Starting next year, the government has mandated that primary schools conduct regular assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics. This new initiative includes a specific focus on evaluating the ability of five-year-old children to link sounds and letters after 20 and 40 weeks of schooling. For students in years 3 through 8, schools will be required to administer these tests biannually using either the e-asTTle or the Progressive Assessment Tests (PATs).
Education Minister Erica Stanford emphasized that the purpose of these tests is not to create competitive rankings among schools. Instead, the primary goal is to provide valuable data to parents about their children’s academic progress, help teachers refine their instructional methods, and give an overview of the educational system’s overall performance.
Stanford noted that while many schools already use various forms of assessments, the current practices are inconsistent, and some educators do not effectively utilize the results to guide further learning. She highlighted the need for a standardized approach to assessment that has been recommended by the Education Review Office (ERO) for over two decades. The aim is to enhance the capabilities within the education sector, ensuring a uniform and effective use of assessment tools.

Currently, approximately 60 percent of schools use the e-asTTle assessments, and around 1,000 schools employ PATs. Stanford stated that the new mandatory tests would ensure that parents receive clear, consistent, and detailed reports on their children’s academic achievements. These reports will not only aid parents but also support teachers in tailoring their instruction to meet students’ needs and help school administrators track their institution’s progress.
Stanford further mentioned that this initiative is just the beginning, with plans to introduce additional assessments at critical milestones to keep parents informed about their children’s academic journey from start to finish. The phonics tests for new entrants will align with the government’s recent decision to implement structured literacy approaches in teaching reading.
In addition to these measures, the government plans to expand the Curriculum Insights and Progress Study by 2025. This expansion will involve annual assessments of reading, writing, and mathematics for students in years 3, 6, and 8, providing a comprehensive national overview of literacy and numeracy aligned with the New Zealand Curriculum.

Labour’s Education spokesperson, Jan Tinetti, while supportive of standardized testing in principle, criticized the government’s approach, calling it a regression. Tinetti expressed her disappointment, arguing that the focus should be on increasing investment in learning support and enhancing teachers’ ability to differentiate instruction based on individual student needs. She did not see these aspects addressed in the new announcement.
As a former principal, Tinetti likened the new testing regime to the previous national standards policy, which she believed led to harmful and unfair comparisons between schools. She recounted how the national standards caused teachers to focus on test preparation rather than the holistic development of their students. Tinetti warned against repeating this approach, which she said exacerbates educational inequities.
Stanford, however, has consistently argued that her proposed measures differ from the national standards and are necessary to address the decline in educational outcomes observed under the Labour government.

According to Tinetti, these initiatives had begun to show positive results, with children who started their education under Labour’s policies now demonstrating improved literacy outcomes. She contended that the improvements in literacy were a direct result of Labour’s approach, and the support structures it implemented for early and primary education.
Government’s new mandatory testing policy for primary schools aims to standardize assessment practices, provide comprehensive data to stakeholders, and improve educational outcomes. While the initiative has garnered support for its potential to enhance consistency and transparency in reporting, it has also faced criticism for potentially reviving problematic practices from the past and not addressing broader issues in the education system. -TIN Bureau