Clearing out the confusion over NCEA changes
The Government's sweeping changes to the national qualification aim to lift standards, streamline the way students are assessed, and restore confidence.
RNZ's education reporter John Gerritsen tells The Detail the bold move comes with both hope and hesitation.
'There is a sort of sense that maybe this new system is trying to apply a way of working that might suit the kids in the leafy suburbs and not so much the kids in the poorer areas,' he says.
The changes should be in place by 2030.
If you never understood NCEA, or you are unsure of what the changes involve, this is the podcast to listen to as Gerritsen takes us through what's going on.
NCEA Level 1, which typically takes place in Year 11, will be abolished, with students being required to take English and mathematics and to sit a new 'Foundational Skills Award' test that documents achievement in literacy and numeracy.
Two new qualifications will replace NCEA Level 2 and Level 3, for Year 12 and 13 students, respectively.
They will now qualify with the New Zealand Certificate of Education (NZCE) and the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education (NZACE), respectively.
Students will be required to take five subjects, and will have to pass at least four, to attain each certificate in Years 12 and 13.
A to E pass-fail grades will replace the 'excellent, merit, achieved, and not achieved' rankings.
Supporters of the changes say this is exactly what NCEA needs. Employers have long voiced concerns that school leavers do not always have the basic skills needed for the workforce. With literacy and numeracy now the focus, that gap could start to close.
And by reducing assessment overload, that means less pressure on students and more time for actual learning.
Some parents also claim it should be easier for them to understand what their child is learning – and why.
'On one level, you'd have to say, a qualification system that has been in place since 2002, so over 20 years, and still confuses people probably needs to be revised pretty heavily,' says John Gerritsen.
'Some of the way the language, the way this has been described – it's been a bit obtuse, and people have struggled to understand it over the years.'
But for every person applauding the changes, another is sounding the alarm.
Some principals and parents worry that standalone literacy and numeracy tests risk leaving behind students with learning differences or who are from non-English-speaking backgrounds.
'There is a whole swathe of young people who struggle with exams,' Gerritson tells The Detail.
'Some of them may have dyslexia, others may just simply have anxiety about doing exams.
'There are also issues around increasing shifts to computer-based exams for students who don't have much to do with computers, so this is definitely going to become an issue.'
And then there is the equity question. Will all schools – urban, rural, well-resourced, or underfunded – be ready to deliver under this new scheme? Or will the gaps further widen?
'When talking to principals from poorer communities, they're really worried that a system that has helped their communities achieve success is going to be got rid of and replaced with something with big question marks around it,' John says.
'There are worries that young people from poorer backgrounds are going to be disadvantaged by this, and they will be less likely to leave school with some sort of qualification.'
The consultation process closes in less than five weeks.
And when it comes to the future of every New Zealand student, there is no room for error.
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
The double tax hitting ratepayers in the pocket, another rate cut looms and concrete data shows hard times roll on
Why is it that local bodies do not receive a share of the GST spent in their area? Local government spends a lot of money providing the services to enable businesses to generate tax dollars. Why not return a portion of this to local government? At the very least, removing a tax on a tax by not charging GST on rates would help councils to keep rates down. Is there an explanation as to why this can't or won't happen? Steve Browne A: Thanks Steve, a couple of good questions there. I wrote on Sunday about the dire state of Auckland's economy. Perhaps your suggestion would offer a way forward. The idea of letting councils have a share of GST has been pitched before. In particular, the New Zealand Initiative (the economic think tank) has been a champion of the idea for several years. The New Zealand Initiative is a strong advocate for more devolved government, giving local councils more say in decision-making and funding them to do it. It has even highlighted the merits of the Swiss model of tax sharing. Switzerland operates as a confederation with three levels of government – federal, cantonal (state), and communal (local). The Government, the federal level, collects income and corporate taxes but is constitutionally required to share a portion with cantons and communes. Currently, cantons receive about 17% of direct federal tax revenue and they often pass some of this down to their communes. In a research paper published in 2019, the New Zealand Initiative's Bryce Wilkinson and Patrick Carvalho argued that local councils bear most of the new development costs, while tax revenue windfalls from the developments flow directly to central government in the form of increased income and GST collections. They advocate for central government to pay local councils for every new house completed within a specified period. 'The payments could be benchmarked on the goods and services tax (GST) charged on residential building (excluding land value), or be a fixed sum,' they said. 'Under the GST model, if each of the 9400 residential building consents issued in Auckland in 2015 resulted in construction, and each home had a build value of $200,000, Auckland ... Council would have netted $282 million.' The idea has gained some serious traction with the coalition Government, which has agreed in theory to look into some kind of GST sharing. As to your other question about paying GST on rates, well, it's a relevant one, but perhaps not for the reason you might have hoped. From what I can see, any suggestion that the Government would give up the GST on rates would likely see it returned to the council rather than to ratepayers directly. But the Government probably won't even go that far, given that it is desperate for revenue at the moment. It looks more like it will limit things to considering returning some of the tax collected on new residential builds to help with infrastructure costs. So, why not? I guess if I have a reservation about devolving power and tax revenue to local councils, it is that they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory when it comes to financial management in the past few decades. I've never had a great deal of faith in central Government to get things done, and if anything, I'm probably more sceptical about the standard of governance at a local level. Smaller councils in particular are vulnerable to the vagaries of low levels of participation in democracy (that's a nice way to say they sometimes elect weirdos and nut jobs). What happens if we divert tax funding to local councils for infrastructure, but they vote for an unrealistic blue-sky project that bankrupts them? I suspect the Government will still be expected to come to the rescue. I worry that New Zealand doesn't have the level of sophistication in local body politics that Switzerland does. These fears may be unfounded. I'm pretty sure the New Zealand Initiative would argue that the low standard of local government simply reflects the low level of influence it has in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps if we funded local government to do more of our governing, the standard would rise. It's probably a moot point, though. The answer to your question as to why this idea isn't taken more seriously is probably simply down to politics. If we can trust central government politicians, from all ends of the spectrum, on one thing, it's that they are not going to be keen to legislate away their own power. Reserve Bank to deliver verdict on economic recovery Next Wednesday, we'll get the first full Monetary Policy Statement from the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) we've had since May. In July – when the RBNZ hit pause on cuts – it was just the shorter Monetary Policy Review, which doesn't include a full set of forecasts. The market, and almost all the local economists, are picking that we'll get a 25-basis-point rate cut, taking the Official Cash Rate (OCR) to 3%. But a lot has changed since May, so most of the interest is likely to be in the new forecast rate track that the RBNZ produces. Evidence that the economic recovery stalled in the second quarter has been pretty strong. We've seen the BNZ/BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing and Performance of Services Index slip back into negative (contractionary) territory. Employment growth has stalled, particularly in the big cities, where unemployment is running much higher than the national average. BNZ head of research Stephen Toplis has taken an early look at what we might expect from the RBNZ next week. 'Our expectation is that the bank will print a rate track not dissimilar to what it printed back in May, namely with a decent chance of a cut to 2.75%,' Toplis said. 'We can see the argument for taking a more cautious approach, especially if the committee feels it does not want to push an incoming new governor into a corner.' 'Equally, an admission that even more work than a 2.75% low might be required is plausible. While 2.75% is our central forecast for the low, we think the odds of 2.5% are marginally higher than a 3% stall.' But Westpac chief economist Kelly Eckhold took a slightly more upbeat tone in his latest Economic Overview. Eckhold is still forecasting the RBNZ to pause again, after next Wednesday's cut, leaving the OCR at 3% for an extended period. 'The near-term economic outlook has weakened slightly since May,' he said. 