Our Literacy Policy White Paper
For the past couple of months we have been working on pulling together advice to the incoming Minister of Education, Erica Stanford and Associate Minister of Education, David Seymour.
This advice explains why we still need changes to our literacy policy and what we think those changes are.
We are pleased to finally be able to release the report publicly. Note that we have pitched this document as a draft and have opened it up for public consultation and we invite written submissions to be emailed to us by 4 March 2024. After that we will consider the feedback and produce a final document within a couple of weeks.
We are particularly keen to hear from teachers, principals, literacy specialists, PLD providers, teacher aides, literacy researchers and parents of children with dyslexia and other additional learning needs.
Be warned, it is quite a long read - just in time for your holiday reading pile! There are a total of 25 consultation questions but don’t feel like you have to respond to all of them! You can focus on the areas most of interest to you.
You can read the full report here.
You can read the Executive Summary here. Also replicated below.
You can access a Submission Template here. Just save a copy and edit from there.
Access a short slidepack summary here.
Read our press release here.
Read our Structured Literacy Backgrounder here. This includes responses to the many myths and misconceptions about Structured Literacy. Some of the material repeats what is in the Policy White Paper but it is meant to be a standalone document that can be shared on its own.
Executive Summary
This paper is primarily written for the newly appointed Minister of Education, Erica Stanford MP and Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools), David Seymour MP.
The new Coalition Government, just as the previous government did, has committed to improve educational outcomes, especially in the basics of literacy and numeracy.
The previous government had bold ambitions, but wasn’t able to adequately free itself from the grip of status quo interests and put in place a fully coherent and well evidenced curriculum, learning progressions, assessment tools and detailed guidance for teachers on best teaching practices for literacy.
The job of the new Government is to better stand up to ‘status quo’ interests so that it can rapidly shift its attention to the nitty gritty of policy implementation.
Big decisions need to be made in a short amount of time. Thousands of teachers are waiting for answers, guidance and support; and thousands more students and parents are waiting for better classroom experiences and learning outcomes.
We have been advocating strongly for the past three years for changes to literacy policy settings. Many of our recommendations feature in the new Government’s Literacy Guarantee policy.
The new Government has said it wants to review the English curriculum and Common Practice Model material developed to date; see all primary schools implement structured literacy; introduce short phonics checks for Year 2 students; provide structured literacy intervention for learners who need extra support; and ensure teachers get training on how to use structured literacy approach. They have earmarked $61 million over the next four years to support that change.
The changes that the Government have signalled and that we think are needed are far reaching and structural in nature, and will come at an increased fiscal cost.
We need to keep in mind that not providing that funding is storing up future costs to taxpayers in the form of increased healthcare costs, increased justice system costs, increased welfare system costs and reduced GDP than would otherwise have been. A recent Australian-based economic analysis of the costs of illiteracy found that properly funding literacy policy in schools would result in a 13 times return on investment. We could expect similar such returns in New Zealand.
To help the Ministry and Minister with policy implementation design, we offer our advice on policy implementation. This includes setting out:
the key areas of change to bring this aspiration to reality;
what the guiding policy objectives should be for each area;
the rationale for those objectives;
what specifically needs to change; and
considerations for implementation.
This report is an iteration of our original Manifesto from July 2020 and our Call to Action in July 2021.
We have looked at a range of documents and sought input from selected people in drawing this advice together.
This includes looking at recent overseas examples of system level literacy policy change that seek to embed the science of reading into literacy instruction.
The focus of this paper is on literacy instruction in schools.
While we recognise that addressing poor literacy achievement also requires a focus on developing pre-literacy skills, especially oral language before children start school, and supporting adults with poor literacy.
We did not have a lot of time to prepare this paper. We welcome your feedback by 17 February 2024.
We are a small team of volunteers with busy family lives and we do this advocacy work in our free time. Please have a read and send us your thoughts. We are particularly keen to hear from teachers, principals, literacy specialists, PLD providers, teacher aides, literacy researchers and parents of children with dyslexia and other additional learning needs. We have set out a series of consultation questions throughout the document (also listed together at the end of the document - 25 in total). We invite written submissions to be emailed to us at liftingliteracyaotearoa@gmail.com by 17 February 2024..
