report summary - The New Zealand Initiative

This report documents the 15-year history of the Numeracy Development Project (the Numeracy Project),
a nationwide centrally devised approach for improving maths. The Numeracy Project existed officially as a
professional development (PD) programme for teachers in most primary schools in New Zealand between
2000 and 2009. It put more emphasis on teaching children a range of strategies for solving maths problems,
with greater emphasis on mental problem solving and less on written methods. Un(ac)countable investigates
maths performance over the 15 year period that the NDP has been in place.
The Numeracy Project has not led to improvements in maths. New Zealand policymakers have been
lamenting the state of maths education for over 30 years. However, maths performance did start to show
signs of improvement in the late 1990s, around the same time that many localised teacher PD programmes
for maths (that were precursors to the Numeracy Project) were in play. But maths performance has since
been in decline. While this decline has not been dramatic, it raises questions about the $70 million
investment in the Numeracy Project.
Children in the top-performing East Asian countries are not just rote learning for the tests.
Un(ac)countable busts the myth that students in the top-performing countries do better simply because they
regurgitate rote-learned knowledge for the tests. In the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS),
students in the top-performing East Asian countries typically score higher on knowing (basic maths
knowledge) than applying their knowledge and reasoning with it to solve novel problems (for instance,
Singaporean Year Five students score 629, 602, and 588, in these domains, respectively). This suggests a
relative strength in knowing the basic facts.
New Zealand students show the opposite pattern, with higher scores in applying (490) and reasoning (490)
than knowing (476). However, while New Zealand students’ relative strength is applying and reasoning,
students in the East Asian countries outperform New Zealand students in all three domains. In other words,
they have better knowledge of basic facts but they are also better at using their knowledge and strategies to
solve novel problems. The same pattern of findings is evident for Year Nine students and for 15-year-olds
in the PISA study.
It is this lack of emphasis on the basics in New Zealand that is holding children back from
developing deeper mathematical understanding. New Zealand’s National Education Monitoring
Project (NEMP), which ran from 1995 to 2010, did find improvements in elements of performance over
time, but that these improvements were constrained by declines in components of tasks that “involved
recall of facts or simple calculations”. TIMSS 2011 showed that New Zealand students spend much less
time memorising basic facts and much more time explaining answers compared to students in the top five
performing countries.
The pendulum has swung too far. While the basics (like times tables) are likely limited in use unless they
are understood conceptually, they are still important because knowing the basics off by heart helps to free
up working memory for children to learn more complex maths. And while the Ministry of Education
maintains that both basic knowledge and strategies are important, their messaging has been inconsistent.
The Ministry’s maths website states, for example, that teachers should debate whether to use the written
method at all. It is difficult to know if the Numeracy Project was the mirror or maker of anti rote-learning
attitudes. Our analysis of the language of New Zealand curriculum documents suggests there was a
pendulum swing towards strategies and away from knowledge. And as above, our report shows that children
are not spending enough time memorising the basics.
The new methods may rely too much on teachers themselves having a deep conceptual
understanding of mathematics. Researcher Jenny Young-Loveridge found low levels of maths
competency with 125 new primary school teachers in 2010. One-third could not correctly add two fractions
P: +64 4 499 0790 | info@nzinitiative.org.nz | www.nzinitiative.org.nz
together (7/18 + 1/9) (the most common mistake was adding the numerators together and the
denominators together).
Yet maths is a subject where teacher knowledge of the subject is important for student learning (as is
knowing how to represent mathematical concepts in ways that children can understand). However, aside
from the University of Otago, none of the providers of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) require students
to meet a certain level of maths proficiency in order to graduate.
Although teachers may struggle with maths, they are probably not worse than 15 years ago. YoungLoveridge’s research suggests that while primary school teachers in general seem to struggle with maths,
this is unlikely to have changed in the last 15 years. Un(ac)countable shows that teacher pay relative to other
professions like engineering, accountancy and law has remained consistent over that time. Although pay is
not everything, it will influence career decisions for those with maths skills. This suggests that declines in
maths performance are not likely linked to declining teacher maths abilities.
New Zealand teachers get a lot of training in maths, but we know little about the quality of that
training. In New Zealand, around 10-20 per cent of degree points are maths related, depending on the
ITE provider. Only two of the other 49 countries in TIMSS 2011 had more professional development (PD)
in maths for teachers. The generally low level of teacher proficiency in maths is therefore unlikely to be
due to the quantity of PD. However, we know nothing about the quality of the PD.
The lesson from the Numeracy Project is that top down change is inappropriate in the New
Zealand context. Un(ac)countable analyses the failures of the Numeracy Project in the context of a centrally
designed system laid over the top of a self-managing school system. Some key points are that:



The forerunner programmes to the Numeracy Project were likely more adaptable to local contexts. By
nature, nationwide programmes tend to be less flexible and more bureaucratic in nature.
Top down changes in a self-managing system also raise questions about who is accountable for
results: schools or the Ministry?
The $70 million central cost of the Numeracy Project does not fully account for the costs to schools.
Even if the new methods of teaching maths are better (as long as the basics are still learned), they may
be more resource intensive, requiring more teacher time and more cognitive energy on behalf of
students. It is difficult for a central agency to weigh up the direct costs and benefits that local schools
face with limited resources.
Solutions for discussion. Each of New Zealand’s 1,900 primary schools will be at different stages with
their maths programmes (many would have already started putting more emphasis back on basics) so a
central approach for improving maths is not appropriate. The report is intended to raise discussion with
schools about the importance of the basics, and to put forward some ideas for solutions for discussion and
debate.

Teachers sharing knowledge: The Investing in Educational Success (IES) policy presents an
opportunity for excellent maths teachers to share their expertise with other teachers.

A certificate of maths teaching competency: An opt-in certificate in maths teaching competency
could be developed. An organisation such as Educanz could commission a valid and objective test of
teacher maths and maths teaching knowledge (researchers have designed such tests that are predictive
of student achievement in maths). It would be demand driven rather than mandated. If such
certification is desired, it could provide a signal to principals of the maths competency of new and
established teacher applicants alike.

Off the shelf curriculum sharing: The Ministry of Education should encourage schools that have
shown excellence in maths to share their “off the shelf” curriculums with other schools.
About the author: Rose Patterson is a Research Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative working on education policy. She published three reports
on teacher quality in 2013–14 with co-author John Morris, which included a research trip to Singapore, Finland, the United Kingdom, Germany
and Canada, and published a report on school collaboration: No School is an Island in 2014. Prior to joining the Initiative, Rose taught English in
Japan, and worked as a Researcher for the Health Sponsorship Council. Rose has a Master’s degree in Psychology in child development and a
Bachelor of Commerce with a major in Marketing from the University of Otago. Rose writes regularly for the Initiative’s Insights weekly newsletter
and has made radio and television appearances on educational issues.