Letter to Associate Minister Jan Tinetti
View pdf of letter here.
Letter to Minister Tinetti setting out five key areas that need to be addressed if Literacy Strategy is to be successful.
And see our assessment of Government’s progress on Literacy Strategy here.
15 November 2021
Dear Minister
Follow up on Literacy Strategy
Thank you once again for meeting with us on 4th August to discuss how we can improve literacy outcomes for all children (and adults) in New Zealand. We were encouraged by what we discussed and hope that we can continue the conversation with you in the lead up to finalising the new Literacy Strategy. We are very happy to connect you to international reading science researchers and practitioners, or provide any other assistance we can as the Literacy Strategy is finalised.
We also feel, however, that it is our duty to let you know that we are very concerned that the Literacy Strategy that you will release soon will be missing critical content and will not deliver the turnaround in literacy achievement that we all want to achieve.
Our impression from engaging with the Ministry (most recently on 21 September), is that the Strategy will be very high level, with no clear framing around how its content relates to the vast evidence base from the science of reading of ‘what works best’.
We cannot overstate this: teachers want to see a Strategy that is firmly grounded in evidence and gives them the clarity of what and how to teach. And they need this as soon as possible. Thousands of teachers are muddling their way through, either totally oblivious to this body of research or somehow stumbling upon the findings from the science of reading and trying to implement this approach in their classroom. They are expending time and energy creating their own local literacy curriculum, when there should be an evidence-based, well resourced curriculum ready-made for them. Teachers should not be reinventing the wheel in this area. And meanwhile, reading programmes that are not backed up by robust science continue to be funded.
Overarching framework
As Minister, this pivotal moment is your opportunity to probe the actions that government agencies are taking, or plan to take, in relation to literacy instruction. As a nation, over the past 30 years, we have not done all we can to improve our literacy achievement and we must not waver in our commitment to lifting our literacy achievement. We need to set aside politics, prior beliefs, anecdotes or ideology and solely be guided by the evidence of what works best. It is time for the Ministry and the Teaching Council’s strategies and actions to be:
well grounded in the best international and domestic scientific evidence on how reading happens in the brain (science of reading),
inclusive of all learners from early childhood into adulthood, including those with specific language learning difficulties and in different language settings,
aligned and consistent across schools and across tiers of intervention,
implemented in a timely manner and in comprehensive way across the sector,
represent the best value for money and provide equity of access and funding to professional learning and development and teaching resources; and
have a way of being independently informed, monitored and evaluated by those with deep knowledge of the science of reading and on the ground structured literacy teaching practice.
We need to see principles similar to these as a guiding framework in the Strategy.
Five issues are critical to success of the Strategy
These concerns are significant and need addressing before the Literacy Strategy is finalised. The Literacy Strategy is NZ's chance to change course, we must get it right.
(1) The Ready to Read Phonics Plus Books are not decodable texts and should not be used as a main instructional text by schools (unless significantly reviewed)
We have vocally supported the development of the Ready to Read Phonics Plus books from the outset as we had anticipated they would provide a high quality decodable text series to all schools. However, we have known there were significant issues with the books ever since we managed to get hold of drafts earlier this year. We have been trying to communicate this to the Ministry and support them to fix the issues while they have the opportunity.
The Ready to Read Phonics Plus books, as they stand, have not met the mark. They are not fully decodable as they do not have a sufficiently gradual and cumulative scope and sequence. They are therefore not appropriate for children who struggle to learn to read without a structured literacy approach (up to 60 percent), and cannot be considered inclusive resources for inclusive teaching practice.
So how did this happen? One of the difficulties in understanding what makes for a quality decodable text is that there is not a lot of specific research on the topic. However, we understand from the Ministry that the Phonics Plus books were based on the scope and sequence in the Massey University Early Literacy Project. While the Massey project does publish a scope and sequence, it was not the actual scope and sequence that was used in the study as the researchers ended up using the Little Learners Love Literacy (LLLL) decodable texts as their core instructional text. The LLLL scope and sequence is very gradual, from simple to complex and builds cumulatively, and has been used successfully in many schools in Australia and New Zealand for a number of years. Therefore the results achieved in the Massey study are more likely to be related to following the Little Learners Love Literacy scope and sequence and NOT the one originally designed by the researchers and which Canterbury University subsequently based the Ready to Read Phonics Plus books scope and sequence on. This is a very important point. We also understand that the final versions of the Ready to Read Phonics Plus books were also revised significantly during the editorial process to such a degree that they no longer meet the definition of a ‘decodable’ book. They are more akin to an embedded phonics book series and are not suitable for neurodiverse learners in particular, and therefore cannot be considered for use as core classroom texts or for intervention programmes.
We have also received this opinion on the series from Duncan Milne, a well respected New Zealand Cognitive Neuroscience Researcher on Reading and Dyslexia:
“Decodable texts should not have a mixture of orthographies, as different orthographies have different GPCs (grapheme to phoneme correspondences). Here the MoE have (possibly without realizing it) reverted back to a whole language approach in their phonics readers as some of the Māori words cannot be read using the GPCs of English and vice versa. At this early stage, it is detrimental to add any further complications to the decoding process, which is indeed the overriding rationale behind decodable texts. Put simply, it is like sprinkling low frequency ‘tricky words’ into stories, which will result in dyslexic learners not trusting the code, reducing comprehension, and overall experiencing failure. I expect the intention was for the right reason (to be bi-culturally inclusive), but there is either a lack of expertise or understanding in how structured literacy actually works at the MoE, or worse, any expert(s) have not had a voice in the editorial process.
I also feel that the existing offering does not constitute a structured systematic phonics programme, but rather an embedded phonics programme, or put simply a set of phonics readers. For it to be systematic synthetic phonics it needs to be rigorously matched to a phonics progression and backed up by daily lessons where the new GPCs are introduced and then reinforced through decodable texts. You are correct that the progression used by the MoE is far too quick for dyslexic learners and as such will not be effective. I don’t think the letters are introduced in the most beneficial order either. A proper programme would be taught in every school day over the first 2 years and have over 200 readers, with each lesson and reader having fidelity to the progression.
Although it is a shame that this opportunity has been lost for dyslexic learners, it is a ‘baby step’ in the right direction. In my opinion, the MoE should now look to the UK if they want to create a literacy environment that is inclusive to dyslexic learners. They are best to ‘piggy back’ on the 15+ years of advancement in the UK, rather than to try and reinvent their own wheel. I can see this is what Australia is doing with much success. Finally, they must look to actual publishers who have years of experience in the development of structured systematic phonics and decodable texts to provide these materials. A world leading example of this is Beanstalk Books (see beanstalkbooks.co.nz) – ironically developed in New Zealand, but used extensively in the UK, Australia and the US.”
The problems with the suitability of the scope and sequence of the Ready to Read Phonics Plus books are further confirmed by a large number of responses to a survey of teachers we ran. The majority of respondents felt that the scope and sequence has issues and needs addressing if they are to make use of these books - 13% said they do not plan to use them at all. It moves too quickly, there are too few books at each stage, too many ‘sight’ words are included and many of these sight words are actually decodable. Many felt that the scope and sequence should align more closely to that used by other popular decodable series, such as Little Learners Love Literacy and Sunshine Decodables which many schools have already invested in. Like these, the decodable book series used in Australian schools also reflect a cumulative and gradual scope and sequence from simple to complex.
The majority also found the inclusion of te reo kupu increased the complexity and would confuse children. Some suggested it would be better to provide sets of te reo Māori decodables alongside English ones and leave the teaching of te reo words as a second language. There is no evidence as far as we are aware that shows that including two languages in a set of decodables is beneficial and that is why no other set of decodable series does this. It is just not in line with the science of reading.
We absolutely acknowledge and advocate for the teaching of te reo Māori at all levels of education, and see this as an essential responsibility in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Learners in years 1 to 2 would be better placed to do so if two languages were not mixed up in the same decodable book, where the phonemes and graphemes of one language contradict the other. Many, including Māori educators, commented that the inclusion of te reo kupu was tokenistic.
(2) Changes to Reading Recovery lack transparency and overall approach is not consistent with the science
We were very interested in your comments made on the Breakfast Show on the 12th August in relation to the changes being made to Reading Recovery and how “there is room for both [structured literacy and reading recovery] in the system, and there must be room for both”.
