Two weeks ago, Education Minister Erica Stanford announced the results of a trial involving Year 7 and 8 students who were at least a year behind in maths. Nearly 1,400 such students received small-group tutoring four times a week for 12 weeks. In that time, they made an average of two years’ progress.
Students in a control group did not receive the small-group tutoring. They were, however, taught using the new curriculum by teachers who had had professional development in teaching maths effectively. These students made an average of a year’s progress over the 12 weeks.
On the day she announced the results, Stanford was interviewed on Newstalk ZB. On the following day, there were two articles on RNZ. Both featured criticism of the trial by an academic with a history of opposing Stanford’s reforms. The same academic was interviewed on RNZ’s Morning Report.
That was it for mainstream media coverage. Nothing on television news. Nothing in the New Zealand Herald or on Stuff.
It is surprising that the trial did not receive more attention. If it is credible, it signals a game-changer for maths education. If the trial was flawed, the public deserves to know that too.
So, how confident can we be in the results? There were two plausible criticisms of the trial.
First, only some aspects of the curriculum were taught and tested. The trial focused on number concepts, including multiplication, division, place value, proportions and fractions. It did not include algebra, geometry or statistics.
If only some aspects of a curriculum are taught and tested over 12 weeks, students might be expected to make more than 12 weeks’ worth of progress on those specific aspects.
Second, the students in the intervention group received special tutoring. Students given small group tutoring should be expected to make more progress than those learning in a business-as-usual classroom.
These criticisms raise legitimate questions about the intervention's effects. But the control group students were taught in a normal way, albeit by upskilled teachers using the new curriculum. Yet they still made impressive progress. This is the real story, but journalists largely ignored it.
The students in the trial caught up with the programme in just 12 weeks. How long will it take the media?
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
On the day she announced the results, Stanford was interviewed on Newstalk ZB. On the following day, there were two articles on RNZ. Both featured criticism of the trial by an academic with a history of opposing Stanford’s reforms. The same academic was interviewed on RNZ’s Morning Report.
That was it for mainstream media coverage. Nothing on television news. Nothing in the New Zealand Herald or on Stuff.
It is surprising that the trial did not receive more attention. If it is credible, it signals a game-changer for maths education. If the trial was flawed, the public deserves to know that too.
So, how confident can we be in the results? There were two plausible criticisms of the trial.
First, only some aspects of the curriculum were taught and tested. The trial focused on number concepts, including multiplication, division, place value, proportions and fractions. It did not include algebra, geometry or statistics.
If only some aspects of a curriculum are taught and tested over 12 weeks, students might be expected to make more than 12 weeks’ worth of progress on those specific aspects.
Second, the students in the intervention group received special tutoring. Students given small group tutoring should be expected to make more progress than those learning in a business-as-usual classroom.
These criticisms raise legitimate questions about the intervention's effects. But the control group students were taught in a normal way, albeit by upskilled teachers using the new curriculum. Yet they still made impressive progress. This is the real story, but journalists largely ignored it.
The students in the trial caught up with the programme in just 12 weeks. How long will it take the media?
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.