New Education Minister starts her 100 Day Plan

On Tuesday the new Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, released her

First steps of 100 day for education: removing distractions and teaching the basics brilliantly press release.  Naturally every new government loves to stamp their mark on the education sector very early on.  And this does.

One hour a day....

First up, Minister Stanford states:

“We have an aspirational target to get 80 per cent of our kids to curriculum by the time they finish intermediate, to set them up for success so they can live the life they want.

“Starting from Term 1 2024, all students in Years 0 – 8 will be taught reading, writing and maths for an average of one hour a day in each subject.

“We’re seeing that many schools are already doing this well, but this change is about having time dedicated to teaching reading, writing and maths in a purposeful and deliberate way consistently across New Zealand.

“The Ministry of Education will provide guidance and support to assist schools with the implementation of these changes.”

This has been communicated by the MOE in the School Leaders Bulletin Issue 169 sent out on December 12th.  The MOE stated:

Improving outcomes in reading, writing, and maths (or pānui, tuhituhi and pāngarau) is a priority for the Government. The Government will ask schools with students Years 0 to 8 to spend an average of an hour a day teaching reading, writing, and maths (or pānui, tuhituhi and pāngarau).

We know many of you are already doing this teaching, so there may not be a big change for you. 

This policy will safeguard explicit teaching time for reading, writing and maths (or pānui, tuhituhi and pāngarau). The expectation is that, on average, schools will be doing five hours a week of maths (pāngarau) and 10 hours a week of reading and writing (pānui and tuhituhi). 

There are some issues I can see with this, but that is for another post.  

Come again!  What is this?

But this, further down in the Minister's press release raised my hackles:

Kura with students in Years 0 – 8, run by a specified kura board, will have until Term 3 2024 for implementation of the requirement for one hour a day of each of reading, writing and maths, to enable consultation.

Specialist schools will have an extended 12 month deadline until Term 1 2025 to ensure the requirement for one hour a day of each of reading, writing and maths best supports teaching and learning for their students.

Specialist schools?  Are we talking about the schools that cater for students who have ORS funding because they have extra special learning needs?  I had flashbacks to when I was required to do National Standards OTJs in reading, writing and maths for a Year 6 child with Downs Syndrome who was not even accessing Level 1 of the New Zealand Curriculum.

The cell phone ban.  🙄

Then there is the policy for no student cell phones in schools - which I consider most schools can already make this decision effectively for themselves and completely ignores that for many students this is the only device they can access for learning.  Here is what Erica Stanford wrote.

“New Zealand schools and overseas jurisdictions that have already imposed restrictions on cellphones in the classroom have reported better concentration and engagement in class, and an improvement in student achievement and wellbeing.

“Effective from Term 2 2024, students will need to put their cellphone away for the day and schools will be required to have a cellphone policy in place by then.

“While the policy officially takes effect from Term 2 2024, it is our expectation that most schools will implement the policy from Term 1.

“The implementation and enforcement of the policy will be at the discretion of individual schools to ensure it is implemented effectively for their school community. Options that have been successfully used in some schools include having students hand in their cellphones before class or leaving them in their lockers or bags for the day. Exemptions will be allowed for students with health conditions or in special learning circumstances."

I am glad there will be an exemption for students with health conditions.  I spend a bit of time in classes in my local intermediate school.  All students are required to hand in their phones at the beginning of the school day.  The only students who are exempt have diabetes and the phone monitors their blood sugar and need for insulin through a very expensive special patch on their arm that eliminates the need to use other more traditional measures.

The School Leaders Bulletin said:

Both international and local evidence shows that cellphones can be a distraction from learning during class time, as well as reducing important face to face interaction during school breaks. A UNESCO report published in July describes the move towards cellphones being away for the school day as supporting addressing issues of classroom disruption, improving learning and helping protect children from cyberbullying. 

Smartphones in school? Only when they clearly support learning – UNESCO 26 July 2023

The expectation of our new coalition Government is that you are ready to implement a cellphone policy that has cellphones ‘away for the day’ as soon as possible in Term 1 2024.

You can find examples of how some schools have managed implementing this policy here: 

Phones away for the day – Ministry of Education 

From now until the beginning of Term 1 2024, we will be providing examples of policy practice that you may choose to consult on and adapt for your community. These will be added to the web page.

The Government’s intention is to have the regulations for this policy in place before Christmas. For those schools that have an existing cellphone policy in place there may be very little to do. Others will need to begin the process of implementing a new cellphone policy in their school community. We will provide a small number of implementation examples to support the process of policy design and implementation. 

Subject to the regulations being in place, there will be some flexibility in how you implement the policy based on your circumstances and the needs of learners and their families. For example, an exemption could be agreed where a student requires a phone to support their health or learning needs.

The Ministerial Advisory Group is announced.

But the next part concerns me the most.  And that is the announcement of who would be on the Ministerial Advisory Group to review the primary school English, maths and statistics curricula.  Ms Stanford said of this group:

“The intention for the review of the English and maths curricula is not to start again, but to build on the work that has already been done and strengthen this,” says Erica Stanford.

