Rhetoric of Minister and behaviour of Ministry and ITE at odds
We wrote to the Minister of Education , Hon Jan Tinetti on 31 May 2023 to set out our concerns that the rhetoric of the Minister and the behaviour of the Ministry and ITE providers does not align in regard to the elimination of balanced literacy practices and the Minister’s firm adherence to implementing evidence-based practice. We asked for answers to our questions and will post those once received.
Copied below is the content of the letter, or view it as a PDF here.
Tēna koe Minister
We were pleased to hear you state your clear preference for Structured Literacy in your interview with Patrick Gower on his show Paddy Has Issues that aired on Wednesday last week. You said, "That's what I'm doing now as Minister is bringing the best evidence that's sitting out there and the best scientific approach that's sitting out there".
Your statements are a clear indication that under your leadership, the sector, and therefore the Ministry of Education and all Initial-Teacher Education (ITE) institutions, must move to evidence-based practices as the foundation of all literacy teaching practice.
However, we are concerned that the rhetoric of the Minister and the behaviour of the Ministry and ITE providers does not align in regard to the elimination of balanced literacy practices and your firm adherence to implementing evidence-based practice. We raise the following questions for your reply:
1 Reading Recovery Contract: In light of your comments acknowledging that Structured Literacy is the optimal approach for teaching our children, we question why the Reading Recovery contract has been re-signed for a further year? While claims have been made about the programme's transition toward a more "structured approach", it remains inherently grounded in the false ideology of Whole Language with the disproven practice of solving words using the cueing (known as the 3 cueing system) at the heart of the programme.
The evidence continues to mount that Reading Recovery is not only costly and ineffective; it has a detrimental effect on children’s long-term reading outcomes which are "statistically significant and substantially negative". In addition, 3 cueing has been proven to be damaging practice because it undermines the formation of the brains reading neural network and undermines dyslexic children's neural network development most harmfully. These are the children that are mostly in Tier 3 and where Reading Recovery is delivered one-on-one. It is the only publicly funded Tier 3 intervention programme available to schools, and it is offered with the bonus carrot of a funded teacher. Schools who reject Reading Recovery and adopt a school-wide Structured Literacy programme and deliver Structured Literacy at Tier 3 instead do not get the extra FTTE.
The re-signing of a contract with the providers of Reading Recovery deeply contradicts your stated commitment to evidence-based practices and raises concerns about the misallocation of public funds where superior alternatives and providers of reading intervention already exist. We have continued to raise this with the Ministry over the past three years and highlighted alternative options. We know that DEB (Dyslexia Evidence Based) has also raised it directly with the Ministry and proposed an alternative evidence-based option for T3 in an effort to dissuade the Ministry from again signing the RR contact. And of course Professor James Chapman has been tireless in highlighting that the evidence does not support Reading Recovery.
Rather than adopt an alternative provider of intervention the Ministry has expanded the reach and impact of Reading Recovery’s false reading ideology. We now respectfully request all advice provided to you that sets out the rationale for the renewal of this contract. What research was this based on and what alternatives were considered?
2 Better Start Literacy Approach: During your interview with Mr Gower you described Better Start Literacy Approach as Structured Literacy. However, the leads of BSLA have repeatedly stated that it is ‘a structured approach to literacy’ catering only to Tier 1 and Tier 2 learners. We seek clarification on any recent changes made to align BSLA with the internationally recognised definition of Structured Literacy, as defined by the International Dyslexia Association. Please provide specific details regarding these changes and how BSLA meets the rigorous criteria of Structured Literacy particularly concerning the provision of Tier 3 literacy teaching for ākonga with learning disabilities or requiring intensive targeted support.
3 Sector-Wide Change Plan: You noted that a plan is needed to 'bring teachers with you'. This plan is most urgent: it is unacceptable that children experience wide variation in teaching approach and quality between schools, and indeed, between classrooms. Our teachers, parents and children deserve transparency and a clear strategy for rapid change. The draft high-level principles of the Common Practice Model which have been shared to date allow for the persistence of balanced literacy practices and do not explicitly state that evidence-based practice is the sole acceptable approach. Please outline the comprehensive plan for sector-wide change that ensures all learners receive the highest quality evidence-based literacy instruction.
4 Initial Teacher Education (ITE): Evidence-based practice begins with evidence-based initial teacher education. It is unacceptable to have our newest teachers inadequately prepared by their training providers, rendering them ill-equipped to articulate the why and deliver the how of evidence-based literacy teaching when they enter schools. How will the Minister of Education ensure that all ITE delivers the important foundational understandings of the Science of Reading, aligning with the sector's expectation that newly qualified teachers receive up-to-date and comprehensive training in literacy instruction?
The tide has already turned: we have observed a growing movement of teachers who are not only convinced of the effectiveness of Structured Literacy for all the learners in their classrooms, but are actively working to upskill and align their practice with the Science of Reading. For those who remain wedded to outdated balanced literacy practices, clear ministerial direction is needed.
At the heart of our work are the children who stand to benefit from evidence-based literacy instruction. The expectation of the sector is that the Minister of Education will make decisions based on what is best for learners. By providing a clear directive, you would establish a definitive path toward improved literacy outcomes for all children.
With the October General Election fast approaching we urge you to state unequivocally that 'balanced literacy' practices are at odds with scientific evidence for effective literacy teaching, and have no place in Aotearoa New Zealand's schools. It is essential that you lead the change necessary to ensure all learners consistently receive the highest quality literacy instruction.
We appreciate your dedication to evidence-based practices and your commitment to bringing Structured Literacy to education. Lifting Literacy Aotearoa stands ready to support your efforts in any way possible to create a literacy landscape that meets the right of every child to leave school literate.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. We look forward to your response and further collaboration to advance the cause of evidence-based Structured Literacy in New Zealand's education system.
Ngā mihi
Dr Jennie Watts
Lifting Literacy Aotearoa Steering Group member
