Phonics knowledge is not itself reading, but it is an important first step. There is every reason to expect improvement to flow through to reading comprehension.
These figures are remarkable. For the first time in decades, New Zealand’s long decline has reversed.
The turnaround follows Education Minister Erica Stanford’s implementation of structured literacy programmes now operating in 98 percent of schools. They produce results. Teachers report improved student engagement. Parents see children making progress. Schools serving the poorest communities have embraced the changes.
Given the years of concern over falling standards and damning international comparisons, the response should have been simple celebration. Instead, Stanford faces fierce resistance from education unions and faculties.
Structured literacy is denounced as a “drill and kill” pedagogy. The new knowledge-rich curriculum is attacked as a return to colonial education models. Evidence-based teaching methods are dismissed as “imported ideology”.
The primary teachers’ union, NZEI Te Riu Roa, rails against the end of so-called ‘child-centred’ learning. Some go further, suggesting Stanford’s reforms represent a reassertion of white, Eurocentric knowledge systems.
Yet crucially, this ideological opposition does not reflect classroom reality. Most teachers, having seen the results firsthand, have embraced the changes. The disconnect between union rhetoric and teacher practice reveals how far the education establishment has drifted from those who actually teach children.
The controversy has become another theatre in a broader ideological struggle. Across each reformed subject area, critics deploy the same rhetoric. When the science curriculum focused on actual science rather than “ways of knowing”, they cry “colonialism.” When the history curriculum proposed focusing on historical knowledge rather than lamenting colonisation and promoting ethnic identity, academics called it “white supremacy on the whiteboard.”
But under the progressive pedagogies these critics defend, 86 percent of Pacific students and 78 percent of Māori students were more than a year behind in mathematics. Nearly two-thirds of Year 8 students were failing basic standards.
The “culturally responsive” methods that promised to close equity gaps made them wider. Child-centred, inquiry-based learning sounds attractive but is empty in practice, leaving many children unable to decode simple sentences. Local curriculum autonomy produced a generation knowing neither their own history nor anyone else’s.
Yet when Stanford introduced teaching methods with decades of scientific evidence, methods proven to work particularly well for disadvantaged students, she was accused of pursuing an ideological agenda.
The critics have it backwards. They call evidence-based teaching “ideology” while pushing their own ideology as proven pedagogy.
The same arguments emerge repeatedly. Systematic teaching is “colonial”. Emphasis on knowledge is “Eurocentric”. Measurable outcomes are “neoliberal”. The language of social justice is deployed against reforms that might deliver actual justice: children who can read, regardless of background.
The critics seem unbothered by contradictions. They champion indigenous knowledge while opposing structured methods that would enable children to access cultural heritage. They speak of decolonisation while defending approaches that demonstrably failed Māori and Pacific students. They invoke equity while defending a system producing vast achievement gaps.
To be fair, implementing sweeping changes in a single year is ambitious. But the loudest opposition is not about transition times. It is about power and protecting ideological territory.
For decades, constructivist, child-centred philosophy has dominated New Zealand’s teacher training institutions. This philosophy, suspicious of explicit teaching, has become so embedded that challenging it threatens the education establishment existentially.
Stanford has largely ignored the noise. While critics wage ideological battles, she has focused on what works. High-quality professional development has given teachers practical tools. Clear curriculum guidelines replaced vague suggestions. Regular assessment replaced wishful thinking.
One South Auckland principal, serving some of the poorest urban communities, told the Education Review Office her Year 2 students were “reading words they couldn’t even look at before”. Teachers, initially sceptical, report that structured approaches transformed classroom behaviour: students are more attentive, engaged and confident.
The numbers demolish ideological objections. Schools in low socio-economic areas have increased mathematics teaching time more than those in wealthy schools. Teachers across the country report using evidence-based strategies regardless of demographic profile. The reforms succeed not because they favour one group but because they work for everyone.
The battle pits two incompatible visions against each other. Critics’ vision privileges ideology over evidence, process over outcomes. Stanford’s approach holds that schools should teach children specific things, that some methods demonstrably work better, and schools should use them.
Stanford is succeeding by producing results. While critics debate identity politics, students are learning to read. While education faculties theorise about different ways of knowing, children are mastering multiplication tables.
A striking aspect is how unremarkable Stanford’s revolution should be. There is nothing revolutionary about structured literacy or explicit teaching. These methods are proven effective, which is why they are being adopted globally. Singapore and England were early adopters, now seeing benefits in their PISA data.
The Education Review Office data reveal something fundamental. When you strip away rhetoric and teach the basics well, children learn.
That this is controversial exposes the state of educational debate in New Zealand.
Stanford has demonstrated that education reform requires standing strong against progressive dogma. Evidence can triumph over ideology. Sometimes the best response to culture warriors is simply teaching children to read.
The struggle is far from over. Education faculties and union leadership will not surrender easily. But for the first time in decades, the momentum lies with those who believe schools should prioritise learning over politics, including, importantly, most teachers themselves.
