NCEA’s Future Decided. Beaton vs Welby Ings and the Pretence of Consultation

by Rebecca Thomas

Story We Are Being Sold

As the Government’s announcement about the future of NCEA lands, we need to pause and think carefully about the story we are being sold.

We are told NCEA is broken. We are told it lacks “rigour,” that it is failing to prepare our young people for competitive universities and the “real world".

• NCEA Level 1 is gone. It will be replaced by compulsory English and Mathematics at Year 11, and a high-stakes foundation literacy and numeracy test that becomes the new gateway qualification.

• Levels 2 and 3 are scrapped. They will be replaced with a New Zealand Certificate of Education (Year 12) and New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education (Year 13).

• Students will be required to take five subjects and pass at least four to achieve each certificate.

• Marking will be out of 100, with grades A–E, in a system designed to be “internationally benchmarked” and easier for parents to understand.

  
  

The changes begin rolling out from 2028, with the foundation test replacing Level 1 first, and the new certificates arriving for Years 12 and 13 in 2029–2030.

Erica Stanford says “no government has been bold enough to take this stand, but we are.”

That is not the language of a proposal – it is the language of a decision.

And yet we are told consultation will begin next month. A fully detailed five-year implementation plan, complete with start dates, compulsory subjects, qualification names, and grading systems, has already been released. This is not consultation; this is a done deal dressed up as dialogue.

Where’s the Evidence?

We are told NCEA is failing, but where is the robust evidence to back up such drastic change?

How many of our kids are at university right now having followed the NCEA pathway and are thriving?

How many have chosen their NCEA route and are now working in the fields they dreamed of – trades, nursing, law school, engineering, education?

We aren’t being shown these numbers. Why? Because they don’t fit the narrative.

NCEA is far from perfect, but it has supported thousands of students into pathways they value – both academic and vocational.

Welby Ings, in his new book Invisible Intelligence, warns what happens when a system becomes obsessed with testing and standardisation. Kids with non-linear intelligence are too easily labelled “dumb” when they’re not. “It’s my job to understand how that person thinks,” he says. “That’s the most important thing for me to do.”

NCEA, at its best, allowed teachers to do just that. It gave space for multiple pathways, for intelligence to be recognised in its “exquisite diversity,” as Ings describes. Removing that flexibility in favour of rigid, high-stakes exams – like the new foundation test and A–E grading system – risks silencing and excluding the very students who already feel invisible.

Erica’s Numbers Don’t Add Up

Erica Stanford has claimed:

• 60% of teachers say NCEA isn’t reliable

• Half of parents and half of students don’t understand how NCEA works

• 70% of employers don’t see it as credible

But where is this data coming from?

The only public source is the Education Review Office’s 2024 report on NCEA Level 1:

• 47% of teachers said NCEA Level 1 had become less reliable after recent changes. That’s not 60%, and it refers only to Level 1 – not the entire qualification.

• Around 24–25% of parents and students surveyed said they didn’t understand the qualification requirements. That means the majority do understand how NCEA works.

• As for employers, there is no publicly released dataset supporting the 70% claim.

So ask the question: 60% of what? 70% of whom?

If Stanford’s statistics are coming from internal memos, focus groups or consultant-driven surveys, they should not be used to justify dismantling a national qualification. Public policymaking demands public evidence – and we have not been shown any.

Jamie Beaton vs. Welby Ings: Whose Voice Are We Following?

This announcement shows clearly whose voices are shaping the future of NCEA – and whose are being ignored.

Jamie Beaton, the 30-year-old founder of Crimson Education, has repeatedly called NCEA “super chill” and “delusional,” claiming it produces adults unable to compete on a world stage. He has the Government’s ear, despite having no classroom teaching experience and no grounding in Aotearoa’s lowest‑resourced communities.

Beaton’s own success wasn’t born from a test score or exam. It was born from privilege – the elite private school connections he made as a teenager, the social circles he moved in, and the doors those connections opened. That privilege is the product Crimson sells.

And yet, the Government appears to be listening to voices like Beaton’s – voices that profit from dismantling public trust in education – while ignoring the lived experience of educators like Welby Ings.

Ings has spent over five decades working in classrooms and communities across Aotearoa. He has won the Prime Minister’s Supreme Award for Tertiary Teaching Excellence and the AUT University Medal for his contributions to education and creativity. He has lived the consequences of what he calls an “obsession with testing” – first as a student written off as “dumb,” and later as a teacher who saw how standardised systems crushed curiosity and sidelined non-linear intelligence.

Listening to him speak—even once—is enough to know he is deeply authentic, heartfelt, and devoted to educators and learners. Unlike the consultants who profit from fear, Ings has dedicated his life to ensuring no child is dismissed as dumb because they don’t fit a narrow mould.

Whose Voice is Echoing in Erica’s Ear?

Erica Stanford has admitted she “never understood” NCEA as a parent. That’s telling. Because right now, she is reshaping an entire national qualification without truly understanding what makes it work – or who it works for.

Like Jamie Beaton, she seems to believe that all brains learn the same way: that if we just raise the stakes, standardise learning and assess everyone by the same rigid measure, we will get better results. But the truth, as Welby Ings has shown us time and again, is that brains learn differently. Intelligence is diverse. And when leaders ignore that reality, we design systems that shut kids out rather than lifting them up.

The Question We Must Ask

When we choose the future of our education system, whose voice would we rather follow?

The billionaire consultant who has never taught a day in a New Zealand classroom and profits from fear? Or the teacher who has dedicated his life to nurturing the invisible intelligence of the very students our system risks leaving behind?

We must be aware of whose opinions – and whose lack of evidence – are informing the dismantling of NCEA. Because the direction we take now will shape the opportunities and aspirations of generations of young people.

Whose voice is guiding us?

And is it one we truly trust?

Myth vs Fact: What’s really going on with NCEA?

MYTH	FACT
NCEA isn’t “rigorous” and students are two years behind. (Jamie Beaton, Crimson Education)	There is no independent data proving this. Thousands of students have successfully transitioned from NCEA into competitive degrees and careers. This myth is being driven by private consultancy companies that profit from public mistrust.
High-stakes exams “teach discipline” and anxiety is good for young people.	Research shows that high-stakes testing disproportionately harms neurodiverse, trauma-affected and struggling learners. Test anxiety can erode confidence and long-term achievement, not build it.
The new system will be “internationally benchmarked” and better for everyone.	There’s no evidence these reforms will lift outcomes, particularly for marginalised students. Removing flexibility may further marginalise those who don’t fit a narrow, exam-heavy model.
NCEA is being reviewed through genuine consultation.	A five-year timeline, full implementation plan and heavy media spin have already been rolled out. Erica Stanford’s own words (“no government has been bold enough to take this stand”) make clear this is a decision, not a consultation.
Companies like Crimson are working for equity.	Crimson primarily serves wealthy families who can afford thousands in fees. Their “scholarship model” doesn’t change the fact that their core business entrenches inequality by selling access to elite universities.