"THE AVERAGE STUDENT 2"

 This article is from "The Wilkie Way" February Newsletter and posted with permission by Charlotte Wilkinson

In 2018 I attended the BCME conference in the UK at Warwick University and attended a session run by Ruth Merrtens (an academic, teacher and writer College of St Mark and St John Plymouth University) and these are the notes I took from her presentation.

The UK under the 2014 mastery curriculum is paying very little consideration to child development and
focusing on a very prescriptive curriculum. Ruth Merrtens pointed out that transferring the Singapore and Chinese methods to UK schools in a bid to raise the UK in international league tables is simplistic. She cites the success of Singapore and Chinese methods in Singapore and China has more to do with high teacher knowledge and status. The amount of time students spend on mathematics is probably double the time spent in UK. Also parental support, no discipline issues in the classroom and the desire/need to be educated in order to make a living. (No welfare systems)

She also highlighted the lack of mathematical pedagogical knowledge in professional learning
opportunities available for primary teachers. Continuing professional learning budgets are being focussed on generic topics like behaviour management, technology use etc.

Publishers are making a lot of money out this approach as UK government are insisting that every student has workbooks and textbooks to work from. One publisher has produced a 100 page workbook and 100 page textbook for each term from year 1 to year 6. Government are providing grants for schools to purchase books – approved by them. Currently there is only one text approved – a direct translation of a Shanghai text. The Education budget will actually bypass schools.

(Michael Gove former UK education secretary (2010 - 2014) has a major advisory role in Stanfords reform programme for NZ schools - See Listener article Educating Erica Jan 31 - Feb 6).

Another session attended at the same conference was a research presentation run over a school year by
the Babcock Centre attached to Exeter University:
The question asked was:
How can we best support teachers to develop their own practice through action research?
Effective professional learning requires the following components:

1. Sustained - weeks and months
2. Subject specific
3. Pro-active – go and play, take a risk
4. Collaborative
5. Supported by an external specialist/credible facilitator
6. Evidence based – created a conflict as teachers engaged on reading research was not effective to PLD
7. Student focused

Barriers to learning identified:
1. Teachers who go through the motions – doing it for someone else, waiting to be told what to do, waiting for the facilitator to control any discussion.
2. Teachers needed to learn to examine their own thinking to move from what they are doing to what is
their impact on student learning.
3. School leadership – this was by far the biggest barrier. Leaders signed their teachers up for the project
then overloaded them with other professional learning contracts and administrative tasks. No consideration or interest is given to the learning needs of their teachers.

UK 2026 Curriculum changes: The UK is updating its national curriculum to modernize education,
moving from a knowledge-heavy focus (2014) to one that emphasizes “applied knowledge,” practical
life skills, and adaptability for a fast-changing, technology-driven world. The review aims to address
educational inequalities and improve engagement for disadvantaged students.

New Zealand is 12 years behind what is being advertised here as drawing on “world
leading curriculums” and is about to repeat what evidence shows is not the answer to
inequity and the resulting inequalities. 

THE AVERAGE STUDENT

 This article is from "The Wilkie Way" February Newsletter and posted with permission by Charlotte Wilkinson

The Average Student

Something to think about as we head down the road of teaching all students in a year group the same
content and new standardized testing.
We’re so accustomed to using averages that we neglect to question whether they’re actually useful. The
End of Average by Todd Rose argues that, when we use averages to judge people, we typically arrive at
inaccurate and harmful conclusions.
(Rose is a developmental psychologist, former Harvard professor)

Rose asserts that one of the areas of society in which judging individuals with averages has done the most damage is the modern education system. Rather than give each student what they individually need to learn the most, we give them a standardized experience that forces them to conform or fail. As a result, students and society both suffer.

Consider what is happening in New Zealand and the politics behind the changes. “What is driving alot of what I’m doing - is that equity piece”(Listener Jan 31 - Feb 6 2026 - Educating Erica). The premise is that the changes being made are to ensure that everyone can live up to their full potential. There is no argument that knowledge is essential but is the knowledge the only aspect to be considered?

According to Rose, our education system is a deeply flawed sorting mechanism because it’s founded on
the false assumption that “general intelligence” exists. We use standardized tests because we assume that students who are better at quickly solving math problems or reasoning through logic puzzles are generally“smarter” than others. In other words, we think they’ll be better at solving all problems than their less“gifted” counterparts. Instead of judging students based on individual skills, we average out their various skills into one-dimensional scores that supposedly reflect their general intelligence.

