More of Erica’s Magic Tricks

Recently Erica Stanford, as part of her preparation for her post politics career as a magician, produced another set of figures to prove the success of her education miracle, this time in Mathematics. You will no doubt recall that the previous time she did this was to highlight the ‘success’ of her structured reading programme for five year olds, based on how well varying groups did in sounding out nonsense words. 

She’s good, no doubt about that.

Of course her proof of mathematical success will be much more reliable, wouldn’t you think?

Nope, the sleight of hand is still working really well.

Dr Sarah Aiono has reviewed the two education miracles, Mathematics and Phonics, in this article. As it is a long article I will highlight selections and encourage you to read the full article.

How to Translate Political Spin: A Parent’s Guide to Education Announcements

“Every few months, parents in Aotearoa are presented with another bold, confident announcement from the Minister of Education:

• • “Two years’ progress in 12 weeks!”
    “Transformational gains!”
    “We’ve turned maths around!”

These are powerful political claims. But political claims are not the same as educational truth.

This blog is a parent-friendly guide to understanding what’s actually happening behind the headlines — using two recent announcements as case studies.”

It’s all spin, people. What, are you surprised?

“Both announcements highlight a pattern:
selective data presented as sweeping success, often without the context parents need to make sense of what is really happening in schools.

At the end of this blog, you’ll find a simple checklist to help you critically evaluate future education announcements — no matter which government is in charge.”

First up, Sarah discusses the mathematics ‘successes’.

‘Case Study 1: The 2025 Year 7–8 Maths Trial Announcement

“Two years’ progress in 12 weeks!” — but only if you zoom in very narrowly.

This week, the Minister announced results from a trial involving around 1500 Year 7–8 students who received small-group maths tutoring. The headline results were dramatic:

Two years’ progress in 12 weeks for students receiving in-person tutoring

13–14 months’ progress for hybrid tutoring

One year’s progress for online tutoring

And most astonishingly:
the control group also made “a year’s progress in 12 weeks”, which the Minister said was proof that the new curriculum and workbooks are “one of the most impactful interventions we can provide”.’

As I said in my other article, Erica is a marvel, surely our greatest ever minister of education. She has worked miracles in improving New Zealand education.

Who knew it would be so easy? 

But what’s this?

“1. Students were only tested on four specific areas of maths

The trial focused on:

• • basic facts

• • place value

• • rational numbers

• • number-focused word problems”

What does this actually mean?

“Students were tested on exactly the skills they had just practised intensively — nothing more.

Large short-term gains on drilled content are expected. They do not indicate two years of general mathematical learning.”

Well, that’s the knowledge rich curriculum for you. Rote learning leads to these kind of results, no evidence of long term retention, mathematical understanding, and the ability to transfer this learning outside of the testing situation.

‘2. “A year’s progress” is a label, not a broad learning outcome

In this trial, “a year’s progress” simply means a gain of 25–30 e-asTTle points.

The control group gained 27.76 points — conveniently within that band.

• • But this score gain reflects progress on those exact four skills.
    Not geometry.
    Not algebra.
    Not statistics.
    Not conceptual flexibility.
    Not the breadth of the Year 7–8 curriculum.

Just those four drilled areas.’

Note – e-asTTle is the online testing programme used to test these children. I don’t know its current status, but 15 or so years ago its value was very contentious.

But as with the reading/phonics miracle results, things aren’t what they seem.

“3. The control group was not a true “business-as-usual” group

The Minister framed the control group’s gains as proof that the new curriculum and workbooks are working miracles.

But the evaluation shows the control group received:

• • the new curriculum

• • new workbooks

• • one hour of maths a day

• • teachers who had completed PLD

• • access to newly-developed resources

This is not a neutral comparison — it’s a supported intervention.

When you heavily emphasise specific content for 12 weeks and then test only that content, all groups should show gains.

That does not tell us anything about overall maths improvement.”

To rephrase that, the most that can be said of these results is that it shows that intensive teaching will bring an improvement in learning. Yeah, what’s new about that? Not exactly rocket science, is it?

