The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) has been the cornerstone of New Zealand’s secondary school qualification system for over two decades. However, the future of its foundational Level 1 qualification hangs in the balance. With mounting criticism from educators, parents, and, crucially this week, the Education Review Office (ERO), Education Minister Erica Stanford has signalled a willingness to scrap NCEA Level 1 altogether. The debate has sparked nationwide discussions about the role, value, and feasibility of this critical stage in the education system.
NCEA Level 1 Under Scrutiny
NCEA, introduced in 2002, is structured into three levels, corresponding to students’ progress through the final years of high school. Level 1, typically completed in Year 11, was originally designed as an entry-level qualification providing students with essential skills before moving to more advanced Levels 2 and 3. However, the ERO’s recent report has painted a grim picture of Level 1’s current efficacy.
The report highlights that fewer than 75% of schools plan to offer NCEA Level 1 next year, a stark drop from the 87% that offered it in 2024. Schools with higher achievement rates, particularly high-decile schools, are increasingly opting out, creating what Stanford described as “a two-tier system.” High-decile schools are moving towards their own qualifications or skipping Level 1 altogether, while lower-decile schools continue to rely on it, exacerbating educational inequities.
Stanford has been vocal about the growing disparities. “Three years of high-stakes assessment is really tough on our kids. We need to align ourselves with other countries and rethink whether we need assessment at Level 1 at all,” she said, as reported by RNZ.
ERO Report Finds Major Concerns with Fairness and Reliability
The ERO’s findings spotlight systemic issues with NCEA Level 1. According to the report, the qualification is “not a fair or reliable measure of knowledge and skills.” More than three-quarters of school leaders reported inconsistencies in the workload required for students to earn credits across different subjects. This variability means some students face significantly higher challenges than others, undermining the qualification’s credibility.
Students also perform better in internally assessed work than in externally marked exams, with the report noting they are “almost twice as likely to achieve an excellence grade on an internal assessment than an external assessment.” Such discrepancies raise questions about the robustness of internal evaluations compared to standardised external testing.
Equally concerning is the lack of preparation NCEA Level 1 reportedly provides for subsequent qualifications, with nearly three-quarters of school leaders believe it fails to adequately equip students for NCEA Level 2.
Moreover, the qualification is failing to motivate students. 64% of school leaders agreed that NCEA Level 1 does not encourage students to remain engaged in their studies throughout the year. For those leaving school after Level 1, the qualification’s value is minimal—70% of employers doubt its ability to measure knowledge and skills effectively
A Troubled Reform Process
The challenges with NCEA Level 1 are not new, but the rollout of reforms this year has amplified the issues. Under the NCEA Change Programme, launched by the former Labour government, significant revisions aimed at simplifying the qualification, enhancing literacy and numeracy standards, and giving equal weight to mātauranga Māori were introduced.
However, the reforms have been widely criticised as rushed and incomplete. Schools were left scrambling to adapt, with only 40% of schools reporting readiness for the new Level 1 standards at the start of 2024. Stanford described this year’s rollout as “a disaster,” blaming systemic flaws such as designing assessments before finalising curriculum updates.
In response, the government announced a two-year delay in April, pushing the revised NCEA Level 1 implementation to 2028 and Level 3 to 2029. The delay has been welcomed by educators and stakeholders who argue that a robust, knowledge-rich curriculum must precede any assessment overhaul.
Scrapping NCEA Level 1: The Benefits and Challenges
The ERO report and the growing dissatisfaction with NCEA Level 1 have led to serious discussions about whether the qualification should be discontinued. Proponents of this idea argue that scrapping Level 1 could streamline the education system, allowing students and teachers to focus on more meaningful qualifications at Levels 2 and 3. It could also address the inequities created by the current two-tier system.
Stanford has expressed openness to this possibility, emphasising the need to align New Zealand’s approach with international standards. “We need to first consider NCEA levels 1, 2 and 3 together and decide if we want assessment across all three years – most other countries do not have that,” she noted, suggesting that New Zealand could consider adopting a two-level qualification framework.
However, eliminating Level 1 is not without challenges. Schools currently offering the qualification would need clear guidance on alternative pathways, especially for students who do not plan to pursue Level 2 or 3. Additionally, the government would need to ensure that any replacement system provides fair and consistent assessments while addressing the gaps in curriculum development.
Stakeholder Reactions and the Path Forward
Education leaders and unions have expressed cautious optimism about the government’s willingness to rethink NCEA Level 1. The Secondary Principals’ Association and the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) both support a delayed approach to reforms, provided the extra time is used effectively.
PPTA president Chris Abercrombie called the current state of NCEA a “shambles.” “If the Ministry and NZQA only do one thing adequately for secondary schools, surely it should be to ensure that a comprehensive change programme for our national qualification is fully developed, resourced and implemented,” he said, as reported by NZ Herald.
The ERO has recommended several immediate changes to improve fairness and reliability, including reducing variability across subjects and providing clearer information for parents to support their children’s educational choices.
Stanford has pledged to work closely with principals, teachers, and opposition parties to ensure a bipartisan approach to future reforms. “It’s too important to get it wrong,” she said, highlighting the need for a stable, long-term solution that prioritises students’ success.
What’s Next?
The current debate over NCEA Level 1 is a pivotal moment for New Zealand’s education system. Whether NCEA Level 1 is scrapped, restructured, or retained in a limited capacity, the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting implications for students, educators, and the broader education ecosystem.