“Groundbreaking” maths results questioned by educators

A maths acceleration trial for intermediate students has resulted in “groundbreaking” results, claims Education Minister Erica Stanford – but educators aren’t convinced.  

In a press release, Stanford said participating students made one to two years maths progress on average in just 12 weeks. 

The trial involved 1500 intermediate aged students who were a year or more behind expected standards for their age group. These students received targeted small-group teaching up to four times a week, either in-person, online, or a hybrid of the two. After 12 weeks, students in the in-person trial made around two years’ progress, and students receiving online tutoring made a year’s progress.  

Read the latest print edition of School News online HERE.

Over 12 weeks, content was broken into four key learning areas, identified to develop key maths skills. Results were based on e-asTTle scores taken at baseline, after the 12-week programme, and again at 24 weeks.  

“Groundbreaking maths gains in just 12 weeks show the Government’s reforms to raise student achievement are already delivering for students who need it most,” said Stanford.  

Stanford also claimed that under the new curriculum changes and teaching requirements, students who did not participate in the trial also made a full year’s progress in 12 weeks. 

There will now be a second phase of the maths tutoring trial rolled out nationwide, with around 13 000 students taking part in Term One next year.

Related School News article: Maths educator Professor Marta Civil on fostering participation – SchoolNews – New Zealand  

Maths experts unconvinced  

Key education figures have questioned the results in the wake of the announcement.  

Jodie Hunter, lecturer with the Institute of Education at Massey University, called the conclusions presented in the results “problematic”, though she was supportive of the extra maths tutoring.  

“It would be very surprising if children didn’t make progress if they’re having four small group tutoring sessions each week for 12 weeks. Of course children are going to make progress… but I’m arguing against these claims that we’ve solved everything and that these children are making one to two years progress.”  

Hunter elaborated that number concepts seemed to be the focus of the trial and test, however algebra, geometry, measurement, probability and statistics information was missing, so the trial was only focused on one out of six areas of mathematics. Additionally, Hunter points out that e-asTTle was a tool developed for the 2007 curriculum.  

“The previous [sic] 2008 curriculum has significantly lower expectations than what the new curriculum has, and then this makes me question things. For example, when we have had claims of the maths crisis… that was tested against the new curriculum.  

“Now we’re having claims that everything is being solved and… these interventions are having amazing results, we’re testing arguably against the previous curriculum.” 

Leanne Otene, President of the New Zealand Principals’ Federation (NZPF) has also spoken out against the claims made by Stanford.  

“I do not deny that this mathematics intervention will have a positive impact – no teacher will argue with that,” says Otene. 

“Extra tuition time, one-on-one attention and lower class ratios – we know that every child taught maths under those conditions will absolutely benefit. 

“But at the end of the day, what the Government is funding is just an intervention. It won’t support maths teachers’ professional learning and development,” she says. 

Otene says it appears that participants were given the same test at each interval, which could lead to a recall effect boosting scores rather than long-term learning.  

“It’s pretty clear to me that the trial was designed to present ‘ground-breaking’ results, not to reflect the true nature of the students’ learning.” 

Related School News article: Changes to maths curriculum come into effect – SchoolNews – New Zealand

Despite concerns of exaggerated results, Otene says NZPF is supportive of the attempt to improve maths learning.  

“It is our view that interventions are needed alongside specialist maths professional learning and development (PLD). This combination would equip teachers with accelerated practices to meet the specific needs of all students, not just in year 7 and 8,” she says. 

Another educator, writing for the Aotearoa Educators Collective (AEC), noted that the headline seems to have come before the result, with the final report due in December, meaning the Government is scaling up the programme based on incomplete evidence. The author also questions the validity and reliability of the test results based on available public information, and raises questions about the trial’s design. However, based on available information the author concedes that:  

“We can still responsibly say that all the in-person trial participants made real progress… but that’s all we can say with confidence at this point based on the limited summary data we have been shown. Promising, but certainly not groundbreaking, and not a reversal of ‘decades of decline.’”