top of page
Search

What the science doesn't always show us

  • 6 days ago
  • 6 min read

Updated: 6 days ago

By Rebecca Thomas


Chat GPT image
Chat GPT image

They say silence speaks volumes. But in education, it’s the noise—the slogans, the soundbites, the one-size-fits-all claims—that echo loudest through ministry corridors and policy memos. 


Here in Aotearoa, we pride ourselves on inquiry, diversity, and voice. But a strong global movement has taken hold—spanning the United States, England, Australia, Canada, and more—what some call the 'Science of Reading' (SoR), repackaged into structured literacy mandates that aim to lift achievement.


Many structured literacy teachers are working with deep care and professionalism. This critique is not about their intentions—it’s about making space for complexity. While many of these efforts come from a genuine desire to improve outcomes, we need to be careful that well-intended policies don’t marginalise teacher agency or ignore the lived realities of our learners.


The reading wars have been reignited. 


It’s our shared responsibility to ensure vulnerable learners aren’t left behind in the push for reform.


This blog isn’t about bashing phonics—it’s not about bashing science, either. It’s about sharing what others have noticed about the way the landscape is being played and mandated ‘in the name of science’—a landscape that can leave those who have questions feeling like what they did and how they taught before was wrong.


Phonics has a place—a place. What Tierney and Pearson lay bare in their thoughtful critique is not an anti-phonics stance. It’s a call to critically examine the claims currently being made in the name of science, and to remain cautious when educational practice becomes overly standardised or ideological.


They ask the question we yearned for someone to ask:


Have they been reading the same research we have?


This is not a battle line.

It’s a conversation starter.

A reminder that ELV exists not to tear down, but to shine light into the shadows—to create space for multiple truths, for respectful challenge.


After publishing my last blog, I felt the tremor of backlash ripple through the usual channels. A number of structured literacy supporters—many of whom care deeply about literacy outcomes—were offended. Apparently, I had done my community a disservice by daring to raise “concerning” questions that teachers, supposedly, should not even be asking publicly or on social media.


And I’ll be honest: my first instinct was to apologise.

To take it down.

To shrink myself.


I reread every word—again and again—searching for the harm. But all I found were questions. Sincere ones. Grounded in a love of learning and a deep respect for our tamariki and their whānau.


According to some interpretations of SoR, the science is “settled.” Decades of research point to one conclusion: start with systematic phonics, early and hard, and everything else will follow.


But the truth, Tierney and Pearson reveal, is murkier—and far more human. Their analysis shows:


  • Phonics-first programs show moderate gains in word reading—but inconsistent effects on comprehension.

  • Claims that reading is “unnatural” can erase rich cultural, home language and community ways of knowing.

  • Teachers—those best placed to navigate the complexity of learning—risk being sidelined by standardised scripts and imported ideologies.


These are not attacks. They are reminders that education is relational, and pedagogy is contextual.


Is Reading Really ‘Unnatural’?

Some structured literacy advocates insist that reading isn’t something humans do naturally. Their logic goes: if children don’t learn to read like they learn to talk, then teachers must map words onto their memories through systematic phonics.


But there’s another view—one that sees reading as part of how humans make sense of the world.


Tierney and Pearson draw on thinkers like Freire and Bruner to offer a powerful idea: maybe reading is as natural as learning to ride a bike, cross a street, or ask a good question.


Children are naturally wired to make meaning. They learn through signs, symbols, and patterns all around them—from street signs to storybooks, menus to Māori carvings.

If we define reading narrowly—as just cracking the alphabet code—then yes, it may feel “unnatural” for some learners. But if we define it more broadly—as the ability to understand and engage with the world through symbols—then reading becomes a deeply human act.


This perspective honours the many ways children read the world around them before they ever decode a word.


Tierney and Pearson write:


“Practice should be guided by research. However… we should always rein in the tendency to overgeneralize from research to practice—particularly from basic research to practice.”


They go on to compare this to overgeneralised medicine—when treatments are applied widely despite minimal understanding of long-term benefit or harm.


They advocate for a dialogue, not a lecture. One that starts with the setting—the actual children, culture, and classroom in front of us. A model where research doesn’t dictate what teachers must do, but works alongside them to make good decisions.


This is the equity work. This is the justice lens. And it starts not with standardisation, but with listening.


The Research We Need (But Rarely Fund)


If this were truly about outcomes, we’d see a wider range of research methods being valued.


Tierney and Pearson highlight what’s missing: the kind of research that takes time, and that listens to people closely. This includes studies that involve:


  • Real stories from classrooms

  • Long conversations with teachers and students

  • Research done with schools, not just on them

  • Attention to what’s happening in real life—not just in a lab


They remind us that research in education isn’t just about proving a point. It’s about making life better for our young people. Especially those who are too often left out of the conversation.


