Prime Minister Christopher Luxon (right) and Education Minister Erica Stanford arriving for the post-Cabinet press conference, where they announced the Ministry of Education will intervene earlier and more often in schools which need extra support in teaching maths. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon (right) and Education Minister Erica Stanford arriving for the post-Cabinet press conference, where they announced the Ministry of Education will intervene earlier and more often in schools which need extra support in teaching maths. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Editorial
EDITORIAL
Education is one of the most important pillars of society, so it is no wonder every government wants to make an impact and leave its mark on that sector – but is a rushed curriculum overhaul ever a good idea?
The Government recently announced that,starting in 2025 (a year earlier than originally planned), primary and intermediate schools will have a new maths curriculum based on “structured maths”.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced the move to bring forward the curriculum change at the National Party conference last week, saying the current low levels of student achievement showed “a total system failure”.
The plan to launch this structured maths curriculum for years 0 to 8 will includeextra professional development for teachers, interventions for children struggling with the topic, and twice-yearly assessments to ensure children are up to standard.
The Government’s plan to “transform maths education” has been met with scepticism and controversy. Unlike structured literacy, which has a broad research base, structured maths is not a recognised teaching method.
In 2021, the Ministry of Education convened an expert panel on Pāngarau Mathematics and Tauanga Statistics in Aotearoa New Zealand that provided 14 recommendations – a narrow approach with structured mathematics was not one of them.
The Government’s decision follows a study that shows only 22% of Year 8 students in New Zealand meet maths benchmarks.
As experts have pointed out, these numbers need to be seen in context to be fully understood (ironically one of the things people who are good at maths know they need to do).
As David Pomeroy, a senior lecturer in mathematics education at the University of Canterbury, and Lisa Darragh, a lecturer in mathematics education at the University of Auckland pointed out earlier this week, the figures “show a change in curriculum and a new benchmarking process introduced last year by the previous Government, rather than a change in achievement”.
In fact, they point out, one of the lead researchers involved in the study quoted by the Government, Charles Darr, said the study had tracked student achievement in mathematics at Year 8 for more than 10 years, and in that time “there has been no evidence for improvement or decline”.
While many will agree that changes in education are needed and it is important to keep refreshing the curriculum, ensuring best practice and tracking student achievement, some, including Pomeroy and Darragh, are concerned at the pace at which the changes are being introduced and question whether the Government is trying to manufacture a crisis to rush in the new measures.
Cartoonist Daron Parton's view on the Government's maths education reform.
Are our teachers and tamariki ready for the changes? Many say they’re not.
New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa (NZEI) reacted to the announcement, saying there was no silver bullet for teaching, and they were concerned the rapid pace of change to the curriculum in maths and literacy, and short timeframe to train teachers, would further strain the workforce without delivering the promised results.
“Funding a couple of days of teacher training in one curriculum area is not going to cure 30 years of systemic and chronic underfunding of schools,” Weatherill said.
“We do need to address student achievement, but we also know that the diversity of ākonga [students] requires more diversity of approaches, not less. We have existing programmes that do this, and we should be expanding those,” he added.
As Pomeroy and Darragh pointed out, “rushing through a model with a weak evidence base only adds to teachers’ workloads, without guaranteeing to deliver the ‘brilliance’ teachers and parents have been promised”.
Our children’s education should not be a political hot potato. It is important, for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand, that political leaders come together to form a long-term bipartisan approach to the school curriculum.
