A focus on decoding...at what expense?

Right now, being an educator in Aotearoa feels like balancing on a tightrope, juggling plates, attempting to ride a unicycle—all while smiling through it and fearing that everything might come crashing down at any moment. Instead of offering a helping hand, those standing nearby just keep throwing more plates at you, raising the height of the tightrope, and increasing the distance you have to cycle.

Concerns with the Focus on Decoding

Amidst everything, there is one thing that has been worrying me most lately: our ardent focus on decoding over everything else. There is a celebration of the supposed positive data from the phonics check (a pattern not observed at our place) and a curriculum that expects a child at the end of their first year at school to be reading at stage 7.1 towards the end of the decodable stages.

I read comment after comment on teachers' Facebook pages, asking questions about the expectation, with ongoing affirmation from those in the know, that āe, our youngest learners need to be reading at this stage. We must focus on getting them there for fear that by not doing so, we are seemingly dooming children to failure, missing those children who will otherwise slip through the net.

A Journey, Not a Race

Don't get me wrong, I have been on this structured literacy journey for almost eight years now. I believe in the explicit teaching of reading (and by reading, I do not just mean decoding). While I understand the 'Science of Reading' and the Principles of Teaching and Learning, my journey has not shown me that children need to reach this magical stage after their first year. In fact, it has shown me the exact opposite. Rather than accelerating and pushing children ahead at the expense of all the other skills that an expert reader will eventually have under their belt, my journey has revealed to me that slow and steady does indeed win the race.

Over the last six or seven years, I have only taught one child who has achieved the magical 7.1 stage at the end of their first year, yet reading results at our school are very good for the majority of our Year 6 children who started their schooling with us.

Observations and Patterns

I am absolutely certain the children starting with us are not unique, and I am sure everyone is seeing the same pattern. Children enter with very low oral language, struggle with executive functioning skills (crucial for later learning), and seem a lot 'younger' than they did even six years ago.

If my wonderful new entrant teachers are to strive for this magical 7.1 stage, it will come at the expense of the development of our children. Absolutely, phonics is important, but it is no more important than a child's physical, emotional, and social development. How many children will be put off reading if they are pushed too far ahead? How many children will miss the point that reading is a joyous process of making meaning? Perhaps even worse than that, how many decoding robots will we create? Robots with the ability to decode, but with absolutely no fluency—and if they have no fluency, forget about comprehension. If we push ahead with decoding, will this be at the expense of spelling? Are we making it clear enough that reading and spelling should go hand in hand?

The Importance of a Holistic Approach

What time will there be to talk, to play, to listen to fantastically engaging texts, to respond creatively, to express themselves, to develop a fantastic vocabulary, and to build a wonderful schema of knowledge due to the rich environments they are in?

In my experience over the last almost eight years of 'structured literacy' learning, it is our teacher understanding that makes the difference. Understanding the theory behind the shift in pedagogy is important. This understanding allows us to identify those children who need targeted teaching and increased support from the beginning. Teachers with a good understanding of how children learn to read can all identify children who will need extra support without waiting to see if they will reach some magical milestone. Teachers with great understanding won’t let children slip through the net, they will be well aware who it is that needs that extra help.

Creating Fluent Readers

At our place, we have happy zones, stages that we are content for children to reach, knowing from experience that these children will be okay on their reading journey. I am delighted if my Year 2 children come to me reading at stage 2 or 3, as I know they will also be able to spell and will be fluent at this stage. I am really happy if my Year 2 children are reaching the end of decodable books, but if they are working on Stage 5 or 6, I'm not worried. I am not worried because I am also focused on their spelling and writing, and very focused on fluency. I do not want to create decoding robots; I want fluent readers. I want children to have accuracy, to read at an appropriate rate, and with expression, because just because children can decode the words does not make them readers.

If I am not fluent, I can read the text, but by the time I am through the sentence, I can probably barely remember it. If you cannot read at the speed of sight (fluently), then working memory will focus on reading the words rather than comprehending the text deeply. How will a child be able to think about the text, if all they are focused on is decoding the words?

"If you are not a fluent reader, you can't be a deep reader." — Doug Lemov

We are not wrong to want to focus on reading. Of course, we want children to be able to read, but this is a journey. It is not a race to get as far as you can by the end of a child's first year. I have heard many a reader decode a text at the end of the decodable stages, but without fluency, are they able to read for meaning? I often find that I need to go back at least three or four stages if a child has been pushed through the stages to find their fluent stage.

"Fluent reading when it includes prosody is meaning made audible." — Doug Lemov

Not only that, but the first year of school should also be as much about the development of the child socially, emotionally, and physically, with a focus on executive functioning skills.

What will our children miss out on if we become obsessed with academic acceleration?

I loved this podcast with Doug Lemov about fluency; it is a really great listen.

https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/s10-e3-finding-fluency-at-the-heart-of/id1483513974?i=1000732939318

Whose race are we running and why?