If these gains hold, New Zealand may have found a model delivering both equity and excellence. The culture warriors will never admit it, but Stanford’s quiet, evidence-based revolution, supported by teachers who see it working daily, might be the best thing to happen to New Zealand education in a generation.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
The turnaround follows Education Minister Erica Stanford’s implementation of structured literacy programmes now operating in 98 percent of schools. They produce results. Teachers report improved student engagement. Parents see children making progress. Schools serving the poorest communities have embraced the changes.
Given the years of concern over falling standards and damning international comparisons, the response should have been simple celebration. Instead, Stanford faces fierce resistance from education unions and faculties.
Structured literacy is denounced as a “drill and kill” pedagogy. The new knowledge-rich curriculum is attacked as a return to colonial education models. Evidence-based teaching methods are dismissed as “imported ideology”.
The primary teachers’ union, NZEI Te Riu Roa, rails against the end of so-called ‘child-centred’ learning. Some go further, suggesting Stanford’s reforms represent a reassertion of white, Eurocentric knowledge systems.
Yet crucially, this ideological opposition does not reflect classroom reality. Most teachers, having seen the results firsthand, have embraced the changes. The disconnect between union rhetoric and teacher practice reveals how far the education establishment has drifted from those who actually teach children.
The controversy has become another theatre in a broader ideological struggle. Across each reformed subject area, critics deploy the same rhetoric. When the science curriculum focused on actual science rather than “ways of knowing”, they cry “colonialism.” When the history curriculum proposed focusing on historical knowledge rather than lamenting colonisation and promoting ethnic identity, academics called it “white supremacy on the whiteboard.”
But under the progressive pedagogies these critics defend, 86 percent of Pacific students and 78 percent of Māori students were more than a year behind in mathematics. Nearly two-thirds of Year 8 students were failing basic standards.
The “culturally responsive” methods that promised to close equity gaps made them wider. Child-centred, inquiry-based learning sounds attractive but is empty in practice, leaving many children unable to decode simple sentences. Local curriculum autonomy produced a generation knowing neither their own history nor anyone else’s.
Yet when Stanford introduced teaching methods with decades of scientific evidence, methods proven to work particularly well for disadvantaged students, she was accused of pursuing an ideological agenda.
The critics have it backwards. They call evidence-based teaching “ideology” while pushing their own ideology as proven pedagogy.
The same arguments emerge repeatedly. Systematic teaching is “colonial”. Emphasis on knowledge is “Eurocentric”. Measurable outcomes are “neoliberal”. The language of social justice is deployed against reforms that might deliver actual justice: children who can read, regardless of background.
The critics seem unbothered by contradictions. They champion indigenous knowledge while opposing structured methods that would enable children to access cultural heritage. They speak of decolonisation while defending approaches that demonstrably failed Māori and Pacific students. They invoke equity while defending a system producing vast achievement gaps.
To be fair, implementing sweeping changes in a single year is ambitious. But the loudest opposition is not about transition times. It is about power and protecting ideological territory.
For decades, constructivist, child-centred philosophy has dominated New Zealand’s teacher training institutions. This philosophy, suspicious of explicit teaching, has become so embedded that challenging it threatens the education establishment existentially.
Stanford has largely ignored the noise. While critics wage ideological battles, she has focused on what works. High-quality professional development has given teachers practical tools. Clear curriculum guidelines replaced vague suggestions. Regular assessment replaced wishful thinking.
One South Auckland principal, serving some of the poorest urban communities, told the Education Review Office her Year 2 students were “reading words they couldn’t even look at before”. Teachers, initially sceptical, report that structured approaches transformed classroom behaviour: students are more attentive, engaged and confident.
The numbers demolish ideological objections. Schools in low socio-economic areas have increased mathematics teaching time more than those in wealthy schools. Teachers across the country report using evidence-based strategies regardless of demographic profile. The reforms succeed not because they favour one group but because they work for everyone.
The battle pits two incompatible visions against each other. Critics’ vision privileges ideology over evidence, process over outcomes. Stanford’s approach holds that schools should teach children specific things, that some methods demonstrably work better, and schools should use them.
Stanford is succeeding by producing results. While critics debate identity politics, students are learning to read. While education faculties theorise about different ways of knowing, children are mastering multiplication tables.
A striking aspect is how unremarkable Stanford’s revolution should be. There is nothing revolutionary about structured literacy or explicit teaching. These methods are proven effective, which is why they are being adopted globally. Singapore and England were early adopters, now seeing benefits in their PISA data.
The Education Review Office data reveal something fundamental. When you strip away rhetoric and teach the basics well, children learn.
That this is controversial exposes the state of educational debate in New Zealand.
Stanford has demonstrated that education reform requires standing strong against progressive dogma. Evidence can triumph over ideology. Sometimes the best response to culture warriors is simply teaching children to read.
The struggle is far from over. Education faculties and union leadership will not surrender easily. But for the first time in decades, the momentum lies with those who believe schools should prioritise learning over politics, including, importantly, most teachers themselves.
If these gains hold, New Zealand may have found a model delivering both equity and excellence. The culture warriors will never admit it, but Stanford’s quiet, evidence-based revolution, supported by teachers who see it working daily, might be the best thing to happen to New Zealand education in a generation.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment