Education Minister Erica Stanford says pupils sitting NCEA in final years not disadvantaged
'We are keeping that flexibility of having and that balance of having internals and externals, which caters for lots of different learners. So it's not just exam-based, but we do want to make sure that children do sit their exams.'
Stanford said we can not 'cotton wool our kids' and having 'rigour' sets students up for success.
'When you live your life, you have to sit a driver's [test].
'If you're going into the trades, you'll need to sit your trades exams. There are always going to be those sorts of situations.'
On raising the age to be able to leave from 16 to 17, Stanford said although she would like to see kids in school 'till the very end' it is not something they have considered at this point.
She said it did feature in the proposal, but only because it is something they wish to address in the future.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he was concerned about the disruption to students still sitting NCEA and whether or not they were supported through the transition.
'I think they're a bit anxious about this because they're sort of thinking, 'What does this mean for the qualification that I am going to get and that I'm going out into the world with?'
'I think we just need to always keep that in mind.'
He told Bridge the 'devil will be in the details', and although this is a promising start, it was too soon to say if the changes would actually work.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford at yesterday's qualifications announcement.
The proposal, which is open for consultation until September before final decisions are made, represents the most significant update to secondary school assessments since NCEA was introduced more than two decades ago.
Under the new scheme, Year 11 students will face what is being called a 'Foundational Skills Award' with a focus on literacy and numeracy. English and mathematics will be required subjects for students at this year level.
The intent of removing the Year 11 qualification is to give students time 'to focus on deep learning of foundational skills and knowledge before undertaking high-stakes assessments in Years 12 and 13'.
Year 12 and 13 students will seek to attain the New Zealand Certificate of Education (NZCE) and the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education (NZACE), respectively.
This will replace the current standards-based assessment system with a structured approach that requires students to take five subjects and pass at least four to receive the Year 12 and 13 certificates.
The assessments will have a clear 'out of 100' marking system alongside A to E letter grades that the Government hopes will make sense to parents and students.
The Government will seek to implement the changes over the next five years alongside a refreshed curriculum. The Year 11 foundational award will be introduced from 2028, the Year 12 certificate in 2029, and the Year 13 certificate in 2030.
The discussion document being released yesterday also posed the idea of potentially lifting the school leaving age from 16 to 17 if that is what is necessary to encourage students to get a school certificate. In the first instance, the Ministry of Education will consider targeted support to get students to stay until the end of Year 12.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
11 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Ōtaki to north of Levin highway cost doubles to $2.1b, construction yet to start
'Our Government is committed to the road as it will deliver substantial safety benefits and unlock business and housing growth.' The Greens' transport spokeswoman Julie Anne Genter told the Herald that going ahead with the road after another cost escalation was an example of 'the coalition Government ploughing ahead with a highway at any cost'. She said the Wellington region would be better served by 'rail investment, along with safety improvements to the existing roads'. The new figure was first reported by BusinessDesk, owned by Herald publisher NZME. The road is a link in the Kāpiti Expressway, which connects the capital with the lower North Island. The highway began as a proposal to take the expressway to Levin and beyond. The expressway is a road of national significance project and was built in stages. It links the Transmission Gully motorway with a string of four-lane, grade-separated projects along the Kāpiti coast. It was funded to the tune of $817m in 2020 as one of the NZ Upgrade infrastructure projects by the then-Labour Government. That programme was fraught and most of its road projects increased in cost in the space of just months. By 2021, some of the upgrade projects were dropped, others were scaled back, while others had additional money tipped into them to keep them on track. The Auditor-General later criticised the upgrade programme for being hurried with a focus on announcing projects quickly – in many cases before up-to-date business cases could be completed. The Ōtaki to North of Levin highway was one of the lucky roads to get additional funding to stay on track, with Labour increasing its budget to $1.5b. In May 2025, NZTA went out to the community with some cost-saving proposals as it had escalated to around $1.7b. Those cost-saving proposals were mainly rejected. BusinessDesk reported these changes were rejected because rescoping aspects of the project would have required reconsenting, which could have caused significant and costly delays. An NZTA spokesman said the agency's board opted to put extra money into the project because 'it considers it a high priority relative to other initiatives included in the National Land Transport Programme'. 'The road will be tolled, as announced by the Government in December 2024, with revenue raised and returned to the National Land Transport Fund, which will include the maintenance for Ō2NL [Ōtaki to north of Levin],' he said. Genter, who has criticised the NZ Upgrade roads since they were announced – despite being an associate transport minister in the Government that announced them – warned that tolling would not cover close to the full cost of the road. 'This project won't get the test of paying for itself with tolls,' she said, noting a submission made by the Infrastructure Commission to the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee last month. That submission said that for a road to completely pay for itself it needed to cost about $32m a km, save motorists 15 minutes and have about 40,000 vehicles travel on it a day. This highway costs about $85m a km and is expected to have more than 20,000 vehicles travel on it each day by the late 2030s, according to NZTA business cases.