Firstly, let's just put it out there: childhood is not a race. It is something to be cherished, not accelerated. However, right now, it feels like we are almost being forced to run a race, a race we didn't even enter, with results of this invented race being proudly announced, even if the participants themselves have a completely different perspective.

Don't get me wrong, anyone who reads this page knows I advocate for effective teaching practices, but they also know I advocate for childhood and the right of children to play and develop in their own space and time. I have been fortunate enough to spend the last ten years doing this work, having stumbled upon 'structured literacy' and guided myself through it, without the pressure of time and the 'urgency' that seems to have been created. I am also lucky enough to have learned a lot about children and the role of play, and to have been able to balance these seemingly opposite pieces of understanding into the practices I use today and the way our school operates.

I have developed my 'lens'—how I see teaching and learning—with the individual in mind, and that is the way I continue to go forward.

Yet right now, our system is caught up in this race, a race to implement practices that many teachers don't deeply understand, with very little thought given to the children.

Children as the Curriculum

I have always said children are the curriculum. So much can be achieved when we just step back and see where their interests and wonderings lead us. I also know that explicit teaching has a role to play, and that combined, these approaches are magical.

The Phonics Check: A Critical View

Let's specifically look at the 'phonics check' that's at the forefront in the media right now and the supposed gains that have been made. Checking on phonics is a good part of our practice; of course, as we work with children, we check in with their understandings, based on what we have actually taught.

The amazing progress that the phonics check is supposedly showing isn't reflected at our place. There are many factors in this. For one, our children are engaged through bite-sized explicit teaching, but they are given space and time individually. Some of our learners don't start 'formal' reading until they are six, while most start around 5 years 9 months. Their development is prioritised first; they are immersed in oral language and play, allowed time to feel safe, and relational trust and co-regulation are big priorities for us. This does not mean they are not involved in phonics sessions, but it does mean these sessions are not our priority.

Another factor is that the oral language levels of children coming into school are really low right now, which is a priority for us. We put in every result for the phonics checks—we don't filter out any of our neurodiverse learners, we don't exclude any results, we put them all in there. Many of our 20-week checks show no result. Often, the children know the sounds that they have been taught (a big deal from where they started) but they can't yet blend them to read.

Another factor is that the sequence of the phonics check doesn't quite align with the sequence we use. Children can often read words further down the list but make mistakes earlier on.

This phonics check doesn't really prove anything. We already know where our children are at, and any school using a robust system will too. We monitor our children individually, notice any red flags, and intervene in ways that we have available to us.

We also all know there is so much to reading other than phonics.

Observations from Teaching

I teach older Year Ones and Twos. Most come to me having started reading, but very early in their journey. Many of these children are superb readers now, some towards the end of decodables and others reading early chapter books. Most of these children would not have scored well on the 'phonics' check early on.

We would be better placed measuring word reading in Year Two; it would give us a much better idea of where a child was at once they had had a real length of time at school.

Yes, we need to intervene early for those with difficulties, but intervening needs to be tailored to the child.

The Role of Executive Functions

Another thing the 'race' mentality is missing right now is the role of executive functions. These executive functions play a crucial role in a child even being able to access the curriculum. I know of no better way than play and understanding children developmentally to do this.

Conclusion: No Race, Only Growth

We seem to be caught up in a race that we did not enter, a race where the powers that be like to declare victory before many of the runners have even started.

There is no race. It is crucial we have a strong pedagogical understanding of the principles of learning, that we have a lens that allows us to see the whole child, that gives us time to develop a kete to draw from that allows us to help all learners as we identify their needs.

The first three years are crucial, not only for learning but for the overall development of a child.

Let's cherish childhood and spend as much time allowing children to uncover the curriculum as we spend covering it.

It is time to put your money where your mouth is

The Crisis in Our Classrooms

Across our country, we face a real crisis. Teachers are overstretched and burnt out, trying to meet the needs of every child in their classroom while facing immense pressure to make changes to their own practice without the time to properly do so.

Increasing Needs 

Our classrooms are not what they were even ten years ago. Children entering our schools often have much higher needs than we have ever seen before. While I could list a range of reasons behind this upsurge in needs, that is not the point of this post. Rather, the point is to make it clear that classrooms, with just one teacher and 20-30 children, are quickly becoming untenable.

What we would have looked at as 'average' for a new entrant now stands out. Those that are independent, able to focus for a short period of time, and able to be in a classroom and feel a sense of safety are now in the minority. I feel lucky (though it is hard work, not luck really) to be 'ready' for these children, to have a well-established lens that understands child development and is able to provide an environment where all children can grow at their own pace. However, even we struggle; to put it in colloquial terms, 'the needs are out the gate.' Thank goodness for our fence, or half our new entrant class would quite literally be out the gate.

