowledge.
Table 2: Essential Future-Proof Skills for the AI Era and NCEA's Contribution
A significant observation is the potential misalignment of the proposed reforms with future skill demands. New Zealand's strength in creative thinking, ranking fifth globally in PISA, is a valuable asset, as creativity is deemed a ‘future-proof’ skill essential for the AI era. NCEA's existing flexibility and standards-based approach are cited as fostering such skills. However, the proposed reforms lean towards a more ‘structured subject approach’ and a ‘renewed emphasis on exams.’
This creates a substantial risk: if New Zealand's educational strength lies in fostering creativity and critical thinking through flexible, applied learning, then a move back to a more rigid, content-focused, exam-heavy system risks undermining this competitive advantage in the global skills landscape. The reforms might optimise for perceived ‘rigor’ in traditional academic areas, but at the potential cost of skills increasingly valued in a dynamic, AI-driven world.
This also brings to light the concept of the ‘hidden curriculum’ of assessment. The way students are assessed profoundly influences what and how they learn. A system that emphasises ‘credit counting’ can inadvertently lead to superficial learning. Conversely, a shift to high-stakes exams can increase anxiety and deter students from challenging subjects, or from pursuing deeper, more complex understanding.
The proposed changes, by altering the assessment structure (e.g., removal of Level 1, mandatory subjects, percentage grades), implicitly change this ‘hidden curriculum’ - what students perceive as important to learn and how they should learn it. If the new system prioritises rote memorisation and exam performance over deeper understanding and creative problem-solving, it could inadvertently stifle the development of the very skills needed for the AI future, regardless of explicit curriculum statements.
Building a Resilient Education System for Tomorrow
The proposed NCEA overhaul, while aiming to address valid concerns about consistency and clarity, risks dismantling a system that, despite its flaws, possesses significant strengths in fostering diverse learning and crucial future-proof skills. The ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ analogy aptly captures the concern that the drive for reform might sacrifice NCEA's inherent flexibility, inclusivity, and ability to recognise a wide range of talents - qualities that are increasingly vital in a VUCA, AI-driven world, and particularly beneficial for neurodivergent learners.
Successful educational reform requires stability and certainty, not ‘political flip flopping’ or rushed implementation. The immense workload and stress already faced by teachers, exacerbated by inadequate resourcing and a perceived lack of genuine consultation, threaten the quality of education at its core. Genuine collaboration with the education sector - teachers, principals, unions, and students - is paramount. Their expertise and lived experience must inform policy, ensuring that changes are evidence-based and truly serve the needs of all young New Zealanders, including those with diverse learning profiles. Listen to the people at the coalface.
A critical consideration is the long-term costs of short-term political fixes. Education is a long game, ‘quick fix’ approaches can have ‘greater impacts over that longer term.’ The NCEA changes are framed as a ‘transformation’ to ensure students succeed and contribute to the economy, suggesting a focus on immediate, measurable economic outcomes.
However, reforms driven by short-term political cycles or perceived immediate economic needs risk creating unintended negative consequences that manifest years down the line, such as a decline in teacher morale, a narrowing of student capabilities, or a loss of international educational distinctiveness. A truly resilient education system requires a long-term, bipartisan vision, grounded in pedagogical expertise, not just political expediency.
Finally, the debate over NCEA highlights the need for a holistic definition of success in education. The government's rationale emphasises ‘skills and knowledge they need to succeed’ for ‘work or further study.’ NCEA, conversely, was designed to recognise diverse talents and prepare students for life beyond school. The proposed reforms appear to lean towards a more utilitarian view of education - primarily preparing students for employment and tertiary study - potentially at the expense of fostering well-rounded individuals with diverse skills, critical thinking, and adaptability for a complex life.
This broader definition of success is crucial for navigating the VUCA world, and any reform must prioritise and enhance New Zealand's demonstrated strength in fostering creativity and critical thinking, ensuring that the education system remains agile, responsive, and truly prepares students for a dynamic and unpredictable future.
The ultimate goal should be a qualification system that empowers every young person, whether they are heading to university, trades, or direct employment, by building on what works in NCEA, refining its strengths, and addressing its weaknesses through targeted improvements rather than a wholesale replacement.
Consultation opens on 04 August 8:50am and closes on 15 September 5:00pm. Make sure you have your say at https://www.education.govt.nz/have-your-say/consultation-proposal-replace-ncea/details#have-your-say-1.
For more information, contact Brooke on [email protected].
