Allaying fears over mandate
Are you feeling anxious or fearful of how the Structured Literacy mandate will be implemented?
We are unfortunately in a bit of a policy ‘dead spot’ at the moment; awaiting final decisions on what the structured literacy mandate announced by the government will look like: what PLD will be accredited and funded; what teaching resources will be recommended and funded; what will be required of teachers in the classroom; and what additional supports will be available to schools and students.
We are unlikely to get much more clarity before May 30, Budget Day.
This uncertainty is understandably unsettling for many teachers, PLD providers, and literacy resource creators and sellers alike. After all, people may feel their livelihoods are potentially at stake, and extensive retraining for teachers may be on the cards, but without knowing what exactly may be required. Some are fearful of a ‘one-size fits all' approach, or the exclusion of programmes or approaches that have a solid research base behind them. These are all valid concerns.
And as this state of uncertainty has been a feature for at least two years - the uncertainty creates stress, putting many of us into ‘fight or flight’ mode.
But let’s take a collective deep breath and check in with ourselves about our anxieties and fears. Are they well founded?
We suggest there are many positive signs that the implementation of the mandate will be done well; based on the best available evidence of what we know works, acknowledgement of the things we don’t know, and in a pragmatic and common-sense way that is able to flex as new information and evidence comes to hand.
Perspectives on Language and Literacy
To help in this policy implementation endeavour, the recent 75th Anniversary Edition of ‘Perspectives on Language and Literacy’, a journal of the International Dyslexia Association is very timely.
There are contributions from many luminaries of reading science and teaching; including: G. Reid Lyon, Linnea C. Ehri, Margaret Goldberg, Kareem Weaver, Kate Cain, Louise Spear-Swirling, and Tim Odegard.
The publication sets out the Why, What, How and Who of Structured Literacy. This should help enrich understanding of Structured Literacy’s comprehensive scope and framework for envisioning the synergistic interplay between its integrated content and powerful teaching principles.
At the heart of this is the updated Structured Literacy InfoMap which aims to build a common understanding of this evidence-based approach to literacy instruction. (picture attached)
The InfoMap was designed by a team of Structured Literacy experts who worked to represent the many facets and comprehensive nature of this integrated approach.
So while we await the clarity from the government that we are all craving, we encourage you to have a read of the IDA journal.
A long time waiting
Just a quick recap of history. So how have we gotten here? Why have we been in this state of uncertainty for so long?
We have been awaiting clarity on how structured literacy would be implemented across schools ever since the then Labour Education Minister, Jan Tinetti endorsed structured literacy as the way forward for literacy instruction in our schools in a Q&A interview with Jack Tame in August 2022. That was a seminal moment.
It came after four years of the Ministry and Minister (first Chris Hipkins then Jan Tinetti) hedging their bets and refusing to really commit to this evidence-based pathway, despite the mountains of evidence over the past 30 years that this change was needed.
This 30 year journey of advocating for change to evidence-based reading instruction started with the Literacy Experts Group Report in 1999. That was followed by a series of other inquiries and reports - all of which were largely ignored: Select Committee Inquiry in 2000, a second Select Committee Inquiry in 2006, a 2013 Massey University Report, a third Select Committee Inquiry in 2016. Finally the Massey University Early Literacy Study in early 2018 got the ball rolling in the right direction. See the graphic from our 2020 Report ‘Our Right to Read’ for details of our sad history of inaction over 30 years.
More recently, in August 2023, a year after Minister Tinetti finally endorsed structured literacy as the preferred approach, she announced that the government would legislate (ie mandate) new core teaching requirements to “ensure consistency across schools to give all kids equal opportunity”. At the time, the Common Practice Model was still in development, so she was not able to spell out exactly what was going to be mandated.
Shortly after this, in September, in the lead up to the General Election, Erica Stanford set out the National Party’s ‘Literacy Guarantee’ Policy. Similar to what Minister Tinetti had indicated in August, this included a commitment to mandate a structured literacy approach for teaching reading for primary schools by making it part of the Common Practice Model.
The ‘Literacy Guarantee’ Policy then became Government policy. This commits the government to phase in the structured literacy requirement over three years, with schools required to use structured literacy for Year 1-3 students from next year, and for all students up to Year 6 from the start of 2027.
Professional learning and development
In terms of the provision of PLD, this is what the Policy says:
“There are several structured literacy providers in New Zealand supporting those schools that have already chosen to use structured literacy in their classrooms, with great success.”
“To make this happen, National will invest $60.5 million over four years so every primary school can engage an approved structured literacy provider and purchase the decodable texts and resources they need. For schools that have already adopted structured literacy, ongoing funding will be available for further professional development and to purchase decodable texts and other resources.”
“National will give schools choice over the provider they use, with an approved list of accredited structured literacy providers. The Ministry of Education will be responsible for accreditation with input from education experts, and for ongoing monitoring to ensure providers are making a difference and supporting schools to lift literacy rates.”
And in a recent appearance before the Education and Workforce Select Committee (28 February), the Minister made it clear that she would be taking a ‘pragmatic’ approach to PLD. But as most of the details are under active consideration (as part of Budget discussions) she couldn’t share many details. We highlight a few quotes from here testimony below:
[note also includes David Seymour, first up, see 47:42 - 52:00 timestamps for discussion on structured literacy]
“It is going to mean a significant investment into professional learning and development, and into resources, the decodable books and the like.”
“I’m very pragmatic about this. We are going to take a pragmatic look. We know BSLA is doing an exceptionally good job. There are a number of other providers out there. I can’t talk at the moment. It’s under active consideration around the accreditation process. But we will be taking a pragmatic approach. I’m not sure why you would think otherwise, we just need really good providers providing structured literacy and BSLA will be one of those.”
Budget Day is May 30, so we will have to continue to be patient for the details we are craving until then.
Allaying fears about a ‘narrow’ interpretation of Structured Literacy
So, we think that the response in the Select Committee from the Minister should send a reassuring message to PLD providers that she will not be taking an overly narrow interpretation of what structured literacy is and they will not be mandating a single structured literacy provider or programme.
Our feeling is that she is well aware of the need, and desirability, for a multitude of high quality professional learning and development providers, and approaches that broadly align to the principles and components of Structured Literacy. She clearly sees BSLA as part of this and so do we.
She has also said many times that science and our understanding of what constitutes effective classroom practice evolves and we need to keep policy settings and guidance for teachers up to date so we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past, where we adopt a ‘set and forget’ approach.
