Consultation has found strong support for improving the national school qualification, but many people are not convinced NCEA should be replaced.

Independent analysis of 8292 submissions to the Ministry of Education consultation on replacing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement said four out of five educators and industry submitters agreed the senior secondary qualifications system needed improvement.

But the consultant's document also showed many teachers, students and families said the qualification had more positives than negatives and should be refined rather than ditched.

The government wants to replace NCEA with a new foundation certificate for Year 11 students in 2028, a Certificate of Education for Year 12s in 2029 and an Advanced Certificate of Education from Year 13s in 2030 with students required to study five full subjects and pass at least three to gain a certificate.

The analysis of submissions showed some submitters were enthusiastic about the prospect of change.

"The NCEA system, in its entirety, needs to be scrapped," wrote one student.

"Everything, no matter how many times it is explained, it makes absolutely no sense," a whānau submitter wrote of NCEA.

But others opposed the replacement.

"It's going backwards to the '90s system which was harder to achieve, and many failed," wrote a whānau submitter.

Just over half of teachers (54%) agreed NCEA did not consistently measure students' knowledge and skills and a similar %age of industry respondents agreed the value of NCEA was difficult to understand.

Half of educator and whānau submissions supported replacing NCEA level 1 with a foundational award, about 60% of submitters supported a focus on completing full subjects, and 46% of educators, 56% of industry submitters and 49% of whānau agreed the government's proposed changes would be an improvement.

Most students (61%) disagreed NCEA was hard to understand, but 49% of whānau agreed it was difficult.

But analysis of teachers' comments showed few supported the change whole-heartedly.

"Most educator submitters were concerned about the case for change, with few supporting the change overall," it said.

The document said many teachers suggested NCEA be refined rather than replaced.

"Many educator submitters reiterated that tweaks should be made to strengthen NCEA rather than a costly and resource-intensive overhaul of the whole senior secondary qualification education system," it said.

It said more educator submitters noted positive aspects of NCEA than negative aspects with 1711 negative comments and 4432 positive.

"Despite the recent rhetoric, NCEA is a high-quality qualification on par with other available qualifications, recognised and accepted here and internationally. It is an inclusive qualification - it allows young people to follow their areas of interest," said a teacher submitter.

The analysis of submissions said many educators praised NCEA's flexibility, the ability for students to study both academic and vocational subjects and the use of internal assessment.

"We think the new system should continue to use a combination of internal and external assessments. This mixed approach is essential because it allows for a balanced evaluation of a student's knowledge and skills,” a teacher said.

But some teachers backed the proposed change.

"This is a great step forward," said one teacher.

They said NCEA's flexibility enabled credit-counting over real learning and some standards were easier than others despite being at the same NCEA level.

"I think the main issue I have with current NCEA is that some courses offer far more credits for less work when compared with others," said one teacher.

"There is a big difference between a student who has gained L3 with Achieved and taken academically rigorous subjects, compared to a student who has the same qualification but has taken much less academic subjects," said another.

Teens, families want flexibility

The document said most whānau and students expressed concerns about the case for change and few thought replacing NCEA was necessary.

It said the group made 847 comments critical of NCEA and 2847 supportive comments.

"Submitters were concerned that changes to the senior secondary qualification system may result in a loss of the current system's flexibility, and would have an impact on vulnerable groups and to students' future pathways. Whānau and student submitters classified NCEA's flexibility and diversity as strengths," it said.

"However, other submitters raised concern with NCEA, namely a vague grading system, credit counting practice, difficulty understanding NCEA, and limited international comparability."

"I am very relieved that the country's education system is finally moving towards the right direction. Our children will not be placed at the bottom compared to other countries," wrote one whānau submitter.

"I disagree with the suggestion that the current system is overly confusing for parents and students. From my experience, once the NCEA structure-credit requirements, grading, and internal/external assessments-is clearly explained, it is straightforward to follow," said another whānau submitter.

Other submitters said NCEA's flexibility and use of internal assessment was a strength that helped neurodiverse students and others who might struggle with exams.

Industry shows conditional support for change

The document said industry submitters were unhappy with NCEA credit counting and poor consistency between schools, but worried about the potential loss of flexibility and impact on equitable outcomes from a change in the system.

"Some submitters emphasised that current NCEA records do not clearly demonstrate whether students are ready for work. Submitters from construction and trades sectors particularly emphasised this concern, noting that they need clear indicators of student capability in core areas such as literacy, numeracy, and practical problem-solving," the document said.

"NCEA is impossible to interpret as to what skills a student actually has," said one industry submission.

"Students are arriving into the workforce with poor basic skills/knowledge," said another.

But others supported NCEA's flexibility and use of internal assessment.

"The system's flexibility is not the problem; it's a feature that must be protected," an industry submitter said.

Teachers defend NCEA

The document said some educator submitters disagreed with suggestions NCEA was confusing and unreliable.

"The presentation of NCEA as a system that fails to assess a student's understanding of the New Zealand curriculum is irresponsible, damaging and inaccurate in our opinion," said one educator.

"Parents not knowing the technical details does not mean NCEA lacks clarity or value, nor that employers and tertiary providers fail to recognise its worth. Schools already run NCEA information evenings, but low attendance points to engagement rather than system failure," said another.

Some submitters challenged the suggestion that NCEA was not internationally credible.

"Particularly damaging is the claim that the NCEA lacks international credibility. This baseless allegation is accurately countered by NZQA's own tagline which states, 'We make sure New Zealand qualifications are recognised and respected, here and overseas, and that qualifications and credentials meet the needs of learners in the changing world,'" wrote one.

The document said some submitters worried the changes would disadvantage Māori and Pacific learners and those with different learning needs.

They also said the government should give more consideration to Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

"A significant concern is the visible absence of Mātauranga Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the proposed changes. Any reform of national qualifications must be grounded in Te Tiriti obligations and genuinely reflect Aotearoa New Zealand's bicultural foundations," a submitter wrote.

The consultation document asked submitters if the school qualification should assess against a national curriculum, but some teachers said that was a bad question.

"The first question is terrible. Being forced to answer a question which nobody would disagree with (we should assess against the curriculum) and using that as a justification to change the whole system of NCEA is manipulative. In my experience NCEA does assess against a national curriculum. My level of agreement with the statement is not support for change," wrote one educator.

The document said teachers made 2862 comments suggesting priorities for improvement, including more consistency in assessments and a better balance between internal and external assessment.

"Schools are drowning in AI plagiarism without the tools to accurately track and counter it. More external moderation is the only way that is going to change. It also removes bias from the process," said one educator.

Submitters including the Cook Islands Ministry of Education and Government of Niue said the changes needed to consider island nations that used New Zealand's curriculum and qualification framework.

"Cook Islands students must graduate with the same qualifications as New Zealand students, with no separate arrangements or delays… Realm Nations must receive curriculum, resources, and training simultaneously with NZ schools (from 2026) Our national language must be a recognised subject with its own curriculum and assessment design," the Cook Islands Ministry of Education said.

Some teachers were critical of developing a new qualification before new curriculums were complete.

"We are concerned that the current proposal reverses proper sequencing by advancing assessment changes before the curriculum development is complete. Assessment should follow and support curriculum, not drive it," said one submitter.

"The proposal to replace NCEA is premature as the senior curriculum to be assessed by NCEA is still in development and its implementation is delayed. Replacing NCEA ahead of or during curriculum change poses huge risks of misalignment or creating a system geared towards teaching to the test, rather than robust assessment of learning," said another.