“The aim is to ensure teachers have the clarity and tools needed to teach these core subjects brilliantly. Work will be done in the first half of 2024, ready for implementation in 2025.

“We will make sure schools are teaching the basics brilliantly, so every child has the opportunity to succeed – in school and beyond.”

This echoes what was said in the School Leaders Bulletin.

But what does concern me is who is on the group, their links to other organisations and how many of them, if not all, were critical of the direction of the previous government's education policies and direction.

Dr Michael Johnston (Chair)   

Michael is a cognitive psychologist with experience in a variety of roles across the education sector. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative where he leads the workstream on education. Michael has held academic positions at the University of Melbourne and Victoria University of Wellington, where he was Associate Dean (Academic) in the Faculty of Education. He has published research on human cognition, literacy acquisition and educational assessment. Prior to his time at Victoria, Michael was the Senior Statistician at the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, where he developed technical processes for NCEA, including the grade score marking system for external examinations. He contributed to Ministry of Education policy work for the NCEA literacy and numeracy co-requisites and designed the framework for the Progress and Consistency assessment tool. He is a current member of NZQA’s Technical Overview Group on Assessment.

So my concerns are as follows:

• is part of the New Zealand Initiative, a right wing think tank which is no fan of a free quality public education system.
• is not actually a teacher - he is a statistician - so has no idea about how teaching is done in primary.
• it says he contributed to MOE policy work for NCEA - but this Advisory group is focused on the primary curriculum.

Dr. Audrey Tan   

Audrey is a mathematics educator with more than 20 years' experience helping primary and secondary school students to achieve significantly improved outcomes.  With a deep belief that everyone can learn maths, Audrey has, for many years, advocated a more pragmatic approach to teaching maths in primary schools.  Her professional learning and development for educators in a school setting focuses on effective teaching practices that are supported by the cognitive science of learning to raise both teacher confidence and student achievement. Audrey holds a B.Sc. Honours degree in Mathematics from the University of Canterbury and a Ph.D. in Pure Mathematics from the University of Cambridge.  She was a member of the NCEA Numeracy Subject Expert Group and has contributed to the New Zealand curriculum refresh as a Subject Matter Expert.

My concerns with this choice:

• Dr Tan has often been in the media over the last few years publicly denigrating our New Zealand Mathematics and Statistics Curriculum and how it is taught, but to be fair, she did so under the previous National led government too.

Barbara Ala’alatoa  

Barbara is a New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) refresh Coherence Group member for the New Zealand curriculum refresh project. She is the former Principal of Sylvia Park School and is currently an Education Consultant. Prior to this, she worked as a lecturer and senior lecturer at Auckland College of Education and as a primary school teacher. She has also chaired the National Ministerial Leadership and Teaching Quality Workstream and been a member of the National Workforce Policy Advisory Group and National Curriculum Advisory Group which had a real focus on progress and achievement and building leader and teacher capability. She has chaired the Boards of Te Kura (2019 to 2022) and Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (2015 to 2019) and was on the Independent Taskforce on the Review of Tomorrow’s Schools. Her current role is chair of Ako Mātātupu Teach First NZ.

I'll just refresh your memory of Ms Ala'alatoa:

• Hekia Parata's university flatmate.
• Ms Ala'alatoa was the principal at Sylvia Park School the day former PM John Key asked Hekia Parata to ring around to find out about kids going to school without lunch.
• she was the founding Chair of EDUCANZ, which was controversially set up in opposition to 99% of submission, so has a history of being appointed by National Education Ministers to organisations.

Dr Christine Braid   

Christine is a facilitator at the Institute of Education, Massey University with expertise in junior reading. She contributed to the New Zealand curriculum refresh specifically on literacy and is currently leading the Literacy@Massey training programme, where she works with teachers across New Zealand to ensure they have the knowledge and skills to significantly improve children’s literacy outcomes. She has a background as a primary school teacher and literacy facilitator, and more recently as an educational researcher in the area of literacy. She was part of the Massey University Early Literacy Research Project and lead facilitator on the Ministry of Education contract for teacher training in TEPiL.

I know one of Dr Christine Braid's extended family members, and she assures me that Christine is a top person who upholds the rights of all rangatahi and has spent years doing substantial research regarding how teachers influence reading outcomes for beginning readers.  Another friend of mine has received some solid PLD from Dr Braid.  However, she has been published by the New Zealand Institute too, which gives me concern, but her relative informs me that does not mean Dr Braid is aligned with them.

Professor Elizabeth Rata  

Professor Elizabeth Rata is a sociologist of education in the School of Critical Studies, Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Auckland. She is Director of the Knowledge in Education Research Unit (KERU) and leads the Knowledge Rich School Project which focuses on national curriculum design.

Professor Rata is somewhat controversial.  It was a post on BlueSky by Morgan Godfrey that first alerted me to this appointment and the fact this Ministerial Advisory Group was announced.  Prof Rata was very involved in the early set up of kura kaupapa, but has since been described as the female Don Brash when it comes to things Māori - and I am being very polite with that description.  She does have associations with Hobson's Pledge, the New Zealand Initiative and is one of the Listener Seven.  It is amazing what a Google search finds.  I also heard she believes the curriculum should be ten pieces of knowledge.  A few people reached out to me over her, and they had nothing complimentary to say, so I won't repeat it.  I'm really perplexed as to why Prof Rata was appointed.

