Running reading up the flagpole

By Sally Edsall

Federal Education Minister Dr Brendan Nelson has announced he is going to conduct an inquiry into the teaching of reading in primary schools.

Dr Nelson stated that he was acting after receiving a letter from 26 academics who claimed that students were not being taught reading by the "phonics" approach. The Sydney Morning Herald (November 9) reported that: "Of the 10 NSW academics on the list of 26 experts...only two are not from Macquarie University, which has developed a specialty in the teaching of phonics over the last 20 years."

The announcement caused a wide scale response from teachers, community members, newspaper columnists, Department of Education and Training spokespeople, the NSW Education Minister and Federal shadow education minister.

Maralyn Parker, writing in the Daily Telegraph (November 10) said: "Here's betting it will find teachers use a variety of methods of teaching reading, including phonics and whole word, at the same time. That different things work with children. But mainly what works is quality teaching."

This is certainly the message that comes over from teachers, and any reading of the relevant NSW primary syllabus.

It is interesting that Dr Nelson has decided to embark on this course after aborting his last great scheme which was supposedly going to address the needs of students with reading difficulties -- the Tutorial Credit Initiative ('reading vouchers').

NSW Education Minister Dr Andrew Refshauge, in a display of rubber-stamping the Federal Government's scheme, stated on September 4 that the NSW Education Department "had already spent $100, 000 writing to parents and preparing to offer special tutorial programs through schools".

Federation warned the NSW Government that its rush to support the political stunt of Brendan Nelson was ill-conceived.

The re-elected federal government has displayed, through its published policies, its determination to keep a tighter control on spending on public schools by making funding contingent on compliance with the Government's own ideologically-driven agenda. Could the voucher initiative have been pulled because it would result in money being spent through public schools without the necessity to hoist flags? Or was the fact that the only suitable broker for conducting the voucher scheme, the only organisational structure which could extend its reach to the most disadvantaged students, those with the most critical reading support needs, happened to be state government education authorities?

The recommendations flowing from the latest inquiry will prove interesting indeed.

Sally Edsall is the relieving Editor.

For further information

November 2004 contents