School system 'fair' but we've been pretending it's 'great'
Photo:
Supplied / Ministry of Education
How good is the school system? According to an internal Education Ministry document it's "fair" and we've been fooling ourselves that it's "great".
The document, sighted by RNZ and understood to date from 2023, also sets out three options for improving the system by specifying through the curriculum what teachers teach and how they teach it.
"Our data suggests that the New Zealand education system would be defined at the top of FAIR by McKinsey 2010 yet we have been behaving as if it is GREAT," it said.
The McKinsey reference appeared to be to a report by an international consultancy firm that rated education systems from "poor" to "excellent" based on performance in OECD tests between 2000 and 2010.
The report placed New Zealand at the top of "fair" along with countries including Armenia and Greece and behind Australia which was considered low in the "good" ranking.
Despite
steadily declining scores
, New Zealand ranked 10th in reading, 11th in science and 23rd in maths in the most recently published OECD Pisa tests of 15-year-olds.
The ministry's document said the introduction of a new curriculum in 2007 without sufficient support caused problems for schools.
"As we sought to shift from great to excellent, the 2007 curriculum went straight from a detailed curriculum to a very open curriculum. It did so however, without providing the supports needed to maintain and build on system coherence and capability," it said.
"Some schools with strong networks, resources, and accountabilities manage to perform well with minimal system supports but many of those carrying the weight of high needs and complex issues struggle. Teacher and learners both struggle."
The options for increasing the level of prescription in the curriculum ranged from a high degree practiced in "developing nations including Rwanda" to allowing a balance between the national curriculum and local decision-making similar to schools in Scotland and British Columbia.
The document said the most severe option was designed to move schools from poor to fair and the least severe from good to great.
The middle option, for moving school systems from fair to good, would mandate the school-level curriculum including what would be taught and when, though schools would retain some ability to localise their curriculum.
It said similar approaches were used in Australia and Alberta in Canada.
The document said under-prescription left decisions with schools and teachers "who do not always have the capacity or expertise to select appropriate content or approaches".
"This can contribute to learner under-achievement and exacerbate inequitable outcomes. The New Zealand curriculum environment shows evidence of under prescription in the highly variable quality of learning that students receive," it said.
The paper said over-prescription limited the ability of schools to respond to learners and contexts and to be innovative.
"Over time, over prescription may contribute to curriculum overcrowding and a focus on coverage rather than meaningful learning; this can contribute to poor learner outcomes," it said.
"Prescribed curricula are also liable to become outdated and require monitoring and support to stay up-to-date. A primary rationale for the design of the 2007 curriculum was to address over prescription in previous curricula."
The paper said over-prescription limited the ability of schools to respond to learners and contexts and to be innovative.
Photo:
RNZ / Mark Papalii
The ministry did not tell RNZ which of the options was being followed.
However, it said it had advised successive governments about the need to balance national direction with local flexibility.
"While high autonomy suits systems with uniformly strong practice and outcomes, New Zealand's variable, inconsistent, and inequitable performance-particularly for Māori, Pacific, disabled and low socio economic students means our current high autonomy settings are not justified," acting curriculum centre leader Pauline Cleaver said.
She said the previous government acted on the ministry's advice by starting to
make the curriculum clearer
about what all learners must know and do, and deciding to mandate a common practice model for how literacy and mathematics should be taught.
"The current minister has continued that trajectory, starting with issuing detailed curriculum and teaching practice expectations for English (Years 0-6), Mathematics & Statistics (Years 0-8), Te Reo Rangatira (Years 0-6) and Pāngarau (Years 0-8)."
Cleaver said the documents specified what students should learn over time, when and how key content must be taught, and how it should be assessed.
Auckland University professor of curriculum and pedagogy Stuart McNaughton said New Zealand's results in international tests were relatively good, but its ability to improve was only fair.
"In terms of the the quality judgement from the OECD in point of time and then over time, we're relatively good, relatively high quality," he said.
"But having said that, it is also true to say that we have had some declines in achievement and we need to recognise those overall declines in achievement which have in some of the assessments come from high performing students not performing quite as highly," he said.
"It is an unfair system and we have a real problem with our equity profile."
McNaughton agreed a greater level of prescription was required in the curriculum to improve New Zealand's school system, but he worried it might be going too far in places.
"It depends very much on the degree to which both content and teaching are prescribed because if you take it too far, you undermine the agency of the teacher, which is a great risk in a system that that prides itself on innovation and expertise, and the second risk is you've got to be really sure that you've got a good evidence-base for the content that you're providing," he said.
McNaughton said the recently-introduced primary school English curriculum over-prescribed how the youngest children should be taught to read because years of evidence showed different children needed different approaches.
Post Primary Teachers Association vice-president Kieran Gainsford said he agreed schools lost centrally-provided support in 2007.
He said teachers were hopeful it would be restored under the current reforms, but worried the ministry might not be able to provide it and teachers would be left to introduce the new curriculum on their own.
Principals Federation president Leanne Otene.
Photo:
Supplied
Principals Federation president Leanne Otene said years of "flip-flopping" education policies had damaged the school system.
"We have never been given an opportunity as a workforce to embed a curriculum and to really ensure that our workforce is confident and competent in the curriculum document and its teaching so that we can see improvement in student outcomes. We are just flip-flopping every time there's a change of government," she said.
Otene said the problem was happening again with more than 70 percent of teachers and principals telling a recent NZEI survey that curriculum change was happening too fast.