 

Associate Professor Fiona Ell   

Fiona is an Associate Professor in School of Curriculum Pedagogy, University of Auckland. She is a Lead subject matter expert for the Mathematics and Statistics writing team for the New Zealand curriculum refresh. Fiona was a member of the Royal Society Expert Panel on Mathematics Education from January to July 2021. She undertakes research in the area of mathematics education and prepares teachers to teach primary level mathematics and statistics.

Associate Professor Ell is also a member of the Governing Council of the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand as the Teacher Educatior's Representative.  Along with Distinguished Professor Gaven Martin (see below), Associate Professor Ell has been a member of the Royal Society Te Apārangi Expert Advisory Panel on Mathematics and Statistics convened between January and June 2021 with a brief to provide advice to the Ministry of Education on the English-medium Mathematics and Statistics curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand and I think it makes sense to have someone who has done this work be part of this Advisory Group.

Distinguished Professor Gaven Martin   

Gaven is a Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at Massey University, and Chair of the New Zealand Mathematical Research Institute. He is the former head of the New Zealand Institute for Advanced Study and chaired the Royal Society Te Apārangi Royal Society Panel 2021 providing advice to the Ministry of Education on refreshing the mathematics and statistics learning area of the New Zealand Curriculum. The Royal Society’s report was titled "Pāngarau Mathematics and Tauanga Statistics in Aotearoa New Zealand".

Distinguished Professor Gaven Martin was involved with the Expert Advisory panel in 2021.  He has spoken out in the media over the years for improvements in maths teaching.

Dr Helen Walls   

Helen is a professional learning facilitator and researcher specialising in the teaching of writing, structured literacy, school-wide data analysis, formative assessment and feedback. She has 20 years’ experience working in schools. Helen assists schools to plan effective programmes which are closely aligned with student needs. She is passionate about supporting teachers, sharing evidence-based methods that will engage with every student.

Dr Walls has worked with Dr Braid.  She is a teacher, professional learning facilitator and an educational researcher with an expertise in writing, known on Facebook as The Writing Teacher.

Iain Taylor   

Iain is an experienced Principal and educational leader. For the last 15 years he has led Manurewa Intermediate School as Principal. In this role he has worked to improve student attendance and achievement and was recognised for his service in 2017 as recipient of the Prime Minister’s Supreme Educational Excellence Award. Outside the classroom, Iain has led the New Zealand Principals’ Federation as their president and worked on the ERO Advisory Board.

This is a bit of a mixed bag.

• as the NZPF president, Iain Taylor condemned the Charter School model.
• he was one of the principals/schools rung by Hekia Parata to ask about kids having lunch or not on that infamous day, like Barbara Ala'alatoa.  (I think the other school in Ruatoria had a family connection to Ms Parata).
• he was inclined towards National Standards.
• he has hosted new PM Christopher Mark Luxon at least twice - Luxon visited Manurewa Intermediate a year ago and more recently with Minister Stanford.

In this second video, Iain Taylor is a bit dubious about Minister Stanford's goal to have 80% of Year 8 students "at curriculum" as they leave their intermediate years.  

As an aside, "at curriculum" is not a term we use in education the way Ms Stanford uses it and it really annoys me that she uses it.

Professor James Chapman   

James is an Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Massey University.  His research interests include literacy learning difficulties, cognitive-motivational factors associated with low achievement, and learning disabilities Reading Recovery. James is an experienced researcher and university teacher based at Massey University. As well as having over 150 publications in peer-reviewed journals and books on learning disabilities, literacy learning issues, dyslexia/literacy difficulties, and cognitive motivation factors in learning and achievement, James has been an advisor for the University of Canterbury Better Start Literacy Approach research and was a member of the Ministry of Education Literacy Experts Group.

Prof James Chapman is a big fan of structured literacy, and not so much of Marie Clay and Reading Recovery.  But, hey, research moves on.

Lorraine Taylor   

Lorraine is an experienced Primary School Principal and mentor /coach for other principals. She is currently the principal of Silverstream School Upper Hutt after serving in principal roles in three Rotorua primary schools. Lorraine has been involved in Ministry of Education work for a number of years, notably in the development and testing for the Progress and Consistency Tool (PaCT).

Lorraine Taylor is an unknown element to me.  But the fact she is an advocate for the development of PaCT gives me a moment to pause, especially since National's last Minister of Education had planned to elevate PaCT and make it compulsory as part of their 2017 education manifesto.

Dr. Melissa Derby   

Melissa is a Senior Lecturer teaching early literacy and human development at the University of Waikato. She is the co-Director of the Early Years Research Centre, hosted by the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research at the University of Waikato. Melissa completed her PhD in Education at the University of Canterbury, and her project was a part of A Better Start National Science Challenge. Her primary area of research is in early literacy, in particular exploring the role of whānau in fostering foundational literacy skills.

