Will a name change help the MoE embrace ‘Structured Literacy’ as it strives for world-class inclusive education ?

Pondering why the NZ Ministry of Education is slow to accept Structured Literacy as best literacy practice for ALL learners...

Source: Hattie, Visible Learning

Recently I read a good blog post Leaving the Balanced Literacy habit behind: A theory of change by a leading light in reading science, Dr Pamela Snow, in which she commented on how ‘balanced literacy’ seemed hard to argue against, due to the nature of the word ‘balance’ as who doesn’t like the idea of balance, harmony and equilibrium. It sounds inviting and wholesome, like eating a ‘balanced diet’.

Whereas ‘Structured Literacy’ sounds possibly rigid and constrictive, though it does mean orderly, organised and well-planned.

In schools, we work within timetables and are meant to plan our lessons to align with the NZ Curriculum. However, educational philosophies in recent years have given rise to a great belief in the power of autonomy in school decision-making processes.

Curriculum practices, from school to school and classroom to classroom, have sometimes become less orderly and in some cases more haphazard, in my observations, despite school leaders' individual attempts to stamp their ‘school brand’.

Sometimes as a teacher, it feels as if we are throwing in ‘everything but the kitchen sink’. Teaching is viewed by many as prone to ‘fads’.

When I first trained, the teaching style in vogue in the early 2000s was ‘Inquiry Learning’. Then this morphed into ‘play-based learning’ especially for the junior students. Some schools plumped for modern learning environments and some went ‘yeah, nah’.

The concept of a core curriculum didn’t go away, it just wasn’t put first and foremost in place of priority when discussing the needs of our struggling or target students, in my humble opinion.

I anticipate some kick-back from fellow teachers about this view. However, let me clarify - most teaching works, but some teaching works 'more effectively than others' and I'll pop a link to Kiwi educational researcher John Hattie in the links below to back up my claim. Expert teacher knowledge and teaching skills are what make the most difference. So why waste time and student engagement when some things will help them achieve success faster than other methods?

(As an aside, I do believe in the power of play and my junior classrooms were always set up with play-opportunities for my young learners. 

My concern is about meeting the needs of our learners in a clear, targeted way. For some, that means, a longer time building up oral language skills before they can tackle complex reading or writing skills. For others, they may be halfway to cracking the start of the alphabetic code, and will soon be reading, spelling and writing. Diagnostic and formative assessment is key, step-by-step, to becoming fully literate.

But I digress. This isn’t a debate about ‘play-based learning’ and its pros and cons.)

It is about the misguided notion of ‘structured’ literacy being bad and ‘balanced’ literacy being good.

…………..

So what if we changed the name?

‘Structured Literacy’, with capital letters, is in fact a trademarked term of the International Dyslexia Association. Lots of schools in Australia are teaching this way, but it is rarely called SL. Instead, they say they follow the ‘evidence-based science’ or sciences of reading and learning.

What if the MoE in NZ was able to embrace a term that sounded more like ‘us’, here in Aotearoa NZ?

I know the direct translation, English to Maori is:

Structured Literacy - Hanganga Reo Matatini

I wonder if something more poetic could be used, based on the imagery of the moon, reflecting our culture here:

Clear, Comprehensive Language - Te Reo Marama Aroa  (CCL for short)

Or, what about…

Equitable Language - Te Reo Tautika

Or…

Responsive Literacy - Te Reo Katoitoi

Which is catchy and has the best ring to it?

…………..

But then, if we have campaigned so far for Structured Literacy, would a change of name confuse matters? 

Or could it be a bridge, offered to the MoE, for it to adapt and join us on this journey, without losing face? 

…………..

Some in the MoE perhaps view SL as a step back in education, a return to old ways (much of it is good-old fashioned teaching) rather than the forward-looking, progressive approach to teaching, to meet individual needs, that it is when looked at in its entirety.

One other aspect to contend with is some misguided notions that ‘Structured Literacy’ is favoured by the political right or conservatives, or worse, by ‘Euro-centric’ private schools, when that is not the case here in New Zealand. (See Natalie Wexler article below for this criticism in the US).

Instead, in NZ, Structured Literacy is closing the gaps between ethnic groups and works just as well in low decile schools as it does in higher decile schools. (See school case studies below.)

Perhaps a local brand name will help explain this approach to the public more easily, across all political spectrums, and the MoE will be proud to say it responds to feedback and it welcomes the chance to meet our people’s needs?

I don’t really have the answer. But I do know that often what wins these sorts of campaigns is not changing people’s minds, but changing their hearts.

Could changing a few words help the MoE to embrace this equitable, inclusive approach?

After all, it outlines ‘Structured Literacy’ on its own MoE-approved ‘Inclusive Education’ site for best practice for special education.

If it’s considered best practice for struggling readers and writers, SL must certainly also work in mainstream classes?

Or, are we only ‘inclusive’ outside of the classroom rather than inside it? Beggars belief!

