The Problem with Copy-Paste Solutions in Education

Structured Maths? A New Name, an Old Assumption, and $100 Million on the Line

Yesterday’s pre-budget announcement from the Minister of Education revealed a new $100 million investment aimed at “accelerating progress” in mathematics. This includes a proposed Maths Check for students in their first two years at school, new Tier 2 intervention teachers for Years 0–6, and a nationwide rollout of an intermediate maths programme that was piloted with 3,000 students.

At face value, it seems like a promising gesture: more money directed to frontline classrooms, with a targeted focus on maths achievement. But scratch beneath the surface and there’s something more concerning—an uneasy sense that we’re watching a familiar script being re-used. Only this time, it’s being applied to a very different learning domain, and with far less supporting evidence.

---

Literacy Isn’t Numeracy—So Why Are We Copying and Pasting?

Let’s start with the parallel the Minister herself made: this new approach to maths mirrors the rollout of structured literacy and the phonics check introduced for reading. In literacy, especially in the early years, we have seen mounting global and local support for what is often described as the “science of reading.” There is now substantial evidence behind structured literacy practices for decoding, and these interventions have helped some learners—particularly those with specific literacy challenges—gain a firmer foothold in reading.

Whether you’re an advocate or a sceptic, the point remains: there is a research base that underpins this approach to reading. But that research does not simply carry over to mathematics.

Structured literacy is a framework rooted in how the brain processes phonemes, text, and symbols. It’s not a template that can be seamlessly applied to all subjects. To position “structured maths” as an equivalent, simply because it sounds similar, is—at best—aspirational, and at worst, misleading. In fact, the term “structured maths” has no consistent academic definition, nor is it widely recognised in cognitive science or education research. What we’re witnessing is the retrofitting of a literacy model to a mathematical context where it hasn’t been validated.

---

Evidence-Adjacent Isn’t Evidence-Based

This announcement commits $100 million of public education funding to a model that is not evidence-based. That is not a small amount. It is a significant investment—especially at a time when schools are grappling with resource shortages, complex learning support needs, and acute staffing pressures.

This kind of spending demands more than optimism or intuition. It demands rigour. Yet the policy narrative reads as if extrapolating from reading to maths is a logical step—when in fact, the two are fundamentally different disciplines with distinct cognitive and developmental trajectories.

No clear evidence has been provided to show that this structured intervention approach in maths will have the intended impact, especially when scaled up nationally. No details have been offered about how this model will cater to the diverse cultural, linguistic, neurodevelopmental, and socioeconomic contexts of New Zealand schools.

We’re not just trialling an idea. We’re bankrolling an unproven one.

---

Learning Support is Breaking—This Won’t Fix It

What makes this announcement even more difficult to swallow is its timing. Schools across the country are struggling to meet the complex learning, behavioural, and emotional needs of their ākonga. The Illusion of Inclusion report by Drs Nina Hood and Romy Hume (2024) makes this abundantly clear: schools are facing rising numbers of students with learning support needs and diminishing access to specialist services.

Teachers are stretched thin, constantly working to support children for whom learning cannot occur until basic needs are met—hunger, safety, regulation, emotional connection.

Yet here we are, committing $100 million to a national maths intervention programme that risks bypassing those foundational issues. It may identify who is “failing” at maths more quickly—but that isn’t the same as providing support that addresses why.

---

If We’re Going to Talk About Averages, Let’s Do the Maths

The underlying goal of the Minister’s plan is to shift more students into the “at” or “above” achievement band. On paper, it sounds sensible. But what does that actually mean?

If our goal is to lift national achievement averages, the real question becomes: where are the students who are pulling those averages down?

We already know who they are. They are the tamariki who are navigating poverty, trauma, transience, neurodiversity, and under-resourcing. They are the students who don’t just need intervention in the curriculum—they need wraparound care. They need well-supported teachers. They need kai. They need secure attachment and safe classrooms before learning can even begin.

Children cannot accelerate to curriculum level in maths if they are three years behind developmentally, if they haven’t had stable access to school, or if they’re operating in a state of chronic stress. No amount of assessment or instructional “dose” will change that. And yet, we persist in pretending it might.

This isn’t a deficit view of children—it’s a realistic view of the systems they are in.

---

We Don’t Need Checklists—We Need Care

To be clear, this is not an attack on intervention. There are teachers across the country doing extraordinary work to support learners in small groups, to re-engage disengaged students, and to rebuild mathematical confidence. But those teachers are also crying out for time, space, and support to do that work well. Many of them are teaching without specialist backup, without trained assistants, and with inadequate PLD.

If we truly want to see progress in maths achievement, then we need to begin with wellbeing. With readiness to learn. With responsive pedagogies, not reactive policy.

What we’re being offered in this budget line is a checklist approach—screen, identify, intervene. But learning doesn’t happen on a checklist. It happens in relationship.

---

What Story Are We Telling?

We are at a crossroads. One path leads to genuine investment in inclusive, whole-child education that recognises the social determinants of learning. The other path leads us further into metric-driven policy that treats symptoms while ignoring causes.

And with a $100 million investment on the table, we cannot afford to get this wrong.

This is not just a question of policy design—it’s a question of values. We urge decision-makers to think carefully about what kind of story we are telling our children about learning, support, and success. Because at the end of the day, they are the ones who will inherit the consequences.

---

Curious about the work I do in education around the world?

I’m currently working alongside educators and systems in Australia, Canada, Finland, Nigeria, India and Singapore—sharing learning, supporting innovation, and advocating for what truly matters in education: people, purpose, and professional trust. If you're interested in where I’m travelling, who I’m working with, or how this work might support your own context, here’s where you can learn more:

🎤 Professional Speaker Profile – Keynotes, consultancy and facilitation
🧠 P-BLOT – Evidence-informed support for behaviour and learning
🔗 Connect on LinkedIn – Reflections, resources and current projects