23109 (2024). Hon Jan Tinetti to the Minister of Education

23109 (2024). Hon Jan Tinetti to the Minister of Education: Has the Minister received a briefing that shows that reading recovery is best practice as a remedial reading intervention in our country; if so, what is the title and date of that briefing?

Hon Erica Stanford: No, because Reading Recovery is not best practice as a remedial reading intervention. We have made the decision to reinvest critical education funding into effective, efficient literacy interventions for children that need them. These will reinforce and extend the structured literacy teaching children will be receiving every day in their classrooms. Reading Recovery has had tens of millions in taxpayer funding for years and ignored the evidence about the science of how the overwhelming majority of children best learn to read. The revised offering incorporating a sprinkling of structured literacy is too little, too late, and still does not acknowledge or renounce the problematic three-cueing ideology at the heart of the approach. We need to base our investment on evidence-based practice that is proven to be effective and equitable. The report also highlighted that our Māori and Pasifika learners did not benefit equally from RR/ELS. We are investing to build a cohesive structured literacy approach that meets the needs of all learners, across all year levels, tiers of instruction / intervention, and postcodes. The research states improved efficacy of the programme based on the inclusion of evidence-based structured literacy approaches. As Professor James Chapman notes, the ‘and+and’ revision of the Reading Recovery offering ignores the flawed ideology at the heart of the practice. Schools in New Zealand that are already teaching using structured literacy approaches are seeing significant improvements in student achievement and a reduction in the need for additional support.