Dr Jennifer Buckingham’s op-ed, ‘Teachers know what’s needed, universities should get on board’ first published in the Australian Financial Review, 30 July 2023.
The solution to Australia’s literacy problem is clear and evidence-based. So, why aren’t universities getting on board?
Follow the evidence for better teaching and learning
By Dr Jennifer Buckingham OAM
The late Sir Jim Rose, the renowned British educationalist, was fond of comparisons between medicine and education.
“Both professions look to research for solutions,” he once said. “They also rely on knowledgeable and skilled practitioners to make sure that decisions are evidence-based.”
Sir Jim, who died earlier this year, was the author of the UK’s Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading published in 2006. The Rose report recommendations were implemented by Schools Minister Nick Gibb to bring about transformational changes in the way reading is taught in England by mandating explicit teaching of phonics and then extending evidence-based practice to other aspects of reading.
England has risen towards the top of international reading league tables since – coming fourth in its group of countries in the recent Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). This has largely been attributed to its sustained commitment to evidence-based reading instruction.
What does this have to do with Australia?
The same body of scientific evidence that has informed England’s successful approach – evidence about how reading works and the approaches that provide the best opportunity for children to master the skills needed to become proficient readers – is available in Australia too.
Yet our reading scores have been stagnant, with an unacceptable one-in-five Year 4 students marked by PIRLS at, or below, the Low benchmark.
One of the fundamental reasons for this is that without a mandated method of instruction, the variation in teaching quality is wide. Australia’s initial teacher education (ITE) courses are with few exceptions not teaching evidence-based practice when it comes to reading, severely limiting the potential of graduates to become, as Sir Jim put it, “knowledgeable and skilled practitioners”.
I discovered this in 2019 when I examined the content of ITE literacy courses, finding a paltry four per cent of literacy units reviewed had a specific focus on early reading instruction or early literacy. Further, the most commonly prescribed textbooks featured an alarming lack of scientific rigor, while many contained information that was inadequate or misleading.
Despite the government of the time amending the accreditation standards to require the inclusion of evidence-based reading instruction in courses, little changed.
This was confirmed by the Quality Initial Teacher Education Review conducted in 2022 that found many beginning teachers were underprepared to teach in several key areas. More recently, the Teacher Education Expert Panel (TEEP), convened to provide recommendations based on those findings, identified mandatory core content for inclusion in all ITE programs, including how to deliver effective reading instruction through systematic and explicit teaching practices for key literacy skills, such as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and oral language.
To say that teachers have been short-changed in their professional education does not amount to “teacher bashing” – an empty charge often levied at advocates for reform. Teachers have themselves highlighted this in surveys about their training, while many are proactively going it alone by joining a growing number of social and peer networks dedicated to sharing scientific evidence and best practice for learning and doing many hours of professional learning in their own time. In states where education departments are not providing evidence-based guidance, principals and teachers are forging their own paths. In states where there has been shift to promoting evidence-based practices, graduate teachers have to scramble to learn what they should have been taught in their degrees.
A recently published book I co-authored, Effective Instruction in Reading and Spelling – a collaborative effort by leading reading scientists and teachers to break the stronghold of balanced literacy in teacher education – is already on its second reprint. Most sales so far have gone to teachers, with just two Australian university education faculties adding it to their student reading lists so far.
The negative responses from education academics to the TEEP recommendations show universities have no intention of changing without a fight. However, I’m concerned that resistance might not be the only barrier to much-needed change.
The biggest potential obstacle to improving the quality of teaching courses is the expertise within education faculties. My investigation revealed that very few courses were coordinated or taught by people whose research interests and publication records indicated expert knowledge on the scientific evidence base of how children learn to read and effective teaching methods. It also seems unlikely that every education faculty will also have a member of staff who is an expert on cognitive science as it applies to learning, memory, and instructional design.
This is a challenge that requires creative solutions. One way would be to diversify the provision of teacher education to experts in the core content outside of the institutions that have denied its necessity. Again, we can look to England, where initial teacher education is increasingly provided by non-university providers that have been accredited and approved by the Department for Education, often in partnership with schools.
There is room for greater variety in the provision of ITE – either complete degrees or specific content – in Australia. And with the proposed content requirements and greater accountability, there is a lower risk of sacrificing quality.
Prior to his death, Sir Jim offered an endorsement of Effective Instruction in Reading and Spelling, urging a “focus on solutions not causes in the relentless pursuit of optimal teaching and learning”.
State and federal ministers have been provided with a clear blueprint to change things for the better. For the sake of teachers and students, they must not waver.
Dr Jennifer Buckingham is director of strategy and senior research fellow at MultiLit and founder and director of the Five from Five project.