6. Question No. 6—EducationERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the principal of New Zealand's largest high school when he described the Government's roll-out of the NCEA changes as creating a ridiculous" situation which "doesn't make any sense" and as "harming student outcomes" and has she heard of any other schools that are planning on dropping NCEA level 1 next year because of similar concerns?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): No. I do however hold the view that schools should make decisions based on what is appropriate for their students. NCEA level 1 has always been optional and remains so. Schools are not required to notify the ministry of whether they are offering NCEA level 1. I am aware of four secondary schools that have notified the ministry that they have opted not to offer NCEA level 1. The reasons for this vary greatly.Erica Stanford: Can she explain why schools who have always offered NCEA level 1 are now choosing to pull out specifically citing her changes to NCEA as the reason as they are harming student outcomes?Hon JAN TINETTI: NCEA level 1 remains an optional qualification. It has been optional since the introduction of NCEA in 2002. It is up to each school to decide what subject-based course offering for NCEA is best for their school community. I also point out that most other countries we benchmark against only have two years of high-stakes assessments equivalent to our levels 2 and 3. So it is not unusual that level 1 is optional when compared to international standards.Erica Stanford: Why didn't she just pause the entire level 1 2 and 3 NCEA reforms to ensure consistency rather than forcing year 11 students to sit both new and old standards that top principals are now saying will harm student outcomes?Hon JAN TINETTI: Because the evidence does not show that. We have piloted the new level 1 standards extensively and none of the results found any issues with the transitioning between the new level 1 standards and the existing level 2 standards. I would like to highlight a quote from a science teacher from a large Auckland secondary school whose students participated in the level 1 pilot and are then being taught the level 2 standards. I quote: "Students who entered level 2 chemistry and biology this year have brought a stronger systems-thinking approach to their studies of ecology a deeper grasp of variation leading to level 2 genetics and level 1 understanding of microbes that feeds well into cell biology and physiology etc. at level 2."Erica Stanford: Is the principal of an Auckland girls' school wrong when she says the NCEA changes "dumbed down fundamentals like writing and maths" and a level 1 maths examination that "keeps standards high" is being removed?Hon JAN TINETTI: What I would say to any principal is that the NCEA change programme has been developed with experts with the sector and decisions have been made in strong consultation with the professional advisory group on NCEA who are made of experienced sector leaders who only this morning at the SPANZ conference in New Plymouth told me that they are very happy with the changes that have been made.Erica Stanford: What does it say for educational equity in this country when high-performing schools with more resources can offer superior-quality diplomas while everyone else is forced to use her second-rate NCEA level 1 qualification that will "harm student outcomes"?Hon JAN TINETTI: I absolutely refute the characterisation of our NCEA programme that that member has made there. What I will point out is that when the changes about NCEA first went out in 2018 one of the proposals was that level 1 was going to be dropped completely. But ironically it was the schools that came from low socio-economic areas who told us that no it was important for them to retain NCEA level 1 and that is exactly what we have done."