Dr Derby seems to be the only Māori voice on this panel, however, I was somewhat concerned when I google Dr Derby to see:

• she has been interviewed several times by Reality Check Radio (home of the anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorist, the Hobson Pledgers and so much more).
• she is a governing member of the Free Speech Union.
• she may be a Posie Parker supporter and is highly likely to be anti-trans. *
• she appears to be a person who does not think socio-economic or cultural deprivation impacts educational achievement.

But I'll let you form your own judgement from these videos Dr Derby has done for the Common Room NZ, which is, as described by The Spinoff, a right wing media organisation focused on unpacking the big ideas.

I think these videos clearly illustrate Dr Derby's values and beliefs.  While thought provoking and presented in a very reasonable manner, I was still speechless that she said what she said.

Final thoughts...

So some members of the Ministerial Advisory Group raise more concerns than others.  I am concerned there is no truly strong Māori voices and that there is not one Pasifika voice in this group.  I am concerned that there is a strong element of the New Zealand Initiative and possibly more National/ACT aligned members of this Advisory Group.

It remains to see what they will recommend.  The ink is barely dry on the Curriculum Refresh and school leadership and teaching teams are still getting their heads around it... so of course, like when the New Zealand Curriculum was about to bed in in 2009, National is upsetting the apple cart completely.

* This is not included to encourage people to dox anyone - I highly disapprove of doxxing.  In fact, it is to inform that this is found by a simple Google search which brought up Dr Derby's X post "likes" and who she has supported in her role at the Free Speech Union.

Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor.

The ink is not yet dry on the near three week old coalition agreement between the National, ACT and New Zealand First, yet this new government has been beset with protest action across the country.  On the day Parliament resumed, Tuesday 5 December, and all the MPs would be sworn in, iwi with support from Te Pāti Māori, had mobilised thousands of New Zealanders to protest in many towns and cities across the motu.

What was the new Prime Minister Christoper Mark Luxon's response?

"I think it's pretty unfair to be honest, I think the reality is we're in government for a week, we are going to get things going - and for Māori and for non-Māori - and that's what our focus is going to be."

Yet when one looks at the new coalition government's coalition agreement, it appears to be a laundry list of taking things away from Māori as well as repealing everything the former Labour government put in place - including legislation passed when New Zealand First was in coalition with Labour between 2017 and 2020.

So what in the coalition agreement sparked this protest?

• the Māori Health Authority to be abolished.
• co-governance to be removed from the delivery of public services.
• government agency names will be required to be primarily in English.
• a Treaty Principles Bill, based on existing ACT policy, to be introduced.
• rewriting existing legislation to make mentions of the principles of the Treaty more specific.

And that is just the tip of the ice berg.

To boot, it emerged on Wednesday the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, was seeking advice on how to disestablish bonuses (which are actually negotiated allowances in Individual and Collective Agreements) for public servants who are proficient in te reo Māori.  These public servant provide something extra to their agency colleagues may not be able to provide, which is why they receive the allowance - so it really does look like a blatant attack on te reo speakers by the new government when they say such things.

On that Tuesday, ACT party leader (and Deputy Prime Minister in waiting for 18 months) David Seymour claimed that the protest focus was unclear, which demonstrated Mr Seymour truly can not read the room, because there was a clear message from the protest:

"This national protest is in direct response to the government changes that seek to rapidly dismantle three generations worth of work under an agenda that blatantly disregards the place of Māori in Aotearoa and looks to marginalise us as Tangata Whenua," the pānui said.

It was not just Māori New Zealanders who attended the protests on that Tuesday.  A cross section of New Zealand society who value Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te reo Māori also joined those protests on Tuesday 5 December.  I even heard an RNZ reporter say they had met someone visiting from Ireland who came to the protest out at Hobsonville in West Auckland to tautoko the kaupapa.

This week there have also been protests against the repealing of the Smokefree Act and the Fair Pay Agreements Act, as well as two large marches on Sunday calling for the government to call for a ceasefire in Gaza.

And this brings me to why I have called this post "Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor".

I have not made a post for nearly three years.  Have I always been happy in the last three years with events or government actions?  Hell no, and I supported the previous government.  However, I did not feel the absolute disgust and abhorrence I feel towards the actions of this new government.  I can not "give them a chance" because I can see they are undoing everything that evidence shows we need.  

So I can not be silent in the face of injustice.  I will not be complicit with the oppressor.

This quote, "The oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed" also speaks to me because I see Māori in the new government become complicit, being accomplices to the detriment of all Māori.

Dr Shane Reti, a medical doctor, a GP, the new Minister of Health, is complicit in his silence over the repeal of the Smokefree Act, considering the huge percentage of Māori, especially in Northland, who smoke and the opposition of his fellow health professionals to repealing the Smokefree Act.  He has earned the moniker of Dr Ciggareti.  Dr Reti will be an accomplice in the demolition ot the Māori Health Authority - explicitly set up to redress the fact that Māori are not on the right side of any health statistic.

Tama Potaka, the new Minister for Māori Crown Relations, Māori Development, Whānau Ora and for Conservation as well as Associate Minister for Housing with Social Housing being his delegation, is also complicit in his silence against the diminishment of te reo Māori by this new government, the attacks on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, disposal of co-governance, and more. 

