What does it actually mean to strive for excellent academic outcomes for all?

The prevailing rhetoric of the current government suggests a return to the basics, with a keen focus on academic outcomes as the sole priority. Recently, a Minister even asserted that it is impossible to concentrate on more than one thing at a time.

It is deeply regrettable that those making these decisions often lack classroom experience and do not seek the perspectives of those who do. If they did, they would understand that it is indeed possible—and essential—to focus on multiple aspects simultaneously to achieve the academic outcomes they desire.

I have yet to meet a teacher who does not strive for the best for the children in their care. Indeed, no teacher wishes for their children to fail. Ironically, our current government is right now providing the very conditions within schools that mean many children and teachers are actually failing.

If this government truly aims for academic excellence for all, they must recognise that our focus cannot be singular but rather multifaceted:

1. Recognising the Whole Child: We must truly see each child. Understanding child development is crucial, as chronological age or year level often does not align with a child's developmental age. Embracing a pedagogy of play honours the natural ways in which children learn. It is possible to combine play and explicit teaching, in fact, it is the perfect balance.

Why do we have a system intent on putting the cart before the horse?

 

Right now, I am angry. Many of you will know that this week I shared an open letter on my public Number Agents Facebook page. This letter is emotional, and I make no apologies for that. In fact, it had been drafted to just send to our local Ministry of Education (MOE) office, but after I was told that one of our lovely children with ASD will have any behaviour funding (as little as it currently is anyway) concluded because he has had five terms' worth, well, let's say it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I have shared the letter at the end of this blog post for anyone who has not seen it. Feel free to go to my Facebook page and share it if it resonates with what you are experiencing. I don’t presume to speak for you, but I know right now, this is the experience of many.

Right now, we have a system intent on putting the cart before the horse. While the current government has accelerated and compounded this issue, they didn't start this pattern; in fact, for as long as I can remember (18 years of principalship), this has been the case.

There is a total disconnect between those who set curriculum direction and have control over how support is provided in schools and the actual people on the ground bringing learning to life each day. If you read this blog, you will see I am all about putting evidence-based practice into action. I also believe we can have it all: we can embrace childhood, discovery, play, work relationally, be trauma-informed, understand how learning works, follow the instructional hierarchy, work in a neurodiversity-affirming way, embrace creativity, and foster knowledge. We can have it all, but to have it all, we need to first work on the horse, not the cart!

Any expert worth their salt, when asked about the Principles of Instruction, will put 'attended focus' right up there as one of the most important things we need to have in order for us to be able to teach and for children to be able to learn.

So, let's just pick that one thing, because anything I have read or listened to in regards to the 'Science of Learning' will point to attention—the gaining and keeping of attention.

Right now, our classrooms are brimming at the seams with needs. In a classroom of 20, there are likely to be at least five children who are neurodivergent (diagnosed or not), often with needs that present as 'behaviour'. Five, in fact, is possibly on the very light side. If teaching in a new entrant class, it is likely that over half the class have a need for co-regulation just to be able to keep them in the classroom.

Whatever the number, these days our classes abound with big feelings—big feelings that often spill over into physical or verbal aggression. Then, on top of this, we have many children with specific learning needs that need one-to-one support to access the curriculum (whatever it looks like).

If your situation is anything like ours, none of these children qualify for any sort of funding. Despite their struggles, they are not considered 'bad' enough in our deficit-based system to warrant any type of support. When support is sought, this looks like observation after observation, meeting after meeting, without access to 'experts', and possibly, if you are very lucky, an hour a day of resourcing to meet the needs of this child.

Right, back to attention. For us to teach and for children to learn, everyone I know who would be labelled as an expert puts attention at the top of the list. I would not disagree with this. If I am a novice and learning a new skill, I have to pay attention to be able to make progress. In fact, as a novice at something, that ability to pay attention is vital. It is so easy to become cognitively overloaded (says I, who while writing this is listening to the instrumental version of my favourite songs to prevent becoming distracted by the lyrics).

How does that look in a classroom, where at least five (very likely more) need an adult to co-regulate with them to even make this attended focus a possibility? How does it look for children trying to pay attention while they are hyper-vigilant and worried that their classmate may suddenly start throwing things, swearing, and toppling chairs because they don't have that co-regulation opportunity or another safe space to go where they can find a trusted adult? How does it look for those children, teetering because they left the house without breakfast or amongst raised voices, who didn’t get any sleep the night before or who just need a bit of a break and a reset with an adult who cares?