However, research shows that such scores of general intelligence are completely inaccurate. Rose argues that if you ever judge someone as “generally smart,” you’re probably mistaken. That’s because someone who’s good at one intellectual task is no more likely than anyone else to be good at another intellectual task. For this reason, a student’s standardized test scores or grade point average don’t reliably predict their performance at other tasks, or in their future career.If a student is gifted in ways a standardized test can’t measure, the system incentivizes them to struggle to succeed in the same way as everyone else instead of nurturing the talents they have. This is not only demoralizing for individuals, but also damaging to society at large, as it leaves the labour pool full of underutilized talent.
 

Second, according to Rose, our education system limits students’ potential by teaching all students a fixed curriculum at a fixed pace. This disadvantages those who need more time to effectively learn.

We assume that students who learn more quickly are “smarter” in general, and they’ll also excel at
retaining skills and using them to solve problems. However, research suggests this is false: When given
the freedom to progress through a curriculum at their own pace, almost any student can learn at a “gifted” level. Students benefit from spending more time on the ideas they struggle with and less time with those that come easily to them.

Our entire education system is based on the average learner, when there is no such thing. “So
schools fail at what they’re supposed to do - recognise and nurture talent,” says Rose 

This is what I experienced when going to school from 1948. It is also how I was encouraged to teach when at Wellington Teacher's College 1963-64.  Joan Paske, Maths Adviser, was soanit whole class teaching she with her supporters produced a Differentiated Framework, called Wellington Maths!

Refer back to my previous Blog and the next one "Charlotte Wilkinson's Thoughts" 

Do We Have Standardised (Average) Children?

 As a teacher from 1965 and then a Maths Adviser from the 80's, finishing up as a Private Maths Education Consultant, we were encouraged and expected to teach on the basis that New Zealand had a Child Centred Education System!

THE 'NOW' POSITION 

In the 70's while teaching at Intermediate Schools in Auckland we often called on the Mathematics Advisers to demonstrate in our classrooms or work with them at In-Service Courses. (Jock Day in Auckland, Joan Paske in Wellington etc) In their work they encouraged us to find the "NOW" position of the children and then prepare programmes to build on what they knew.  This often involved some sort of grouping both streamed and cooperative.

RICH MATHEMATICAL ACTIVITIES  Lead to Differentiated Teaching and Learning

In the 80's led by Murray Britt, lecturer at Auckland College of Education (also writer of the 1990 Maths Curriculum) encouraged us all to have our students involved with Problem Solving and Investigations.  Many of these activities were what were called "Rich Mathematical Activities".  An activity that most(all) students could start but were "open" so that more able students could explore further.

At and Auckland Full Primary School (about 2012) they instituted a two year Professional Development Programme focussing on Problem Solving and Investigations, and meeting individual students needs. The visiting Maths Consultant visited fortnightly demonstrating in classrooms and giving feedback and advice for teachers, as well as whole group Inservice. This programme ran for just over 2 years.  Towards the end of the 2 years a call from the local Secondary school to the Principal ask "what are you doing differently in maths as your students are head and shoulders above students from other Contributing Schools.

DO YOU WISH TO BE COMPARED TO A 35 YEAR OLD RUNNER?

In my capacity as an Adviser/Consultant I was often asked to speak with the Parents of schools "about Maths" A very common question/comment was "why do you have students working at different levels, rather than like when I was at school?"

My response often included an Analogy similar to this?  

        "Peter Snell is a 37 year old athlete running the 800 metres"

        "Please stand up if you are Between 35 and 39"

        "If you were in a race with Peter Snell, as we are all "equal" I expect you to be close to Peter at the Finish Line!"

        Is that a fair race?   Why then do we expect 30 children in a class to be at the same level of Maths when they have had different pathways to Standard 5-Year 5?

IS THIS FAIR?

 

Why do I read that the Education System is now instituting the same maths for all students of an Age Group, regardless of the different pathways they have travelled to get there? 

I have been watching in dismay at what has been happening in Mathematics Education, over the past years. Achievement levels have been falling regularly, so each Govt will try and put their answers to the problem into place.  

Where has been the outcry for what is happening at the moment?

Children are NOT Standardised, Average, or at the same level, so dont teach them as if they are!!

CHECK OUT THE NEXT BLOG ABOUT STUDENTS BEING AVERAGE!