Matua Winston Peters and Shane Jones have not covered themselves in glory at all during Question Time since the House resumed.

There are other Māori members of the government scattered through ACT and New Zealand First.  New Associate Health Minister Casey Costello is a founding member of the group Hobson's Pledge who oppose pretty much everything Māori and part of the Tax Payers Union (not a union) who are sponsored by British American Tabacco.  None of them are standing up against these measures.  They too are complicit.  They too are accomplices.

A former MP recently posted on X (formerly known as Twitter): Two of these words wasn't used today Kaupapa, Kukupa and Kupapa. #Reo  My response was there are a few kupapa within this government.  To be a kupapa is to be complicit, to be an accomplice.

This quote, "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" explains the new government.

Back when Pākehā first came to New Zealand, the Māori were the owners of the land, the economic powerhouse, the most educated.  But then colonialism happened, pushing Māori of their land, destroying their economic base, pushing them to the land that was not so prosperous and healthy, forcing urbanisation alongside punishing children who used te reo and alienating generations of Māori from their hāpu and marae.

Fifty-one years ago, on September 14 1972, a group of Māori stood on the steps of Parliament to reclaim their right to te reo Māori.  The land march by the great Dame Whina Cooper followed in 1975, the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, then Bastian Point.  Kohanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa were established by iwi.  Te reo Māori was made an offical language of New Zealand in 1987.  The first Treaty settlement happened with Tainui in 1992.  And so much more has happened since then to advance the growth of te reo Māori and address breaches to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and more.

But all these advances threaten some sectors of society.  It threatens those who currently hold the land, who currently have the economic power.  In 2023 they spoke with their cheque books and funded the National, ACT and New Zealand First parties, as well as the astroturf groups associated with the Tax Payers Union (not an actual union).  And enough New Zealanders believed and voted.

Now we are stuck with the Circus Coalition and the three clowns at the top.

Christopher Mark Luxon* claims he will unite New Zealand.  But the ink is not even dry on his coalition deal, it hasn't quite been three weeks and protestors are not willing to be complicit with his government's oppression.

References:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/503955/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-says-maori-protests-against-government-pretty-unfair

https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/11/24/luxon-coalition-national-act-nz-first-peters/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/504003/te-reo-maori-govt-seeks-to-halt-extra-pay-for-public-servants-fluent-in-the-language

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/503892/te-pati-maori-calls-for-nationwide-protest-against-government-s-co-governance-policies#:~:text=%22This%20national%20protest%20is%20in,Whenua%2C%22%20the%20p%C4%81nui%20said.

https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/11/14/the-nz-first-mp-picked-for-a-big-future/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/496933/astroturf-accusations-over-we-belong-website-run-by-anti-co-governance-group

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/439960/ex-act-staffer-grant-mclachlan-says-party-created-fake-grassroots-groups

Notes:

* I will be using Christopher Mark Luxon's full name because he is a naughty child in my eyes.

I am back and I have more to say.
 

My two cents on the student achievement "failure" in maths and science

On Tuesday morning I was awoken at the beach by the dulcet tones of forestry workers cutting down trees at 4:30am, so my Tuesday doomscrolling started quite early. 

The first thing I came across after 6:00am was an article on RNZ about the Principals Federation writing a letter to the Secretary of Education, Iona Holsted, at the Ministery of Education entitled Principals challenge Education Ministry over student failure. 

The Principals Federation says achievement in maths and science in particular should be ringing alarm bells and schools need more direction on what they should be teaching and the best ways to teach it. 

In a letter to the secretary for education, Iona Holsted, the federation's president, Perry Rush, said New Zealand's falling scores had not provoked an urgent response and the lack of "thought leadership" was a serious weakness. 

Holsted responded with a letter that said the Ministry of Education (MOE) was already working on the problems the federation raised and schools already had the ability, and the funding for teacher training, to change how they taught. 

You can hear Perry Rush of the Principals Federation speak to Corin Dann on Morning Report on Tuesday 2 February here and you can hear the response from Pauline Cleaver from the Ministry of Education on Morning Report here.

This follows on from the release of the latest results from the TIMMS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) in December (see here) where Scores for New Zealand nine and 13-year-olds fell in both maths and science in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, with the 13-year-olds recording their worst results ever - 482 for maths and 499 for science.

Before that, in late November, the latest data from the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement (NMSSA) run by the University of Otago and the Council for Educational Research shows there has been no real increase in achievement in reading, writing and mathematics since the study started in 2012 and that Year 4 boys in high decile schools were doing worse in writing than previously.  Read more here.

Naturally, this is right up my alley and I have a lot of thoughts on this.  And I immediately set about tweeting about this and sharing with my teaching colleagues on Facebook.

Principals challenge Education Ministry over student failure.

Perry Rush has proposed some big provocations about where things are lacking in our sector when it comes to student achievement. #NZBFC630 #edchatNZ #disruptEDhttps://t.co/yXroXMythX

— Melanie D. (@melulater) February 1, 2021

This was my follow up tweet to John Gerritson, the reporter on the education beat for RNZ.

