Consultation closes today on the proposals which would replace the existing National Certificate of Educational Achievement.
The changes, to be phased in over the next five years, would replace NCEA with a Foundational Award in year 11 concentrating on numeracy and literacy, a New Zealand Certificate of Education in year 12 and the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education in year 13. Percentage pass rates and A, B, C, D grades would be back, and pupils working at years 12 and 13 would also have to take a minimum of five subjects and pass four of them to gain the qualification. Internal and external assessments would apply.
While most teachers would agree NCEA needed improvement, there is no consensus within the profession about whether this replacement is the answer.
There are fears by attempting to reduce the flexibility and complexity of NCEA with its plethora of achievement and unit standards, the changes are regressive, not perhaps to the bad old days of School Certificate and 50% failure rates but heading too far in that direction.
Questions are being asked about whether the division between academic subjects and the proposed vocational pathway under the changes will be too limiting.
In a letter to the minister, a group of 89 principals said the new system might suit those bound for university, but at the expense of students with other strengths, and would disproportionately affect disadvantaged pupils and those who were Māori and Pasifika.
But while they sought a halt to the proposals being consulted on in favour of improvement rather than replacement of NCEA, and with any changes properly consulted on, another group of about 64 principals is urging the minister to press on.
While differences are not unusual in education (let us not even think of revisiting the years-long reading wars about teaching of reading), the way these proposals have been developed, and the short time to submit on them, was bound to rile up many.
Ms Stanford had been working with a 13-strong professional advisory group comprising current and former principals without involvement of the wider teaching community.
It is not the ideal recipe for taking people with you when you are proposing major change.
Ms Stanford’s announcement of new subjects and revamping of existing ones last week also drew a mixed response.
While there was some enthusiasm for some of the subjects, including civics, there is a paucity of information about how these will be taught and who will be doing it.
The curriculums for these subjects are yet to be developed although they are going to be phased in from 2028.
What the minister calls new strengthened industry-led subjects are also to be introduced including for primary industry, health and wellbeing services, outdoor education, automotive engineering, building and construction, infrastructure, engineering, mechanical engineering and tourism and hospitality.
But there are concerns about the new proposed status of subjects including agribusiness, agriculture and horticultural science, and outdoor education when they were regarded as academic subjects previously.
Critics point out there is more to agriculture and horticulture careers than hands-on work on farms or orchards.
Similarly, those involved with outdoor education worry about it being sidelined by the changes, with a lack of recognition of its importance to broader education and experiences for pupils, some of whom might have few opportunities to experience the great outdoors out of school. They also point to skills in collaboration, communication, risk assessment and management, and learning to appreciate the environment as lifelong gains for learners whatever their career.
It will be vital Ms Stanford and her advisers listen carefully to the feedback they get from the consultation, consider it properly, and adequately respond to concerns raised before going further. Moving fast and breaking things does not always end well.