Financial Strain and Government Promises

I have a long-established sense of understanding that schools need to be ready for children, and this has served us well. We understand that children will grow and progress at their own rate, and often by Year 4, the solid foundations they have laid really start to pay off. However, we have drained ourselves financially creating an environment where this is possible, investing in people first, and even we are drowning under the current need.

Yet, we currently have a government that loudly claims how much they are doing for our schools, how much difference they are making for learning support. They make announcements about how much money they are investing in maths and literacy, making it sound like a very real, meaningful investment. Yes, it sounds great: an LSC for all schools, literacy support, and maths support, much-needed staffing. These announcements are made in classrooms that certainly don't look like the majority of classrooms around New Zealand, tiny numbers and not a chair being thrown in sight.

The Reality Behind the Announcements

But what does all this 'big talk' mean? In reality, many schools will wait until 2027 for an LSC, and even then, it may just be a day a week (we are lucky, we get two days a week). Literacy support has to be matched, similar to the old reading recovery model. For us, it means 0.3 (a day and a half spread over the week) matched by 0.3 that we cannot really afford, but matched because the need is very real. This year, we were also able to apply for maths support. I said we were unable to match and was grateful to get 0.1 (half a day over the week). This support is supposed to help those children from Year 1-6 in our school progress in maths. No matter how grateful I am, half an hour a day is not going to stretch to many children. We are lucky; most children do really well in maths because of good teaching, but at least twenty, if not more, would really benefit from targeted support. Who gets it?

The announcements are made in such a way that we are made to feel guilty for not being grateful, the last announcement on property spending is a great example of that.  All schools will get money to fast track property projects, to complete important work on infrastructure.   Fantastic!  Now I will happily take the money, but for our school that looks like $7500, in a school that is almost 150 year old I am not sure how far that money is supposed to go.  Again, this is more about the glory of the announcement then the reality of the difference it will make.  

I am grateful for any investment of money, but everything right now is just a drop in the ocean.

What Schools Truly Need

This government is the government of announcements. But it is actually time to put the money where their mouths are. To actually make a difference, every class needs another adult in the form of a teacher aide. To really make a difference to children that need learning support, every school needs to be staffed with at least one teacher above allocation; this person would then be LSC and provide Tier 3 learning support. We don't need dribs and drabs of funding that, for some schools, will simply be absorbed and will not even get close to actually helping the children that desperately need it. In larger schools, this allocation would need to be higher.

The Urgency of Permanent Solutions

To make things worse, when making these announcements, they don't happen to tell everyone that this literacy and maths support is fixed-term; it isn't even a permanent allocation. It is hard enough to find good people to work in permanent jobs, let alone take on fixed-term positions.

Right now, our system needs real action, not soundbites, but action that prioritises people, that actually allows teachers to do our jobs.

Right now, all I hear are announcements that are politically motivated and lacking any real understanding of what we face every day.  Not only that, teachers are made to sound greedy, lazy and incompetent just about every day in the media, supported by a narrative that our government perpetuates.  

When Is Enough, Enough?

This whole situation right now reminds me of the little song we used to sing at school.  There's a hole in my bucket.  Right now, we have many holes in our bucket, being filled up with solutions not fit for purpose and when we desperately need that bucket to be in working order to do the job it was made for, it simply won't work anymore.  When will we actually just mend the holes, or even better upgrade the bucket!

There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, a hole.

        Then mend it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        Then mend it, dear Henry, dear Henry, mend it.
 
With what shall I mend it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I mend it, dear Liza, with what?

        With straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        With straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, with straw.

The straw is too long, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The straw is too long, dear Liza, too long.

        Then cut it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        Then cut it, dear Henry, dear Henry, cut it.

With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, with what?

        With a knife, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        With a knife, dear Henry, dear Henry, a knife.

The knife is too dull, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The knife is too dull, dear Liza, too dull.

        Then sharpen it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        Then sharpen it, dear Henry, dear Henry, sharpen it.

With what shall I sharpen it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I sharpen it, dear Liza, with what?

        With a stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        With a stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, a stone.

The stone is too dry, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The stone is too dry, dear Liza, too dry.

        Then wet it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        Then wet it, dear Henry, dear Henry, wet it.

With what shall I wet it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I wet it, dear Liza, with what?

        With water, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        With water, dear Henry, dear Henry, with water.

In what shall I fetch it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
In what shall I fetch it, dear Liza, in what?

        In a bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        In a bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, in a bucket.

But there's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, a hole.

Over the past years, I have posted and blogged about the lack of support and our education system in crisis, but when is enough enough? I know for many educators that time is coming much closer, but surely it won't take educators walking away to make the difference?

We are here for the children, we hold on for the children, we stretch ourselves thin for the children, but why must our government continue to test where the breaking point is, or does the bottom have to fall out of the bucket first for them to care?