Literacy and numeracy levels of Australian students are a national disgrace. A new analysis of results from the National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) provides yet more proof of what reading specialists have been saying for over a decade: far too many children are not learning to read in the early years of school — and the longer they are at school, the larger the literacy gap becomes.
The Grattan Institute report released today proposes a new way of presenting literacy and numeracy levels ― ‘years of progress’ ― to show more clearly the gaps in literacy and numeracy attainment. It also supports the findings of previous studies that the national minimum standards set by NAPLAN are so low as to be meaningless.
It is unarguably good to have measures that help us to better understand the extent of under-performance, but it will not help us fix the problem. There is only one way to do that ― better teaching. What the Grattan Institute report, and many others like it, do not say is that the reason so many children are failing to learn to read is that they are not getting the best reading instruction in the early years of school.
Forty years of scientific research has provided overwhelming evidence that some teaching methods are more effective than others. The most effective teaching method for learning new, complex skills and knowledge is explicit instruction.
For children, reading is new and complex. They need to be shown in a methodical and systematic way how to ‘break the code’ of written language (also known as ‘synthetic phonics’) and then given plenty of supported practice to become fluent and proficient readers. This code-based instruction must be embedded in a literacy program that also develops vocabulary and comprehension.
All children benefit from this type of evidence-based teaching, but it is absolutely essential for children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and children with learning difficulties like dyslexia.
Demonstration of the power of explicit teaching does not come just from peer-reviewed journals and expert reviews. It also comes from Australian schools that have adopted these methods and shown that they lead to dramatic improvements in literacy levels.
West Beechboro Primary School is one example. In 2008, 42% of Year 3 students achieved in the lowest two bands in NAPLAN reading. In 2015, only 8% were in the lowest two bands. Between 2008 and 2015, the school’s NAPLAN profiles on the My School website changed steadily from mostly red (below national and ‘like school’ averages) to mostly green (above national and ‘like school’ averages). They did this by applying explicit teaching methods across the school.
A review of nine high-performing primary schools in Western Australia found seven had adopted explicit instruction pedagogy across the curriculum, and all nine used explicit and systematic phonics instruction for teaching reading.
This raises the question of why children aren’t getting this sort of teaching in all schools. There are a number of key reasons — and funding is not one of them.
Numerous studies have found that university students in teacher education degrees have low personal literacy skills and insufficient knowledge of the English language to teach it explicitly to children. Not only this, they are often unaware of the paucity of their knowledge. They do not know what they do not know.
In addition, many — if not most — teacher education degrees do not equip new teachers with evidence-based teaching strategies. Like at West Beechboro Primary School, they often discover them by chance. As a result of widespread deficiencies in teacher knowledge, many schools believe they are using the most effective methods but are not.
In additions, schools are using government-developed and funded reading programs and policies that do not reflect the evidence on effective teaching of reading. There is a chasm between research and practice ― a persistent problem in education that the FIVE from FIVE project aims to resolve.
Whether or not a child learns to read should not be a matter of chance. Low literacy cannot be tolerated or excused any longer.
Jennifer Buckingham is a senior research fellow and director of the FIVE from FIVE reading project at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Low literacy cannot be tolerated
Low literacy cannot be tolerated
The Grattan Institute report released today proposes a new way of presenting literacy and numeracy levels ― ‘years of progress’ ― to show more clearly the gaps in literacy and numeracy attainment. It also supports the findings of previous studies that the national minimum standards set by NAPLAN are so low as to be meaningless.
It is unarguably good to have measures that help us to better understand the extent of under-performance, but it will not help us fix the problem. There is only one way to do that ― better teaching. What the Grattan Institute report, and many others like it, do not say is that the reason so many children are failing to learn to read is that they are not getting the best reading instruction in the early years of school.
Forty years of scientific research has provided overwhelming evidence that some teaching methods are more effective than others. The most effective teaching method for learning new, complex skills and knowledge is explicit instruction.
For children, reading is new and complex. They need to be shown in a methodical and systematic way how to ‘break the code’ of written language (also known as ‘synthetic phonics’) and then given plenty of supported practice to become fluent and proficient readers. This code-based instruction must be embedded in a literacy program that also develops vocabulary and comprehension.
All children benefit from this type of evidence-based teaching, but it is absolutely essential for children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and children with learning difficulties like dyslexia.
Demonstration of the power of explicit teaching does not come just from peer-reviewed journals and expert reviews. It also comes from Australian schools that have adopted these methods and shown that they lead to dramatic improvements in literacy levels.
West Beechboro Primary School is one example. In 2008, 42% of Year 3 students achieved in the lowest two bands in NAPLAN reading. In 2015, only 8% were in the lowest two bands. Between 2008 and 2015, the school’s NAPLAN profiles on the My School website changed steadily from mostly red (below national and ‘like school’ averages) to mostly green (above national and ‘like school’ averages). They did this by applying explicit teaching methods across the school.
A review of nine high-performing primary schools in Western Australia found seven had adopted explicit instruction pedagogy across the curriculum, and all nine used explicit and systematic phonics instruction for teaching reading.
This raises the question of why children aren’t getting this sort of teaching in all schools. There are a number of key reasons — and funding is not one of them.
Numerous studies have found that university students in teacher education degrees have low personal literacy skills and insufficient knowledge of the English language to teach it explicitly to children. Not only this, they are often unaware of the paucity of their knowledge. They do not know what they do not know.
In addition, many — if not most — teacher education degrees do not equip new teachers with evidence-based teaching strategies. Like at West Beechboro Primary School, they often discover them by chance. As a result of widespread deficiencies in teacher knowledge, many schools believe they are using the most effective methods but are not.
In additions, schools are using government-developed and funded reading programs and policies that do not reflect the evidence on effective teaching of reading. There is a chasm between research and practice ― a persistent problem in education that the FIVE from FIVE project aims to resolve.
Whether or not a child learns to read should not be a matter of chance. Low literacy cannot be tolerated or excused any longer.
Jennifer Buckingham is a senior research fellow and director of the FIVE from FIVE reading project at The Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: