95bFM Concerns raised over proposed overhaul of NCEA
12 August, 2025
Interview by Max Micheel, adapted by Zanoor Penny
The University of Auckland’s Stuart McNaughton emphasises the importance of the consultation period in the Government’s proposed NCEA overhaul, to ensure decisions are evidence-based and adequately engage with teachers.
Last week, Education Minister, Erica Stanford, and Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, announced the Government’s proposed plan to introduce a new national curriculum that would fully replace the NCEA system by 2030, changing the educational curriculum that has been in place since 2002.
NCEA level 1 will be replaced by a ‘Foundational Skills Award,’ which focuses on numeracy and literacy in 2028, with the qualifications replacing NCEA level 2 and 3 — the New Zealand Certificate of Education (NZCE) and the New Zealand Advanced Certificate in Education (NCACE), being replaced in 2029 and 2030.
Stanford, in the announcement, said that despite NCEA delivering in certain aspects, the flexibility provided with the curriculum has “gone too far” and “the complexity has masked poor performance”.
The proposed curriculum will be phased in from next year, aiming to be fully implemented by 2030, with public consultation on the proposed changes closing on the 15th of September.
University of Auckland Professor of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Stuart McNaughton, told 95bFM’s The Wire that he feels not enough consultation into these proposed changes have taken place so far.
“I have a very strong view as an educational scientist, that what you want to know, in quite important detail, is what are the strengths of the system and what might be its weaknesses, and then you solve the weaknesses and build on the strengths, rather than simply say, ‘we’ve got a new program.’”
McNaughton says that despite the need for improvement within NCEA, a key strength of the curriculum is its flexibility.
“The flexibility means that one can design appropriate pathways for different groups of students who might have different needs and certainly different aspirations.
“So the idea of being able to better support students who want academic pathways and students who want industry training pathways; that's a good feature of the current system.”
However, McNaughton also believes this flexibility can be a “weakness”. Despite this, he says the Government’s approach of a “rigid examination system” needs to be reassessed.
“What I don’t agree with is assuming that a rigid examination system is the best way to understand the nature of complex skills and knowledge that our students need.”
McNaughton highlights the areas that New Zealand’s teaching system excels in, such as collaborative problem solving on computers, and preparing teachers to educate in diverse cultural and social environments.
“We do not want the situation that is often referred to as a narrowing of the curriculum that would reduce those strengths in our system,” he says.
He adds that the proposed changes fail to address the burnout teachers face in the country, such as through constant changes to the system over many years and assessment requirements that lower an educator's teaching time.
McNaughton believes it is important that during the public consultation period, any decisions are evidence-based and consider the expertise of teachers.
“If a narrowing of the curriculum reduces our capability to support students' skills and knowledge in these areas, this would be a great barrier,” he says.
