Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explores what the media say about reading. This is the sixth and final post on reading to celebrate Book Week.

What we’ve covered so far:

One: How to find your way through the reading jungle

Two: What really works for readers and when

Three: What is the Simple View of Reading?

Four: What is the Science of Reading?

Five: Why teachers need more than this year’s model

Recently the debates around the best ways to teach reading have been reignited. The media coverage has been fierce, and is often led by people who have little or no experience in mainstream classroom teaching of language or literacy.  Media reports have also been negative and polarising; providing reductionist definitions of reading, simplified solutions to a perceived crisis, and calling for a phonics first (and fast) approach to teaching and assessing reading for all children, without evidence to demonstrate that all children need or benefit from this narrow approach to reading instruction.  

A highly regarded Australian academic argues that Australia’s ‘right-wing media have a lot to answer for in terms of fostering narrow approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment . . .’. In England and the United States of America (USA) the aggressive media commentary on the teaching of reading has contributed to policy mandates that demand or exclude specific literacy instructional practices. 

Crisis? What crisis?

In recent times, media outlets have switched their narrative from the Simple View of Reading (SVR) and the Science of Reading (SOR) (Post 4) to Structured Literacy (SL) (Post 5) and explicit teaching. We dispute the perceived literacy crisis that is so often reported by the media and the idea that the science related to reading, is settled (Post 4). It is the perceived literacy crisis that we tackle here. 

Australia does not have a reading crisis. Recently an analysis of 25 years of Australian national and international standardised assessment data, and found that student literacy data have remained consistent, despite different policies and approaches to literacy teaching. Australia has participated in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) test every four years since 2011. Australia’s results improved between 2011 and 2016 and then remained consistent. Table 1 shows the mean scores for Australia, England, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore in 2011, 2016 and 2021.

In 2021, Australia had 80% of students reaching the PIRLs benchmarks. Only six countries achieved higher: Italy (83%), Finland (84%), England (86%), Russia (89%), Singapore (90%) and Hong Kong (92%). Twenty-eight countries had lower scores than Australia in 2021. 

Funding and fairness

A continuing trend for Australia is the poor outcomes for students from low SES and Indigenous backgrounds. Perhaps Australia’s literacy outcomes have more to do with funding and fairness than pedagogy.

The data from the 2022 Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA), which assesses the literacy skills of students who are 15 years old, show Australia’s performance is above the OECD average. That’s comparable to America, and slightly above students from the United Kingdom. Eight countries were identified as performing significantly higher than Australia and 68 countries performed significantly lower. 

Australia’s performance has remained relatively unchanged since 2015, whereas the United Kingdom’s results have declined. Despite this evidence, some think we would benefit from importing approaches to literacy teaching from England and the US. 

Borrowing policy

Countries often “policy borrow” from other countries; despite advice that innovation is more likely to be more effective than borrowing.  Highly respected Australian researchers  question the appropriateness of Australia looking to the US and the UK for guidance in education. 

Australia’s borrowing of educational ideas from other countries is ill-advised. Why do we accept the myths and beliefs underpinning educational innovations almost without evidence or questioning? Is it because of our close links with the UK and the USA, instead of their proven success and transferability? If so, how wise is this? 

Others have also questioned Australia’s policy borrowing. They have argued instead for policy learning that takes into account ‘national and local histories, cultures and so on’.

Policy borrowing led to the introduction of standardised testing system based on systems used in the USA and England. It is questionable whether Australia learned from the mistakes of the USA and England when designing NAPLAN. The Phonics Check is another example of policy borrowing. 

Why are we borrowing policies from countries that are not doing any better than Australia? 

 England’s Department for Education (DfE) has acknowledged that “evidence suggests that the introduction of the check has had an impact on pupils’ attainment in phonics, but not an identifiable impact on their attainment in literacy’. Enjoyment of reading by children in England is at its lowest level since 2005.

In addition to the falloff in enjoyment of reading, it is estimated that up to 25% of upper primary school students in England are unable to meet expected reading standards. They also lack the fluency required to extract meaning from age-related texts. 

Despite this, a recent Grattan institute report encourages Australia to follow England and the US initiatives to improve literacy learning. That’s despite any evidence to suggest approaches to literacy teaching in these countries work any better than those already operating in Australia.

Follow carefully

When policy shopping perhaps we should choose the countries we follow more carefully. In the republic of Ireland children outperform their English peers in reading without an emphasis on Synthetic phonics.  Additionally, Canada’s success, where curricula until most recently were mostly aligned with Balanced Literacy (BL), has largely been ignored. 

We contend that policy makers should critically consider what is happening in Australia before adopting policies from other countries that have not been proven to work better than approaches well established in Australian schools, as demonstrated by data. They should also consider the plethora of reading research that is available.  

Much is written about reading research. But teachers sometimes only get to read research papers or summaries of papers that their employer has pre-chosen to support current policy or to provide the rationale for proposed changes. Further doubts and insecurities are fuelled by inaccurate media reports of declining reading standards, suggestions that teachers are the cause of this decline, and claims that reading science is settled. A common claim from those outside education, is that teacher education courses have neglected to teach what teachers need to know about reading. That’s despite rigorous teacher education accreditation processes.

A narrow view of reading

Suggested solutions to the perceived reading crisis are often based on a narrow view of reading and reading research. They do not take into consideration the needs or contexts of all learners. At this time the recommended approaches are scripted, commercial packages that prioritise phonics and decoding using texts with phonologically regular words (called decodable texts), and controlled language with limited meaning. These texts were originally designed for use with beginning readers. But publishers have taken up the challenge of creating this style of texts for all primary grades. The outcome? Some schools have removed all of their predictive and authentic texts and those classified as wider reading. They have been replaced by decodable or controlled texts. This is also a time when schools have reduced their investment in libraries and librarians.

An emphasis on phonology and a diet of decodable texts won’t help students become readers who read for pleasure. It won’t prepare them for the texts they will need to read in high school or for that matter, life.  This narrow, one size fits all approach to the teaching of reading, cannot possibly meet the needs of all Australian students. It is based on what works with students who have dyslexia or reading difficulties. There is no evidence of transferability into mainstream classrooms. It does not acknowledge that teachers are best placed to make teaching decisions for the students in their classrooms.

Focus on those in need

While we do not agree that there is a crisis in reading in Australia, we do agree that students from low SES backgrounds, Indigenous students, and those experiencing learning difficulties need more focused assistance. Much research has been conducted in this area and should be utilised to make the necessary changes for these students, including funding and staffing measures based upon equity rather than equality.

Teachers must always think critically about research, and the various reading models and frameworks being suggested or promoted and make teaching decisions based on the needs of the students they are teaching, not what is promoted by think tanks or the media. With their theoretical and practical wisdom, along with their content and contextual knowledge, teachers should be supported to make decisions that best meet the needs of the students in their classrooms. As authors of this paper, we are confident that teachers continue to work hard to meet the different needs of the diverse children in their care, despite the many traps in the reading jungle.

Noella Mackenzie is an adjunct associate professor at Charles Sturt University. Her areas of research and expertise include the teaching and learning of literacy. Martina Tassone is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include literacy teaching, learning and assessment in the early years of schooling.