|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Michael Johnston | Senior Fellow | michael.johnston@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Many had a mild panic response to the very idea of learning even rudimentary statistics. Sometimes, the panic was more serious. Occasionally, there were tears. Those teachers are not alone. Upwards of 90% of adults experience at least mild anxiety when they have to perform a task that involves maths. Maths anxiety can almost always be traced back to the experience of learning – or trying to learn – maths at school. Unfortunately, a vicious cycle has developed in maths education. For many primary school teachers, teaching maths activates painful memories of their experience with the subject as children. As a result, they lack the confidence to teach maths well. Frequently, they also lack sufficient knowledge. Their students, some of whom will be the teachers of the future, are thereby put at risk of developing maths anxiety themselves. This vicious cycle has resulted in a litany of data showing that most students do not keep up with curriculum expectations in maths. At the National Party conference last weekend, the Prime Minister revealed new data from the Curriculum Insights and Progress Study. Just 22% of the Year 8 students participating in the study met curriculum expectations. The PM also announced measures to tackle the problem. There will be $20 million to support professional development in maths teaching. People seeking to train as teachers will need 14 credits in maths at NCEA Level 2. Teachers will be provided with guidebooks on how to teach maths. These are emergency measures. They are necessary, but they will not be enough. Another component of the Government’s response will be to bring forward the implementation of a new maths curriculum from 2026, to 2025. The current curriculum has exacerbated the problem. It is vague and poorly structured, all too often leaving teachers to figure out for themselves how to teach a subject they don’t like or understand. The new curriculum, with its greater detail and rigorous structure will help drive improvement in the longer term. To break the vicious cycle of maths anxiety, though, a much greater focus on maths is required in teacher education programmes. We need knowledgeable teachers in front of our primary-aged children, who pass on a love, rather than a fear, of maths. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Nick Clark | Senior Fellow, Economics and Advocacy | nick.clark@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Almost everyone sees a serious problem, but addressing it continues to be hampered by a fundamental misalignment of incentives between central and local government. Put simply, councils often view growth as a cost rather than a benefit. The housing crisis has become intolerable for successive governments, which have changed planning laws and cajoled councils to come to the party. But there is a further measure, contained in the National-ACT coalition agreement, that would align incentives: revenue sharing. The core idea is simple: promise councils a share of extra tax revenue which growth confers on central government through GST, income tax and company tax. That promise would nudge councils to be more supportive of house building. It is something the New Zealand Initiative has promoted since its inception. Two main options are explored in a research note the Initiative has just published. The first would pay councils a portion of estimated GST on the value of new residential builds. Depending on the size of the portion (50% was floated last year by ACT in a Members Bill), it would provide substantial funding to councils. The second would reward councils that issued more residential consents than their historical averages. National’s Build for Growth policy for last year’s election proposed $25,000 per additional consent. This approach would potentially reward councils with more active housing policies. Neither option is perfect, but a hybrid approach might offer the best of both worlds. This could include a base payment tied to the value of building work completed or numbers of consents issued. Additional top-up payments could be made for exceeding historical consent averages. The approach could be extended to non-residential buildings, to encourage wider economic development. As they work on the coalition agreement’s commitment, policymakers need to carefully balance incentives and accountabilities. Importantly, revenue sharing must not substitute for fiscal responsibility and councils must demonstrate a strong commitment to efficient service provision and infrastructure development. A well-designed revenue sharing system would help align council interests with national housing goals, delivering a substantial improvement on the status quo. By encouraging development, it could also stimulate a virtuous cycle of economic growth. We have tried the stick. It is time to give the carrot a chance. Nick Clark’s research note, ‘Revenue share’ for housing, was published on 7 August. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Roger Partridge | Senior Fellow & Chairman | roger.partridge@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Responding to the Coalition-government’s radical plan to actually teach children mathematics, Hipkins pointed the finger squarely at National Standards. That’s the John Key-led National government’s assessment system Hipkins consigned to the educational dustbin in 2017. In so doing, Hipkins has created a fascinating new branch of mathematics where cause and effect operate in reverse. Not to be outdone in the race to educational regression, the Primary Teachers Union has its own concerns. They worry that a structured curriculum focused on numeracy skills might not meet the “diverse needs of learners.” After all, why teach children to count when we can currently count on their diverse inability to do so? Union spokesman Martyn Weatherill bravely pointed out that a “narrow curriculum prescribed by policy makes teaching harder, not easier.” It seems the Union would rather not bother with tougher standards and instead continue our proud tradition of educational underachievement. The Union also frets about the “incredibly short timeframe” of five months to implement the curriculum changes. One wonders what this says about the state of teaching if mastering a curriculum designed for 5-10-year-olds is cause for alarm. How many more cohorts of primary school students are we willing to consign to the innumeracy dustbin until the Union feels ready to tackle basic arithmetic? Perhaps in the grand scheme of educational progress, another generation with poor maths skills is a small price to pay for a leisurely policy rollout. After decades of sliding towards the bottom of the international rankings, we can take comfort in one thing: Our education system excels at finding creative excuses for not teaching maths. Between Labour’s time-bending blame game and the Union’s commitment to diverse innumeracy, we’ve mastered the art of educational stagnation. However, with the National-led government insisting on a structured maths curriculum, we face a new crisis. We might actually improve our international standing. Imagine the horror of our students understanding basic arithmetic or, worse yet, excelling in mathematics. What would we do with a generation of numerically literate citizens? One thing’s for certain: if this reckless pursuit of educational improvement continues, New Zealand might have to find a new claim to educational fame. Perhaps we could lead the world in nostalgia for educational mediocrity. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |