NCEA's demise is a lesson in failed educational policy
But there has been a decline in scores across all three subjects in the last 20 years.
We should not move on from the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) without asking how it happened and why we persisted with a scheme so obviously flawed.
If I tell you Trevor Mallard was the Minister of Education in 2002 when the NCEA was implemented, you may think no further explanation is needed.
When he was Speaker of the House, Mallard responded to protesters coming to Parliament by turning on the sprinklers and playing Barry Manilow songs over the public address system.
But, in fairness, the NCEA was not his idea.
I was in Parliament when it was promoted. It was his associate minister, Steve Maharey, by profession a sociology lecturer, who drove it through.
Maharey was a true believer in 'cognitive learning', what he called 'personalised learning', more commonly known as 'pupil-led learning': the notion that children learn by discovering knowledge for themselves rather than being directly taught.
We do learn from experience and finding out information is an important skill. But to master any worthwhile subject, we must first be taught essential foundation knowledge.
A simple example: to write coherently, one must know grammar.
You cannot do chemistry without being taught the periodic table, or mathematics without learning times tables.
The NCEA allowed pupils to choose to skip learning challenging content essential for subject knowledge in favour of collecting soft credits.
It is also unfair to blame only Maharey. In the British comedy Yes Minister, politicians come and go while the real power lies with senior civil servants. So too in New Zealand.
The NCEA was the creation of senior bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education.
It is a department that has promoted a string of fads, from open-plan classrooms, 'look-and-guess' reading and that built schools so badly designed they have had to be demolished.
The ministry has created a school system where absenteeism is rife.
Really big mistakes are usually made by clever people. Stupid people are rarely able to make a big mistake.
Those promoting pupil-led learning were clever, articulate and convinced that they knew best. What they claimed is superficially attractive.
Rote learning can crush creativity, but the alternative they imposed was worse.
Act MP Deborah Coddington summed up our view at the time: 'One of the most dangerous experiments ever foisted on New Zealand children.'
John Morris, Auckland Grammar headmaster, correctly predicted that the NCEA would mean 'the dumbing-down of academic standards'.
Some New Zealand schools have never adopted pupil-led learning, opting for the Cambridge exam instead.
National's then education spokesman Sir Bill English warned that if problems weren't fixed, 'NCEA will lose credibility'.
This belief that it just needed a few tweaks led the Key Government into continuing with a system that was flawed.
The flaws were visible from the start. Students and schools gamed the system.
In 2004, Cambridge High School claimed a 100% NCEA pass rate by giving pupils credits for picking up litter.
In 2013, nearly 25% of internal assessments were marked incorrectly, yet the credits still counted toward NCEA grades.
In 2017 then Education Minister Chris Hipkins announced a review of the NCEA.
The Government launched a trial of of new NCEA literacy and numeracy tests in 2022.
The results were shocking. More than 40% of students failed at least one test in the June 2023 exams.
The Herald has reported that Labour's current education spokeswoman, Willow-Jean Prime, didn't respond to NCEA meeting offers.
By contrast, in just 18 months, Education Minister Erica Stanford has announced the end of the NCEA and its replacement with externally marked exams.
Critics complain this will mean teachers 'teaching to the test'.
Exactly. Exams will result in teacher-led learning. Pupils being taught reading, writing and arithmetic, essential for passing exams.
For two decades, NCEA's designers insisted their system was the future. The future has arrived, and it has failed.
The real lesson is not just that the NCEA must go, but that the political class must never again be permitted to impose unproven ideology-driven experiments on our children.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
4 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: Spineless, unacceptable, deeply offensive… C U next Tuesday?