Our high level recommendations include:
Appointing an Expert Science of Learning Advisory Group
To support the Minister with high quality, impartial and independent advice. This group could initially take the lead on the pause and review of rollout of Refreshed Curriculum for English and Maths, but it could have an ongoing role beyond that.
The Advisory Group must Include international experts from jurisdictions that have already embarked on making similar changes. New Zealand is a very small country where there are many conflicts of interest so our pool of experts is rather small and not wholly independent. Other countries are also further ahead than us in implementing a change to their literacy curriculum and teaching practices and we could benefit from that experience.
We also recommend Reference Groups be formed to gather feedback on implementation of the changes to PLD and classroom instruction from teachers, principals and leaders, parents and students.
Being clear and ambitious about the goals for literacy policy
Ensure all students learn to read and write proficiently (no reason why we should not be aiming for 95% proficiency);
Make knowledge of the Science of Learning and the Science of Reading a core requirement for all New Zealand teachers and teachers aides;
Mandate a Structured Literacy approach for teaching literacy in all schools.
Ensuring there is a robust, impartial and efficient process for considering changes to policy and practice settings as new evidence comes to light.
Our more detailed areas for policy change include:
Curriculum and Common Practice Model
Teacher professional development and change management support
Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and Teaching Standards
Assessment
Intervention
Teaching resources
For each of the areas of policy change we set out at a high level:
The overall objective we should aim for
Why the change is needed
What needs to happen in a nutshell
Key implementation details.
The changes are also needed in te reo matatini, literacy learning in kaupapa Māori and Māori-Medium settings, as well as other language medium settings (such as Samoan and Tongan). So our proposals apply equally to those settings as well.
Change will take two to four years. The changes must be grounded in the most contemporary evidence on how to improve literacy outcomes, it must be aspirational about what can be achieved, and disciplined in implementation. Implemented appropriately, the reforms outlined in this paper will reduce workload for teachers.
Curriculum and Common Practice Model:
Teachers are provided with an updated curriculum, pedagogical guidance and classroom teaching materials that fully align to robust scientific research.
Commission Expert Science of Reading Advisory Group to review the Refreshed English Curriculum and Common Practice Model for coherence and alignment to the science of reading and Structured Literacy principles and components from the IDA and recommend changes. Work to be done by March 2024.
Remove any references, supports and teaching resources to Balanced Literacy teaching techniques that are not aligned with the science of reading because they are damaging to use for many students, ineffective and not evidence based. These include: the 3 Cueing/MSV (meaning, structure, visual) system, use of predictable texts (colour wheel/PM readers), and Running Records assessment.
Teacher professional development and change management support:
High quality, evidence-based approaches to reading instruction are embedded and prioritised in professional development for in-service teachers and a robust and equitable approach is followed in making that available to all schools. Sufficient coaching and change management support is built into PLD for schools and literacy leaders..
There must be a significant and systematic investment now into professional development for school leaders and in-service teachers who are currently providing reading instruction in schools.
As a first step the Ministry of Education should survey all schools to understand the extent and quality of training their staff have received in the science of reading and structured literacy.
Prioritise literacy for PLD funding ahead of anything else. Don’t give teachers more to do while changing literacy.
Aim for primary schools to train all their staff. The change should ideally happen across the school over a one to three year period. For secondary schools there is also a need for some awareness and basic training of all staff and more in-depth training for specialist reading intervention teachers. Note that there needs to be alignment of instruction, and therefore training, across all three Tiers of instruction under a response to intervention (RTI) framework.
Stocktake and review of the specialist roles of RTLB, LSC, and RTLit specifically to assess their role in helping schools and clusters of schools shift to a structured literacy pedagogy, and what will be needed to support them to do so.