'Uncertainty associated with the trade war, ongoing cost-of-living pressures and the still slow pass-through of past OCR cuts into household budgets have been weighing on activity.' But so far, the tariff damage to the global economy had not been as bad as expected. And while the pass-through of interest rate reductions had been gradual to date, they would provide 'a sizeable boost to households' disposable incomes and demand more generally over the next six to 12 months'. Here's hoping ... Hard times More evidence of the big slowdown in the second quarter came through on Tuesday with the release of the latest concrete production statistics. Concrete production is a pretty good barometer of the state of the construction sector, which we know has been struggling in the past few months. The news from Stats NZ was not good. In the June 2025 quarter, the actual volume of ready-mixed concrete produced was 891,909 cubic metres, down 10% compared with the June 2024 quarter. That is a big fall. While the completion of big projects such as Auckland's City Rail Link might have compounded the fall, it still likely represents a big slowdown in home building and commercial construction. If you want to visualise the concrete deficit (about 99,000 cubic metres), artificial intelligence (AI) tells me it would be enough to cover Eden Park's main rugby field to a depth of 14m. I'm not sure why Eden Park ... perhaps the AI thinks we should build a new waterfront stadium. But anyway, it's a lot of concrete to not get poured in just one quarter. Annual ready-mixed concrete volumes continued the downward trend which has persisted since volumes peaked at 4.78 million cubic metres in September 2022. Annual volumes of 3.70 million cubic metres in June were 23% below that peak, and the lowest since September 2014. Infometrics economist Matthew Allman noted that annual ready-mixed concrete volumes had continued on the downward trend that has persisted since volumes peaked at 4.78 million cubic metres in September 2022. Annual volumes of 3.70 million cubic metres in June were now 23% below that peak and the lowest since September 2014. The near-term outlook for construction activity remains soft, which will likely prevent a material change in the trend in concrete volumes over the next few quarters, Allman said. Infrastructure activity provides some upside risk for concrete volumes, with the Government focused on progressing major projects heading into the 2026 election. Activity is more likely to show through in 2026 as there currently seems to be a mismatch between intentions and activity in the infrastructure sector. More clues to come We'll see other high-frequency data on Friday, with new monthly numbers for electronic card spending, immigration and tourism (short-term visitors). All of these will be highly relevant to Auckland's economic recovery, given it is largely underpinned by population growth (driving the property sector) and the service sector. FYI, 'high frequency' just means the regular monthly numbers we get for second-tier economic data as opposed to the quarterly numbers we get for the biggies like GDP, inflation and unemployment. All of this stuff will be relevant to the Reserve Bank as it tries to get a handle on the extent of the slowdown. It will be fed into the RBNZ Nowcast, which is its version of the AI-driven, real-time GDP forecaster that has become popular (Massey University and Westpac have their own version). The Nowcast model has New Zealand's economy contracting again from mid to late June and it has been flatlining at about negative 0.3% ever since. It's not clear how much weight the RBNZ puts on this model, but at face value, it will only add to the case for further rate cuts this year. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003. To sign up to hisweekly newsletter, click on your user profile at and select 'My newsletters'. For a step-by-step guide, click here. If you have a burning question about the quirks or intricacies of economics send it to or leave a message in the comments section.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
How Trump's funding cuts threaten US science and global innovation
Khvorova built her career by thinking boldly, but if slowdowns and cuts to federal science funding continue, she'll be forced to winnow her ambitions. 'What is happening right now is absolutely suicidal,' said Khvorova, speaking softly in Russian-accented English. 'I will stop making drugs. I will reduce my lab from 30 people to five. I will stop training scientists.' With stunning speed, the Trump Administration has over the past six months cut research dollars, terminated grants and hit the brakes on federal funding, destabilising an 80-year-old partnership between the government and universities that has made the United States a scientific superpower. The policy twists may sound arcane, but to researchers, everything is at stake. Day-to-day, Khvorova's lab is bright and buzzing. Scientists are trying to develop cures for Huntington's disease or halt the muscle loss that comes with ageing. Longer term? 'I have no clue,' Khvorova said. The Trump Administration portrays its changes as a targeted correction. Officials say grants are being terminated because they touch on topics with which the Administration disagrees, such as increasing diversity in science. Funding to specific universities has been frozen because they haven't protected Jewish students, according to the Administration. Fundamental research, Trump officials vow, will thrive. 