When the proposals were announced in August, the plan was Cabinet would consider final decisions in November.
There was criticism of how the proposals had been developed and the shortness of time for feedback.
Announcing something short on detail and then expecting a quick consultation to identify faults or fill in the gaps after the fact has been far from an ideal process.
Education Minister Erica Stanford has said the reason for the delay in decision making was to allow ongoing analysis of the almost 11,000 submissions received on the proposals to replace the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA).
This must not be some sort of tick-box exercise which ignores real concerns both about the thrust and pace of the changes proposed.
There would be few teachers who would argue the existing NCEA does not need improvement, but there are fears what is happening in our education system both with curriculum and qualifications proposals are back to a time which was never as rosy as we might want to think it was.
It is worth remembering the NCEA was introduced to address lack of flexibility in the old School Certificate, Sixth Form Certificate and Bursary arrangement with its emphasis on external examinations, a system which set up many pupils to fail.
Among the issues raised about the current system is it allows too much flexibility, meaning some subjects are not fully covered by pupils; the grab bag of standards makes qualifications difficult for outsiders to understand; there is inconsistency between internal and external assessments; and too many pupils avoid external assessment by ensuring they have enough internal credits before exam time.
New Zealand Qualifications Authority findings in 2024 were that in more than 250,000 cases, pupils skipped their external exams, often because they already had enough credits.
Whether addressing all of these concerns required a move to a whole new set of qualifications remains debatable.
The discussion document proposes working with industry to integrate Vocational Education and Training (VET) subjects into the senior qualifications, involving using Industry Skills Boards to help shape such learning.
The eight boards were announced this month, covering transport; electrotechnology and information technology; education, health and community; energy and infrastructure; manufacturing and engineering; services; food and fibre; and construction and specialist trades.
The expectation is the current 11,000 skills and unit standards available under NCEA will be reduced with the skills boards taking the best of these, and creating new ones, to create packages "highly relevant to industry and workforce and provide pathways towards tertiary qualifications".
If the proposal is confirmed the councils are expected to begin to design VET subjects from next year, but there is no detail on what resources will go into this.
The hope is the VET subjects will increase pupil engagement at school, allowing pupils to pursue their interests and learn valuable skills setting them up for "positive transitions out of school".
With the new curriculums in many subjects still a controversial work in progress, there has been concern about the short time for the introduction of the new proposed qualifications.
The year 11 foundation award would begin in 2028, followed by the year 12 qualification in 2029 and the year 13 one in 2030. Teachers will be faced with coming to grips with new curriculums while still assessing against the old ones.
As the chairwoman of the Secondary Principals’ Council Kate Gainsford has said, if these changes are to last, there needs to be widespread agreement they have been developed thoughtfully and collaboratively.
"Proposals thin on detail and tight in timeframe work against good policy and risk short-changing the important sense of public ownership that characterises a strong education system."
It is a message we hope Ms Stanford has heard.
