‘So many issues' but ‘alright, I guess': What students actually think of NCEA
Last week, we shared a Now You Know explainer video on the future of NCEA after prime minister Christopher Luxon announced it was getting a 'fundamental overhaul'. The Education Review Office thinks NCEA Level 1 'needs substantial reform' and parents are pressuring schools to ditch the qualification altogether. But what do the people actually doing NCEA think?
They don't seem to be asked very often, so we took it to the comments section.
Here's what we learned, in their own words. Comments have been lightly edited for clarity.
Language classes are OK, except when people are using Google Translate to complete their internal assessments.
Moved from the US 10th grade to year 12, so I have a somewhat wider perspective. In short, teaching and learning was minimal, while memorising and copy-pasting were rewarded. The standards for an Achieved are on the ground, while Excellence requires an insane amount of effort. At my school, English was not required past year 10 (still needed reading/writing credits though), and many kids didn't know how to write, some probably couldn't read, either. Music and languages in particular, I think, were alright. However, language courses could move a LOT faster (although the internal assessments were pointless as most students could Google Translate their work). It's great that NCEA gives students choice about their subjects and assessments but that is about the only good thing I can say about it. / Student who finished NCEA in 2023
A key theme was that not a single human soul in the comments understands what is going on with NCEA Level 1. And also, for the love of God, students want us to stop changing their assessment standards mid-year.
I did the new Level 1 NCEA last year and there were so many issues since teachers didn't know what they were teaching. There are many things we didn't learn due to there not being enough time to learn everything in the curriculum, so going into Level 2 we have missed out on many things. With the new Level 1 system it was still changing throughout the year, and the way assignments were supposed to be marked was changing whilst doing them. It was not planned out well, and they had not finished the new system halfway through the year and were still altering it, making it even harder to manage. / NCEA Level 2 student
Found last year was alright with credits but NO TEACHER KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TEACHING BECAUSE OF THE SYSTEM CHANGE AND THE LACK OF RESOURCES GIVEN TO THEM! This year was alright, I guess. A lot of overload in a way: one class with three assessments for one thing I'm doing, and I'm finding it hard to get credits but I've passed (for now) all my assessments. / NCEA Level 2 student
I think that lots of the new standards are repetitive and aren't actually clear on what is needed to achieve highly. For example, 1.2 English is basically a repeat of the CAAs [Common Assessment Activities] we have to sit, and it seems to me teachers haven't actually been able to give their own feedback on the course. It is also apparent there's a lack of communication from NZQA to teachers. I think there's also a bit of a disconnect between Level 1 and Level 2 which is going to stitch up my year group. / NCEA Level 1 student
A lot of students told us that once you've passed NCEA Level 1, you are totally unprepared for Level 2, so good luck with that.
Level 1 was fine, very easy and I only had three exams. But now the jump to Level 2 is huge, and I have 11 exams this year / NCEA Level 2 student
I HATE level 2 😭✌️ / NCEA Level 2 student
I took L1 [Level 1] last year and my chem teacher said the new Level 1 Labour introduced doesn't even align with Level 2 chem. She said once you hit Level 2, it's like restarting. / NCEA Level 2 student
Some students think that NCEA has some redeeming qualities.
It's going great right now in the first year of NCEA but if there were anything I would have to change, most likely the wording of the standards. Even one of my teachers said that it was 'pretty vague' / NCEA Level 1 student
As someone currently doing Level 2, I don't have any major issues with NCEA. My main issue is that it doesn't necessarily feel like we want to do the assessments (whether because we're forced to write about specific subjects or are only assessed on subjects the teachers know well). Admittedly, getting students to be passionate about learning isn't easy. In conclusion, I think that the current use of NCEA is fine; however, in the future, we should find a way to move into a qualification system that is better suited to doing what the students want rather than what the teachers want. / NCEA Level 2 student
Some people were just happy we showed an interest in what they had to say.
I personally find it alright, but I know a lot of my friends are struggling. The system definitely needs change, and it's great to have someone actually care about our opinions for once. / NCEA Level 2 student
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
27 minutes ago
- RNZ News
NCEA isn't perfect but NZ shouldn't forget why it was introduced in the first place
First published on Photo: 123RF 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. Education Minister Erica Stanford says there's been too much "gaming" of the system. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER 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. Photo: Unsplash/ Greg Rosenke 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? 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 is Senior Lecturer in Mathematics Education, at the University of Canterbury. This article first appeared in The Conversation .