"At the moment that pace of change is overwhelming schools... Our principals who are leading teaching and learning for goodness sake, haven't even received any professional development yet and they are supposed to be leading these curriculum changes in their schools. So I would agree, we're not a world class education system," she said.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
35 minutes 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.
RNZ News
35 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Man running for mayor in two cities under different names
It's not every day someone runs for mayor in two cities at once - let alone under two different names. But that's exactly what the brother of Invercargill's outgoing mayor is doing - and not everyone's thrilled. Katie Todd has the story.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Long-term vision essential for NZ's infrastructure future
Too often, infrastructure is treated as a list of disconnected projects. A road here, a hospital wing there, a new pipe or port when the pressure gets too much. But infrastructure isn't about individual assets, it's about a network of platforms that allow people to live their lives and go about making a living. Infrastructure enables economic growth, social cohesion and environmental resilience. Every dollar spent is a down payment on the kind of country we want our children and grandchildren to inherit. Nick Leggett is the chief executive of Infrastructure NZ To get this right, we need more than planning and funding. We need a national vision. Some politicians roll their eyes at the word 'vision', seeing it as too abstract or ideological. But in fact, the absence of vision is what gets us into trouble. Without long-term thinking, we get short-term decisions. Projects chopped and changed with political cycles, reactive funding decisions, stop-start pipelines that waste money and talent. The fact that politicians don't like it is a clue as to why a vision is so valuable. They don't like it because they can't control it. With a shared vision, we gain direction and clarity. We can prioritise, align investment and policy, make the hard calls about what's most important – and importantly keep successive governments on track when they try to deviate and cut projects. For a country like New Zealand that is geographically isolated, fiscally constrained and with a small, ageing population, that's not just idealism. It's survival. New Zealand has gone from being one of the most trade-intensive economies per capita to now exporting a smaller share of GDP than the OECD median. Compared to countries like Ireland, Singapore and Denmark – similar in size, but far more focused on strategic infrastructure and economic positioning, we are massively underperforming. That matters. The roads we drive on, the schools our kids attend, the hospitals we rely on, and the green energy we need – all depend on the income we earn from offshore. Infrastructure isn't just about what's visible on our streets. It's about building the foundations for a modern, outward-facing, productive economy. We are seeing real signs of progress. The Government has introduced some of the most significant system changes in recent memory. Reforms to resource management, water services and regional planning are laying the groundwork for more integrated thinking. The Labour Party has expressed some level of cooperation in response, which is promising. The creation of Invest New Zealand is a critical step. We won't meet our infrastructure needs with public money alone. Private and offshore investment must be part of the picture; however, it must be well-targeted, guided by public interest, and attract genuinely new capital. The model must be credible and transparent, with clear rules and strong public support. The Infrastructure Priorities Programme is also promising, giving us a framework to assess and prioritise the most urgent and valuable projects. Alongside it, the first-ever National Policy Statement for Infrastructure sets the tone for future planning and delivery, which will embed infrastructure as a core part of national development. But plans alone are not enough. A vision brings these threads together and gives them meaning. To be successful it must also drive action and give business and communities the confidence to invest. It helps us stay the course. A clear, long-term pipeline of infrastructure work isn't just efficient, it's financially smart. Analysis by Infometrics shows that by reducing uncertainty and creating a stable delivery environment, New Zealand could save between $2 billion and $4.7b each year. That's money we're currently wasting through cancellations, delays, duplicated effort and poor coordination. Our obsession with short-term cost-cutting – the 'nickel and dime' approach – has undermined long-term value. We panic about cost over runs but rarely ask what the cost is of not building at all. We celebrate the cancellation of projects but don't adequately even monitor the work we have in the market or the projects in the pipeline. Growing, productive nations build good systems for funding and delivery. They also understand that infrastructure costs what it costs and that the benefits compound for generations. One of the most overlooked aspects of New Zealand's infrastructure deficit is how poorly we've maintained what we already have. We need to stop chasing only the shiny and new, and start respecting, renewing and better using existing assets. That means smarter asset management. It means investing in good data and decision-making. And it means changing our political mindset from one of celebrating project cancellations to championing long-term results from better services delivered by our infrastructure. We need to stop chasing only the shiny and new, and start respecting, renewing and better using existing assets. Nick Leggett None of this is possible without a steady, well-supported workforce. The infrastructure industry cannot keep scaling up and down with the political tides. It causes burnout, skills loss and inefficiency. We need a pipeline of skilled workers and leadership across engineering, construction, planning and asset management, backed by education and immigration policies that match. In recent years, Infrastructure New Zealand has led delegations to Denmark, Ireland and Canada. These countries face similar constraints to ours, yet they're achieving greater infrastructure productivity through one key difference – cross-party political consensus anchored by a better shared sense of where they are going as respective nations. They debate priorities, but they don't debate the need for progress. This year's Draft Infrastructure Plan lays out scenarios for New Zealand's population reaching nearly eight million by 2050. That's a big shift in demand, especially as we age. We can't pretend that today's systems will stretch to meet tomorrow's needs. We must start planning now, guided by shared goals and not fragmented politics. So, let's start the hard conversation. Let's challenge ourselves to commit to a national vision. It will provoke discussions of identity and of cultural mindset of how we make choices together – and how we get things done. Let's imagine a New Zealand that's more connected, more productive, more inclusive and more resilient. Decent infrastructure is a means to that end. · Infrastructure New Zealand is the peak body of the New Zealand infrastructure sector and is hosting the upcoming Building Nations Conference. · Infrastructure New Zealand is an advertising sponsor of the Herald's Infrastructure report.