Advanced PLD by accredited providers for structured literacy intervention teachers, school literacy lead teachers, RTLits, RTLBs, and LSCs. We see much potential in this specialist Ministry funded workforce to be at the vanguard of steering and supporting the implementation of the pedagogical approach we are proposing needs to happen across all schools, and at pace over the next few years. The Ministry should be growing its own in-house resource to lead curriculum and common practice model implementation, through a combination of the regional Curriculum Advisors and these specialist roles. There is also potential to include Reading Recovery Tutors and teachers in this, and have them employed directly by the Ministry of Education.
Design and put in place a government accreditation scheme for PLD providers to provide science of reading and structured literacy PLD to schools. The University of Canterbury and their Better Start Literacy Approach programme, or other university provided PLD for that matter need to be treated like any other PLD and education provider. Scheme must require providers to demonstrate how they meet the principles and components of Structured Literacy as set out by the IDA Knowledge and Practice Standards. Needs to include PLD for Māori and other language medium settings as well.
Funding for PLD should also be open to intermediate and secondary schools.
Allow schools to apply for PLD from the provider of their choosing. Consider funding additional teacher training days (teacher release) to help support this implementation over the 3 years for schools. This should include teacher aides as well. Make a condition of their application the development of a 3-year implementation plan and report progress six-monthly against that.
Training made available to all schools in understanding neurodiversity affirming practices in teaching and in using Enabling Good Lives Principles.
Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and Teaching Standards:
High quality, evidence-based approaches are embedded in teacher education programmes. Skills and knowledge required by teachers are explicitly outlined in standards which are linked to certification for both pre-service and in-service teachers.
Immediately convene a roundtable of the Deans of the Schools of Education of all ITE providers to discuss embedding the science of reading into their teacher training programmes.
Require advanced IDA accredited training for ITE literacy course designers and lecturers (so that they have the knowledge to make the change). Provide funding for this if required. Set a deadline for when staff have to have been trained by and require evidence of this training. Consider incentives or penalties for failure to comply.
Update the standards for ITE qualifications to include the Science of Reading and Structured Literacy (Refer to the IDA Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading).
Require the Teaching Council or the Tertiary Education Commission to conduct periodic monitoring audits of ITE programmes in the first four years of making this change to ensure new requirements have been implemented with fidelity.
The Ministry of Education to issue a policy statement giving direction to the Teaching Council to change the criteria for teacher registration for primary teachers to include proficiency in Science of Reading and Structured Literacy (Refer to the IDA Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading).
The Ministry of Education to review the functions and leadership of the Teaching Council to determine if some functions sit better with the Ministry of Education and whether the right strategic priorities and leadership are in place in the Council.
Assessment:
Standardised curriculum based assessment tools are implemented nationwide to ensure consistency of practice across the country and make sure children do not fall through the cracks. This is especially important in Years 1-3, and on entry to high school.
School systems must focus on preventing reading and writing problems from developing, intervening as early as possible, and doing so systematically when problems emerge within a multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) model. The evidence base for prevention and early intervention is considered settled science.
Assessment in education has four uses: screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and outcome measures. Each has a role to play in data-based decisions to enable responsive teaching, and for system-wide improvement in teaching and learning.
It is important that assessment and curriculum are closely aligned.
Ideally identification of students requiring additional assistance would take place before a child enters the formal schooling system and the roll-out of evidence-based language and literacy screening tools should be a focus for early childhood policy development and program implementation.
Best practice within the school environment would see curriculum based assessment undertaken three times a year from the first year of primary school to Year 9. Such tools also need to be developed for te reo Māori, Gagana Sāmoa and lea Faka Tonga.
Investigate and provide guidance on and access to a comprehensive and robust suite of curriculum based assessment tools for literacy (including universal screening, diagnostic assessments, and progress monitoring tools).
Require the use of a validated universal screening assessment three times per year, and provide substantial PLD in test administration, data analysis and use of screening, diagnostic and progress monitoring data to inform Tier 1, 2, and 3 teaching.
Put in place a comprehensive, centralised data analysis and management system nationwide to enable measurement of the impact of national and school level improvement efforts, as well as support teachers’ data-based decision-making for individual students.
