Luxon is numerically illiterate

National has been caught out yet again using dubious analysis of data to justify policy. This time to claim there is a crisis in the teaching of maths.

From Luxon’s speech to the National Party Conference delivered last weekend:

Today we can tell you about shocking new data on student achievement in maths last year.

Looking at kids who are about to go to high school, this data shows that just 22 per cent of students are at the expected standard for maths at year 8. That means 4 out of 5 are falling behind. 

The results are deeply concerning, but I suspect not a surprise for many parents who I know are frustrated and despondent about the progress of their own children in school. 

And it gets worse: 3 out of 5 are more than a year behind. 

But dear reader there is a problem with the data. It involves testing of kids against a curriculum they have not yet been taught.

Let me say this again.

The figure involves testing of kids against a curriculum they have not yet been taught.

From Radio New Zealand:

Education Minister Erica Stanford has defended the 22 percent figure the Government used to support bringing forward its math changes.

The Government claimed only one in five Year 8 students were ready for high school, but it is based on the incoming curriculum which children have not been taught.

Despite that, Stanford says the assessment is more granular than in the past, and the data from it is very useful.

She says the government does not need to wait for more years of data to compare the 22 percent figure to.

Aotearoa Educators Collective said the result contradicts previous national and international studies, including NMSSA, TIMMS, and PISA, which all show higher levels of student achievement.

It questions the use of data benchmarked against a curriculum that is not yet being taught.

During his speech Luxon also said this:

Unpacking the data shows a very sad story. 

Just 8 per cent of kids in our lowest decile schools are at curriculum in maths at year 8 and 79 per cent are more than a year behind. 

Is there a problem with the education level of kids in our poorest schools.

There sure is.

What is the cause?

How about poverty.

What are the solutions?

Reducing poverty springs to mind. Which makes you wonder why National appears to be doing everything it can to make the plight of the poorest worse.

And if we want to delve into what has happened over the past 15 years I believe there is a compelling case to be made to show that National is responsible for the decline in Maths standards.

Here is the graph of PISA results over the past couple of decades.

And what happened about the time that performance plunged? Remember National Standards?

This is something I wrote in 2010.

I have been fascinated by Tolley’s promotion of National Standards. The policy has always looked like a dog to me, initially because it resembled George Bush’s US No Child left Behind policy.

I discovered the briefing to the incoming Minister for Education provided after the 2008 election. It makes for fascinating reading.

The report talks about “notable improvements in student learning as a result of teacher professional development programmes in key areas such as literacy, numeracy, ICT and assessment.” (page 17).

I can do no better than quote the following passages, obviously written by the best brains in the Education sector.

“The Numeracy Development Project was established in 2000. This ministry-led professional development programme has been introduced into 95 percent of primary, intermediate and composite schools (including 85 percent of Maori-medium schools) and 40 percent of secondary schools.

Between 2002 and 2007:

• the percentage of Year 6 students achieving at or above the expected level in mathematics increased from 40 percent to 61 percent.
• the percentage classified as at risk decreased from 30 percent to 13 percent.”

The project relied heavily on teacher professional development. Tolley responded to the request by cutting the funding for the Numeracy program.

This recent behaviour forms a pattern. Engage in what is effectively an attack on dedicated public servants, in this case teachers. Define a problem that does not exist in that form. Then prescribe urgent action justifying radical change and appear to look like you are being effective.

Aotearoa New Zealand deserves better than this.