What do you think?

……………………………….

FYI

Here is more food for thought: these are our current, official, government-led priorities for education in NZ: National Educational and Learning Priorities

N National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) released in November 2020 are: NELP 1: Learners at the centre – learners with their whānau are at the centre of education NELP 2: Barrier free access – great education opportunities and outcomes are within reach for every learner NELP 3: Quality teaching and leadership – quality teaching and leadership make the difference for learners and their whānau NELP 4: Future of learning and work – learning that is relevant to the lives of New Zealanders today and throughout their lives NELP 5: World class inclusive public education – New Zealand education is trusted and sustainable

References:

http://pamelasnow.blogspot.com/

Leaving the Balanced Literacy habit behind: A theory of change.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2022/04/12/lets-not-make-phonics-political-again/?sh=6494c27e122d&fbclid=IwAR045f2jzZxjYeqP_szq-LzjKGeweds1Hn0umG6vRCHCup42DQysE2j_-YE

https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/overall-strategies-and-policies/the-statement-of-national-education-and-learning-priorities-nelp-and-the-tertiary-education-strategy-tes/

https://assets.education.govt.nz/public/Documents/NELP-TES-documents/FULL-NELP-2020.pdf

https://www.liftingliteracyaotearoa.org.nz/support/case-studies

https://www.learningmatters.co.nz/case-studies/

https://inclusive.tki.org.nz/guides/dyslexia-and-learning/understanding-structured-literacy/

https://www.slideshare.net/richardcookau/john-hattie-effect-sizes-on-achievement

A cry for help! - Read the research, read the words, read my face

 

After the launch of the government’s new literacy strategy last week- and no direct mention of Structured Literacy - several members of the dyslexia advocacy groups I belong to said they were tired, emotionally exhausted and they needed to take a break.

Like the struggling learners we support, there comes a time when - faced with seemingly insurmountable barriers - you just want to crawl back inside your protective shell.

For a while there, we were passionate and loud. We were like the kids, the struggling learners, who get disruptive in class.

Then we tried humour. We all know the ‘class clown’ gets attention. A few memes started being shared around. Perhaps they did not paint the Ministry of Education  (or Minister Hipkins) in a good light. But we certainly vented some of our frustrated passion with a laugh or too.

Then the joke fell flat. Some other advocates of SL, teachers not parents, accused us of being bullies. Bullies! That’s right. Parents advocating for their struggling learners, calling the MoE out for not publicly addressing their demands for the widespread adoption of Structured Literacy, were told they were being disrespectful.

For years, many of our students have been labelled by various ill-informed teachers ‘slow’, ‘difficult’, ‘needy’, and ‘disengaged’. So to be told, by a few more teachers, that we were not behaving nicely was difficult to hear.

• Some of us have trawled the internet for years to find ways that we could help our learners learn how to read and write, because it wasn’t happening at school, in class time.

• Some of us have spent thousands and thousands of dollars paying tutors to teach our children how to read and write.

• Some of us gave up our jobs to ‘homeschool’ our children, so they could learn to read and write.

• Some of us, years ago, have written long submissions to the government on the inclusive education strategy.

• Some of us, years ago, have signed petitions advocating for Structured Literacy.

• Some of us got active on Facebook education groups, to advocate for our learners.

• Some of us have had meetings, face to face, with the MoE about our concerns.

• Some of us have invited education bureaucrats and ministers to visit schools using Structured Literacy, to see it in action.

• Some of us have made presentations to our school boards, requesting Structured Literacy.

• Some of us have written even longer submissions to the government on the then proposed literacy strategy.

• Some of us have signed a new petition advocating for dyslexics' right to an education.

• Some of us have built shared drives and websites to advocate for Structured Literacy.

• Some of us have been on the radio, interviewed on television and written about in newspapers.

• Some of us want to cry: “Why are we and our children being ignored?”

• Some of us just want to cry.

Some of us have had successes - our own children got the help they needed or we convinced a local school to make the shift to Structured Literacy.

But we were thinking big, ‘going for gold’…We wanted this not just for our own kids, but ALL kids; not just this generation, but the next one, too!

But we are tired. We need help. Maybe you do not have a child with dyslexia, but chances are you know someone who does. More than 1 in 5 New Zealanders struggle to read and write.

Can we pass the baton on to you in this tiring ‘race for gold’? (Please don’t hit us on the head with it.) 

Please ask your school-aged family members how they are getting on at school. How many of their classmates need a hand to read and write?

Can we help them?

Yes, we all can. We can ALL advocate for Structured Literacy and lift NZ’s ‘dire’ literacy rates.

Remember, those ‘dire’ statistics are not just numbers; they are people, they are workmates, they are children, they are classmates, they are yours and mine, and they need our help.

And spare a thought for those passionate - possibly angry - people, those ‘bullies’; after all, ‘acting out’ is a call for help, too. 

Some of us are just too tired to remember our best manners.