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Former Attorney-General criticises marine and coastal rights law changes
Former Attorney-General and National MP Chris Finlayson. Photo: Nicola Edmonds A former Attorney-General and National MP has lashed out at the government over its decision to push on with controversial legislation that would make it harder for Māori to get customary marine title. Chris Finlayson is calling the move foolish and "extremely harmful" to race relations. But Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says it will see the law returned to its "original intention" and strike a better balance for the rights of all New Zealanders. The changes to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act would toughen the test for judging whether customary rights should be given. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. A 2023 Court of Appeal ruling , however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and the government put a pause on any amendments to the law. On Tuesday, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said after the discussing the ruling, Cabinet felt it still did not achieve the "balance" the government wanted and the test to win customary rights was still too low. His comment were echoed by Luxon who, speaking from Papua New Guinea, said the change would get the legislation back to its "original intention". "We obviously have looked at the Supreme Court decision pretty closely [and] think it's quite broad and able to be interpreted in quite a broad way," he said. "We think the best way to do [that] is actually to get legislation to put it back to its original intent, which struck the right balance." Chris Finlayson disputes that, and told RNZ the Supreme Court had already expressed "very well" what Parliament's intention back in 2010 was. "These amendments do not restore the original intention of Parliament. They undermine them. Let there be no doubt about that at all," he said. Finlayson was Attorney-General at the time the legislation was enacted in law in 2011, which replaced the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act . "What they are doing by these foolish amendments is destroying the settlement that the National Party and the Māori Party reached in 2010." Finlayson said there was no justification for the move, which he said was "extremely harmful" to race relations in New Zealand. "Tangata whenua have a few wins in court, and it's ripped away from them by the government, which changes goal posts 15 years later. "I am very, very saddened by what they have done, and I think it's a very bad day for race relations in New Zealand. "I just can't believe that they're as foolish as they appear to be," he said. Labour Party Māori Crown-Relations spokesperson Peeni Henare said the changes would restrict the ability of Māori to test their rights in court. "In 2011, the National Party made much of their commitment to Māori 'having their day in court' and this proposed change takes that away again." Henare said the law, as it stands today, does not give Māori ownership rights like control over public access. "This action by the government does nothing to strengthen the Māori-Crown relationship, despite them saying they value iwi Māori. "The government needs to be straight up and admit they don't care about Māori. Their actions don't match their words," he said. The amendments prompted fierce backlash from iwi last year, including Ngāpuhi who walked out of an Iwi Chairs Forum meeting with the Prime Minister in protest of the legislation. It also drew the ire of Northland iwi Ngāti Wai , who said at the time they would not accept the Crown "exercising an authority we do not believe they possess". In September last year, The Waitangi Tribunal found the changes were characterised by a "blind adherence" to pre-existing political commitments at the expense of Māori. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
The politics of trust: What the wellbeing era got right (and wrong)
We throw around the phrase 'trust in institutions' like it means the same thing to everyone, but it doesn't. Who trusts, when and why is deeply political, and far from universal, writes Natalia Albert. God, we throw around trust in institutions like confetti. Trust in government, trust in the system, trust between groups, it's everywhere. It shows up in political speeches, policy frameworks, media headlines and academic papers. Last week, while reading a 2022 Treasury paper on social cohesion for my PhD research, I was struck by the language. It was wellbeing all the way down: the indicators, the frameworks, the aspirations. Just a few days later, I found myself at the Local Government New Zealand conference, where the tone couldn't have been more different. The buzz there was about the government removing the four wellbeings from the Local Government Act. In just a few years, wellbeing had gone from centrepiece to scrapheap. So, do people trust government more when it talks about wellbeing, kindness and social cohesion? Or do they feel more confident when the language is stripped back to cost control and going back to basics? Does trust rise and fall with policy frameworks or with political alignment? Do we even notice the difference, or do we only care when we feel left out? It seems we talk about trust in government as if it's a single, collective feeling, like we all either do or don't trust institutions as one big, unified public. But that just doesn't hold. It misses the messiness and nuance of a society as hyper-diverse and politically pluralistic as ours. Trust doesn't live at the national level, it lives in lived experience, and it shifts depending on identity, history, power and whose values are being reflected back through the system. When we talk about 'restoring trust', we often imagine it as a linear project. But what if the problem isn't that trust is broken, it's that we're measuring the wrong thing altogether? Trust is not easy to define or measure Defining and measuring trust in institutions is messy and very political. The OECD's 2023 Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in New Zealand report found that responsiveness, openness and reliability are the biggest drivers of trust, but that trust looks very different depending on which institution you're talking about. People trust the police the most, the media the least, and local councillors sit somewhere near the bottom, which tracks with the conversations I heard at the conference. The biggest influence on