Hey, innumerate teacher, leave them kids alone!

Opinion: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon declared at last weekend’s National Party conference that the country faces an educational crisis. New data from the Curriculum Insights and Progress Study show that 78 percent of year 8 students are behind curriculum expectations in maths. Nearly two thirds are more than a year behind.
The PM was not wrong when he called the situation “appalling”. If it is a crisis, though, it is probably a slow-moving one. It is likely the new study has simply revealed how bad things have been for years.
In 2022, the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement, the predecessor to the Curriculum Insights and Progress Study, showed that 58 percent of year 8 students were behind curriculum expectations. At first blush, it looks as if there’s been a sharp 20 percentage point decline in just two years. However, important differences between the two studies must be considered.
The studies are based on different curricula. The National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement was based on the 2007 New Zealand curriculum, whereas its successor is based on the provisional ‘refreshed’ Te Mātaiaho curriculum, published in 2023. Te Mātaiaho provides more detail about curriculum expectations than the earlier curriculum. Had the previous assessments been set with the same level of curriculum detail as the new one, it may have shown similar results.
The picture emerging from the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement was not pretty, but with the sharper resolution provided by the Curriculum Insights and Progress Study , it looks decidedly ugly. It is clear Education Minister Erica Stanford means to do something about it, and fast. It is equally clear that fast work will be required if there is to be any hope of meeting the Government’s target of 80 percent of year 8 students meeting curriculum expectations by 2030.
The Prime Minister announced a range of measures to improve maths teaching in our primary schools. The revised maths curriculum for years 0-8 will be rolled out in 2025, a year earlier than planned. Professional development will receive a funding boost of $20 million. Students identified as falling substantially behind in semi-annual testing will be given targeted teaching. Prospective teachers will need 14 credits in maths at NCEA Level 2.
The measure likely to be most effective in the short term is the provision of workbooks for students with accompanying guidebooks for teachers. Stanford said these resources would come from a range of providers. Though they will need to be brought into line with our national curriculum, resources such as these can quickly improve student achievement in maths.
The guidebooks are essentially manuals on how to teach maths. As a short-term measure, they are necessary. In the longer term, though, they are not a substitute for improving primary teachers’ confidence and expertise in maths.
A report from the Royal Society Te Apārangi in 2021 concluded that work “supporting and enhancing teachers’ discipline and pedagogical knowledge” is necessary. The stark fact is that too many of our primary school teachers are not equipped with the knowledge or the confidence to keep students on track with the maths curriculum.
Lest I be accused of ‘teacher bashing’, none of this is teachers’ fault. Many did not receive a solid maths education at school. Moreover, the amount of time dedicated to maths knowledge and teaching in university teacher education programmes – which produce about 90 percent of New Zealand’s teachers – is woefully inadequate. Teachers need much better preparation to bring the maths curriculum to life in our classrooms.
The professional development and the requirement for new teachers to have NCEA Level 2 credits in maths will help, but they will not be enough on their own. Spread over 150,000 teachers, $20m will not go that far and though the NCEA requirement will certainly be better than the status quo, it is not an especially high bar.
The revised curriculum will be carefully sequenced to ensure that maths teaching follows a logical and rigorous progression. And whatever critics may say about Stanford’s requirement for twice yearly testing, early identification of students struggling with maths is essential if they are to have any chance of catching up. Though the new curriculum can contribute to a decisive improvement, its success depends on teachers’ ability to deliver it.
The only durable solution will be to improve the preparation for maths teaching in teacher education programmes. They must include more focus on the teaching of maths. Prospective teachers should not be able to graduate without demonstrating their proficiency in teaching the subject. Training far more specialist maths teachers for primary schools would also be beneficial.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Education are right to approach the primary school maths situation with urgency. Unfortunately, however, there is no quick fix for the dismal state of maths achievement in many of our primary schools.
The measures announced by the Prime Minister will provide necessary life support for primary maths teaching, but the road to recovery will be long. Paying serious attention to teacher education would demonstrate that the Government is in it for the long haul.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative, a business-funded think-tank. Its members are listed on its website here. He was also the chair of a Ministerial Advisory Group to review drafts of the refreshed English and maths learning areas in the New Zealand curriculum.