Govt plans to replace NCEA
The government is proposing replacing all levels of NCEA, the main qualification for secondary school students in New Zealand.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford made the announcement in Auckland this morning.
Under the proposal, level 1 of NCEA (National Certificate of Educational Achievement) would be replaced with foundation literacy and numeracy tests.
Levels 2 and 3 would be replaced with a New Zealand Certificate of Education and an Advanced Certificate.
Students would be required to take five subjects and pass at least four to get each certificate.
Marking would be out of 100 and grades would and range from A to E.
The changes would be phased in from next year, with the new certificates in place for year 12 from 2029 and year 13 the following year.
Luxon said evidence showed NCEA was inconsistent and did always deliver what students needed.
'"This is about making sure our national qualification opens doors for every young person, whether they're heading into a trade, university, or straight into work," Stanford said.
Consultation on the proposal begins next month.
The proposal includes:
• Removing NCEA Level 1, requiring students to take English and Mathematics at Year 11, and sit a foundation award (test) in numeracy and literacy
• Replacing NCEA Levels 2 and 3 with two new qualifications (The New Zealand Certificate of Education at Year 12 and the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education at Year 13)
• Requiring students to take five subjects and pass at least four to attain each certificate
• Marking clearly out of 100 with grades that make sense to parents like A, B, C, D, E
• Working with industry to develop better vocational pathways so students are getting the skills relevant to certain career pathways
• The new qualification will be underpinned by a new national curriculum for Years 9-13 that will clearly outline what students need to learn in each subject and when, providing more consistency.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
16 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
How NZ's tax system compares with other countries
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ In recent months, Treasury, Inland Revenue and an organisation representing accountants have suggested New Zealand needs a rethink of its tax settings. Inland Revenue said taxes would have to increase to cope with an ageing population and CPA Australia said a capital gains tax should be considered. But do you know how much the average person in New Zealand pays, and how that compares to other countries? Infometrics calculated the average tax bill of a household with two median income earners, earning $72,900 per person before tax, not including any Working for Families credits. Chief executive Brad Olsen calculated that they would pay $39,800 to the government, made up about $14,100 in income tax each, and $11,600 in GST. They might pay another $3800 a year in local government rates. "Central government still collects the vast majority of money from households - at still over 90 percent of total funds collected by central or local government going to the Beehive coffers. The proportions have shifted slightly, in 2023 when we ran this same exercise, around 93 percent of tax or rates collected went to central government, and 7 percent to local government. "In dollar terms, we estimate that our median household scenario would be paying around $985 more a year in rates than in 2023, but $3182 more in income tax and GST." Rates rises were more noticeable because households received a direct notice in the mail telling them what they had to pay, Olsen said. "In contrast, most households don't track - or get a demand for - their taxes from central government. For income taxes, PAYE workers never see their income tax as their employer withholds the tax and pays it to IRD. For GST, you don't directly tally up your GST and pay it to the government - it's all part of your daily spending. The difference in how you pay - and how noticeable that payment demand is or not - does behaviourally contribute to how we talk about these various increases. "We spend a lot of time, fairly, on rates increases. That's reasonable scrutiny. But we spend a lot less time on tax payments than rates payments, even though tax payments are 10 times larger than rates payments. "That's also true, in my mind, around current discussions on rates capping. Presumably if it's good enough for central government to impose on local government, it would be good enough for central government to tax-cap itself? For every dollar of additional rates paid in the last three years, tax paid by a household has increased by $3.23." As people earn more through the PAYE system, their income tax bill increases. A report by consultancy OliverShaw in 2023 said those in the top two tax brackets at the time made up 21.2 percent of taxpayers and paid 68.5 percent of income tax in the 2021 tax year. Those earning $180,000 to $300,000 constituted less than 2 percent of taxpayers, but paid 9.3 percent of income tax. But while the dollar value of GST paid is higher for wealthier people, it may make up a smaller proportion of their income because they may save more, or put money into financial assets that do not incur GST. Some wealthier people may also be able to earn income in ways that does not attract as much tax. Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub said people might be surprised to see that New Zealand is among the lower-taxed countries in the OECD. On a measure of tax-to-GDP, in 2023, New Zealand had a ratio of 34 percent compared to the OECD average of 33.9 percent. He said the country was only on the higher side of average because many countries had some significantly lower taxes on specific things, such as Ireland's low corporate tax rate. On an income tax wedge basis, New Zealand was third-lowest in 2024, behind Chile and Colombia on a comparison of total tax as a percentage of labour costs. This reflects the impact of Working for Families credits. "There is no right or wrong number when it comes to taxes," Eaqub said. "If we want less public service, we pay less tax, if we want more public services, we pay more." He said many countries had much higher tax bills - France has tax at almost 44 percent of GDP, Denmark at 43.4 percent and Italy at 42.8 percent. "Italy has to but that's why younger people are leaving. There's a cost - if you tax a lot and make younger people poor they might go somewhere else. You can't arbitrarily increase taxes if you're not giving the value people are looking for. You need to maintain the legitimacy of the tax system." New Zealand workers tend to shoulder more of the tax bill than those in other countries, because income tax on individuals makes up such a large proportion of the total tax take. "We have big areas where we don't have any tax," said Council of Trade Unions policy director and economist Craig Renney. "There are no capital taxes, no social security taxes. It means New Zealand's taxation structure looks very different to the majority of developed economies around the Western world. We tend to over-emphasise GST and PAYE. Labour is a smaller share of tax in other jurisdictions." Any conversation about tax changes needed to get away from winners and losers and instead encourage people to consider what outcomes could be gained from higher revenue, he said. "The way we historically structure tax conversations does not help." New Zealand's corporate tax rate is now one of the highest in the OECD, at 28 percent. NZ Initiative chief economist Eric Crampton said reducing the government's structural deficit would require a mix of reducing spending, boosting economic growth and increasing taxes. "I would focus on spending before looking at taxes. Increasing revenue to cover the cost of current spending should depend on decent evidence that current spending delivers substantial value. "If the government demonstrated that higher tax revenue was needed, increasing GST while shifting income tax rates and thresholds to compensate could make sense. Inland Revenue has been looking at different options for ensuring lower-income households would not be made worse off if GST increased. GST captures spending that comes from income that is harder to tax when it is earned, including income from capital gains, as well as spending by tourists. "But first priority ought to be ensuring value-for-money in spending, especially where an ageing population increases fiscal pressure."
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Education Minister David Seymour says NCEA changes will challenge students more
Associate Education Minister David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Associate Education Minister David Seymour says changes to NCEA will challenge students more, which he believes can only be a positive thing. The government announced sweeping changes to school qualifications on Monday, including the end of the NCEA system that has been in place for more than 20 years. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement will be gone by 2030, replaced by a basic literacy and numeracy award at Year 11, and the Certificate of Education and Advanced Certificate of Education at Years 11 and 12. The new certificates would be standards-based, like the NCEA is, meaning every student passes if they demonstrate the required knowledge or skills, but they would have to study at least five complete subjects and pass four of them to get their certificate. Seymour said students wanted to be challenged more, and the overhaul to the NCEA system will provide that. "I was really interested to listen ... there were some students who seem to make a virtue of NCEA's easiness, as they saw it," he told First Up. "But there was a strong current running through those comments from the students. There was actually a desire for a bit more challenge. "One of the things that will happen is that by having a subject-based system, where there's a body of knowledge that you have to learn, where there's exams that are objectively assessed, I think that that extra challenge is going to be there. "I think for those students and for the country as a whole, that can only be a positive thing." Seymour said the only real predictor of where New Zealand's going to be in 30 years' time is the amount of knowledge that is passed from one generation to the next. He said there is an element of the European system in the changes. "There, they have more vocational pathways and I'm not saying that we're introducing a particular country system, but there's a hint of it. "That if you're somebody who wants to do something more practical, and I look at the prospects of people coming out of their studies, and I often joke, I wish I'd been smart enough to choose being an electrician over an electrical engineer, because it's those tradies that everyone's so short of." Seymour sympathised with educators having to adapt to a new policy change, to allow everyone impacted to catch up. But he is confident support will be on hand as they map out the overhaul. "I'm sure that as the implementation rolls out, that support will be at the forefront of the government's mind," he said. "But we haven't got to the point right now, we're just consulting on the shape of it. What I would say is that, because we are going back to something that is subject-based, I think some people might say it's a bit more prescriptive, then it's going to be clearer to educators, this is what the curriculum is. This is how it's assessed." Seymour said there will be less work do "creating bespoke pathways". "I think that's something generally, that after the New Zealand curriculum came out in 200 - since we've had a unit-based assessment for most of this century - it's actually been harder for teachers because we don't have, 'here's the body of knowledge, here's the assessment, go to it.' "We've had a lot more background work for educators to work out what the pathway actually is for each student, and I hope that this approach will be welcomed." Macleans College principal and ministerial advisory panellist Steve Hargreaves said the changes provided more clarity and he expected it to be implemented correctly. "I think this is going to be phased really well, we do have a pretty long lead in," he told Morning Report. "We're going to get the curriculum first and that's how it should be, so we learn what to teach and how to teach it before we start designing the assessments. "There is a lot going on in primary school, but from what I can hear from my colleagues there, those changes to structured literacy and numeracy are landing really well." Hargreaves said students will join high school better prepared, and that teachers he had spoken to were really positive about the changes. He also believed it would encourage students to extend their stay at secondary school. "This is a bit of a guess, but I think it might lift the de facto leaving age," he said. "Now, if there's this indication that, well, you've got Level 1 and that's some kind of a leaving certificate, then students might head out the door. "But now with the sort of the base level achievement occurs at Year 12, then I think we will see more students staying on." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
NCEA out: Government plans biggest education shakeup in 20 years
A more structured set of qualifications is poised to replace NCEA entirely by 2030, pleasing the current system's copious haters, asks Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Scrapping the system While an announcement on the future of NCEA was widely expected today, few predicted the government would propose abolishing the entire system. But that's exactly what education minister Erica Stanford and prime minister Christopher Luxon announced yesterday morning: a phased plan to replace all three levels of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement with a new, more structured qualification framework. The proposed system will see Year 11 students working towards a new Foundational Skills Award from 2028, focused on literacy and numeracy. Year 12 and 13 students will then study for two new national qualifications: the New Zealand Certificate of Education and Advanced Certificate of Education, to be introduced in 2029 and 2030 respectively. Students will be assessed using a mark out of 100 alongside letter grades, with English and Maths compulsory in Year 11 and a minimum of five subjects required in Years 12 and 13. A broken model Critics of NCEA have long argued that the system's flexibility – once seen as a virtue – has instead led to confusion and declining standards. According to Auckland University's Claudia Rozas, NCEA 'created an illusion of educational equity' by offering choice without addressing deeper inequalities. While students in low-income schools are often given a narrower range of subjects and pushed towards internal assessment, 'it is simply not the case that all students in low socio-economic schools are going to struggle with external assessment', she said. Speaking to Q+A's Jack Tame on Sunday, Jamie Beaton, founder of tutoring business Crimson Education, said the current system was leaving students unprepared for the future, without the resilience necessary for higher education or professional success. 'If you have an education system that's super chill and relaxed, you create these adults that can't actually function in the workplace,' he said. For Stanford and her officials, the final straw was a recent ERO review that found the system failed to ensure coherent learning programmes, was 'difficult to understand', and was not preparing students for future achievement. 'That report was hugely influential and formed the basis for discussions about what to do not just with Level 1, but the entire qualification,' reports the Herald's Jamie Ensor (Premium paywalled). The politics of education reform Today's announcement represents the most ambitious and potentially contentious education reform since NCEA was first introduced in 2002. In The Post (paywalled), Luke Malpass called it 'a brave move' that could prove the 'crowning achievement' of Stanford's ministerial career. But the scale of the overhaul – and its long implementation timeline – means it's unlikely to deliver any political payoff before the next election. While education is a personal priority for Luxon, he may not be in office by the time the first cohort graduates under the new system. Meanwhile Labour has expressed openness to the changes, while questioning the speed and scope of the changes. Education spokesperson Willow-Jean Prime warned that 'previous rushed overhauls have led to students being the guinea pigs for failed change – like national standards – so we must get this right'. The Greens are more adamantly opposed. Spokesperson Lawrence Xu-Nan said the party '[remains] entirely unconvinced this is what our school system needs. In fact, it risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater.' Why schools are walking away For many elite and private schools, the government's announcement is validation of a move they've already made. In recent years, an increasing number have either ditched NCEA or introduced parallel pathways such as Cambridge International or the International Baccalaureate (IB). Cambridge, widely seen as a more traditional academic model, is heavily exam-based and taken over two years, while IB offers a broad spread of subjects and extracurricular components like sport and service. Educationalist Nina Hood told Chelsea Daniels, host of the Front Page podcast, that the rise of these alternatives stemmed partly from concerns about NCEA's lack of consistency: while some students are studying hard all year, others 'can just opt into what are perceived to be the 'easiest' standards' and end up with the same qualifications, sometimes without sitting a single external exam. While defenders of NCEA say it provides valuable flexibility, the reality is that trust in the system has eroded. As Malpass noted, even if it did produce world-class outcomes, a qualification that isn't seen as credible is no better than a currency no one accepts. The next five years will reveal whether its replacement fares any better.
