It’s easy for politicians to create a crisis by manipulating data – it happened last year with mathematics. Data produced by researchers testing a new mathematics curriculum was used as if it was assessing student achievement. The mathematics curriculum in case was still in the process of being written, and had never been taught.
But that’s not what the general public was told. They were told by the Prime Minister, no less, that students in Year 8 were failing with only 22 per cent reaching a pass level in mathematics.
What was the public meant to think? Quite reasonably, they believed that teachers are failing our young people. No matter how much the researchers and others later corrected the Prime Minister’s misuse of the data, it was too late. The Education Minister was already accelerating plans to introduce a new mathematics approach this year, on top of introducing a new literacy programme. She had established a Ministerial Advisory Group immediately after being appointed Minister. The group concluded that ‘The Science of Learning’ would lead the way and Structured Literacy and Structured Mathematics would be adopted in every school up to Year 8.
The Government no doubt saw an opening to boost its popularity by looking responsive, effective and ‘working at pace’ to improve education results. The public would be right on board with this move because what parent doesn’t want immediate intervention when they are told their children are failing in basic mathematics and also falling behind in literacy?
That’s the politics of the matter, and educators in Aotearoa are not alone. Education is used as a political football in many countries and is one of the reasons our profession has been calling for a cross-party agreement for education.
But what about the reality for our profession? Reading, writing and mathematics are core subjects for any professional teaching children in Years 0–8. To the unprofessional eye this may seem like an easy switch, which teachers will effortlessly adapt to. What they don’t know is that schools have continuous plans for teaching these subjects, including continuing PLD to keep teachers up to speed with the changing context of their learners. They plan in advance and book their PLD providers. A sudden change in curriculum disrupts the entire school programme.
When politicians decide they will direct schools to teach an entirely new approach to both literacy and mathematics at once, they are being unrealistic. Schools have always followed a national curriculum which includes reading, writing and mathematics. The approach each school uses in its teaching is entirely up to them. They are self-managing schools and make professional judgements about what is the best approach for their school and for each child.
No ‘Initial Teacher Education’ (ITE) institution has trained teachers in structured literacy or structured mathematics. Some schools have adopted the approach because it is a good match for their context. Those who fall into that category say it has taken years of substantial investment in professional learning and development to phase in the approach across all year levels of the school. Further, they report that the availability of personnel, who are experts in the field, are very few. In other words, such a change cannot be rushed, and many more experts in structured literacy are required if the Minister wants every school to be teaching this approach, this year.
Schools that have been successful over time with structured literacy have used experts to train all the teachers in their school and continuously check in and train any new teachers unfamiliar with the approach. Because it is a relatively new approach to literacy teaching, less than one third of schools have already chosen it.
Structured literacy is a ‘phonics first’ approach to learning to read. The theory is that phonics are the building blocks for children to decode words and therefore are a basic skill before children can learn to read words. Some argue that our literacy achievement has dropped because phonics are not being taught in schools. This is not true. Professionals have always taught phonics as is needed. Some children arrive at school with far less reading experience than others and may be quite unfamiliar with the written word. Others arrive at school with high levels of conversation and years of experience being read to and enjoying books. This is again where professionalism comes into play. Some children need phonics, others not so much. With structured literacy now the only option, every child will be taught phonics, and be phonics tested – whether they need them or not.
The profession is not opposed to structured literacy and is delighted that the Minister has said she will be fully funding all the PLD and resources schools will require. On the structured mathematics curriculum, she is also supplying all resources including instructional texts, and all the necessary PLD will be Government funded. No one is arguing against that, even if research on teaching mathematics by the textbook shows that results may lift initially, but not be sustained. The resources will be helpful and PLD for mathematics teaching has been a mixed bag in the past.
The real problem in all of this comes down to the fact that the profession needs to co-design curriculum initiatives, alongside the politicians, experts and the Ministry. If this happened, changes would not be rushed and schools would not have the added pressure of two major curriculum subjects turned upside down at the same time. There would be a measured process, relevant research evidence would be presented and diverse school contexts would be taken into account. Further, curriculum change would proceed alongside the establishment of necessary learning support for the high number of young children in our schools requiring additional help. Professionals would bring the reality of the school day to the table, including the many inequities both inside and outside of the schooling system. All of these factors need consideration because all of these factors have an effect on the learning outcomes of our tamariki.
If we are to improve educational outcomes, we must involve the profession at the highest levels, continually invest in professional development, address systemic inequities, and ensure that reforms are co-designed with the profession and implemented thoughtfully and collaboratively.