To understand the thinking behind that very strong position we need to see a lot more detail on the changes being made to Reading Recovery that were first signalled in December last year. What the Ministry has on its TKI website, and what we have been hearing from schools that use Reading Recovery, does not give us the information we need to understand how Reading Recovery can be made compatible with the findings from the science of reading and the principles of a structured literacy approach.
We certainly welcome more conversation about what the changes being made to Reading Recovery are, and urge the Ministry of Education to keep evidence at the heart of any amendment to Reading Recovery practice. We realise the Ministry is trying to shift Reading Recovery to be better aligned with the evidence for successful reading instruction. However, it seems to us that Reading Recovery as a whole is too far from that practice and what is happening on the ground may not reflect the changes the Ministry is wanting to see from Reading Recovery teachers. We have heard from principals, Reading Recovery teachers and others that some schools are employing a Reading Recovery teacher and that person is not necessarily following the Reading Recovery method, but instead are sometimes using a pure structured literacy approach. And we have also heard that some Reading Recovery teachers are actively opposing the Ministry changes to Reading Recovery and some schools are only putting students into Reading Recovery if they are at level 10 for reading.
Our intention is not to criticise Reading Recovery teachers or disregard their commitment to children and their learning. We want the best support for those teachers to receive the very best training in up-to-date evidence based teaching practices so that they can form part of a consistent, aligned, evidence-based and cost effective model of delivery of reading and writing instruction across the system. There is a need for more literacy specialists in the system and we would urge the Government to consider bolstering the RTLit network, rather than continuing to invest in the third-party and proprietary Reading Recovery network over which the Ministry has limited control. Many schools are also moving to fund their own specialist Literacy Leaders/Specialists in their schools and the funding of those roles should be considered as an alternative, and better use of funding that is solely earmarked for Reading Recovery teachers.
Our concerns with Reading Recovery stem from the fact that the approach is based on the three-cueing approach. This approach may work for some students but it is clear it does not work for many other learners. In contrast, a structured literacy approach has been shown, over and over again, to work for every student and prevents students from struggling unnecessarily. So it baffles us as to why would we continue to use Reading Recovery when a superior alternative exists?
Also we note that the Ministry is now requiring Reading Recovery to use the Phonics Plus books. This will be a move in the right direction certainly, but as stated above, the scope and sequence of these books is not sufficiently cumulative for struggling readers. So while it’s a step in the right direction, it will not be sufficient to be truly effective. This is a bad investment and will deliver poor value for money.
Reading Recovery costs taxpayers $26 million per annum, which is a vast sum for a programme that is so heavily flawed. These funds would be better directed toward professional development in evidence-based approaches to literacy instruction to ensure that all learners are given the best opportunity to learn to read from the beginning, rather than waiting for them to fail.
There are also other literacy programmes like the Accelerated Learning in Literacy (ALL) where we question the evidence base behind the programme. There is a clear need to review all existing programmes to ensure they are evidence based.
(3) There is an urgent need to promote and fund a structured literacy approach for Hanganga Reo Matatini
As we explained to you when we met, a structured literacy approach is universally effective for every alphabetic language. We also now have examples of Māori medium kura using this approach very successfully - in fact so successfully that they have eliminated the achievement gap for their Māori students!
Take Central Normal School in Palmerston North for example. This is a decile 4 school of 440 students. They have 16 classes in Kura Auraki that learn from the New Zealand Curriculum and 6 classes in Māori Immersion that learn from Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. They adopted a structured literacy approach school wide four years ago. At that time their literacy achievement for Māori was 47% (21% below that for European Pakeha). Four years later that is now at 75% for those in the English Medium (and 6% higher than that for European Pakeha) and 70% for those in the Māori Medium. This is phenomenal, and if this Government is serious about addressing inequalities and lifting Māori achievement, then we need the Ministry of Education to get moving on supporting Māori medium schools (and other language medium schools) to adopt a structured literacy approach as well. There is an urgent need for the Ministry to fund PLD and resources for Māori medium schools as well.
There are PLD providers and resource creators already out there - they just need to be funded so that they can reach more kura and ākonga and be put on an equitable footing with what is being provided by English Medium schools.
