MUST READ: Erica Stanford’s Smoke and Mirrors
On Monday Minister of Education Erica Stanford revealed she has been practicing for her post-politics career as a magician, using sleight of hand to turn dodgy statistics into proof that her ‘Structured Literacy programme’ was producing miraculous results.
‘“New phonics data shows a significant boost in reading success right across the country. Our relentless focus on teaching the basics brilliantly is delivering. We followed the science, data and evidence, and in less than a year we are growing more confident readers and reversing the decades of decline in student achievement,” Stanford said in a statement shortly before appearing alongside Luxon at Monday’s media briefing.
Stanford said Term 3 phonics data taken at 20 weeks at school shows:
58% of students were at or above expectations, up from 36% in Term 1.
43% of students exceeded expectations in Term 3, more than double the Term 1 rate.
Fewer students need targeted support, Stanford added, which has dropped from 52% in Term 1 to 33% in Term 3.
“This is crucial, evidence shows the younger children master learning to read, the more likely they are to succeed at school.”
To clarify:
“Structured literacy is an approach that explicitly teaches systematic word identification and decoding strategies, teaching phonics, syllable patterns, vocabulary, and writing structure.”
Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Who knew raising reading achievement was so easy? Maybe I’ll have to take back all the things I’ve said about her…..
BUT…
As you’d expect, the actual data tells a different story, explained in this article by the Aotearoa Educators Collective (AEC).
When Phonics Isn’t Reading: Why Today’s ‘Literacy Breakthrough’ Doesn’t Add Up
As is my usual practice I will highlight and comment on sections, however I encourage you to read the article.
‘According to her statement, the proportion of five-year-olds “at or above expectation” on the 20-week phonics check rose from 36% in Term 1 to 58% in Term 3, while the number “needing support” dropped from 52% to 33%. She declared this as proof that structured literacy has “reversed decades of decline.”’
Hang on a tick – is she claiming that a 20 week phonic check for five year olds is evidence of reading improvement? Yes, that seems to be the case, in which case I’d advise her to quit politics immediately and sell her programme internationally, as she will very quickly become very wealthy.
BUT..
When we dig into what this data actually shows, things aren’t what they seem.
- Phonics is not the same as reading.
“The phonics check is a short, 40-word decoding test designed to assess how well children can sound out words. It’s a diagnostic snapshot of one aspect of early reading: phoneme– grapheme correspondence. It is not an assessment of a child’s ability to read for meaning.
In other words, it measures whether a child can sound out a word, not whether they can understand it.”
Back in time this was colloquially called ‘barking at print.’ Just because a reader, of any age, can sound out a word, that doesn’t mean they understand it and without understanding there is no reading happening. If a word isn’t already in a reader’s vocabulary, being able to sound it out doesn’t mean they will know what it means. Nor will sounding it out mean that it will be added to their vocabulary.
Try it for yourself, find a long word in a dictionary that you’ve never seen before and use your phonetical skills to sound it out. Having done that, are you any the wiser as to its meaning and usage?
- Two data points don’t make a trend – that is basic statistics, yet this is what Stanford is claiming. Ignorance or sleight of hand?
“The headline gains come from comparing different groups of children: those tested at 20 weeks in Term 1, Term 2, and Term 3, not the same children progressing over time.
The Ministry’s own report makes this clear:
“This data provides a cross-sectional view; progress of cohorts between timepoints is not yet available.”
That means these results show what this term’s five-year-olds could decode after 20 weeks, not how last term’s five-year-olds improved.
Statistically, this is called a cross-sectional sample, not a longitudinal cohort. It tells us nothing about growth, learning impact, or the effectiveness of any specific teaching programme.
To claim otherwise is misleading.”
- Problems with the cohort being tested.
“Children tested in Term 1 have just returned from a two-month summer break; many have been at school for only a few weeks. By Term 3, most are well into school routines and benefit from continuity.
So, we’d expect later-term cohorts to score higher, even if teaching quality stayed the same.”
Also, more schools joined the survey as the year passed, meaning that the groups of children being tested changed.
“Some schools joined because they were told phonics data was required to access Ministry support, an incentive that skews participation and results.
That’s the godfather approach – making an offer that can’t be refused.
Put simply: when the sample quadruples and changes who’s included, the numbers cannot be used to show national progress.”