Inside parliament, as MPs and speaker Gerry Brownlee battled over his decision to suspend Chlöe Swarbrick for calling government MPs spineless. Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. All eyes were on Chlöe Swarbrick from the moment she walked in the door. There was more security than usual in the public gallery; both police and parliamentary security stood on guard, as if they were expecting chaos from protesters. There were none to be seen – the gallery was mostly empty but for a school group. The Green Party co-leader had ruffled the speaker's tail feathers the previous day by urging 'government MPs with a spine' to back her bill sanctioning Israel. Brownlee, who has typically been a rather passive speaker who lets MPs get away with more than they should, took great offence to this comment and ejected her from the chamber, saying she couldn't come back until she apologised. As she returned to the house for Wednesday's question time, Brownlee began by inviting Swarbrick to withdraw and apologise for her statement. 'I won't be doing that, Mr Speaker,' Swarbrick replied. 'Then the member is to leave the house,' Brownlee said. But Swarbrick did no such thing. She crossed one knee over the other and cast a contumacious gaze at the speaker's chair. This made Brownlee big mad. 'Is the member refusing to leave the House? I therefore name Chlöe Swarbrick.' Naming is an innocuous-sounding ruling that is actually one of the most serious punishments an MP can get, a suspension from the House for 'grossly disorderly behaviour'. Labour leader Chris Hipkins immediately tried to interject, but Brownlee was on a mission. He called for an oral vote to name Swarbrick. The government benches rang out with 'aye' and the opposition, 'no'. 'The ayes have it,' Brownlee declared, even though the nos were clearly louder. The opposition protested, so Brownlee called for a party vote. The parties voted down government lines, meaning the ayes won 68-54. 'The member will leave the house,' Brownlee said triumphantly. At this, Swarbrick stood up and left her seat – but not without a quick 'free Palestine'. 'Yasss,' cheered Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. That was far from the end of the matter. The House then turned to a long debate about what had just happened. Chris Hipkins began with a characteristically pedantic complaint about the exact wording of the motion. 'I wonder whether you could indicate to us what the motion that the House just voted on actually was? Because if it was the one that you spoke, it doesn't have the effect that you think it does.' Brownlee had no patience for Hipkins' schtick. In an impressively petulant response, Brownlee hit back with 'in that case, I'll put it again'. The House repeated the same performance – again, the no vote was louder. Brownlee ruled with the ayes, but there was a protest, and another round of party votes yielded the same result as before. Hipkins then questioned whether the punishment was warranted. It's common for MPs to be kicked out of the house for the day for unparliamentary comments, but it's extremely rare for speakers to demand an apology the following day. The only recent example was in 2015, when then prime minister John Key accused opposition MPs of 'backing rapists', prompting a mass walkout. 'That was a very controversial matter, and it was at least a week later that the speaker asked him to withdraw and apologise in order to restore order in the House, which had been lost,' Hipkins said. Willie Jackson, proudly one of parliament's Naughtiest Boys, wanted to give his personal input as someone who regularly gets in trouble with the speaker. 'I think this is outrageous,' he said. 'You have kicked me out twice for calling another member a liar, and then I've been out of the House for less than 30 minutes… It is incredibly unfair that I can call another member a liar, rightfully get kicked out of the House, and come back into the House within half an hour, with no apology required.' From across the room, Chris Bishop yelled 'you apologised' – which sent Jackson into a fit of righteous rage. 'I did not apologise. I did not apologise and I would never apologise.' Winston Peters, whose party had now twice voted to name and suspend Swarbrick, then took to his feet to defend her. 'I don't agree with a thing that Chlöe Swarbrick said at all, but this is a robust House where people have a right to express their views as passionately as they may, within certain rules. But I do not think that eviction was warranted.' He compared it to another John Key incident from 2015, when the then prime minister demanded the opposition 'get some guts' regarding sending troops to Iraq, and the recent hullabaloo where Brooke van Velden became the first MP to use the word 'cunt' in the house. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, not one to let Act have such a conspicuous honour to itself, decided to add her name to the list. 