The Flimsy Case Against Structured Literacy in NZ Schools

21 August 2026

The Flimsy Case Against Structured Literacy in New Zealand Schools

Guest post by Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology, James Chapman.

Download a pdf of the blog here. Or read on below.

Implementation of structured literacy approaches to teaching reading are far from straightforward, as many teachers will testify. Yet, initial results are promising, especially for children who have previously been under-served by a dominant ideology designed to benefit white middle class children. Why would anyone want to return to the reading teaching method that disadvantaged so many children for well over four decades?

But certain figures in this country persist in perpetuating the myth that New Zealand has a long history of excellence in teaching kids to read, write and spell, even in the face of decades of evidence to the contrary, including declining performance in international assessments such as PIRLS, persistent inequities in achievement, and longstanding concerns about literacy outcomes.

Arguments against the use of evidence-based teaching methods were mounting even before structured literacy approaches were formally introduced by the government. An article published in an American journal authored by two New Zealand academics (Susan Andretto of University of Otago and Rebecca Jesson of University of Auckland) claimed that policy makers often turn to policy solutions from “elsewhere” when faced with a crisis, and in addressing the literacy crisis the New Zealand Government has reached for an offshore solution to a local concern.

Then, in late January this year the New Zealand Listener carried the following tantalising cover page headline, “Educating Erica”, a reference to Education Minister Erica Stanford. The title of the article inside that issue was “Ideological Classroom” and in the article critics of structured literacy claimed the move to this teaching method was a “dangerous experiment” based on an ideological approach to literacy instruction.

Last month, the Radio New Zealand journalist John Gerritsen reported findings from an article by University of Auckland Professor Stuart McNaughton, claiming that his analysis of literacy and numeracy teaching reforms involved an examination of “years of experimental studies”. McNaughton argued that the literacy and numeracy reforms were “simplistic”, that instruction in phonics overlooks the complexity of teaching and learning and ignores more “complicated things” like the role of self-regulation, critical thinking and motivation. He also claims that Māori and Pacific children will be disadvantaged by these literacy reforms.

All three of the critiques of structured literacy are ill-informed, and proliferate mis-information. New Zealand research out of Massey University and the University of Canterbury since at least the mid-2010s provide a strong basis for the introduction of structured literacy approaches. The research shows clearly that all students benefit from structured literacy teaching, especially Māori and Pacific children and those from low income backgrounds. These findings are mirrored in international scholarship, not least in countries with very diverse, multi-lingual, and indigenous populations including Australia, where more and more evidence is emerging that the adoption of structured literacy is improving literacy outcomes for all learners while helping to reduce longstanding achievement gaps.

The Listener article also overlooks the New Zealand research when claiming that the introduction of structured literacy approaches is a “dangerous experiment”. I firmly reject that claim. It was the previous whole language/balanced literacy approach, based on ideology rather than research, that was the dangerous experiment. Returning to the previous approach would undo the significant benefits that are already apparent in structured literacy approaches such as the Better Start Literacy Approach (BSLA) out of Canterbury University.

The BSLA programme, which is based on a structured literacy approach, is now in over half of New Zealand primary schools. Indicative results are impressive, especially for Māori and Pacific students, and small-group instruction for children with greater learning needs has resulted in them catching up to their peers in reading and spelling within 30 weeks. That’s far more impressive than Reading Recovery (RR) ever was.

It’s well documented that Reading Recovery was a failed programme, not only in New Zealand but in other countries, including Australia, the UK and the US. The government has done the right thing in defunding that programme in favour of interventions based on sound scientific research. Any suggestion of bringing back RR would be extraordinarily ill-informed and a waste of money.

Despite claiming that his views are based on “years of experimental studies”, McNaughton is woefully awry in claiming that structured literacy is all about phonics. His assertion that the ability to decode words “has limited (if any) impact on medium to long-term comprehension” is simply wrong. A very large body of New Zealand and international research clearly shows that the development of word reading is a fundamental aspect of learning to read. Word knowledge plus language development is far more influential for developing reading comprehension than any other skill.

Longitudinal studies show that self-regulation does not contribute any added benefit to the development of reading comprehension, once word recognition and language comprehension are in place. Likewise, critical thinking does not add to competence in learning how to read. Critical thinking does not occur in a vacuum but requires the ability to read and gain meaning from texts. As for motivation, this does not directly cause success in learning to read. Rather, motivation flows from children having effective tools to read, understand and enjoy what they read.

Structured literacy is a teaching approach that ensures children become proficient readers efficiently and effectively. When done well, it is highly effective in launching children’s learning, and does in fact incorporate comprehension, along with rich oral language, vocabulary development, writing, spelling, and meaningful engagement with high-quality texts. If only Professor McNaughton had done his homework before dismissing this extensively researched instructional approach.

So, yes, there is a case being circulated in the media that is against the use of structured literacy teaching approaches in New Zealand schools. However, the case is based on a flimsy yearning for an ideologically driven teaching method that is best buried if we want our literacy results to improve and more children to become successful readers.

James Chapman

Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology

Massey University—Palmerston North