Basic statistics.
- Incomplete data.
‘The Ministry admits that some Term 3 schools used Term 1 question sets but were still included if two of three data points (test date, question set, submission date) matched the Term 3 criteria. That is not rigorous test equating.
Nor does the report show how many children were excluded or absent, or which schools declined to submit results.
This lack of transparency would not pass peer review in educational research. Yet these incomplete, shifting samples are being presented as evidence of “transformation.”’
As I said, watch for the sleight of hand, as every effort has been made to draw our attention away from the actual results.
- Extremely small sample size.
“The only group tracked over time (children who completed both 20- and 40-week checks) was tiny: just 516 students or about 4.5% of the total sample. If we consider the broader total number of Year 1 students in 2025 is 68,349 – this figure represents 0.007 percent (or 7 in every thousand) of the current Year 1 cohort.”
Basing such extravagant claims on such a small sample size is wishful thinking. Also not mentioned are the socio-economic backgrounds of the group being tested.
It’s very possible, given the tiny sample, for results to influenced by a particular economic group – children from higher socio-economic backgrounds are likely to do better (given the well established research about the effects of poverty on children’s learning).
- Eurocentric testing?
Following on from my above comment:
“The Minister also claimed, “all groups benefited,” citing Māori students rising from 25% to 43% “at or above expectation,” and similar increases for Pacific students.
But the report itself acknowledges sampling skew: overrepresentation of European students and underrepresentation of schools with high Equity Index scores.”
So given all this, one has to treat these so-called results with a great deal of skepticism.
And there is one more very big issue, that Stanford elides altogether – testing five year olds on their knowledge of basic letter sounds is not a test of reading.
“We Need to Stop Equating Phonics with Literacy
Of course, no one disputes that instruction in grapheme-phoneme knowledge supports early decoding. But when governments reduce literacy to a single test of letter–sound knowledge (recall), they shrink the complexity of reading into a political headline.
The irony is that the same teachers now being praised for implementing “structured literacy” were already teaching phonic knowledge – often alongside rich oral language, play, and comprehension strategies that this new mandate risks crowding out.”
Further:
“The gains in phonics data may well signal progress, but until we can link those improvements to broader reading outcomes, comprehension, and sustained literacy growth over time; and until improvements are demonstrated through methodologically-robust, independent, peer-reviewed research – it’s too soon to declare success.”
The government, particularly Erica Stanford, is being devious here. One has to wonder why they felt it was necessary to produce such suspect data and then to promote it as evidence of the success of the government’s education agenda.
Could it be that things actually aren’t going that well, hence this smoke and mirrors exercise?
Or, as I read on a Facebook post, was it a coincidence that the founder of a structured literacy company was with the minister during the announcement?
Nor does isolated word (and non-word) reading, or decoding rather = real reading in context of continuous, meaningful text.
I may recognize a word when hear it, and I may know what it means, but that doesn’t mean I will recognize it when I come across it in a passage of prose. Phonics recognition tests therefor are a test of reading and we should not claim otherwise, and vocabulary is something picked up over a long period of time: one should not not expect a child of five to possess an extensive vocabulary.
The new structured literacy approach is particularly useful for teaching neurodivergent children (and adults) to read. For some peculiar reason, we have a core of teachers who are resistant to teaching children who are neurodivergent. For what it’s worth, I’m dyslexic and learned to read using a similar method in the’70’s, I would have been 8-9 years old. Within 6 months my reading level improved to be about the same as my peers, by a year I was reading books aimed at intermediate school level.
When you say ‘reading,’ I assume you mean reading comprehension (or whatever they call it now), because it is still common for a group of people to read the same information. Yet, they have different ideas to explain what they read. While some of that difference can be explained by how precise the information was, some of it is due to the reader’s ability to understand words as their combination, and punctuation can make the same words mean different things.
When I say “reading” I meant “reading books”, so understanding what is written. Children who are neurodivergent are just as intelligent, if not more so than those neurotypical middle class white children who just breeze through the very early stages of learning at a young age. Neurotypical children have the advantage of being born with an “internal instruction manual”, so they have a head start in the initial learning stages over neurodivergent children.
And then there’s reader response theory. Not what 7yo’s are up too – but possibly in their 7yo ways – but a great many adults. well versed in the basics, ‘read into’ a text meanings that are simply not there. All in the mind … or is it?