trust isn't ideology, it's experience. Your personal experiences with government, or what's happened to your family or community, are what really shape whether or not you trust the system. Media matters less than you'd think, and abstract values like transparency or fairness only come into play if people actually experience them directly. Political scientists like Eric Uslaner argue that we need to stop lumping all kinds of trust together. He distinguishes between generalised trust (trust in strangers), particularised trust (trust in people like you), and political trust (trust in institutions). Political trust, he says, is the one that fluctuates most, and is most responsive to things like economic performance, political scandals and partisan divides. And then there's the causality problem. Do better-performing public services lead to more trust? Or do people who already trust government just rate services more highly? Academics like Steven Van de Walle and Geert Bouckaert say it's probably both, and that context, perception and political alignment all distort the feedback loop. In other words: if you already think government is useless, you'll probably see even decent services as underwhelming. The rise of 'Wellbeing' as a political project Back in 2017, Jacindamania hit us like a wall of bricks, or rose petals, depending on where you sit politically. That election didn't just usher in a new government; it brought with it a whole new language. 'Kindness' became a political virtue (personally, I never want to hear it again), and 'wellbeing' became the flagship policy concept of the Ardern government. There was the Wellbeing Budget, the Living Standards Framework from Treasury, the Social Cohesion Framework from MSD, and legislative changes like the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Act 2020. That act introduced a formal requirement for Treasury to regularly assess the state of wellbeing in New Zealand: how it's changing, how sustainable it is and what risks we face. It sits alongside the Long-Term Fiscal Statement and the Investment Statement as part of Treasury's big-picture reporting. Here's how Treasury themselves put it in the introduction to the Te Tai Waiora Wellbeing Report: 'The wellbeing report has the broadest scope of Treasury's strategic assessments. It must describe the state of wellbeing in New Zealand, how it's changed over time, and how sustainable it is. This is supported by a series of detailed background papers that explore indicators and provide introductory analysis on cohesion, sustainability and other key areas.' At the time, you could reasonably say these reforms were about rebuilding public trust in institutions. There was a sense, especially post-GFC and post-neoliberal consensus, that people had lost faith in government's ability to deliver something more than just economic growth. Wellbeing was meant to change that. But trust in institutions… according to who? The tricky thing is this: trust isn't universal, and it's not stable. It moves. It depends on who you are, where you sit politically, and which government is in charge. Right now, the 2025 coalition government is quietly dismantling much of the wellbeing agenda, among other flagship polices from the previous government. The Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Act is on the chopping block. The language of kindness and social cohesion is being swapped out for terms like 'efficiency' and 'core services'. And while some will see this as a loss, a regression, others will feel their trust in institutions increase. That's the key point: trust in institutions isn't something we all experience in the same way. It's a political variable. It shifts every election cycle. One group's 'accountable governance' is another's 'state overreach'. One person's 'meaningful wellbeing agenda' is another's 'woke box-ticking'. And yet, when we talk about trust in policy or the media, we often treat it like it's some kind of fixed, objective measure. But it's not. It's a seesaw. Take what's happening right now between local and central government. There's increasing tension, especially around who's responsible for managing cities, infrastructure and long-term planning. If you ask someone who trusts their council more than parliament, they'll say Wellington is meddling. Ask someone else, and they'll say local government is broken and needs reining in. Same institutions. Different trust profile. And this isn't just theoretical. Look at Stats NZ after the 2018 census – public confidence took a real hit. That kind of damage is hard to undo, especially when it intersects with other trust-fracturing events (like Covid, housing unaffordability or misinformation cycles). So when we say 'trust in institutions', we need to ask: which institutions, which groups and under what conditions? More Reading Media, perception, and the filter bubble effect Let's also talk about media, because that's a huge part of how trust is shaped. If you watch TVNZ believing it's neutral (when many would argue it has a soft centre-left lean), or you follow The Platform or Reality Check Radio thinking they're unbiased (when they very clearly lean libertarian or right-wing), your trust in the wider system will reflect that lens. Media isn't just reporting on trust in institutions, it's creating it. Or undermining it. If you're left-leaning, you probably felt more trust during the Ardern years and found meaning in the wellbeing agenda. If you're more conservative, it might've felt alienating or overly idealistic. Flip it around today, and the right may feel their values are being restored, while the left sees something important being gutted. So again, trust shifts depending on who's in power and how aligned you feel with the institutional tone. I'm not saying we should give up on trying to build trust. But we do need a more realistic and dynamic understanding of what trust actually is – politically, psychologically and socially. It's not static. It's not neutral. It's not equally held by all. We also need to ask: what groups trust institutions? When does that trust shift, and why? What role does media – and media literacy – play in those shifts? Can institutions be designed to be trusted across partisan lines? I don't have all the answers. But I do know we need to stop treating trust like a KPI and start treating it like the complex, shifting thing that it is. Because otherwise, we're just chasing shadows – and wondering why we always feel like we're either winning or losing, up or down, in or out.
