Dialogue: Our children read well, so bring on the parade

Success in international literacy surveys should prompt applause for New Zealand schools, not querulous incredulity, writes WARWICK ELLEY*.

The latest international survey of reading literacy conducted by OECD is surely cause for widespread celebration.

We should congratulate the hundreds of dedicated New Zealand teachers and their 15-year-old students who showed once again that we have proportionately more "good readers" than any other country, and the third-highest average in the developed world.

If this had been a sporting event, there would be ticker-tape parades. But in matters of scholarship, the critics can only express their incredulity that our students could possibly surpass those of our richer, stronger partners. Something must be wrong.

Thus, Tom Nicholson of Auckland University uses the occasion to complain that "we cannot hold our heads up high" as long as some pupils are failing. For him, the cup is 10 per cent empty, not 90 per cent full.

Can our teachers never earn applause for a wonderful achievement - with less than half the funding for each student of the other top countries?

As one who has taught, observed and conducted research in many countries, I can say confidently that New Zealand students are very good readers. They have done well in every reputable international survey of reading - top place in 1971 and fourth in 1991 - and produced the largest proportion of good readers in all three international surveys conducted so far.

Furthermore, the latest national monitoring survey showed substantial gains among Year 4 students since 1996.

Where is the counter-evidence? The sceptics can quote only personal opinions or incomplete surveys, uninformed by relevant comparisons.

The fact that some students are "below average" or "behind in reading" is not evidence that standards are slipping.

There are always students below average. New Zealand happens to have high averages. Students who are "behind" in this country are "above average" in many other countries.

The only international survey of adult literacy that sceptics like to quote was shoddy. Few countries managed to secure a 70 per cent response rate (90 per cent is usually required) and New Zealand had the best prose literacy results among them. Some countries had less than 40 per cent response.

It does not take much understanding of surveys to realise who the non-respondents would be in an adult literacy questionnaire which took more than an hour to fill in, on the doorstep. And the cut-off points for "adequate literacy" in that study were arbitrary and unrealistic.

It is interesting to speculate why literacy standards are widely criticised in most countries and eras, even when the facts show they are improving. I have newspaper clippings from the 1920s and 1940s which tell us how badly the schools are doing.

The truth is that there never was a golden age of literacy, when everyone read often and well. The best time is now.

Most critics are regular wordsmiths, such as writers, editors, lawyers, businessmen and politicians.

Because their livelihoods depend on the clever use of words, they become so proficient that they forget how complex the English language is and how formidable a task it is to master it.

So they pounce on any faults of a few young people and generalise to the many. Yet almost every survey of adult literacy shows the young read better than the old.

But let us return to Professor Nicholson's complaints. As the facts seem to destroy his own beliefs about our reading, he returns to the tired debate about phonics versus whole language, thus perpetuating the mythical stereotypes that exist only in the minds of the critics.

Most have never taught reading in primary schools or observed how teachers adapt their teaching to meet individual needs. Phonics are taught, as required, but not to the point that they interfere with children's enjoyment of good books.

Professor Nicholson tries to play down our achievements by questioning the value of averages. But the average (or mean, in this case) is eminently suitable because it takes into account every student's performance. He is also unhappy because we have so many excellent achievers that they drag up the average and conceal the plight of the weaker students.

Does he ever wonder why we have so many good students? Could it be that we have hit on a great way of teaching reading?

It is true that we have more English as a second language students than most countries, and they drag our average down.

Professor Nicholson says this is no excuse because many European countries also have minority language groups.

But the challenge for New Zealand teachers is that most of ours are Pacific Islanders, who come from a predominantly oral culture. Literacy is not valued in the same way, and books are rarely found in the home.

By contrast, the minority language groups in the other top countries, Finland and Canada, were mostly Swedes and French, who have strong literacy traditions. The ideal cases that Professor Nicholson quotes are Korea and Ireland. Both have fewer poor readers than us - and both have virtually no minority language groups. When we had few such students in the 1970s, our students were well ahead of all countries.

The announcement of an educational success story deserves more than a caution about "smugness". Most New Zealand primary teachers take a professional approach to their task. They have a range of methods, including phonics. They aim to generate a love of reading. They have a rich array of reading materials which they use effectively. They create exciting classroom environments. They emphasise meaning from the start, through the use of language experience, shared reading, early writing, group work, buddy reading and lots of silent reading and story reading aloud.

They are trained to observe closely, to monitor children's reading and to adapt their methods and resources to the needs of each child. And we have effective remedial and booster schemes for those who struggle, schemes which are the envy of many other countries.

Consistently, this unique formula has proved effective in teaching children to read well, by international standards.

* Warwick Elley, emeritus professor of education, was international chairman of the previous International Survey of Reading Literacy in 1991.