I am not against a rigorous curriculum, I am not against knowledge, I am not against evidence-based practice. What I am against is the fact we continue to put the cart before the horse, somehow convinced that this will make all the difference in the world.

If we don't prioritise people, relationships, and children, if we don't understand the co-regulation needs of so many of our children, if we expect teachers to teach a class of 20-30 children on their own, without the support of at least one other adult in the class, then no amount of polishing the cart will make an iota of difference.

It takes funding to do this and that funding should not have to come from colour runs, raffles, chocolate fundraisers, pizza lunches, sausage sizzles and Halloween fundraisers!

We first need to build the capacity of our schools to cater for the children in their care; then we can work on getting their attention.

------------

To Whomever Will Listen:

I am writing this letter in an earnest attempt to be heard, making a heartfelt plea for our most vulnerable children and the dedicated teachers who give their blood, sweat, and tears every day to keep them engaged in education.

Like every kura around Aotearoa, our school is struggling to meet the diverse behavioural needs of our children. Over the last fifteen years, we have worked tirelessly to personally fund and drive our own learning, becoming developmentally responsive and neuroscience-informed. We have worked hard to understand the stress response and the impact of trauma, learning how to respond in ways that truly make a difference. We’ve also been advancing our understanding of neurodiversity, striving to create a neurodiversity-affirming space. We’ve invested vast amounts of our own time and operational funding into this, recognising just how critical this work is.  Not only that we have driven our own learning in terms of the principles of learning and teaching, starting with structured literacy eight years ago and flowing into structured maths two years ago.  

We’ve prioritised people over property, investing heavily in teacher aides and creating a regulation space for our children.  We aim to keep class sizes small because we know how much of a positive impact it has on learning and wellbeing.

We understand that the punitive processes of stand-down and suspension offer no benefit, so up until now, we have not considered those approaches as an option.

I have been the principal here for 18 years, and things have never been so challenging. Our approaches have shaped an amazing space where our children thrive, but the needs we are trying to meet have greatly increased over time. New entrants coming into school now are not what they were ten years ago; they need increasing levels of support that one teacher alone cannot provide.

Financially, like every school, we have faced immense challenges over the last five years. There is no funding for curriculum needs, and everything we wish to have must be funded via grants.

Every day, teachers are coping with immense pressure. Teachers who have our most needy students face daily incidents, often leading to our spaces being trashed and classes being disrupted. Teachers are often in the line of fire when big emotions erupt, all while trying to ensure the safety of all other children.

Despite their high needs, these children—if they are lucky—receive up to two hours a day of teacher aide time, though more likely it is one hour, or nothing at all. Because we have good processes in place, when a child actually does get support, it is often withdrawn when the behaviour seems to calm down,   Since it was the support that settled the behaviour, it quickly arises again once the support is gone. Then we are back at the beginning, pleading for support while countless observations are carried out.  An even sadder fact is that any behaviour support will be concluded after five terms regardless of need.

Getting the support our children need feels like jumping through hoops unnecessarily, when we could easily take a more direct path to our destination. If a child has dropped off the caseload for whatever reason, we then have to reapply just to have them back on the ‘books.’ This process seems to involve endless observations and meetings with very little action. If talking around in circles was the cure-all for children with behavioural difficulties, then we’d have no problems at all.

Amidst these high needs, teachers are expected to be teaching an hour of reading, writing, and maths a day, not forgetting the rest that we have to cover. By the look of the new knowledge-based syllabus (it looks more like a syllabus than a curriculum) that is coming out, we may have to increase our school hours—9am till 9pm should do.

We face a real dilemma right now. This year, we have been able to fund two teacher aides through our operational funding and a small amount of behavioural funding. We were also able to appoint a teacher aide for the new entrant room during Terms 3 and 4, using operational funding, essentially reallocating from budget lines that were unspent. In 2026, our roll drops again—not for any suspicious reason, but simply because we have two year levels with really low numbers; enrolment zones will do that to you! While the roll might drop, the extreme needs remain, with even less funding available to provide the necessary support.

This drop sees us truly struggling. By all accounts, we will be able to afford only one teacher aide for the whole school, using a little bit of operational funding and hopefully some behavioural funding. Fingers crossed (because the crossing of fingers is a very real strategy right now.)

How is that one teacher aide supposed to cope? What happens when all of our neurodiverse children are having a bad day? How can I morally leave teachers without any support? As a school, we manage behaviours that many schools would probably need to make referrals for; we have skilled staff committed to working in a way that regulates rather than escalates, but they are only one person, working to cater for the many needs of their class.  

Many of the children that desperately require extra support would no longer be enrolled in other schools. They would have been through the stand-down, suspension, and expulsion process and possibly be totally lost to our system. I steadfastly refuse to do that, but when does this refusal start to come at too great a cost? Without teacher aides, how can I expect my staff to cope? I myself teach three days a week and I know how difficult it can be to meet the needs of everyone and keep them safe, how exhausted you are at the end of the day.

Let’s face it, a shiny new curriculum/syllabus is absolutely of no use to anyone if we are just surviving day to day.  

I write this letter with tears in my eyes. After 18 years as a teaching principal, I don’t know how much longer I can continue in this job without the funding and support our teachers and children need. How can I morally go on, putting this pressure on my teachers every day?

I sit here, trying to set a budget with money I don’t have. But with a roll that has dropped slightly, I also need to prioritise paying partially for a teacher. Once that is done and the known expenses are accounted for, there is enough for one extra person—one extra person to meet all of those needs (and that is only if we do get some funding for them next year).

If we want to make a difference in education, we need to start with first things first. I won’t be greedy; four teacher aides in our school of nine classrooms would be great, I could make do with that. Or here’s a very novel idea: if a child has a diagnosis and significant behavioural challenges that put themselves and others at risk, just fund them fully throughout their schooling career. Stop making us jump through hoops, stop making us grovel, stop making us prove the need, stop making us reach out in desperation, and actually ensure these children can have a successful journey through school.

When it all boils down to it, ensuring children get the support they need should not even be something I need to worry about. Shouldn’t it just be a given?

Is anyone listening?

Leslee Allen 

Kaurihohore School

A focus on decoding...at what expense?

Right now, being an educator in Aotearoa feels like balancing on a tightrope, juggling plates, attempting to ride a unicycle—all while smiling through it and fearing that everything might come crashing down at any moment. Instead of offering a helping hand, those standing nearby just keep throwing more plates at you, raising the height of the tightrope, and increasing the distance you have to cycle.

Concerns with the Focus on Decoding

Amidst everything, there is one thing that has been worrying me most lately: our ardent focus on decoding over everything else. There is a celebration of the supposed positive data from the phonics check (a pattern not observed at our place) and a curriculum that expects a child at the end of their first year at school to be reading at stage 7.1 towards the end of the decodable stages.

I read comment after comment on teachers' Facebook pages, asking questions about the expectation, with ongoing affirmation from those in the know, that āe, our youngest learners need to be reading at this stage. We must focus on getting them there for fear that by not doing so, we are seemingly dooming children to failure, missing those children who will otherwise slip through the net.

A Journey, Not a Race

Don't get me wrong, I have been on this structured literacy journey for almost eight years now. I believe in the explicit teaching of reading (and by reading, I do not just mean decoding). While I understand the 'Science of Reading' and the Principles of Teaching and Learning, my journey has not shown me that children need to reach this magical stage after their first year. In fact, it has shown me the exact opposite. Rather than accelerating and pushing children ahead at the expense of all the other skills that an expert reader will eventually have under their belt, my journey has revealed to me that slow and steady does indeed win the race.

Over the last six or seven years, I have only taught one child who has achieved the magical 7.1 stage at the end of their first year, yet reading results at our school are very good for the majority of our Year 6 children who started their schooling with us.

Observations and Patterns

I am absolutely certain the children starting with us are not unique, and I am sure everyone is seeing the same pattern. Children enter with very low oral language, struggle with executive functioning skills (crucial for later learning), and seem a lot 'younger' than they did even six years ago.

If my wonderful new entrant teachers are to strive for this magical 7.1 stage, it will come at the expense of the development of our children. Absolutely, phonics is important, but it is no more important than a child's physical, emotional, and social development. How many children will be put off reading if they are pushed too far ahead? How many children will miss the point that reading is a joyous process of making meaning? Perhaps even worse than that, how many decoding robots will we create? Robots with the ability to decode, but with absolutely no fluency—and if they have no fluency, forget about comprehension. If we push ahead with decoding, will this be at the expense of spelling? Are we making it clear enough that reading and spelling should go hand in hand?

