As New Zealanders digest the news about government plans to scrap NCEA from 2028 , we should also consider the role influential and prestigious schools had on its demise.
Author
- Stuart Deerness
Senior Lecturer in Education, Auckland University of Technology
Since NCEA was introduced between 2002 and 2004, these prominent schools have increasingly opted for alternative assessment systems. This effectively undermined trust in the official assessment system.
In 2011, Auckland Grammar School became the first state school to decide NCEA wasn't suitable for its students. It began offering assessments from Cambridge International Education , a suite of imported qualifications where students sit externally assessed exams alongside NCEA.
The headmaster at the time, John Morris, publicly criticised NCEA , saying it was poorly designed and only suitable for less academic students.
Other schools catering to wealthy or high performing students quickly followed. Macleans College copied Auckland Grammar's approach. Many private schools also began offering Cambridge examinations instead of (or alongside) NCEA, indicating their implicit criticism of the system by choosing alternative qualifications.
Recently, Epsom Girls' Grammar principal Brenda McNaughton said there was " overwhelming community demand " for alternatives to NCEA.
By heavily investing in alternative qualification systems these schools demonstrated a belief that NCEA, on its own, did not meet the academic needs and aspirations of their entire student body.
The schools weren't trying to undermine NCEA on purpose. They were simply responding to pressure from parents who wanted what they saw as more rigorous qualifications for their children. But their language mattered.
The way these schools talked about Cambridge exams is revealing. They used terms such as "rigour", "international standards" and "university recognition". This language appealed to parents who were familiar with traditional exam systems.
The numbers tell a compelling story. A 2023 NZQA survey revealed that 25% of schools were not planning to offer a full NCEA Level 1 programme, with many high-performing schools abandoning it altogether .
Between 2023 and 2024, Cambridge International Education reported a 20% increase in students taking its exams, with 8,000 pupils across a quarter of New Zealand's high schools now doing Cambridge qualifications.
Losing faith
But did New Zealanders lose confidence because NCEA genuinely had problems, or because influential schools had already signalled their lack of trust by offering alternatives?
The answer is probably both. Educational theory suggests that when schools with serious influence opt out of national systems, they don't just seek alternatives - they inevitably change how people perceive the systems they leave behind.
By 2025, NCEA was under attack from multiple directions. Some schools offered alternatives, employers were confused, and influential parents found it difficult to understand.
Education Minister Erica Stanford's admission that she never understood the system perfectly illustrates the problem.
NCEA's flexible system, designed to recognise different types of achievements , was simply unfamiliar to many parents who were used to traditional exams.
The replacement system proposes scrapping NCEA Levels 2 and 3 and replacing them with the New Zealand Certificate of Education at Year 12, and the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education at Year 13. Students will need to take five subjects and pass at least four.
The new qualifications focus on "international comparability", "subject mastery" and external assessment, according to the government. While these aren't necessarily bad things, they reflect particular ideas about what education should prioritise.
Importantly, the government admits that fewer students may pass initially , particularly those who struggle with traditional academic approaches.
How change can happen
The end of NCEA teaches us something important about how educational change actually happens. Systems can be undermined not through dramatic opposition, but through the gradual effect of individual choices made by those with enough power to influence public opinion.
New Zealand's prominent schools didn't set out to destroy NCEA. They were responding to genuine pressure from their communities for alternatives they believed would better serve their students.
But their collective actions created a situation that ultimately made the national system politically difficult to maintain.
Any new qualification system faces the same fundamental challenge. How do you address legitimate concerns about consistency and clarity while also serving all students fairly?
The Cambridge phenomenon suggests communities with educational advantages will always look for ways to distinguish themselves, regardless of what qualification system is in place.
As New Zealand introduces new qualifications, it's worth remembering the loudest voices calling for educational change don't always represent what all students need.
The real test of any system isn't whether it satisfies the most articulate parents or prestigious schools. It's whether it serves the educational hopes of all New Zealand families without accidentally creating new forms of inequality.
The story of NCEA shows how powerful the actions of elite institutions can be, even when they don't intend to cause system-wide change.
Stuart Deerness does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
