When Resources Arrive Before Readiness
Reflections on “Structured Maths” and the New Curriculum
At the end of 2024, the Minister of Education announced what was framed as a bold and timely solution to New Zealand’s declining numeracy outcomes and persistent inequities in maths achievement.
The plan? Ensure every child has access to so-called “structured maths” through a $30 million investment in four government-funded commercial programmes — all to be delivered to schools by Term 1, 2025.
But none of these resources are grounded in New Zealand research, designed for our curriculum, or tested in our classroom contexts. All four are overseas programmes — selected, funded, and distributed at pace.
We’ve invested significant public funding in imported solutions without a clear evidence base for how they align with the learning needs, cultural contexts, or curriculum expectations of Aotearoa.
This raises serious questions about how policy decisions are being made — and who gets to define what “structured” looks like in a profession that thrives on responsiveness, not rigidity.
It was presented as a silver bullet, with structured resources positioned as the cornerstone of national maths recovery. But here’s the problem: “structured maths” isn’t actually a thing. It doesn’t exist as a defined concept in educational research or literature.
And yet, we keep using the term — in speeches, documents, and directives — as though its meaning is universally understood.
By repeating it often enough, we’ve started to believe it has substance.
In reality, it’s become a catch-all phrase — one that sounds credible but ultimately conceals more than it clarifies. There’s a risk here: when language outpaces evidence, we start building policy on shaky ground.
Speed Over Substance?
By March, the cracks were already starting to show. In an update released on 21 March, the Ministry of Education clarified that these commercial resources are to be used as supplementary tools — not as replacements for the new maths curriculum.
“The resources were not designed to replace or to be used instead of the curriculum, but to support teachers and schools while they build their own new maths programmes.”
The clarification was necessary — but also revealing. In the rush to demonstrate action, resourcing decisions had clearly outpaced alignment with the refreshed curriculum — a curriculum that is still bedding in, still being interpreted, and still raising big questions for teachers around coherence, sequencing, and pedagogy.
Curriculum Clarity — or Constraint?
This leads to a deeper concern, one I’ve written about previously in this blog: the new curriculum, while promoting progression and clarity, also comes with a significant directive — that teachers must now teach to the year level, not to the developmental stage of their learners.
On paper, this might look like standardisation. In practice, it risks ignoring the very real diversity of learners in every classroom. It pushes teachers toward a “same page, same pace” model that works well in theory — but not in real life.
Despite language around “flexibility” and “supporting all learners,” the structure of the curriculum phases remains anchored to age-based expectations. There’s an underlying assumption that children progress in neat, predictable increments — and that if they don’t, the problem lies with them, rather than with the system designed to teach them.
This approach clashes directly with what we know from research and practice — particularly in maths, where conceptual understanding and confidence emerge through varied, often non-linear pathways. Progression isn’t always tidy. Nor should we expect it to be.
The “Science of Learning” — Selectively Applied?
When the Minister and Ministry continue to emphasise the science of learning in relation to maths, it’s worth interrogating what that actually means. While the term lends a sheen of credibility, the Ministry’s own Mathematics Advisory Group (MAG) acknowledges that there is little robust evidence that science of learning principles — drawn mostly from studies of memory, reading, and language — translate cleanly into the domain of mathematics.
Maths isn’t just about memory and automaticity. It’s about reasoning, relational thinking, spatial awareness, and creative problem-solving. If we focus too narrowly on prescribed sequences and one-size-fits-all delivery models, we risk squeezing out the very things that make maths rich, engaging, and powerful for learners.
What Role Should Resources Really Play?
Commercial resources can support effective teaching — when they’re well-aligned, adaptable, and thoughtfully integrated. But when they arrive in haste, with little time for schools to critically evaluate or embed them into a wider learning programme, they can create more confusion than clarity.
The Ministry’s most recent messaging now emphasises that teachers should begin with curriculum progressions, and only then look to use the resources in support. That’s a sound direction — but it invites a bigger question:
If these resources are supplementary to the curriculum, was a $30 million investment the wisest or most strategic use of funds?
This spend was publicly framed by the Minister as a show of serious commitment to fixing maths — a bold move intended to make a measurable impact. And yet, the resources funded do not fully align with the refreshed curriculum her own government is rolling out. Nor do they reflect the full scope of what teachers are now expected to deliver in mathematics.
In any other sector, we’d be asking whether this level of investment — the equivalent of thousands of teacher release days or targeted PLD — was matched to its intended outcomes. These are fair and necessary questions.
Because while resourcing matters, alignment matters more — and coherence across curriculum, pedagogy, and tools is what ultimately makes the difference in student learning.
A Call for Coherence, Not Compliance
This is not a critique of any particular programme. Structure and scaffolding have their place. But we must resist the push toward compliance-driven delivery that values coverage over connection, pacing over purpose.
The real challenge isn’t about selecting the right resource. It’s about building a system that trusts and supports teachers to make informed, responsive decisions — grounded in curriculum, yes, but also in a deep knowledge of their learners and how they develop.
Because if we continue to define progress solely by age and pace, we will miss the very heart of what learning is: a human, developmental journey that does not always follow a straight line.