Bronze: doing 'half-hearted' Structured Literacy isn't SL

Training in shifting mindsets results in gold standard results.

Alas, a tale of a tarnished dream...

The informative, evidence-based Science of Reading noticeboard that I created in the teachers' workroom at my school late last year has been removed to make way for...nothing!

This is possibly a sign that all is not as golden as it might seem, when deemed a 'whole school Structured Literacy school'.

You see, after my presentation to staff and backroom/workroom chat last year, I helped persuade the school leaders to adopt a SL approach in 2022. I also recommended a gold standard PLD provider, with lots of supporting resources, so that fellow teachers could get up to speed ASAP. This came to pass.

Alas, it appears that the SL programme resources are warmly welcomed - some teachers are reporting 'loving' the streamlined package.

But, and this is the catch, some of them still say the are stumped, yes stumped, when THEY HAVE STUDENTS WHO CAN'T KEEP UP!

So the display about tiny steps, being a dyslexia-friendly school and digging deeper to get to the why of a behaviour was all for nought.

Being diagnostic and using a Response to Intervention model, across all three tiers, has been largely ignored. The school has kept its same, limited teacher-aide assisted programmes and has ruled out any intensive intervention due to cost. When questioned about this, the Senior Leadership Team said: "SL in the classroom will take care of that" or some such platitude.*

As someone wiser than me recently said (Dr Nathan Swain in his Cognatorium blog), making progress with the Science of Reading using a 'programme' is only about 20% attributable to the resources itself and the remaining 80% difference is made by the knowledgeable teacher. So, conversely, if the teacher (or school leader) is not knowledgeable, the progress will be slight, not matter how snazzy or streamlined are the programme resources.

Why then, do I suspect, was the display removed? Partly it just got in the way of a revamp of the teachers' workroom, which had some new storage shelves added. However, that it was discarded in a pile of rubbish speaks volumes about how the Science of Reading and Learning is viewed at my school. The WHY is not seen as ESSENTIAL and at the forefront of what we are doing. A SL programme is, sadly, seen as a nice 'add-on', a tool for getting something done. It is not being seen as a whole school mind shift, as a whole school APPROACH.

This mindset disconnect is important to highlight as we enter Term 4 and the Ministry of Education gathers its expert panel of educators to design a Common Practice Model for literacy education in Aotearoa New Zealand.

As educators, we must continue to hold fast to the prioritisation of teacher professional development around the Science of Reading and Learning, and not just around Structured Literacy programmes. We need to ensure that future curriculum content and training decisions are based on evidence and not ideology. When new, tested and more effective methods are advanced in the future, likewise we will need to adapt, but never just on a whim.

Teachers need good training, good support and good access to resources, and students across the country need equitable access to an education, no matter which year level they are in.

I shall use eyesight as an analogy. I have a vision, a direction for where I see my students heading with their learning. That comes from my head (and my heart). If I pick up resources from a programme, that is like lifting up a pair of glasses to help me focus on the immediate task at hand. But the long term view and direction for the learning journey comes from me, the teacher. 

(And, if I am sensible, I refer to a map and guidance from other teachers who have previously taken this journey. I prepare myself for possible hazards or detours, but I always plan ahead to ensure we will not get lost!)

To borrow an old phrase from NZ researcher John Hattie, famous for popularising measuring 'what works', we need 'clarity in the classroom'. (Maybe we also need to have a moral compass!)

I literally lie in bed at night worrying about what direction, what clarity the MoE and its expert panel is going to give NZ teachers in the proposed Common Practice Model. 

The 'personal is political' and I can't bear the thought of another generation of my family suffering from a substandard education as a result of unmet educational learning differences. Our story is shared by hundreds and thousands of other families across NZ. 

Dyslexia alone is the most common learning disability, but so far in NZ is one of the most poorly addressed inequities in our education system. This costs us all hundreds and thousands of dollars in lost opportunities, lost productivity and immeasurable loss of school enjoyment.

Thankyou if you have read my rant so far. I really had to get this off my chest. 

I also hope it serves as a warning to other teachers and parents: don't assume that your school is teaching Structured Literacy if it is following a 'programme', or says it is 'doing' SL. 

To be true to the principles of SL, the approach has to be embedded in the school vision and strategic planning. 

Teachers need to know the 'why' and not just the 'how'.

Ask them: Is our whole school approach diagnostic, explicit, systematic and cumulative? Is it equitable for ALL learners?

Good luck going for gold. 

I'm currently unhappy that bronze looks on the cards for my lot, unless we get some serious mind shift training underway.

(*Footnote: The Senior Leadership Team are hardworking educators, but in this instance, 'they do not know what they do not know'.)