Hi John, I found this very interesting. I've left a big comment on the RNZ fb link, but to add to that, I feel many schools fail in science due to inquiry learning. In my opinion, inquiry learning is a fluffy load of bullshit below Y7. #NZBFC630 #edchatNZ #DisruptED

— Melanie D. (@melulater) February 1, 2021

I followed that tweet up with the following:  I believe that Y1-6 teachers should do proper unit studies on butterfly life cycles, floating and sinking, kitchen chemistry and the like in science, as well as in social studies, health & technology. Give kids knowledge to hang further inquiry on.

By doing this we teach kids basic scientific knowledge and processes. We better guide questioning and help them build the inquiry skills they are more capable to use from Y7, with knowledge and experience. We could even start guiding Y5/6 kids in term 4 with their own mini-inquiries for something they learned during the year they want to extend on. (Apparently, according to someone on Facebook, this is how IB do it. So I guess someone researched what I figured out from experience).

And these statements will upset the apple cart. I've been saying it at my school for the last few months.

And then I found out there was another article in the New Zealand Herald, behind the paywall, so, on my drive home from the beach, I had to go buy a hardcopy newspaper to read it. From now on I have copied my tweets I made as I read the newspaper and I will use those tweets to flesh out some more thoughts in this blog post.

I have so many thoughts on this and the first ones are: Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata have a lot to answer for with: 

* National Standards being inflicted on children 

* killing the Teacher Advisory Service in 2009 

* killing the PLD in Literacy and Numeracy in 2009.

As seen in the picture above, 45% of children who were tested in Maths at Y8 are achieving at the expected curriculum level in maths in 2018 and only 20% achieved the expected level in science in 2017.  These children in 2018 started school in 2009/2010, meaning most of their primary school years were blighted with National Standards, little access to meaning maths PLD for their teachers, and a narrowing of the curriculum, meaning science fell off the radar as many schools focused in on reading, writing and maths.  Science advisors ceased to exist along with the Teacher Advisory service at the end of 2009, so there's you answer to why Y8 kids in 2017 were achieving so bloody poorly at science. I have all the swear words in my head directed at Anne Tolley, the Minister of Education at the time, killing the Teacher Advisory Service - again. But more on that later.

This is where I make my first defense of the much derided and maligned Numeracy Project: And to all those people who slag off the Numeracy Project: I was a shit mathematician and an average maths teacher before I went through the Numeracy Project training. All the blocks clicked into place once I did it and I believe I'm a better teacher of maths as a result.

In response, on page 4: The ministry's deputy secretary of early learning and student achievement, Ellen MacGregor-Reid, said the ministry was concerned about "the pattern of decline" in achievement and was considering "specific actions need in particular areas of learning including social-emotional, literacy and mathematics".

"A priority for us this year is developing a maths strategic plan.

"We will be working with the sector this year to develop a high-level plan to support a systems approach to shifting the dial in mathematics.  This will identify and address the current issues impacting on mathematics teaching and learning, so there is sustained improvement.

"We are currently building a strong evidence base to support this work.  We have commissioned a Royal Society Te Aparangi convened independent papter on the mathematics knowledge and skills learners need to know, and when, and what needs to be changed in the NZ Curriculum to achieve this.

"We will also be establishing a diverse group of sector practitioners to critique outcomes evidence, including TIMSS and NMSSA data to help us understand and respond to practice and implementation challenges."

So this is where I turn my attention to the make up for the Royal Society Te Aparangi.

My concern is there is a lot of representation from the Universities of Auckland, Massey, Victoria and Canterbury - yet there is none from the University of Waikato nor the University of Otago.  I wonder why this is?  Is it because the Numeracy Project emerged from Waikato?  Is it because NMSSA is administered via Otago?

Also, what does "We will be establishing a divers group of sector practitioners" look like and how will this happen?

Today I had a chance to read past page 4 of yesterday's NZ Herald I bought and I found even more on pages 8 and 9. So I went down the rabbit hole again.

It starts off outlining the problem, what's going wrong & then what can we do. Associate Professor Jodie Hunter, co-director of Massey University's Centre for Research in Mathematics Education, and Dr Gillian Frankcom-Burgess, NZ Association of Maths Teachers president and lecturer at the Faculty of Education at University of Auckland, give expert comment in this article. Perry Rush is frequently quoted with his concerns. Massey University Distinguished Professor Gaven Martin, as the chair of the Royal Society is quoted, as is the ministry's chief scientific advisor, Professor Stuart McNaughton.

Firstly I was taken by the graphic down the right hand side of page 9.  There were a lot of downward arrows that are concerning.

The graphic to the right of the article struck me first. It looks at the latest TIMSS (Trends in International Maths & Science Study) results for Y9s (aged 13/14).

This top part shows where NZ is compared to Singapore, Japan, Australia, England & the US. And we're behind!!! We are usually ahead of Australia, England and the US, and this is our strong argument against a nationwide standardised assessment programme.

The middle graph looks at each strand: * statistics * number * geometry * algebra

(Where is measurement?)

We are trending down in all of these. Why? While statistics and number appear to be the strength of New Zealand students, it is of great concern that even these are dramatically trending downwards.