Intervention:
All students receive high quality literacy instruction and students who require intervention have equity of access to, and participation in, appropriate support services in a timely manner. This needs to include intermediate and secondary levels as well.
The Reading Recovery and Early Literacy Support (RR&ELS) programme should not continue to be funded by the Ministry of Education. There is ample evidence over many, many years that the core of the Reading Recovery programme is not evidence-based and any benefits are not longstanding.
The continuing decline of uptake of RR&ELS (despite the funding carrot from the Ministry) shows that schools are voting with their feet. It is time the Ministry channelled the $25 million in annual funding into more productive alternatives. In our view, the current contract extension should not be extended further past 31 January 2024. A transition period of two terms could be looked at for schools that have signed up, in good faith, to RR&ELS for 2024.
We recommend that all Reading Recovery Tutors and teachers be offered a two year fixed term contract as an RTLit and the opportunity to receive IDA accredited structured literacy training over the next year.
Work needs to begin immediately on the development and roll out of a hybrid model for reading intervention support in schools. We recommend the Ministry of Education directly employ more reading intervention specialists (RTLits) who must receive advanced training in IDA/ADA accredited structured literacy. These could work across a number of schools, especially smaller or rural schools for whom employing a full time reading intervention teacher of their own might be impractical.
In addition, the Ministry should develop a resourcing/funding model for schools to be able to train up and employ their own reading specialist intervention teacher, if they so choose. This person could potentially also be the Literacy Lead in the school, spearheading the pedagogical shift in literacy instruction across the school and providing coaching support to other teachers across the school. We do not recommend outsourcing or contracting out this service, as was done with Reading Recovery.
Finally, in line with the Highest Needs Review, we think wrap-around services should be provided to at-risk and vulnerable students through easy to access allied health professionals.
Teaching resources:
All teachers have access to sufficient quality teaching resources (including decodable books) to implement a structured literacy approach.
Set aside a funding pool that schools, including intermediate and secondary schools, can access to purchase high quality teaching resources, including decodable books.
Ministry to negotiate discounted rates with teaching resources and decodable book suppliers, but not run a central procurement process to lock in schools to a Ministry selected set of resources or decodable books. Allow schools to choose resources.
We advocate for the implementation of Structured Literacy as set out by the International Dyslexia Association, rather than just ‘evidence-based’ literacy instruction because this:
provides much needed clarity to teachers so they can stay on track and focus on teaching;
is extensively supported and proven to work in all manner of New Zealand schools and internationally; and
lifts the professionalism of teaching and keeps educational institutions accountable.
We support mandating Structured Literacy in schools (in contrast to letting individual schools decide) because it will deliver much needed clarity and enable the sector to mobilise and get underway with changes with certainty and expediency.
This approach to mandate the common practice model was also recommended by the Ministry of Education and supported by the previous Minister of Education. We cannot rely on a voluntary approach - the approach taken for the past 40 years. This has led to a pick ‘n mix approach, with ideology sneaking into classrooms and failed literacy reform after failed literacy reform. Our laissez faire attitude has severely let down teachers and generations of children.
What we are ultimately recommending is a commitment to the science, research and evidence about current best practice in literacy education. This is about upholding every person’s right to be literate. This is about championing social justice.
A mandate, that comes with well crafted policy, resources, teacher education, funding and change management support will ensure education isn’t a lottery for our children from year to year, class to class, school to school depending on what teacher or school they have and their subsequent knowledge and beliefs about the teaching of reading and writing.
Mandating will also ensure that teachers in New Zealand receive the knowledge and practice expertise they deserve.
A mandate does not mean policy and practice is forever fixed and unchanging. We must, of course, be open to adjusting practice expectations in classrooms as the science and evidence shifts.
Right now we know that Structured Literacy is what is making the biggest difference to both tamariki and kaiako in New Zealand. Crucially, this includes all tamariki including those who are neurodiverse, or from low socioeconomic backgrounds or different cultural backgrounds.
