Groundbreaking maths gains in just 12 weeks show the Government’s reforms to raise student achievement are already delivering for students who need it most, Education Minister Erica Stanford says.
New data from a nationwide maths acceleration trial for Year 7 and 8 students who needed extra support, shows students made, on average, a year to two years of progress in just 12 weeks in developing fundamental maths skills.
Even more encouraging, students not in the trial, simply learning under the new curriculum, an hour-a-day of maths, and using high-quality resources, also made, on average, a full year’s progress in just 12 weeks.
Stanford says these results show that the Government’s focus on fixing the basics is working for children in every community.
“Every parent wants their child to feel confident in maths. These results show that students are catching up faster than anyone expected, thanks to strong foundations, clear teaching, and teachers who are embracing the reforms across the country.”
Earlier this year, the Make It Count maths action plan came into effect. It introduced structured mathematics, an internationally benchmarked curriculum, one million workbooks and textbooks delivered to classrooms, and professional learning for more than 22,000 teachers, alongside hour-a-day maths and phones away.
The 12-week acceleration trial involved approximately 1500 Year 7 and 8 students who were a year or more behind. Students received targeted, small-group tutoring up to four times a week across three models: in-person, hybrid and online.
Across the first 12-week period week, 1381 students achieved:
- Around two years’ progress in the in-person model.
- 13–14 months’ progress in the hybrid model.
- 12 months’ progress in the online model.
“The biggest breakthrough was for the students who were working in their usual classes with their teacher. These students were not part of the first 12-week trial but were benefiting from hour-a-day maths, the new curriculum, and new workbooks. They made, on average, a full year’s progress in just 12 weeks. That shows the reforms are lifting achievement for all children, not just those receiving additional tutoring,” Stanford says.
These students along with approximately a further 1500 are benefiting from phase two of the trial.
The analysis shows similar gains regardless of background, equity index, school or ethnicity.
“These results are down to the incredible work of teachers who are implementing these significant reforms. The Education Review Office’s (ERO) recent report already showed early signs of improved achievement and engagement in English and maths. This new data confirms that the reforms are reversing years of decline and helping students reach their potential.”
The $40 million programme is now being rolled out nationwide, with around 13,000 students set to take part from Term 1 2026. All schools that requested to be part of the programme have been accepted.
“Our reforms are about ambition – raising achievement, closing the equity gap and making sure every child can succeed. Education is supposed to be the great equaliser. These results show that, with the right foundations and the right support, every student can get ahead and be confident mathematicians,” Stanford says.
The New Zealand Principals’ Federation (NZPF) has welcomed the Education Minister’s announcement to expand expert mathematics intervention programmes to all year 7 and 8 students who are not achieving. However, NZPF President Leanne Otene questions the evidence provided by the Minister and whether this is the best use of the Government’s education budget.
“I do not deny that this mathematics intervention will have a positive impact – no teacher will argue with that,” Otene says.
“Extra tuition time, one-on-one attention and lower class ratios – we know that every child taught maths under those conditions will absolutely benefit. But at the end of the day, what the Government is funding is just an intervention. It won’t support maths teachers’ professional learning and development,” she says.
NZPF understands that trial participants were tested before the 12-week intervention and again on the exact same items immediately following it, which Otene argues doesn’t provide the real picture of the students’ education gains.
“Inevitably there will be a recall effect, where answers can be practised and remembered, even if long-term learning has not occurred.
“So it’s pretty clear to me that the trial was designed to present ‘ground-breaking’ results, not to reflect the true nature of the students’ learning.”
ENDS