The bottom of the graphic looks at the kind of learning: * reasoning * applying * knowing

Knowing has had the most dramatic fall.

The Numeracy Project tackles all of these - but I don't think the Numeracy Project, despite its official status, is understood by many newer teachers.

So this photo below sums up the problem. Our Y9s a strongest in statistics & number, but even that's declining, and while reasoning (or explaining why/how they worked it out) is strong, that's declining. Concerning is their ability to apply a known strategy to different problems and their ability to "just know" certain things is declining too - the knowing in particular.

The knowing means things like knowing your times tables, that 4+b=10 is b=6, or if 4+6=10 then 40+60=100 & 400+600=1000 and so forth, that half is 1/2 or 50% or 0.5.

So how did we get it wrong?

Back in 1989, when Tomorrow's Schools was introduced, the curriculum advisory service within the Department of Education was disbanded when the Ministry of Education was formed. The Teacher Advisory Service came into being, hosted by universities and Teacher Training Colleges, which became Schools of Education within universities (now known as Facilities of Education).

National got rid of Teacher Advisory Services in the 90s, the Clark Labour government revived them in 2000 for Key's National government to kill them in 2009 again.

Consequently, since 2009, private providers have had to fill the gap and that could be practically anyone. Funding is contestable and smaller schools are at a greater disadvantage. Even in bigger schools, if you're not buddy buddy with the right SMT (senior management team) member you could miss out.

Which is the right way for principals, as senior leaders of curriculum and learning, to go?

Perry Rush, from the Principals Federation, outlines the confusion below. There are so many options. Rush notes many principals have rejected the Numeracy Project because "it confused students by giving them multiple ways to solve every problem" but declares there is no alternative.

Here comes a personal opinion here. I've already stated that the Numeracy Project was a revelation for me personally as a person who struggled with maths all through my own school years. What the Numeracy Project did for me was helped me understand place value and see the patterns. No longer was I reliant on a pen and paper to do an algorithm, I now had the ability to image the numbers in my head, compensate and create tidy tens - all language I never had until I did the Numeracy Project training in 2005.

Then is 2016, during my year of doing Masters papers, I met one of the original developers of the Numeracy Project. She told me it was never meant to be the silver bullet be-all-and-end-all of how to do maths replacing all the other ways of doing maths. It was meant to build teacher capability and confidence and be another tool in their kete.

So, naturally, back in the day, someone in the MOE must "have known better" and it was rolled out as the "must do" in the 2000s. Oh dear.

Personally, I think kiwi teachers, rather than looking to Singapore or Australia for overseas products to teach maths, should be looking at resources from New Zealand sources, like Caxton Educational, based on the NZ Curriculum.

Now the good news is that we are doing maths for similar time lengths as other countries.

And I was happy about that, until I read the highlighted portion. WTF???

Why is maths not happening in some classes? Is there other things crowding it out? Teacher confidence? Poor organisation? Lost in other exciting work? If you have a student teacher in your class, you need to be modelling best practice of teaching and I am alarmed if a student teacher is in a class for a week, and it is a fairly calm, normal week for a school, yet there is no maths actually happening.

Ability grouping is big in NZ. I personally refuse to do it in writing because I conference with every child and prefer and individualised process. I find it essential for most guided reading activities, but when they are not in their guided reading groups with me, the children are in mixed ability groups or independently doing other literacy tasks. I do ability group for a significant portion of my number and some of my algebra learning in maths - but I see no need in statistics, geometry or measurement to do so.

The concern that some kids don't get exposed to higher-level maths and specific concepts like fractions caused me to make changes in my programme a few years ago. So I introduced Maths Talk, where I have different problems everyday to start and warm us up each day. We see lots of ways to solve the same problem. I also use this time to introduce concepts like fractions or how to use a ruler to measure.

Also, every day my class looks at the MetService three times. We may see at 9:00am the temperature is 15.6°C, but the expected high is 23°C. So we work out the difference between the two numbers (7.4°C) which brings in maths concepts like decimals, rounding, tidy tens - a lot of place value. As the last year went on, we began doing it in te reo Māori as well, so the kids have a bilingual choice.

There are ways of introducing maths into many of your daily routines in your class.

The head of the Royal Society expert panel, Distinguished Professor Gaven Martin, says, "Our feeling was that the basic curriculum was good, so the real disjunct is what is promised from it and what is being delivered against it. That is a big issue."

Yes and No.

Yes, our New Zealand Curriculum has a lot of freedom to tailor to your local needs and community.

No, there's some wishy washy stiff to tighten. Do we really need such freedom in maths? Shouldn't maths be tighter with its objectives to be learnt?

I think the big issue is do teachers know the curriculum? Do they feel confident to be inspired by the curriculum and know how to teach the curriculum? Do they have the resources and support to do so? Have they received ongoing PLD to inspire, remind and consolidate their ability to teach maths?

And my answer is no to many of these questions.

In my observations, since National Standards was made non-compulsory at the end of 2017, many teachers did not know the curriculum because they based everything on National Standards. They didn't know where kids should be without National Standards. They didn't know they could assess students against objectives in the curriculum and at the curriculum levels. They looked for a replacement - sadly many have turn to PaCT and now base everything they do around that. PaCT is not a curriculum, it is an assessment tool!!!!!!!!!!

