So, it’s been an interesting week in the world of education, and for those with children about to enter the NCEA years, it’s be fair to say you’re probably wondering what’s in store for your kid.

While the current system has pros and cons, the idea of changing it up when your child is halfway through their NCEA years is annoying and confusing for everybody involved. And it doesn’t help when the plan keeps changing.

In April this year, the Minister of Education, Jan Tinetti announced Level 1 changes were going to go ahead in 2024.But the mandatory introduction of new NCEA assessment standards for Level 2 and Level 3 would be pushed back a year, meaning schools would not have to start using Level 2 until 2026, and Level Three until 2027.

Next year, my second child starts the new Level 1, with its reduced subjects, merged specialist subjects across business, math and science fields and new forms of assessments, including speeches. Because all 15-year-olds love getting up and speaking in front of their peers. And then she’s going to revert back to the current NCEA system for Year 12 and 13.

At least we’re familiar with this, as our oldest is going through it now. But the approach to change has been messy. Add to this, the news that some schools have decided to ditch NCEA Level One because it’s not fit for purpose, and parents are left with the impression their Ministry has got it wrong.

We know we have a literacy and numeracy issue, and change is needed. But why aren’t we listening to the 56 schools who have already altered their program for Year 11 or created a whole new qualification for the year, like St Cuthberts, whose principal spoke out this week?

These schools- and they’re not all private schools- believe they can better prepare their students for Year 12 and 13 by offering more time in the classroom, a better understanding of their chosen subjects, and less time doing assessments. Some schools have data back to 2015 showing the impact of their different approaches.

Why are we not looking at their results and using this information to drive change? From what I can tell, many of these schools have been happy to share their experience with the Ministry of Education, but the Ministry of education appears to be doing the complete opposite.

The proposed ‘dumbing-down’ of the curriculum doesn’t benefit many. More work should be done trying to work out how to raise the performance of those who are currently struggling. I’ve also heard teachers say that the new version of NCEA won’t be as internationally respected as the current system, so I imagine IB and Cambridge would become more popular options.

Reducing subjects is short-sighted. Now, I know some people believe that school is all about focusing on important subjects to do with math and literacy, but a wider range of subjects increases the learning enjoyment for many. And exposure to subjects may influence futures. If you have, or have had a kid go through the current system, you’ll know how it works.

For many, Year 11 is a practice year to get to grips with the constant assessments and the structure of NCEA. Year 12 is the year that matters. These are the grades that get used to get into whatever course you want to do after school. And Year 13 is a little bit like a backup year.

So you can see why schools are working towards making changes to Year 11, to better prepare students for Year 12. All I would say from our experience is that Year 12 is a big step up, and students need to be NCEA match-fit. If schools feel they can better achieve this and provide more time in the classroom, why wouldn’t they?

When did something as fundamental as education become so difficult, so political, and so polarizing? What’s keeping me sane is the number of teenagers I see who have survived NCEA, headed off to the next stage of their lives and are thriving.

LISTEN ABOVE