We recently put on a webinar on how structured literacy is closing the gaps for Māori students. It can be viewed here, and we attach a copy of a summary of the discussion as well for your information. We plan to write to The Green Party, The Māori Party and Labour Party Māori Caucus to make them aware of the success these kura are having with their Māori students’ achievement.
(4) There needs to be a wider range of structured literacy PLD funded by the Ministry
The Ministry funded Better Start Literacy Approach (BSLA) does not provide PLD for all schools or all year levels - currently only training Y0/1 teachers. While it plans to provide training to 5,840 teachers and facilitators over the next 3 years, that only represents around 18% of all primary teachers. To achieve the best results, we need a structured literacy approach to be used across the entire school, and also into Intermediate and Secondary schools. ECE teachers also need some level of training. The BSLA is clearly not going to be able to deliver the scope and volume of PLD that is required to see a systemic shift in practice and outcomes. There are a number of other high quality and reputable structured literacy PLD providers (see a list of these on our website) that many schools have already engaged and funded out of their own resources. The services of these providers should be available to other schools on a fully funded basis. The Ministry should also create criteria/guidelines that PLD providers need to meet to ensure what they are offering is in line with the evidence. There are good examples of such guidelines that could be used.
(5) Greater pressure needs to be put on ITEs to ensure they turn out graduates with knowledge of the science of reading and the practice of structured literacy
While the Ministry might not have the direct levers to be able to direct what content ITEs include in their programmes, they can exert significant influence in terms of the Guidance documents they provide and sharing of best practice. If the Literacy Strategy provides good guidance to schools but fails to ensure ITEs are teaching the right content, then the Strategy will remain weak.
The desire for change is strong and growing
Teachers and parents around New Zealand are hungry for this change and want the Ministry and the wider sector to embrace the evidence and expedite the change. Information we have gathered over the past few months indicates that at least 12% of primary schools in New Zealand have made or are making a switch to a structured literacy approach already and largely self funding this.4 Teacher support Facebook Groups are mushrooming, with the two largest having well over 4,000 members each and growing every day. Teachers are giving up their free time on weekends and evenings to join learning opportunities being put on by their fellow teachers. For example, more than 200 teachers from all over Auckland gave up one of their Saturday mornings in June for an informal ‘Unconference’ – a free introductory professional development session about Structured Literacy, hosted by Sunnyhills School in Pakuranga. A very basic introductory talk about the way children learn to read was watched by close to 1000 viewers live on Facebook, and 15,000 viewers since. Media interest in structured literacy has also increased recently with a number of stories featuring on Breakfast Show, the AM Show, Te Karere News, radio and print media.
Summary of our position
In closing, we are concerned that the Literacy Strategy you will shortly be releasing will not be as tightly tied to the evidence base of the science of reading as it could be, and will not result in the improved literacy outcomes you hope for. We are signalling now, five areas in particular that you need to get right if the Literacy Strategy is to be coherent, comprehensive, equitable and evidence-based. These are:
● having independent structured literacy experts review the scope and sequence of the Ready to Read Phonics Plus books to insure these are decodable and inclusive resources;
● reviewing the ongoing investment in the third party and proprietary Reading Recovery network and other Ministry funded literacy interventions compared to investing those funds in other initiatives that align with a structured literacy approach;
● ensuring we do not neglect learners in Māori Medium or Pasifika language settings and funding structured literacy PLD and decodables for those teachers and schools;
● funding a wider range of high quality structured literacy PLD for schools; and
● ensuring ITEs are preparing graduate teachers with the knowledge of the science of reading and structured literacy teaching practice.
These issues need careful examination and input from independent reading science experts.
We have proposed to work through this with the Ministry in a collaborative workshop style meeting so that we might truly understand each other's perspectives of the evidence.
Keeping track of progress
Ahead of our meeting in August, we shared with you a copy of our ‘Call to Action’. We have produced our first ‘Report Card’ against the 16 recommendations contained in that. We attach a copy for your information. We will update this quarterly and publish on our website and social media. We look forward to the day that we can score 10 out of 10 for all items. As you can see, there is a lot of work to do.
Please get in touch if you need any further information. We will continue to liaise with your office to arrange a time (Covid levels permitting) for you to visit one or two schools near you that have switched to a structured literacy approach so you can see it for yourself.
