Our high-performing young scientists who compete in international competitions receive a fraction of that provided to promising sports talent. Photo / Dean Purcell
Our high-performing young scientists who compete in international competitions receive a fraction of that provided to promising sports talent. Photo / Dean Purcell
Opinion
There is a slow erosion of science and maths capability in New Zealand.
We have a chronic shortage of doctors, engineers, nurses and workers with science, technology, engineering, the arts and mathematics (Stem training), yet programmes that target our future top scientists are viewed by bureaucrats as elitist. Theglaring disconnect between the need for trained scientists and the support for their training is laughable if we compare the focus and support given to elite athletes.
We clearly do not have enough specialist maths, physics, biology, computer science and chemistry teachers in our schools. This negatively influences the science literacy of the general public as well as decreases the number of young people choosing Stem as a career pathway.
The issue is confounded in what and how we teach the curriculum and the style of assessments, which have been largely dictated by non-Stem educated decision makers who continue to push a “one-size-fits-all” philosophy.
For good reason, New Zealand should be proud of what we have achieved in sport. For a country our size we arguably punch well above our weight. The results are a consequence of hard graft by coaches and athletes looking to be the best of the best. In 2019, High Performance Sport NZ funded $36 million to support these elite athletes. Juxtapose this figure with the $49,000 that the Government provided in 2023 for our high-performance young scientists who will compete in the international Science Olympiad competitions.
Most New Zealanders are not aware these science programmes exist. They take seriously intelligent students and pit them against the smartest people on the planet. The finalists have been whittled down from thousands of students and the New Zealand teams usually win medals. The science they study is at university level and it is very challenging. These students are undoubtedly our science high performers. We should be encouraging them, not limiting their opportunities.
Three years ago, funding was around $100,000 but recently removed (and then partially reinstated but with no promise of ongoing support) on the grounds that these programmes are elitist, an interesting interpretation of a competition that supports our best young scientists from a range of schools throughout New Zealand. The programmes actively reach out to a diverse group of students, including Māori and Pasifika students, who often do not have access to senior science education in their own schools. It is unfortunate that a bureaucrat somewhere made a political decision that will ultimately jeopardise the viability of these programmes.
Dr Andrew Rogers compares the amount of money spent on upcoming athletes versus that spent for scientists.
We want New Zealand students to be inspired by our research scientists, doctors, and engineers and to see science as a valuable career pathway. We want to be able to offer our academically able young people something to aspire to, and nothing does that better than a programme of excellence. However, the disparity in New Zealand’s education system means that, for many students, participation is very difficult because they don’t have specialist teachers.
And here is the big difference between sports and science education. It does not matter where you live if you want to play rugby or netball. There will always be someone willing to coach and give the students an opportunity. I have little doubt that if one of those students had talent then the coach will find a way to get them noticed and help them. Sadly, this is not true for science education. There are many schools in New Zealand where it is virtually impossible for a child to get into medicine or engineering. They may dream of being a doctor, but without access to maths, physics and chemistry teachers, their chances are negligible.
I don’t believe the public has any awareness that as a nation we are moving towards a strategy that embraces mediocracy. If the Science Olympiads are elitist then what is next in the firing line - NZQA Scholarship, an exam system that recognises the best students in the nation? Our rankings in PISA and similar tests reinforce that there is something seriously wrong with our science education. The math review a few years ago was scathing.
Some of us involved in the programmes are close to throwing in the towel. We are tired of fighting the clunky unresponsive machine we work for, which is doing all it can, consciously or unconsciously, to minimise anything that smells of excellence. Programmes of excellence should be something we value and something that all students can aspire to take part in. They are not elitist they are inclusive but unashamedly focused on high performance.
To the New Zealand public: we need you to wake up to what is happening - your children are being shut out of many opportunities and their career choices are being limited. Don’t blame the programmes of excellence, blame the system and those who run it.
- Dr Andrew Rogers is the head of the chemistry department at St Peter’s College in Auckland and chair of ScienceOlympiaNZ.