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/education/glossary/reader-response-theory
But that’s another story.
As a teacher, I can confirm all the scepticism is on the button.
However some teachers are relentlessly optimistic and happiest when being told what to do and how. The system keeps even good teachers so beat down and unsure of themselves and under pressure, they just want a way through. So there is a cadre that will always be found who will support the next new thing. So there will always be advocates to present a positive spin in the media for this epic failure.
“the next new thing”
After thousands of years of teaching reading and thousands of education systems around the world and a heap of data collection, you would think the best ‘teach reading’ system would be a known thing.
So a five year old is better at sounding words than what they were on the first ever day at school .I would fucken hope so thats what they go to school for .Lets see how brilliant they are in five years time not the last 5 minutes .
She was so happy with herself though, wasn’t she? She actually seemed to think she’d solved the whole problem.
It used to be called Reading and Comprehension. The word Comprehension also has a capital letter indicating it is of equal importance in that title. Erica got the Reading bit right but forgot all about Comprehension.
You are right Gordon, and I’ve said it many times too, if after 5 years there is a noticeable improvement I’ll be surprised. There’s a lot more goes into a child’s learning than one simple technique which sits in isolation.
Family interest, observing others and competing with friends, being taken to a Library, being read to and even just the handling of those tough baby books with cardboard pages which my eldest loved to chew at 10 months and who later became a ‘voracious’ reader.
In reply to Terry. Yes, structured teaching of reading has it’s place and definitely helps people such as yourself and others with learning difficulties like Irlen Syndrome. But without realising it, you were comprehending what you were reading and the two skills always go together.
Every possible method of teaching reading and understanding need to be used. Not just one. Some children will get there faster with one method and some will do better with another. it’s the combination of activities which help the most children.
Joy, thank you for acknowledging that structured literacy, (it was called something else at the public school I attended in England in the’70’s), helped me to learn how to read. Most of my peers at my school in England learned in a similar manner. A number of them went on to Cambridge or Oxford, one former classmate is a fellow at All Souls. What I have found Interesting here in New Zealand is an institutional resistance to teaching neurodivergent children, the system seems to be determined to write them off. I believe that New Zealand was the last country in the civilised world that accepted that dyslexia actually existed, like myself they were written off as being very low IQ, and never learn to read. I was fortunate, my parents palmed me off to an aunt and uncle in England, and sent to a real school, much to the horror of my former primary school teachers.
Learning difficulties are not an indication of intelligence and it’s about time everyone got that. Such children are often very creative, having had to find ways to cope in the classroom and not stand out too much, but also because many are in fact, very intelligent and innovative.
The thing is that teachers themselves, loved school. They were the ones who fitted in, handled the work and never had to struggle. As with every situation where problems are pointed out, it’s extremely difficult for those who are unaffected, to understand and even believe that others might not be just like them.
So in reality the issue is with the teachers, their union and the teaching establishment. This problem doesn’t seem to happen in private schools, or state schools located in wealthy areas, where well educated professional parents expect the school and teachers to actually teach children. If as you say teachers come into the teaching profession expecting everything to be easy, then they have chosen the wrong profession. Teachers are supposed to be professionals, so grownups, like any profession the job is not easy, it’s challenging at best. If it’s too much for them, they could always get a job as a supermarket checkout operator.
Reply to Terry.
No, teachers do a very demanding job which most people wouldn’t consider. It takes a huge amount of energy to keep on top with 30-odd children and their 30 different requirements needing attention every day.
Problems do occur in wealthy schools with wealthy parents and children. They have more resources and people to deal with them.
When graffiti was just getting started in Auckland, one of the first devotees was the 19 year old son of one of NZ’s wealthiest men. At 19 he should have been a man, doing grown-up things not playing with spray cans on public property. His education at a private school lacked something, as did the parenting he’d received, when he was defacing the city and leaving his calling card like a dog.
I don’t think teachers think everything will be easy, those who take it up are sometimes disillusioned after a while, I’m sure.
What I said was, that when teachers were children, they found school fairly easy. It suited them. They didn’t go to school facing the same difficulties as some other children, such as those with dyslexia.
Most teachers are very professional AND care very much about their classes. That’s why they are striking now because they know full well that other professional teachers are very close to leaving and need their working conditions made less onerous and monetarily worth staying for.
