Dyslexia Evidence Based (DEB) is seeking urgent
clarification from Labour about whether its commitment to
greater flexibility in literacy teaching could allow schools
to return to instructional practices that are inconsistent
with the evidence on how children learn to
read.
Labour’s education spokesperson, Ginny
Andersen, has confirmed her party’s support for structured
literacy but expressed concern about a “one-size-fits-all
approach”.
In correspondence, Andersen
stated:
“My concern is with a one-size-fits-all
approach. Structured literacy can be an excellent tool, but
teachers also need the flexibility to respond when a child
needs a different approach or additional
support.”
DEB welcomes Labour’s stated support for
structured literacy. However, the suggestion that children
may require a different instructional approach raises an
important question.
Is Labour proposing to
open literacy teaching back up to a range of instructional
approaches, including balanced literacy practices that
encourage children to guess unfamiliar words using pictures
and context?
These practices are inconsistent
with the evidence on how children develop accurate
word-reading skills and are particularly concerning for
children with dyslexia and other reading
difficulties.
Structured Literacy Is Not
One-Size-Fits-All
Structured literacy is not a single
programme, a prescribed script or an approach where every
child receives identical instruction.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
It is an
evidence-informed approach drawing on the science of
reading, learning and instruction. It incorporates explicit,
systematic and cumulative teaching, alongside assessment,
differentiation and responsive instruction.
Teaching a
child through structured literacy could be likened to a
process such as baking bread. The fundamental principles
remain consistent, but the recipe is adapted depending on
the type of bread being made, whether gluten-free, white or
wholegrain. Similarly, structured literacy is grounded in
evidence-based principles of how children learn to read,
while allowing teachers to exercise professional judgement
in adjusting the pace, practice and intensity of instruction
to meet each child’s individual learning
needs.
Professional judgement and flexibility
are not in conflict with structured literacy. They are
essential to implementing it effectively.
For
children with dyslexia and persistent reading difficulties,
this is especially important. These learners frequently
require more explicit instruction, carefully sequenced
teaching, additional practice and greater instructional
intensity.
A child’s need for additional support
should prompt more precise teaching and intervention, not an
automatic shift to a different literacy
philosophy.
Previous Statements Raise
Questions
Concerns about Labour’s position are not
new.
In March 2022, then Education Minister Chris
Hipkins publicly defended both sounding out words and
looking at pictures as ways children learn to read. His
comments prompted criticism from literacy advocates
concerned about the continued endorsement of practices
associated with balanced literacy.
More recently,
Hipkins has suggested that while phonics skills are
improving, reading comprehension remains a
challenge.
Reading comprehension is critically
important. However, structured literacy is not simply
phonics. It encompasses the development of accurate word
recognition alongside oral language, vocabulary, background
knowledge, fluency and
comprehension.
Improving reading comprehension
does not require a return to guessing strategies or a
weakening of systematic foundational literacy instruction.
Children need both accurate word recognition and strong
language comprehension.
What Will Labour’s
Structured Literacy Commitment Mean in
Practice?
Chris Hipkins has publicly committed to
continuing the structured literacy mandate, and DEB welcomes
that commitment.
However, there is an important
distinction between supporting structured literacy as one of
several available approaches and ensuring every child
receives evidence-based literacy instruction.
A
mandate alone does not guarantee effective implementation.
Teachers need high-quality professional learning,
appropriate resources, reliable assessment and access to
specialist intervention.
Equally, removing clear
expectations risks increasing variation between schools and
classrooms, potentially leaving children’s access to
effective literacy instruction dependent on where they
attend school or who teaches them.
For children with
dyslexia and other persistent literacy difficulties, that
variation can have significant consequences.
DEB is
therefore seeking clarification from Labour on three
questions:
1. What specifically does Labour
consider “one-size-fits-all” about structured literacy,
given that assessment, differentiation and responsiveness
are fundamental to its effective
implementation?
2. Is Labour
proposing to allow a wider range of literacy instructional
approaches, including balanced literacy practices such as
three-cueing and guessing unfamiliar words from pictures or
context?
3. Will Labour retain the
current structured literacy requirements within the English
curriculum, including explicit, systematic and cumulative
instruction, and ensure these are supported through
professional learning, assessment and
intervention?
Supporting children’s
wellbeing, responding to neurodiversity and exercising
professional judgement are all important. These practices
complement effective literacy instruction rather than
replace it.
Every child deserves teaching that
responds to their individual needs. Every child also
deserves access to instruction grounded in the best
available evidence. These are not competing
priorities.
DEB believes the focus should
remain on strengthening the quality and consistency of
structured literacy implementation, rather than creating
uncertainty about the instructional approaches schools
should use.
For children with dyslexia, access
to effective literacy instruction should never be a matter
of
chance.