'There were many of us that were offended by the 'cunt' word,' she said. She argued that 'spineless' did not reach the same threshold and that the speaker's ruling appeared to be 'suppressing an opinion on the rights of Palestinians'. Brownlee didn't react to the second use of the word 'cunt' under his watch, but the repeated use of 'spineless' sent him into a tizzy. He grasped desperately for his pearls like a Victorian lady about to faint onto a chaise longue after spotting some uncovered ankles. 'I personally found it deeply offensive,' he said. 'It was completely unacceptable' and 'a gratuitous insult'. Brownlee was on a moral crusade to right all the wrongs of society, starting with enforcing slightly more polite wording in the House of Representatives. 'If we don't change behaviour in here, nothing will change outside.' After about half an hour of arguing in circles, Brownlee finally put a stop to it and turned to the questions of the day. Winston Peters kicked things off by complaining, for the umpteenth time this term, about the use of the word 'Aotearoa' on the order paper. 'Who gave anybody the mandate to change this country's name?' he grumbled. And, for the umpteenth time this term, Brownlee told him that Aotearoa was a perfectly acceptable word. Everything was back to normal. Parliament was back on track.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Carbon Forestry Rules Still Wide Open
Federated Farmers says a report back to Parliament on the so-called 'ban on carbon forestry' doesn't go far enough to stop the march of pines across New Zealand's productive farmland. "This is an incredibly disappointing result and many farmers will be feeling a total sense of betrayal," Federated Farmers forestry spokesperson Richard Dawkins says. "Despite widespread feedback during consultation, and clear cross-party support for action, massive loopholes remain in the Environment Select Committee's recommendations. "Their report sends a clear message to rural New Zealand that the march of permanent carbon farms across productive farmland won't be stopping any time soon." Dawkins says one silver lining is that the committee has listened to Federated Farmers' concerns about the need to tighten rules around the 'intent to plant' test. "We made a very strong case that simply purchasing seedlings before 4 December 2024, with no land to plant them on, should not count as a clear intent to plant. "The committee has recommended the Bill be redrafted to make it crystal clear to carbon foresters that if they had seedlings but no land, they won't be able to enter the ETS." Federated Farmers has been collecting information on those who have purchased land after December 4 with the intention of entering it into the ETS. This has been presented to the Minister. "If the select committee's recommendations are accepted, those carbon farmers who have been trying to skirt around the rules will need to make other plans." Dawkins is highly critical of other aspects of the select committee report saying recommended changes have totally missed the mark. "It's extremely disappointing that what's proposed continues to ban whole-farm conversions only on Land Use Capability (LUC) classes 1-5 land," Dawkins says. "That might sound good in a press release, but in reality only 12% of farm conversions were happening on that land anyway. Our productive hill country - the engine room of the agricultural industry - is still at risk of becoming a giant pollution-driven carbon farm." Dawkins says two-thirds of sheep and beef farms are on classes 6 and 7 land. "Those classes of land are still exempt from the 25% carbon credit restrictions, so the vast majority of our sheep and beef farms will still be at risk of full conversion to carbon forestry. "Once those farms are gone, they're gone for good." Dawkins says Federated Farmers has always supported the intent of these law changes, but what's proposed simply won't deliver any meaningful change. "Recommendations on the Bill allow a potential 'lottery' system for class 6 land, where 15,000ha of conversions each year will likely still occur on a first-come-first-served basis. "There are also no restrictions on classes 7 and 8 land - effectively making it open slather. If you're in the business of carbon forestry, business is going to be booming." Federated Farmers argue that every single farm in the country should be subject to the same 25% carbon credit limit, no matter its LUC rating. "Otherwise, the damage just shifts - it doesn't stop," Dawkins says. "Class 6 and 7 hill country is not 'marginal land' as it's often described by foresters. It's often productive breeding land that underpins New Zealand's entire red meat sector. "Sacrificing that land to carbon speculation isn't just short-sighted, it's economic self-sabotage that will rip the guts out of rural communities, not to mention the national economy." Federated Farmers will continue calling on the Government to strengthen the law, Dawkins says. He says the recommendations on the Bill are "smoke and mirrors and do little to prevent the continued undermining of our productive sector. "We support the Labour Party minority view from the select committee hearings that a thorough review of the ETS and carbon forestry should be undertaken. "This was one of our 12 key asks for rebuilding farmer confidence leading into the 2023 election."