Tierney and Pearson offer a path forward: collaboration, partnership, and respect.


“Educational research… should be built upon the premise that situation matters… befitting partnerships or respectful consultations, rather than detached objectivity and standardized deployment.”

This isn’t just academic. It’s relational. It’s mātauranga in practice —the lived wisdom of people, land, and culture in relationship.


They point to research-into-practice models that honour teacher voice. Research that is:


  • Ethical, not extractive

  • Local, not imposed

  • Collaborative, not compliance-driven


Because curriculum and pedagogy deserve their own science. A science that reflects the realities of diverse learners, experiencing diverse teaching approaches, in diverse communities.

Anything less is not evidence-based—it’s incomplete.


Are These Models Sacred—or Just Simplified?


Two models have become the go-to visuals for SoR advocates: 

The Simple View of Reading (SVR) — reading = decoding × comprehension 

Scarborough’s Reading Rope — multiple strands woven into skilled reading


They show up in PLD, policy, and slides as if they’re the whole truth.


But SVR is too simple. It leaves out critical thinking, context, culture, and motivation. It assumes reading is a formula.

The Reading Rope, while more layered, can sometimes feel like it positions the learner as passive, rather than an active meaning-maker.


Models can help us think. But they become problematic when we stop thinking beyond them.




But that’s the point.


For every piece of research that champions SoR, there’s another that questions it.


Research is not gospel.

It is conversation.

And that conversation must include teachers, communities, and tamariki.


If you’ve made it this far, thank you. We want to be clear: Engaging Learning Voices is not here to mock or wage war against structured literacy experts. We know many are working from a place of deep care and strong conviction.


But when any approach begins to drown out other perspectives, silence questions, or prescribe one-size-fits-all solutions—we feel called to speak. Not to diminish anyone’s work, but to create space where all voices can be heard, all experiences considered, and all children seen in full colour.


We will always hold space for discomfort, dialogue, and difference. Because for us, the work isn’t about defending ideologies. It’s about defending possibility.


Engaging Learning Voices exists to amplify the voices of educators, learners, and communities—especially when those voices are being lost in the noise.


We believe everyone deserves the chance to see the full picture.


Not just the word. But the world.






What the Research Really Says: A 'Simple' Table

(simplified from the Tierney and Pearson report)


Claim

What SoR Advocates Say

What Tierney & Pearson Found

1. Phonics is the key component in teaching reading

Phonics must come first, fast, and systematically.

Helps word reading but inconsistent for comprehension. Should be part of a balanced approach.

2. The Simple View of Reading explains how reading works

SVR = decoding × language comprehension.

Too simplistic. Doesn’t reflect real reading complexity.

3. Reading is recognising and understanding known words

Reading is decoding oral vocabulary.

Limits reading to code-breaking. Ignores context and meaning-making.

4. Phonics builds automatic word reading

Teach phonics early and automaticity will follow.

Sometimes true—but not always. Depends on learner/context.

5. The Three-Cueing System is discredited

Context cues = guessing. Bad readers guess.

Misleading. Skilled readers use all cues: meaning, syntax, visuals.

6. Reading is unnatural

Explicit phonics is needed because reading isn't natural.

Reading is complex, not unnatural. Needs cultural, home language, and relational support.

7. Whole Language caused falling test scores

Balanced Literacy failed. Phonics will fix it.

No causal evidence. Many factors affect scores.

8. Neuroscience proves phonics-first works

Brain scans show phonics activates reading areas.

Overstated. Neuroscience doesn’t prescribe pedagogy.

9. Teacher education ignores science

Teachers aren’t trained in SoR. Kids fail.

Oversimplified. Blaming teachers is not the answer.


 
 
 

1件のコメント


Susan Sandretto
Susan Sandretto
6 days ago

Kia ora Rebecca,


Thank you for keeping the discussion going. I agree that we must take a careful, critical eye to all research studies or published programmes before implementing them into our place. We must not lose sight of the powerful knowledge teachers bring to the equation.


Sadly, this important observation that the research is never settled and we are always looking to improve has vanished in Aotearoa New Zealand with the loss of the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. This was a fund that celebrated research partnerships between practitioners and researchers.


Source: https://budget.govt.nz/budget/pdfs/summary-initiatives/b25-sum-initiatives.pdf


What could be a higher value investment than ongoing research into teaching and learning?

いいね!

©2021 by Rebecca Thomas and Steve Saville. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page