We must set our teachers up for success

By Leslee Allen, Teaching Principal at Kaurihohore School in Northland and author of Number Agents Blog. View as a pdf here.

The recent announcement around structured literacy has me really worried, and not for the reasons you may think.

Let me first state that I am a seasoned structured literacy practitioner with a depth of understanding of the decades of cognitive science from which it comes, and experience with implementation in the classroom. I am also a play-based advocate, with a passion for developmentally appropriate practice. We can, and must, combine all of these things to achieve the best learning experience for our children.

I fully support the Minister’s desire to ensure ALL primary school teachers across New Zealand are using evidence based practices in the classroom.

Our teachers have been let down by the failure of their Ministry, and the institutions that train teachers, to keep up with advances in pedagogy and they deserve the most up to date knowledge.   

Since the Minister’s announcement I am seeing the beginnings of a tit-for-tat exchange of ripostes on social media.

This is further entrenching the ‘two sides’ of the so-called “reading wars” or “progressive versus traditional educators” argument. This is perpetuated by a lack of understanding around what is actually meant by structured literacy. So many people still don’t understand it’s not just phonics; it’s not just decodable books; and it’s not about teaching children to read like robots; or holding precocious readers back. 

It is certainly not about teaching everyone the same way.  

Structured literacy is a comprehensive approach to teaching all aspects of literacy, including reading (both decoding and comprehension), spelling, and writing (from handwriting to composition).

While the science behind it is well established, like all science, it is still evolving.

Teachers still need to exercise their professional judgement, integrate their knowledge of each student and deploy classroom management strategies and bring their lessons to life. It also requires teachers to have the content knowledge of the structure of the English language itself, something most of them do not have.

Those who follow my blog will know from my own practice how all-encompassing structured literacy is.

Structured literacy hasn’t stripped me of the magic I bring to the classroom and the wonderful creativity that others bring to theirs. My class is still based on a pedagogy of play, it is still the wonderfully fun and child-led space it always was, but now because of evidence-informed literacy instruction, it’s even better!

I’ve also heard people say “well what about supports for neurodiverse learners?”

Well, I can tell you that since adopting a structured literacy approach I’ve never been better able to meet the diverse needs of my children, including those who are neurodiverse. I’m like a detective hunting for clues and solving cases because it’s an approach, not a programme, and the knowledge I now have helps me to meet the needs of all of the children I teach.

My children have never been more fluent, more understanding of the learning process, they’ve never been such great writers or spellers, their feeling of success is palpable on a daily basis. You hear it in the way they engage with each other.

In recent days I’ve read comments such as “structured literacy for some, balanced literacy for others,” as balanced literacy teachers start to dig their heels in about change.

This very comment smacks of the lack of understanding fuelling fear and uncertainty within a sector about to embark on one of the biggest changes in decades.

Change of this sort will shake teachers to their core, it gets to the heart of who they think they are and what they believe. Believe me, it is an emotional rollercoaster we are setting these teachers on over the next months and years. 

Do I agree with how this massive shift is being communicated to teachers? No, I don’t.

I am worried that in the rush to upskill these teachers, we risk putting them under too much pressure and sabotaging the change effort.

The change needs to be communicated well, with empathy and a clear understanding that the change will be gradual and that there will be continued investment in PLD, especially instructional coaching support and support for principals in change management. 

When I started on the structured literacy journey over six years ago, it took me time to realise that what I had been doing previously appeared to work, but wasn’t really working.

I needed time to digest this, time to double down on my professional learning, time to let my curiosity drive me. Time to trial and refine. 

I know how urgently this change is needed, our children need to be competent, capable readers, spellers and writers and right now too many of them are not. But our teachers must be given the time and grace to go on that journey.

If we are not given that time, I fear the ‘failure’ of approaches will sit fair and square on the shoulders of those rushing to embed change unilaterally without involving the teachers and principals themselves. That will be devastating, to say the least.

The Minister of Education is asking a lot – for up to 10,000 year 1-3 primary teachers to be upskilled over the next few months to be able to understand and implement structured literacy by term 1 next year.

It’s such a big ask, and such a big change, that she’s setting herself and the teachers up for an extremely tight timeframe. There needs to be flexibility built in.

I was lucky to have the time to digest the science, and now I am completely on board with it, but will everyone? I hope so, because there’s a lot at stake.