The Spinoff
8 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Palestine debate deepens as Speaker faces scrutiny over Swarbrick ban
Disquiet over the unusually harsh punishment is fuelling tensions among MPs on the issue of Palestinian statehood, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Swarbrick's stand-off enters third day Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was yesterday suspended from Parliament for the rest of the week after again refusing to apologise for her remark urging 'government MPs with a spine' to back her bill sanctioning Israel. The clash with Speaker Gerry Brownlee began on Tuesday, when Swarbrick refused to withdraw the comment during a snap debate on Palestinian statehood. Brownlee ejected her for the day, and warned she could not return without an apology. For more on Tuesday's events, read Lyric Waiwiri-Smith's latest Echo Chamber column for The Spinoff. On Wednesday, after a private meeting failed to resolve the standoff, Swarbrick entered the debating chamber, Brownlee again asked her to apologise, and she declined. After she refused his first request to leave, Brownlee moved to 'name' her – a formal disciplinary step triggering a suspension. Brownlee said he was coming down hard on Swarbrick because she delivered the 'personal insult' during a speech to the House, not as an interjection. Speaker's powers under scrutiny Speaking after her second ousting, Swarbrick said Brownlee was operating under a double standard, noting that John Key in 2015 had called for the opposition to 'get some guts' in a speech, without being punished at all. Writing in The Spinoff, constitutional law expert Andrew Geddis says Brownlee's approach appears to go beyond what Parliament's rules allow. Standing Order 90(1) empowers the Speaker to eject an MP only 'for the remainder of that day's sitting' – not to impose an open-ended ban until an apology is made. Geddis contrasted this with the treatment of Labour's Willie Jackson earlier this year, who was ordered out for calling Act leader David Seymour a liar – in a speech – but returned the next day without apologising. The one-day rule goes back almost a quarter-century, Geddis notes. In 2001, then Speaker Jonathan Hunt ruled on the issue, confirming that once an MP has left for refusing to apologise, 'the matter is at an end'. By effectively rewriting that precedent, Geddis argues, Brownlee appears to have created 'a disciplinary consequence that appears nowhere' in the Standing Orders – parliamentary rules that are meant to stay the same, no matter the Speaker. Recognition debate drags on The row over Swarbrick's suspension comes against a backdrop of growing frustration at the government's slow progress on Palestinian statehood. Australia, Canada, France and the UK have announced recognition plans ahead of next month's UN General Assembly, but New Zealand has only said it will have made a decision by then. Labour leader Chris Hipkins says the government is 'waiting for other countries to take a principled stance before we're willing to do so', while Audrey Young of the NZ Herald (paywalled) calls the approach 'the classic bob-each-way position of a small state' – seeking to avoid alienating Israel, Palestine or their respective supporters. For Swarbrick, the delay is unconscionable. 'We are a laggard, we are an outlier … We are one of the very few countries in the world who, so far, refuse to acknowledge the absolute bare minimum,' she told the House before her first ejection. Act's hard line complicates talks One reason for the hold-up is Cabinet's current consensus rule, which effectively gives each coalition partner a veto on any decision. In Politik (paywalled), Richard Harman reports that Act 'appears to be' the brake on recognition of Palestinian statehood, by pushing for it to be contingent on Hamas releasing all Israeli hostages – a precondition not shared by leaders in Australia, Canada or the UK. Prime minister Christopher Luxon has echoed Act's position in recent comments, leaving New Zealand out of step with its allies and, says Harman, showing up the 'fundamental weakness' of this government: 'that the prime minister appears unable to confront his coalition partners when they dig their heels in'. Yet Luxon also used his strongest language yet on Israel yesterday, calling the situation in Gaza 'utterly, utterly appalling' and claiming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had 'lost the plot', reports the Herald's Jamie Ensor. Luxon's criticism suggests frustration at both the worsening situation in Gaza and the political deadlock at home. Whether that frustration will ultimately translate into recognition of Palestine remains an open question.