'The money that goes to basic and blue-sky science must be used for that purpose, not to feed the red tape that so often goes along with funded research,' Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy, said in a speech at the National Academy of Sciences in May. From left, Gregory Smith, Nathan Gioacchini and Philip Soglo synthesise strands of RNA at U-Mass Chan Medical School. Photo / Kate Wool, The Washington Post In contrast, a recent report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that President Donald Trump's budget request for 2026 – including a 40% cut to the National Institutes of Health – would slice the nation's basic research portfolio by about a third. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office found that a 10% cut to the NIH budget would result in two fewer drugs invented per year, a gradual decline that would go into full effect in 30 years. The Trump Administration's science agenda is getting pushback in courts, in Congress and at the state level, but the impacts are being felt in research institutions across the country. As of August 1, the Chan Medical School had a US$37 million ($62m)shortfall in funding because of long delays at the National Institutes of Health. Khvorova is no stranger to doing science under challenging conditions. She trained at Moscow State University in the waning days of the Soviet Union, when there was sometimes no hot water, no reagents for experiments, no salaries. Even that has not prepared her for the abrupt policy swings that threaten the unique American research system. 'We are working on developing cures, which are not politically oriented,' Khvorova said. 'Democrats age, and Republicans age.' Disruptions will ripple over decades, since no one can predict what science breakthroughs in the lab will turn into world-changing innovations. Khvorova's work built off years of federally funded research into soil-dwelling microscopic roundworms that revealed short strands of RNA perform like symphony conductors, controlling the activity of genes and turning their volume down. Worcester, a gritty former mill city in Central Massachusetts, is home to two Nobel laureates and an RNA Therapeutics Institute that has spawned 12 start-ups. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, a company based on the phenomenon originally discovered in roundworms in labs at Chan Medical School and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, has discovered six drugs now approved for diseases that include rare genetic conditions and high cholesterol. The company's market capitalisation has soared to more than US$50 billion, and it has 2200 employees. Basic research 'is almost like the starter when you bake sourdough bread. You can't make the bread without it,' said John Maraganore, who led Alnylam for nearly two decades before he stepped down in 2021. 'Girls just wanna have (NIH) funding' In the labyrinthine, slightly cluttered labs at Chan Medical School, scientists tend to high-end instruments with geeky names like 'Dr Oligo', using them to synthesise strands of RNA aimed at treating fatal forms of dementia or diseases that cause muscles to waste away. Under sterile hoods, they grow millions of mouse liver cells for experiments. In a small room called the 'wormhole', decorated with colourful worms hanging from the door jamb like icicles, Victor Ambros, a Nobel Prize-winning worm biologist, zooms in on mutant roundworms wriggling across a yellowish agar gel. Unlike Harvard University, which has had billions of dollars in funding choked off by the Trump Administration, Chan hasn't been targeted. But it is not untouched. Like hundreds of other institutions across America, it has been thrown off stride day-to-day and week-to-week by the Trump Administration's unprecedented efforts to downsize and reshape the agencies that support science. Uncertainty looms over nearly every experiment and conversation. Slogans, not scientific sketches, are scrawled on the frosted glass wall of one office: 'We want scientific data, not alternative facts!' 'Girls just wanna have (NIH) funding' 'Science Not Silence!' More than a dozen NIH grants, out of several hundred, have been terminated, though they are tangled up in lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration's actions. About 200 employees have been laid off or furloughed, about 3% of the medical school's 6500 employees. A hiring freeze has been in place since March. Graduate school offers to nearly 90 young biomedical scientists were rescinded, though 13 spots were salvaged for next year's class. 'We have this feeling of extreme uncertainty, in a context where, previously, we could depend upon a robust system, a merit-based system that was predictable for the right reasons – the best science will get funded,' said Ambros, who shared the Nobel in medicine last year. Jesse Lehman, a graduate student who focuses on understanding the speed and dynamics of immune defences against pathogens, became hooked on science when he first felt the rush of discovering things no one else knew. There are no guarantees in this career – the contest for federal funding is exceptionally competitive. But what has fuelled the system is its reliability. The federal Government funds the best research, year after year, and scientists chase grants without worrying that the funder may lose interest in neuroscience or immunology and decide instead to buy a sports team. But now, federal funding may be there one moment and gone the next. 