The Importance of a Holistic Approach

What time will there be to talk, to play, to listen to fantastically engaging texts, to respond creatively, to express themselves, to develop a fantastic vocabulary, and to build a wonderful schema of knowledge due to the rich environments they are in?

In my experience over the last almost eight years of 'structured literacy' learning, it is our teacher understanding that makes the difference. Understanding the theory behind the shift in pedagogy is important. This understanding allows us to identify those children who need targeted teaching and increased support from the beginning. Teachers with a good understanding of how children learn to read can all identify children who will need extra support without waiting to see if they will reach some magical milestone. Teachers with great understanding won’t let children slip through the net, they will be well aware who it is that needs that extra help.

Creating Fluent Readers

At our place, we have happy zones, stages that we are content for children to reach, knowing from experience that these children will be okay on their reading journey. I am delighted if my Year 2 children come to me reading at stage 2 or 3, as I know they will also be able to spell and will be fluent at this stage. I am really happy if my Year 2 children are reaching the end of decodable books, but if they are working on Stage 5 or 6, I'm not worried. I am not worried because I am also focused on their spelling and writing, and very focused on fluency. I do not want to create decoding robots; I want fluent readers. I want children to have accuracy, to read at an appropriate rate, and with expression, because just because children can decode the words does not make them readers.

If I am not fluent, I can read the text, but by the time I am through the sentence, I can probably barely remember it. If you cannot read at the speed of sight (fluently), then working memory will focus on reading the words rather than comprehending the text deeply. How will a child be able to think about the text, if all they are focused on is decoding the words?

"If you are not a fluent reader, you can't be a deep reader." — Doug Lemov

We are not wrong to want to focus on reading. Of course, we want children to be able to read, but this is a journey. It is not a race to get as far as you can by the end of a child's first year. I have heard many a reader decode a text at the end of the decodable stages, but without fluency, are they able to read for meaning? I often find that I need to go back at least three or four stages if a child has been pushed through the stages to find their fluent stage.

"Fluent reading when it includes prosody is meaning made audible." — Doug Lemov

Not only that, but the first year of school should also be as much about the development of the child socially, emotionally, and physically, with a focus on executive functioning skills.

What will our children miss out on if we become obsessed with academic acceleration?

I loved this podcast with Doug Lemov about fluency; it is a really great listen.

https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/s10-e3-finding-fluency-at-the-heart-of/id1483513974?i=1000732939318

Whose race are we running and why?

Firstly, let's just put it out there: childhood is not a race. It is something to be cherished, not accelerated. However, right now, it feels like we are almost being forced to run a race, a race we didn't even enter, with results of this invented race being proudly announced, even if the participants themselves have a completely different perspective.

Don't get me wrong, anyone who reads this page knows I advocate for effective teaching practices, but they also know I advocate for childhood and the right of children to play and develop in their own space and time. I have been fortunate enough to spend the last ten years doing this work, having stumbled upon 'structured literacy' and guided myself through it, without the pressure of time and the 'urgency' that seems to have been created. I am also lucky enough to have learned a lot about children and the role of play, and to have been able to balance these seemingly opposite pieces of understanding into the practices I use today and the way our school operates.

I have developed my 'lens'—how I see teaching and learning—with the individual in mind, and that is the way I continue to go forward.

Yet right now, our system is caught up in this race, a race to implement practices that many teachers don't deeply understand, with very little thought given to the children.

Children as the Curriculum

I have always said children are the curriculum. So much can be achieved when we just step back and see where their interests and wonderings lead us. I also know that explicit teaching has a role to play, and that combined, these approaches are magical.

The Phonics Check: A Critical View

Let's specifically look at the 'phonics check' that's at the forefront in the media right now and the supposed gains that have been made. Checking on phonics is a good part of our practice; of course, as we work with children, we check in with their understandings, based on what we have actually taught.

The amazing progress that the phonics check is supposedly showing isn't reflected at our place. There are many factors in this. For one, our children are engaged through bite-sized explicit teaching, but they are given space and time individually. Some of our learners don't start 'formal' reading until they are six, while most start around 5 years 9 months. Their development is prioritised first; they are immersed in oral language and play, allowed time to feel safe, and relational trust and co-regulation are big priorities for us. This does not mean they are not involved in phonics sessions, but it does mean these sessions are not our priority.

