Govt's use of new data in maths overhaul criticised

"Misinformation" and "misleading" are among the reactions to the Government’s use of new student maths data in an announcement on how maths education will be urgently overhauled.

The 2023 data from the Curriculum Insights and Progress study was measured against a draft of the new maths curriculum that has yet to be introduced in schools.

The Government did not disclose this measurement change when making the announcement on Sunday.

Researchers stated on the CIPS website it was "important to note" the change in curriculum benchmarks.

The study found that 22% of year 8 students met the expectations of the draft curriculum created under the Labour Government, which the current Government is reviewing.

In 2022, the previous version of the study found 42% of year 8 students met the expectations of the curriculum currently taught in schools.

The last study showed that 82% of year 4 students were meeting expectations in 2022. The latest study does not include year 4 data, but for year 3 students, just 20% met the draft curriculum expectations.

"What we’re seeing in mathematics is a change in curriculum and a new benchmarking process rather than a change in achievement," one of the study authors Dr Charles Darr said in a press release about the results.

The press release stated that for year 8 students, "there has been no statistically significant change in mathematics achievement scores since at least 2013".

The Ministry of Education states the new maths curriculum is clearer about what the achievement expectations are for each year level and also increases achievement expectations.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called the latest year 8 results a "crisis".

He said the data promoted the Government to urgently create an action plan which includes introducing a structured maths approach and shaving a year off the introduction of the new maths curriculum to next year.

“We don't have time to muck around here, we know what's needed, we know what interventions are needed,” he said.

“What we're focusing on is four out of five of our kids today are not at the standard they need to be in at maths when they go into high school, that needs to change, that is a total system failure as I see it.”

Tawa School Principal Barri Dullabh has written to the Education Minister outlining multiple concerns with the fast-tracked implementation of the Government’s maths overhaul.

On the Government’s use of the latest data, he stated this was misleading.

"The testing was done on a small sample of students, measured against the 2023 draft curriculum expectations without any teaching of these expectations," he told Education Minister Erica Stanford.

"The goalposts have been shifted, and it appears the public hasn't been told this. As Minister of Education, what are your thoughts about the need to share this extra information?"

The study included 853 students for the year 8 assessment.

The Aotearoa Educators Collective, made up of academics and educators, also questioned the Government using results based on a curriculum that has yet to be introduced.

Former Education Minister Jan Tinetti said she’s not denying the country’s had a long standing maths achievement issue but was also critical of the data use.

“The big thing here that I’m very angry about is that this Government has manipulated data to justify their own crisis at the moment,” she said.

“They’ve bandied round that figure of 22% now that is measured against the curriculum that was released last year, has not been taught so effectively you’re measuring kids against something that they’ve never ever been taught. That is manipulation,” she said.

The Prime Minister and Education Minister have defended the data use.

“Whether it’s 45% or 22%, we’ve got a problem in maths —that’s a big problem, and that’s why we’ve moved very fast,” Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said, in reference to the 42% year 8 results in 2022.

“We can debate and discuss all day long if you want inside baseball process conversations, or we actually go out there and fix it for New Zealanders, and that’s what we’re doing.”

When asked if it was fair to test children against a curriculum they hadn’t learned, the Prime Minister didn’t answer.

“It’s important that we actually accelerate the curriculum that we want them to have. That’s going to be in place by term one next year. That’s an internationally competitive, knowledge-rich curriculum like we see in other OECD countries.”

Stanford said the former Labour Government implemented the system change to measuring student achievement against the draft maths curriculum.

“We’ve just never actually measured it like that before and so parents have been told that their children are at curriculum when the reality was they could have been two or three years behind where they should have been and parents were falsely told that they were at curriculum and that’s the problem.”

The Minister said she had thorough conversations with researchers about their change in assessment.

She said she asked them "At year 8, is the assessment broadly the same level?"

She said they answered, "Yes, it’s broadly the same. It is more detailed, but it's broadly the same level, which is why we can sort of compare the old with the new..."

The Government is yet to release its version of the previous Labour Government’s draft maths curriculum.

Some educators, academics, and politicians have criticised the announced structured maths approach as not working for all students

Stanford said in response: “It’s really no different than structured literacy, it’s explicit teaching in a structured manner, mastering the basics before you move on and then making sure we’re assessing along the way to make sure that they’re on track so it’s very, very similar."

Tinetti said structured maths is a “popular sound bite".

“I’m really angry that their work that they are now saying they’re going to put in – it sounds very much like a system that will not suit our kids, we already have amazing research in our country that has happened over time that shows the difference that can happen for Māori and Pacific (students).”

Tinetti said this research informed experts who worked on the Labour Government’s reviewed curriculum, which wasn’t released before the Government changed.

On the Government’s changes to the curriculum, she said “the devil will be in the detail".

1News spoke to University of Auckland mathematics education lecturer Dr Lisa Darragh earlier this week about the Government’s maths action plan.

She said the curriculum stating what’s expected from children at each year level is an improvement.

Darragh said academics will be taking a close look at the curriculum instruction on how teachers should teach maths.

“I think it is important to have content sequenced in a sensible way and for teachers to understand what needs to be taught before something else.”

The researcher cautioned against a one size fits all approach to maths instruction.

“I always try to promote a balanced approach… sometimes you have explicit instruction, sometimes you have rich collaborative problem solving, sometimes you have maintaining your basic facts, sometimes you have applying your knowledge to sort of a rich, contextual, real-life problem.”

She said all these aspects are necessary to keep all students engaged, to make learning relevant to their lives and to ensure a stream of mathematicians continue with the subject post-school.

Darragh said grouping students by ability in maths classes needs to stop under the curriculum. She called this a consequence of the Numeracy Project professional learning and development provided to teachers between 2000 and 2009.

“There's an enormous amount of research international and more locally that shows that ability grouping has negative impacts on our attainment as a nation.

“It widens the gap between those who are achieving and those who are not achieving and so we're sending our students into high schools with these really varied capabilities,” she said.

Darragh has concerns about the quality of the implementation of the new curriculum because it’s been pushed forward to term one next year.

“Teachers are already dealing with the new structured literacy so they've got enough on their plates.”

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.