'I have this fear that the career that I've worked 10 years on developing just may not be viable,' Lehman said. The 20-year path to success Research institutions nationwide experience layoffs and uncertainty due to the funding reductions. Photo / Kate Wool, The Washington Post In textbooks, science is a steady march of progress. In the lab, it's an iterative process – filled with detours and dead ends that sometimes turn out to be surprises that push the field forward. In 2006, Chan biologist Craig Mello shared the Nobel Prize with Stanford University biologist Andrew Fire for the discovery of a phenomenon called RNA interference: short double strands of RNA could silence genes. It is a profound biological mechanism shared not just by tiny worms, but by humans. Other scientists built on the work, capturing the interest of venture capitalists and pharma companies. Many human diseases are caused by errant genes. What if, instead of treating patients' symptoms, doctors could give their patients drugs that just shut off the problematic ones? More than a billion dollars flowed into start-ups, but biology turned out to be a bit more complicated. Investor ebullience evaporated. Alnylam, an RNAi company, began trading below the amount of cash it had on hand, meaning investors thought its stock was less valuable than the money it had in the bank. Years of science – including a lot of chemistry – eventually turned a profound biological mechanism into a new class of safe effective drugs. 'Sickness doesn't have political boundaries,' said Phillip Zamore, a co-founder of Alnylam and a professor of biomedical sciences. 'Everyone deserves a better treatment for their disease, and I just want to make that possible. And I can't do that if my lab, my university, my colleagues' ability to do science is destroyed.' In the past few years, several biotech companies have spun out of Chan, including Comanche Biopharma, which is focused on a treatment for pre-eclampsia – a complication of pregnancy – and Atalanta Therapeutics, which is searching for cures for neurodegenerative diseases. Khvorova, a co-founder of both companies, came to the US with very little money in the mid-1990s, intending to check a box on her CV and stay a year or two. Instead, she became a 'typical example of the American Dream', as she puts it. She's an inventor named on nearly 250 patents. She just scooped up one of the most prestigious prizes in biomedical research, with a US$2.7m award. She should be on top of the world. But as she walked to her lab on a recent Tuesday, she gestured sadly at a collection of empty champagne bottles sitting high up above the cabinets in the lounge outside. Each bottle, she noted, is a trained graduate student – a reminder that most of next year's class was turned away.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Stricter sale regulations needed as alcohol harm costs soar
The report published in June 2024 estimated $9.1 billion total cost of alcohol harm based on disability-adjusted life years. It included costs associated with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD); alcohol use disorder; intimate partner violence (for alcohol use disorder only); child maltreatment (for hazardous drinking only); road crashes where alcohol was a factor; lost productivity associated with alcohol use, including FASD, crimes and workplace absenteeism; and health and ACC spending. Despite the sobering costs, it seems the Government may have bowed to pressure from the alcohol industry, with a leaked Cabinet paper revealing planned reforms to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act have done a U-turn. Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee had planned to reduce off-licence sales from the existing 7am to 11pm, making them legal from 9am to 9pm. She said that could have prevented 2400 violent crimes a year. But to the surprise of some, including the Salvation Army, later versions of the paper showed the reform would now focus on reducing the regulatory burden. The revised paper is due to go before Cabinet today. At the moment, some councils are developing local alcohol policies for their areas, including off-licence opening hours. Local alcohol policies in Auckland, Hastings and Christchurch are in place, with 9pm closing for off-licence sales. However, some other councils have put local alcohol policies in the too-hard basket, citing the cost involved and the threat of industry challenge. The alcohol industry and supermarkets have big money behind making it difficult for local authorities to compete with. For example, after three appeals, including one from supermarket giant Progressive Enterprises, Hamilton City Council ditched its local alcohol policy to change the hours alcohol can be sold. It had spent $200,000 on staff and legal time. While there is an argument for local decisions for communities, alcohol policies are placing a significant burden on councils in terms of time and cost. Most are simply not in a position to be able to take on the powerful alcohol lobby. Here's where the Government needs to step in and legislate on reduced off-licence hours. Twelve hours a day to buy booze is more than enough. No, opening off-licences later and closing them earlier won't stop alcohol-related harm but it can help to reduce it and ease some of the pressure on our health and justice systems, support agencies and even our local authorities. Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