Another factor is that the oral language levels of children coming into school are really low right now, which is a priority for us. We put in every result for the phonics checks—we don't filter out any of our neurodiverse learners, we don't exclude any results, we put them all in there. Many of our 20-week checks show no result. Often, the children know the sounds that they have been taught (a big deal from where they started) but they can't yet blend them to read.

Another factor is that the sequence of the phonics check doesn't quite align with the sequence we use. Children can often read words further down the list but make mistakes earlier on.

This phonics check doesn't really prove anything. We already know where our children are at, and any school using a robust system will too. We monitor our children individually, notice any red flags, and intervene in ways that we have available to us.

We also all know there is so much to reading other than phonics.

Observations from Teaching

I teach older Year Ones and Twos. Most come to me having started reading, but very early in their journey. Many of these children are superb readers now, some towards the end of decodables and others reading early chapter books. Most of these children would not have scored well on the 'phonics' check early on.

We would be better placed measuring word reading in Year Two; it would give us a much better idea of where a child was at once they had had a real length of time at school.

Yes, we need to intervene early for those with difficulties, but intervening needs to be tailored to the child.

The Role of Executive Functions

Another thing the 'race' mentality is missing right now is the role of executive functions. These executive functions play a crucial role in a child even being able to access the curriculum. I know of no better way than play and understanding children developmentally to do this.

Conclusion: No Race, Only Growth

We seem to be caught up in a race that we did not enter, a race where the powers that be like to declare victory before many of the runners have even started.

There is no race. It is crucial we have a strong pedagogical understanding of the principles of learning, that we have a lens that allows us to see the whole child, that gives us time to develop a kete to draw from that allows us to help all learners as we identify their needs.

The first three years are crucial, not only for learning but for the overall development of a child.

Let's cherish childhood and spend as much time allowing children to uncover the curriculum as we spend covering it.

It is time to put your money where your mouth is

The Crisis in Our Classrooms

Across our country, we face a real crisis. Teachers are overstretched and burnt out, trying to meet the needs of every child in their classroom while facing immense pressure to make changes to their own practice without the time to properly do so.

Increasing Needs 

Our classrooms are not what they were even ten years ago. Children entering our schools often have much higher needs than we have ever seen before. While I could list a range of reasons behind this upsurge in needs, that is not the point of this post. Rather, the point is to make it clear that classrooms, with just one teacher and 20-30 children, are quickly becoming untenable.

What we would have looked at as 'average' for a new entrant now stands out. Those that are independent, able to focus for a short period of time, and able to be in a classroom and feel a sense of safety are now in the minority. I feel lucky (though it is hard work, not luck really) to be 'ready' for these children, to have a well-established lens that understands child development and is able to provide an environment where all children can grow at their own pace. However, even we struggle; to put it in colloquial terms, 'the needs are out the gate.' Thank goodness for our fence, or half our new entrant class would quite literally be out the gate.

Financial Strain and Government Promises

I have a long-established sense of understanding that schools need to be ready for children, and this has served us well. We understand that children will grow and progress at their own rate, and often by Year 4, the solid foundations they have laid really start to pay off. However, we have drained ourselves financially creating an environment where this is possible, investing in people first, and even we are drowning under the current need.

Yet, we currently have a government that loudly claims how much they are doing for our schools, how much difference they are making for learning support. They make announcements about how much money they are investing in maths and literacy, making it sound like a very real, meaningful investment. Yes, it sounds great: an LSC for all schools, literacy support, and maths support, much-needed staffing. These announcements are made in classrooms that certainly don't look like the majority of classrooms around New Zealand, tiny numbers and not a chair being thrown in sight.

The Reality Behind the Announcements

But what does all this 'big talk' mean? In reality, many schools will wait until 2027 for an LSC, and even then, it may just be a day a week (we are lucky, we get two days a week). Literacy support has to be matched, similar to the old reading recovery model. For us, it means 0.3 (a day and a half spread over the week) matched by 0.3 that we cannot really afford, but matched because the need is very real. This year, we were also able to apply for maths support. I said we were unable to match and was grateful to get 0.1 (half a day over the week). This support is supposed to help those children from Year 1-6 in our school progress in maths. No matter how grateful I am, half an hour a day is not going to stretch to many children. We are lucky; most children do really well in maths because of good teaching, but at least twenty, if not more, would really benefit from targeted support. Who gets it?