1News
43 minutes ago
- 1News
Government forges ahead with foreshore and seabed law
The Government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The Government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. ADVERTISEMENT On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that last year's Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100% of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. ADVERTISEMENT More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024, will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases, involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law, introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government, provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. ADVERTISEMENT 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. The 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 said the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Health Community Responds To Shell's PR Company Winning COP30 Climate Contract
Brasilia, Monday, August 4, 2025:- Responding to reports that PR company Edelman, which handles the global PR account for fossil fuel giant Shell, has won a contract to provide COP30 media services to the Brazilian presidency, Global Climate and Health Alliance Executive Director Dr Jeni Miller said: 'Hiring a PR company that earns millions from downplaying the fossil fuel industry's role in the climate crisis, to handle communications for this year's UN climate conference where countries come together to negotiate global climate action presents a serious conflict of interest. Climate change is already causing terrible impacts to livelihoods, health and wellbeing around the world, with health systems being pushed to the brink.' 'With disinformation developed by PR agencies for fossil fuel companies driving decades of delayed action, allowing the climate crisis to worsen dramatically, COP host countries must take every step possible to keep fossil fuel influences out of these crucial climate talks.' Recognizing the profound threat that disinformation poses, just this month, Brazil joined four other countries declaring an 'ethical and political imperative' to tackle disinformation and other threats to democracy (English translation here) 'Naming the problem is vital. The next step must be to align action with those words', added Miller. 'Brasil should reconsider its contract with Edelman, and future host countries should take a clear stand that will avoid this kind of conflict of interest and prevent the influence of the fossil fuel industry on negotiations to deal with the problem that industry created.' GCHA is calling on Australia and Turkey, the countries vying to host next year's COP, to set a new standard for hosting countries by committing to: Not hire PR or communications firms that also have fossil fuel industry clients. No fossil fuel industry sponsorships. No fossil fuel industry representatives or former representatives in the presidency team. No fossil fuel industry representatives or former representatives in the host country's own delegation. About Edelman: Edelman has a long and well established history of helping health-harming industries. Until 1997, Edelman led PR for the RJ Reynolds tobacco company, using strategies to create doubt about the science showing tobacco to be harmful to health, and working to delay or fend off regulation. The PR firm has used some of the same strategies to create doubt about climate change, in support of fossil fuel clients. About the Break the Fossil Influence Campaign: Since May of this year, more than 60 health organizations have joined the Break the Fossil Influence campaign, pledging not to work with communications agencies that also support the fossil fuel industry. On Friday August 1st, two prominent health professionals, Edward Maibach and Dr. Jemilah Mahmood published an article on Health Policy Watch calling for health organisations to join the Break the Fossil Influence initiative by committing to work only with PR and advertising agencies that do not serve fossil fuel clients. 'This is not just a reputational risk—it's an ethical failure', they write. 'A health organisation that contracts a PR firm that actively helps fossil polluters is undermining its own mission. It sends a dangerous message to the public: that it's acceptable to fight disease with one hand while enabling its cause with the other. It's time for the health sector to show leadership.'