A Mathematics expert, Professor Jodie Hunter of Massey University, said this in response.

“1. The trial only tested a very narrow slice of maths
She noted that the programme focused only on number (basic facts, number structure, rational number and proportional reasoning) while leaving out algebra, geometry, probability, measurement, and statistics — the majority of the curriculum.

1. 2. The test used (e-asTTle) is tied to the older 2007/2008 curriculum
      Meaning it does not reflect the new knowledge-rich curriculum the Minister is crediting for the gains.

NOTE: This means that the test used was developed for a completely different mathematics curriculum. This completely invalidates the test results. 

1. 3. The scale of the claims does not match the evidence
      She emphasised that small-group tutoring is helpful — but claiming “groundbreaking” jumps across the curriculum is misleading when only a small set of skills were measured.

These points reinforce that the Minister’s narrative extrapolates far beyond the evidence.”

Exactly.

Sarah then discusses the problems resulting from three mathematics curriculums being introduced in one year and asks this question:

“So when the Minister attributes gains to “the new curriculum,” parents should ask:

• • Which one?
    The version replaced in January?
    The one released in January?
    Or the one changed again mid-year?

The curriculum was too unstable to credibly claim it drove the results.”

Get the picture? But as usual there’s another sting in the tale.

“Case Study 1.6: Another Missing Piece — The Workbooks Don’t Align

The Minister celebrated that the control group made gains partly because they had access to new workbooks.

But teachers across the country report that:

• • the workbooks do not align with any of the three curriculum versions

• • sequencing doesn’t match

• • key concepts appear too early, too late, or not at all

• • some tasks contradict curriculum expectations

• • teachers often have to rewrite or skip workbook content entirely

Attributing gains to “curriculum + new workbooks” makes little sense when:

The curriculum and the workbooks do not actually match.

This misalignment is another reason parents should be wary of sweeping claims about curriculum-driven impact.”

Wary? There’s enough here to suggest this spin should be totally ignored.

Sarah briefly discusses the Phonics tests, linking to an earlier article, then writes:

“What Both Announcements Reveal About Political Spin

Across maths and phonics, the same strategies appear:

1. 1. Narrow measures are framed as wide success

Testing four number skills becomes “two years’ progress.”

1. 2. Short-term data becomes proof of long-term improvement

Even when long-term results are not available.

1. 3. Curriculum and resources are credited without stable implementation

Despite confusion and misalignment.

1. 4. The narrative reinforces political messaging

Not educational reality.

1. 5. Critical context is missing

Curriculum instability, teacher workload, implementation inconsistencies”.

In other words, this is an exercise in political turd polishing. 

Is Erica, by any chance, getting desperate to see evidence that her miracle is working?

Sarah concludes her article by providing a checklist for parents.

‘Parent Checklist: How to Translate Political Spin in Education Announcements

Use this every time you hear “a year’s progress,” “transformational gains,” or “we’ve fixed it.”’

This checklist has the following headings.

1. What exactly was measured?
2. Who was tested?
3. Over what timeframe?
4. Do we have follow-up data?
5. What did the control group actually receive?
6. How were the numbers framed?
7. Who did the evaluation?
8. What’s missing?
9. Is this being framed as “the solution”?
10. Does this align with what teachers are experiencing?

Sarah expands on these in the article.

She concludes:

“Final Thoughts

None of this means the tutoring programmes or phonics initiatives are inherently bad.
Some may genuinely help.
Some already show promise.

But when narrow, short-term results are inflated into sweeping claims of system transformation, public trust erodes — and parents are left in the dark.

You don’t need to be sceptical.
You just need to be informed.

Use the checklist above.
Ask the right questions.
Seek the context.
And remember:

Thoughtful scrutiny isn’t about tearing down progress — it’s about ensuring policies truly support teachers and students. Asking for clarity strengthens our education system, not weakens it.”

When a highly skilled and knowledgeable expert like Sarah points out the spin, we must all take notice.

Don’t be distracted by Erica’s magic tricks.