Submission to Ministry of Education NCEA proposed changes from a Parents perspective.

As both a parent and an education consultant rooted in the realities of our current schooling system, I’ve dived deep into the Ministry’s consultation documents and videos - theres not much there by way of detail to understand what this means - but here we are being 'consulted' about a significant moment in time for our children.

Many of you like me are not just readers of policy but are navigating its practical impact at home, at the school gate, or from inside our workplaces.

For context my own children are Year 13 (Catholic Boys school), Year 7 (Coed Intermediate), Year 4 (Bilingual kura), and Year 1 (Bilingual kura).

The below is my response to the consultation survey as a Parent.

The questions are those I was asked when going through the online survey.

I hope this will prompt you to engage and complete a submission, I believe this is a significant moment to improve our current senior secondary school qualification.

PART 1: Case for change

1. Do you agree that our national qualifications should assess against a national curriculum?

I somewhat agree.

Comments: Aligning national qualifications with a strong, future-ready curriculum is essential to ensure every young person regardless of postcode has access to robust learning.

However, the proposal lacks detail about what this refreshed curriculum actually looks like in practice and how dynamic it will be to keep pace with the fast-changing needs of work and life.

I am concerned that without ongoing industry and whānau input, this ‘national curriculum’ risks being too generic, missing regional, cultural, and economic nuance.

2. Are there aspects of NCEA that have supported you or your family member’s learning and achievement?

Yes, with caveats.

• Flexibility: NCEA offers diverse assessment pathways including academic and vocational helping more students stay engaged.
• Recognition: Standards-based credits can reward students for skills beyond traditional tests, e.g., real-world or practical achievements.

Flexibility created perverse incentives schools “game the system” by steering students towards easier credits to enhance statistics, potentially at the cost of deep or coherent learning. We have seen our son, in turn, become adept at navigating what’s presented, prioritising the easiest way to “get the ticket” rather than growing a well rounded skillset.

3. Do you agree that NCEA is difficult for parents and students to understand?

I strongly agree.

• The credit-aggregation, internal vs. external distinctions, and varied approaches across schools create massive confusion for parents. All 3 Schools our children attend do a poor job at engaging their parent community - 90% is through APPs/Newsletters, and they use academic language often not translated into plain langauge to help parents better understand.
• I have also experienced many families feeling disempowered to help their children make good choices, especially when schools differ in what and how they offer NCEA pathways.
• Comparing IB and Cambridge with NCEA is not a helpful narrative. I know their is little lifelong difference based on what qualificaton someone attained at school.

4. Do you agree that the senior secondary qualifications system needs to improve?

I strongly agree.

• A qualification system should inspire deep learning, provide clarity, and ensure readiness for both local and global futures.
• Priorities for improvement- Remove gaming incentives, Increase transparency for families and employers, Make sure pathways genuinely prepare all young people especially the neurodiverse and those aiming for vocational careers.

5. Do you think there are other opportunities for positive change with the new qualifications, outside of what has been raised in the discussion document?

I strongly agree.

Key opportunities:

• Digital Literacy: Digital skills are as fundamental now as numeracy and literacy. Omitting this from the Foundational Award ignores the reality of how we live, learn, and work today.
• Authentic Industry Input: The proposal relies heavily on Industry Skills Boards (ISBs) that are not yet established. How will local employers (including Māori and Pasifika enterprises, start-ups, and SMEs) genuinely shape curriculum and partnerships?
• Support for All Learners: There is limited focus on how the new system will accommodate neurodiverse students and offer pathways that celebrate different types of intelligence (e.g., practical, creative, or oral learning).

PART 2: Proposals

Proposal 1: Working with industry to better integrate VET learning into the senior secondary qualification system

Do you support proposal 1?

I do not support it.

Concerns:

• ISBs are still hypothetical at this stage. How will they practically form meaningful, timely partnerships with schools in different regions other then prescribe skills standards?
• Risk of “one size fits all” regional industry needs may not be reflected.
• Access and equity: Not all students or schools currently have access to Trades Academy or other high-quality VET learning.

What’s needed?

Direct, ongoing engagement with local employers and iwi starting now, not years down the track. Industry boards must reflect the voices of small business, innovation hubs, and diverse communities, not just the largest industry players.

Proposal 2: Foundational Award and new senior secondary qualifications

Do you agree that replacing NCEA Level 1 with a Foundational Award in numeracy and literacy will help prepare students?

I somewhat disagree.

My concerns:

• The Award is too narrow. Why isn’t digital literacy included? In the current and future reality, being able to navigate, create, and problem-solve with digital tools is as vital as reading and maths.
• There is little detail on how support will be provided for learners who struggle to meet the Award, including those with learning differences.

I recommend adding digital literacy as a core pillar. Build effective supports and differentiated approaches for those at risk of disengagement including tailored supports for neurodiverse learners.

Should other areas of learning or achievement be considered?

Yes:

• Digital capability
• Civics and cultural competencies (Mātauranga Māori; understanding Te Tiriti o Waitangi)
• Regular attendance requirements (with support pathways, not penalties)

Proposal 3: Shifting focus to a structured and subject approach

Do you support a subject approach to assessments at Years 12 and 13?

I do not support it.

Concerns:

• The “siloed subject” approach risks winding back the clock young people need to see how knowledge and skills blend across disciplines, as they do in life and work.
• There is little in the proposal for true cross-curricular or project-based learning. Again more detail would have been helpful.
• Over-reliance on external exams disadvantages neurodiverse learners and those from different learning backgrounds.

What are your concerns about some subjects being required as part of the curriculum at Year 11?

• Compulsory English/Maths makes sense, but digital literacy should be equally compulsory.
• Flexibility for Māori-medium pathways and cross-disciplinary subjects is essential.

Proposal 4: Strengthening achievement requirements

Do you find the proposed achievement requirements easy to understand?

I somewhat agree.

• The requirements are clearer than the old credit counting, but the rationale for 4 subjects, the balance of internal and external, and the system for support/exception are not fully explained.

Do you agree that four subjects is a reasonable requirement?

I somewhat disagree.

• For some, this will be reasonable, but for learners with health or neurodiversity-related challenges, tailored pathways and support are crucial.

PART 3: Implications and Next Steps

Do you agree that the proposed changes will improve the credibility and coherence of the national senior secondary qualifications?

I somewhat disagree.

• The direction of travel is promising, but there are serious gaps and lack of detail.

What other changes or supports would be helpful?

• Digital upskilling for all students and teachers.
• Neurodiversity inclusion. More options for project-based, oral, or practical assessments.
• Ongoing community engagement. Real partnerships with industry, iwi, and local employers must be built-in, not bolted-on.

Is there anything else you would like to say about the proposals?

The credibility of any senior secondary qualification is built on three pillars: relevance (to life, work, and citizenship), equity (for all learners, everywhere), and adaptability (to keep pace with the world our young people will enter). The current proposal is only part-way there.

This consultation represents an opportunity for genuine system improvement.

However, as you will have read in the conultation document, and the types of questions asked, we all need much more detail.

The experience of learners, particularly those with diverse needs and backgrounds, must be central. Please Parents if you have a child who is underserved in the current system, it is important you advocate for them here.

I strongly encourage all parents to complete the survey.

Heres a link to give you a push -

https://www.education.govt.nz/have-your-say/consultation-proposal-replace-ncea/details