Dealing with other people all day long can be exhausting. They do not have nice quiet offices to retreat to where an underling will bring them a cuppa. People who do these vocational jobs shouldn’t have to do it for love. Their efforts should be fairly recognised. Being given the brush-off by govts. is not good enough.
I have to admit I’m very much in favour of state schools. My children had excellent teachers most of the time. Some teachers went out of their way to assist, especially with my son. He had extra tutoring arranged by the school teacher, to get him through Bursary Maths. Both children went on to tertiary training, one to an Engineering degree and the other to a business which trained a specific type of engineer, where he is now better paid than the degreed child. I doubt any private school teachers could have out-performed those we dealt with.
In summary, privately educated children do get into trouble and become anti-social and public school teachers do handle children’s specific needs well and professionally.
Thx AllanA. From my experience with my two daughters, most children during the 60’s, who were brought up using the phonics method, were competent readers. Then in the 70’s along came the Whole Language Method, which appeared to undo all the good work. However, Stanford epitomises what is so glaringly obvious about this corrupt CoC – they truly believe the rest of us are intellectually inferior to them thus lacking brain matter and commonsense. When will they wake up to the fact that we are all fully aware of their smoke and mirrors, subtefuge, lies and twisted stats? It confirms the over-confidence and extreme arrogance of Stanford and her colleagues. I have faith in our teachers whatever the curriculum. Also remember one size doesn’t fit all!
I simply can’t understand why teaching to read and write is such a big issue.
My wife is from China brought up in a dirt poor village. Left school at 15 and learned in a large classroom traditional style. Yet she is perfectly literate, in that she can read chinese novels, magazines, and write Chinese, and so can all her friends. And basic maths is no problem. One would think that Chinese is a far more difficult language to teach than english (the written part at least).
Does Singapore and Japan etc – again the former multilingual, but students have difficulty in the basics is unheard of.
Similarly, the Soviet Union achieved great results in education, boosting the literacy rate of the population, and from being one of the most backward countries in Europe, sent up Sputnik within a few decades of the revolution.
Its about disciplining kids to sit down, do the work. Start off with structure to master the fundamentals, while at the same time getting them to read widely
I think the answer is the educational ideology here in New Zealand, teachers do learn different methods of teaching children, however too many times “management” in certain schools decide to teach children only one particular way. If that doesn’t suit the child, it’s the fault of the child and their family. Our issue is too many incompetent teachers, who are protected by their union, they simply don’t care. For God’s sake even in third world countries it was accepted that dyslexia and other neuro divergent in children actually existed, and that neuro divergent children were often above average IQ when compared with their neuro typical peers. Unfortunately here in New Zealand dyslexia did not exist, and along with other neuro divergent were considered to be mentally retarded. There are teachers today in new Zealand that refuse to acknowledge the existence of dyslexia, and that dyslexic children can be taught to read and write.
There are certainly some neurodivergent children, but the vast majority are not. Most students who struggle with functional literacy are unlikely to be neurodivergent.
The reality is that foundational skills must be drilled—whether children enjoy it or not and regardless of individual learning styles. Fluency in any area only comes through repetition. To master a language, you have to speak it often. Even with routine or seemingly mundane tasks, proficiency and nuance develop through consistent practice and engagement.
This principle holds true regardless of learning style—the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve appears to be nearly universal.
Therefore, we should begin with the fundamentals that apply to almost all learners. Once these core skills are secure, we can then adapt for different learning styles or modes of expression as needed.
From a resource allocation standpoint, it makes sense to prioritise methods that benefit the vast majority of students—the near-universal principles that underpin effective learning for most children.
Terry you keep on with a negative line and treat teachers as free agents who are failing. Good onou for succeeding against the wilful ignorance of the education establishment. Teachers have to do the best they can within the changing curriculum and methods and Lange’s school boards with their input and Heads who are often encouraged to think like CEOs. There is a nation-wide communism of thought I believe – everyone should be the same. Not enough curiosity also.
Hits the nail on the head. Debate over method – in part about curriculum- is one thing but there’s a whole lot else going on.
National are making up a crisis and then pretending to solve it. I wish we would stop catering to the lowest denominator with carte blanche diatribes and dictats for everyone. How about we actually put in real resources to help those who struggle and leave the rest of us alone to get on with it.