I see so many teachers also asking in NZ Teachers for units and resources rather than planning their own, or buying a ready-made one on Teachers Pay Teachers. It's almost like the growth of the internet and the National Standards years have taken all the creativity out of being a teacher and planning for your class.

I was so concerned about this, I wrote a blog post about it on my teaching blog in January 2018, For those who are crying: "How will I plan and assess without National Standards?" here is some inspiration. Feel free to check out some old school teachering.

Also, since National Standards came in, many old school principals have retired and the number of principals who have only known the years of accountability in education or have only taught under the shadow of National Standards is increasing. How can they lead their staff in unpacking the New Zealand Curriculum if they are clouded by the Standards still?

In 2017 I said this directly to Chris Hipkins and Tracey Martin (former Associate Minister of Education), and I said it again to their faces in 2018. I told them that PLD in the curriculum was vital. Hmmm. Too little happened.

The idea of hiring specialist teachers of math for upper primary and intermediate schools by Professor Stuart McNaughton, the MOE's chief scientific advisor, is ridiculous considering high schools are struggling to find staff, with actual maths teaching qualifications, to fill mathematic teacher vacancies. This is the sort of useless thinking that sets the MOE up for ridicule from the education sector over and over and shows that they are too far removed from the chalk board and the practicalities of classroom teaching and running a school.

Perry Rush and Dr Frankcom-Burgess are right in their assertion that every primary and intermediate teacher should be able to teach maths. Just because you don't like a subject or it is not your strength doesn't mean you do not get to teach it. You ask for help to get upskilled and grow your confidence. I have the same argument about teaching swimming, but that's for another ranting thread another day.

I look at what Associate Professor Hunter & Dr Frankcom-Burgess say in this photo below and I feel completely vindicated!!! I say this to my class all the time, that maths is about patterns and using what you know about smaller numbers to apply to bigger numbers.

It was the Numeracy Project that opened my eyes to THIS.

The Numeracy Project can boost a maths timid teacher's abilities!!

Yesterday I tweeted Chris Hipkins and Jan Tinetti (Associate Minister of Education) to ask where our promised new Teacher Advisory Service is.

No reply.

So it is heartening to see the "Curriculum Centre" with regional subject advisors in the proposed Education Support Agency is getting off the ground finally. Thanks to the NZ Herald for pointing that out.

The "refresh" of the NZ Curriculum is starting, beginning with introducing the Aotearoa NZ Histories curriculum, released today coincidentally for consultation, which I'm so looking forward to seeing how they resource this for Y4 & below - I'm available to consult on this MOE.

As much as I love the freedom of the NZC, in 2005/2006 when consultation happened, I expressed my concern over it being too vague. I was greatly concerned that knowledge was being sidelined by inquiry, and I think my concern in the last 15 years has been borne out. Why? I was really concerned we would be creating future adults who knew nothing, who had nothing to initiate a conversation or be able to participate in a conversation, who would be unable to enjoy the fun of being in a pub quiz team, people who could only talk shopping and gaming.

Initially my concern was for a lack of knowledge teaching was for science, social studies, health and technology, but now it extends into maths.

How can children inquire and ask questions if they have no knowledge base to ignite from? Too many teachers have included maths in their inquiry units, rather than explicitly teaching the foundations of maths. They are missing out on igniting the passion of a future potential mathematician, revealing the patterns maths has and how they are reflected in nature and music and art and dance - even the Arts link into maths!!!

Today there have been calls from science teachers that science needs just as much attention as maths to improve achievement outcomes, but the issues with maths are over shadowing it. You can read this RNZ article Science educators raise concerns while the Ministry of Education focuses on maths results.

Science educator House of Science chief executive Chris Duggan said there were too few specialist primary school science teachers, and not enough resources.

An Education Review Office report showed 73 percent of primary schools did not have an effective science programme, she said.

"Walk into most primary schools in the country and ask to see their science resources and there'll be one little bookshelf dedicated to science stuff which will usually consist of a box of random magnets, some electronic stuff and maybe some broken glassware.

"And nobody uses it because they don't know what to do with it."

She is not wrong. Science has become a poor cousin in the curriculum budget. Not only has this been driven by the narrowing of the curriculum thanks to the introduction of National Standards, but I am going to point out that former Prime Minister Sir Bill English, when he was the Minister of Finance, closed down Learning Media and that has had consequences. Learning Media used to produce resources across the curriculum subjects, including wonderful provocation for science in a long running series. Now we don't get anything like that unless we buy it from a publisher and it is expensive.

We are missing fabulous resources for the Arts, health, social studies, maths and physical education as a result of Sir Bill's lack of vision and understanding of the long term impact of his financially driven decision.

Inconclusion, this situation has come to a head, and at all levels, government, MOE, academic, kahui ako, school, individual teacher, we all need to look at how we do things. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water, but maybe we relook at how we use what we have better to grow teachers so they can improve their practice.

Writing this today, has allowed me to reflect on my own practice and ask some hard questions of myself as a teacher. I want to contribute to making achieving in maths great again.

How about you?