By Dr Ragnar Purje
In the March 18, 2026, publication of The Educator, the following was presented: “[t]he latest NAPLAN data shows roughly one in three Australian students are still falling short of expected numeracy standards, despite overall results holding steady.”
The key phrase here is “still falling short.” This indicates that, for some time now, one-third of Australian students have been struggling with mathematics. Yet, self-evidently, mathematics itself has not changed. Mathematics is, has always been, and continues to be an unchanging universal truth. Irrespective of cultures, languages, circumstances, policies, procedures, pedagogy or politics, mathematics is an immutable universal truth.
In terms of application, mathematics is universally absolute, meaning it remains consistent across individuals, groups, cultures, and societies. Maths is also linguistically unambiguous: symbols may differ, but the operations stay the same. Mathematics is also time-invariant: the symbols of 1+1= (regardless of how they are spoken, written, or applied) have always produced the outcome 2 since the beginning of time. Furthermore, mathematics is logically immutable, meaning its rules do not change based on opinion, preference, ideology, or fashion.
So, what has changed?
What has changed cannot be, and is not, mathematics. For example, during what is known as the Golden Age of Greece (5th century BC), the great mathematicians—Thales, Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes, Eudoxus, Apollonius, and others—were able to achieve what they achieved (and change the world) not because mathematics was simpler then, and not because they possessed some profound advantage.
They achieved what they achieved because they applied the disciplined pursuit of universal truths, which underpinned their entire cultural and educational environment. Their society valued reason, clarity, logic, and explicit instruction. Mathematics was not treated as a school subject; it was treated as a pathway to understanding reality itself.
These Greek teachers and students worked within a culture that demanded precision and disciplined thinking, and insisted on explicit, structured methods. Definitions, axioms, and proofs formed the backbone of their intellectual world. They were given the time, space, and social structures to think deeply, to pursue mastery, and to build knowledge. Mathematics was understood as a universal truth—unchanging and eternal.
This is the exact opposite of what the Grattan Institute highlights in modern Australian mathematics education. While the Greeks had structure, we now face inconsistency. While they had explicit instruction, we now rely on unproven methods. While they practised disciplined reasoning, we now have fragmented approaches. While they built on universal truths, the NAPLAN evidence suggests Australia has not. As emphasised and noted, the fundamental truths of mathematics remain unchanged. So, what has changed?
The outcome is clear: neglect the foundations, and the structure will collapse. When fashionable opinions and relativism replace explicit teaching, hard-won mastery begins to vanish. When universal truths are no longer clearly communicated, the evidence points to a single outcome. And when an education system abandons the principles that once helped entire civilisations progress in mathematics, it is no surprise that one-third of students “still fall short.” Of course, students must also have the desire to learn. However, what is being taught, and how it is delivered, are inextricably linked to student motivation.
When a discipline as stable as mathematics begins to struggle at the level of pedagogy, the cause is not within the discipline itself, but within the systems and choices that now surround it. The evidence is unambiguous, the contrast is stark, and the conclusion is unavoidable: if one-third of students continue to fall short, we must— as noted by the Grattan Institute—finally focus on how maths is taught.
So, where to from here? Responding constructively to the evidence is key. With this in mind, it is also important to note the March 6, 2026, article in The Educator, which suggests that computers are not the answer. In this article, the following evidence of computer use in classrooms is presented:
According to Rogelberg (2026), the evidence accumulated over the past 20 years indicates that the widespread introduction of digital devices in classrooms has coincided with a measurable decline in students’ academic, cognitive, and educational abilities. Rogelberg notes that this development raises significant questions about teaching, learning, pedagogy, and how educational environments and resources align with student learning potential.
Dr Ragnar Purje is an Adjunct Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at CQUniversity.