Analysis: Two months after the education minister’s flagship curriculum advisory group advocated for a science of learning-based approach to maths, Erica Stanford has unveiled a plan to forge ahead with a new maths curriculum. And she’s branding it ＆structured maths’.

The problem: experts say structured maths doesn’t exist.

Leading experts in maths education have told Newsroom the Government’s new curriculum, which will be rolled out for years 0-8 at the start of next year, will likely take children back, further widening the equity gap. Meanwhile, they are raising questions about who has been involved in developing the new curriculum, the lack of genuine consultation, and the rushed implementation.

Newsroom understands the draft curriculum is a significant shift from what was developed under the previous government.

Moreover, Stanford’s announcement includes the nationwide rollout of guide materials for teachers and workbooks for students from a commercial provider. This has led to questions about the openness of the government procurement process, and whether there will be any true consultation over the draft curriculum in the next five months if the ministry is already in negotiations to buy a set textbook.

When the curriculum advisory group released its report in June, Massey University professor of mathematics education - and former classroom teacher - Jodie Hunter told Newsroom there was a lack of evidence to support the group’s recommended approach.

Hunter decried the group’s calls to prioritise maths strategies over concepts, and the lack of relevant qualifications and experience among the group’s members.

At the time, she said structured maths did not exist and that structured approaches - such as Prime Maths (a Scholastic product) used by some schools in Singapore - would ※absolutely be a huge failure§ if it were to be transplanted to New Zealand.

On Tuesday, Hunter said structured maths ※still doesn’t exist§.

So, Newsroom asked the minister to explain structured maths.

※Structured maths is based on the science of learning, which is overarching all of our curricular areas. And it’s really no different to structured literacy,§ she said.

※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.§

Hunter said she - and maths education experts from all universities offering initial teacher education - believed the Government’s approach was unfounded.

※Where’s the research evidence for this? Because there is none. There’s no research evidence to say that this is effective. It’s not being used in any other country. It’s completely bizarre,§ she said.

※It’s really concerning to have a Government, which is ramming through changes that aren’t based on research, aren’t based on evidence, aren’t based on anything other than what appears to be the opinion of the minister, who doesn’t have an educational background.§

Newsroom understands Stanford’s proposed changes move further towards a knowledge-based, rote learning approach, with the ※I do, we do, you do§ model of teaching. This was a concept developed in the 1950s, where the teacher showed the children how to do something, they practised together, then the children practised alone.

And, crucially, Stanford said the curriculum and how it would be taught was underpinned by the science of learning.

The section of the curriculum advisory group’s report that outlined the evidence underpinning this approach to maths was brief, compared with the section on structured literacy, and included no references to maths education research.

※The research base supporting science-of-learning-based teaching of maths is weaker than that supporting early literacy,§ the group’s report said.

The open-ended nature of maths learning made it difficult to establish general theories of teaching and learning such as those that existed for early literacy.?

Some of the evidence that did exist suffered from flaws such as small and unrepresentative samples.

※The implications of the science of learning for maths, and subject English are, therefore, more general than specific,§ the report said.

The group went on to say that the science of learning - that is the theories of cognitive load, working memory and schema, and the importance of frequent corrective feedback - were nonetheless applicable across the span of the maths curriculum.?

In an interview with RNZ this week, Stanford said she believed the group’s comments on the evidence regarding maths and the science of learning had been misrepresented.?

The education minister said though there wasn’t a programme like structured literacy underpinning this approach to maths, she was confident in her direction based on ※decades of cognitive research on how the brain learns§.

However, a 2021 evidence and practice review, which looked at the available studies regarding the science of learning and cognitive science in education, found the same thing.

※The evidence for the application of cognitive science principles in everyday classroom conditions (applied cognitive science) is limited, with uncertainties and gaps about the applicability of specific principles across subjects and age ranges,§ it said.

This was considered to be the most comprehensive review undertaken of the evidence for this approach to teaching. Notably, the authors stated that classroom trial literature was yet to reach a point to enable the impact to be assessed across subjects and contexts.

Hunter said this theory had been tested successfully in labs; in controlled environments, not in classrooms.

※There’s much more that we don’t know about this than we do know about this. So, is that really what we want to base our education system on?§

＆Total system failure’

The impetus for these fast and furious changes seem to be a new set of data that found just 22 percent of year 8 students were achieving at the level required by the new curriculum.

On Sunday, at the National Party annual conference, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon brandished the number, saying this result was ※shocking but probably not surprising§ and was emblematic of a ※total system failure§.

Earlier this year the Education Review Office published a report looking at early learning in maths, which noted the percentage of pupils at the expected level was dropping from 82 percent in year 4 to 42 percent in year 8.

Though successive studies have identified a problem with achievement in maths, the 22 percent figure was staggeringly low.

Using the figure as a jumping off point, the Prime Minister announced the Government’s new Make It Count scheme, which included the maths curriculum rollout from 2025, the new teacher workbooks, $20 million for professional development, lifting maths entry requirements for new teachers, and twice yearly assessments for maths in primary school.

Then on Monday, Stanford outlined the steps the Ministry of Education, Education Review Office and Teaching Council would be taking to improve oversight of schools and teacher training.

※We cannot allow the decline in achievement to continue,§ she said.

※These results confirm the need for urgent action to tackle New Zealand’s maths achievement problem.§

However, it fast became clear that the 22 percent figure used to justify the hasty implementation of the new curriculum wasn’t what it seemed.

The figure came from the Curriculum Insights report from Otago University. It revealed the results of an assessment carried out in term four of 2023 which were provisionally benchmarked against a 2023 draft version of the new curriculum statement on maths - a new curriculum that was developed by the Labour government to be introduced in 2026.

Essentially, the children were measured against new standards which had not yet been introduced and a curriculum they had not yet been studying.

Dr Charles Darr, one of the study authors, said the results showed a change in curriculum and a new benchmarking process rather than a change in achievement.

Now the Government was being criticised for not comparing apples with apples.

The original implementation of the refreshed curriculum was to begin in 2026, with a logical expectation that, as students moved through the school years, their maths achievement would be advancing. Year 1 students starting with the refreshed curriculum in 2026 would be in year 8 in 2033, Hunter said.

She also said the suggestion that one in five students were working at the appropriate curriculum level in year 8 seemed questionable given it contradicted previous national and international studies, including NMSSA, TIMSS, and PISA, which all showed higher levels of achievement.

Meanwhile, Labour education spokesperson Jan Tinetti called the Government’s use of that data ※manipulation§.

※This Government has manipulated data to justify their own crisis ＃ they’ve shifted the goal posts on the assessments, they have assessed kids against material that they haven’t learnt,§ she said.

※Effectively you’re measuring kids against something that they’ve never, ever been taught. That is manipulation ＃ It’s a very populist statement to be able to make, the statement that’s going to land in people’s heads is the 22 percent - it’s an unfair judgment of where our kids are at.§

But Stanford defended the use of the new measurement. She said it didn’t mean students’ maths competency had dropped further, but she believed it was the most accurate way to measure achievement in maths.

※The new curriculum is internationally benchmarked. It’s year by year, and it’s detailed, so there’s a level of detail in the new curriculum we haven’t had before,§ she said.

※The last government were the ones who actually ordered this assessment and good on them, and it’s given us some very sobering data. Those children at year 8 - where they should be at year 8 - 80 percent of them aren’t there.§