The announcements are made in such a way that we are made to feel guilty for not being grateful, the last announcement on property spending is a great example of that.  All schools will get money to fast track property projects, to complete important work on infrastructure.   Fantastic!  Now I will happily take the money, but for our school that looks like $7500, in a school that is almost 150 year old I am not sure how far that money is supposed to go.  Again, this is more about the glory of the announcement then the reality of the difference it will make.  

I am grateful for any investment of money, but everything right now is just a drop in the ocean.

What Schools Truly Need

This government is the government of announcements. But it is actually time to put the money where their mouths are. To actually make a difference, every class needs another adult in the form of a teacher aide. To really make a difference to children that need learning support, every school needs to be staffed with at least one teacher above allocation; this person would then be LSC and provide Tier 3 learning support. We don't need dribs and drabs of funding that, for some schools, will simply be absorbed and will not even get close to actually helping the children that desperately need it. In larger schools, this allocation would need to be higher.

The Urgency of Permanent Solutions

To make things worse, when making these announcements, they don't happen to tell everyone that this literacy and maths support is fixed-term; it isn't even a permanent allocation. It is hard enough to find good people to work in permanent jobs, let alone take on fixed-term positions.

Right now, our system needs real action, not soundbites, but action that prioritises people, that actually allows teachers to do our jobs.

Right now, all I hear are announcements that are politically motivated and lacking any real understanding of what we face every day.  Not only that, teachers are made to sound greedy, lazy and incompetent just about every day in the media, supported by a narrative that our government perpetuates.  

When Is Enough, Enough?

This whole situation right now reminds me of the little song we used to sing at school.  There's a hole in my bucket.  Right now, we have many holes in our bucket, being filled up with solutions not fit for purpose and when we desperately need that bucket to be in working order to do the job it was made for, it simply won't work anymore.  When will we actually just mend the holes, or even better upgrade the bucket!

There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, a hole.

        Then mend it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        Then mend it, dear Henry, dear Henry, mend it.
 
With what shall I mend it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I mend it, dear Liza, with what?

        With straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        With straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, with straw.

The straw is too long, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The straw is too long, dear Liza, too long.

        Then cut it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        Then cut it, dear Henry, dear Henry, cut it.

With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, with what?

        With a knife, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        With a knife, dear Henry, dear Henry, a knife.

The knife is too dull, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The knife is too dull, dear Liza, too dull.

        Then sharpen it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        Then sharpen it, dear Henry, dear Henry, sharpen it.

With what shall I sharpen it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I sharpen it, dear Liza, with what?

        With a stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        With a stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, a stone.

The stone is too dry, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The stone is too dry, dear Liza, too dry.

        Then wet it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        Then wet it, dear Henry, dear Henry, wet it.

With what shall I wet it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I wet it, dear Liza, with what?

        With water, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        With water, dear Henry, dear Henry, with water.

In what shall I fetch it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
In what shall I fetch it, dear Liza, in what?

        In a bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
        In a bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, in a bucket.

But there's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, a hole.

Over the past years, I have posted and blogged about the lack of support and our education system in crisis, but when is enough enough? I know for many educators that time is coming much closer, but surely it won't take educators walking away to make the difference?

We are here for the children, we hold on for the children, we stretch ourselves thin for the children, but why must our government continue to test where the breaking point is, or does the bottom have to fall out of the bucket first for them to care?

Memorising or Remembering? The importance of basic facts

In the midst of discussions surrounding our 'refreshed' curriculum and concerns about losing the diverse and open curriculum we once cherished, I believe it's important to approach new knowledge with an open and questioning mind. Embracing insights from global educational research does not necessitate abandoning the effective practices already in place within our schools. Instead, we can integrate new understandings to benefit our students' learning experiences, staying true to our local context while remaining open to the evolution of our practice.

Reflecting on my teaching journey, I've realised that a static pedagogical approach is counterproductive and static is certainly something I have not been over the last 27 years of teaching! 

Education is not about swinging aimlessly on a pendulum but about continuously striving to improve as a practitioner. Clinging stubbornly to outdated methodologies, despite overwhelming evidence of better alternatives, is a disservice to both ourselves and our learners.

A New Perspective on Mathematical Fluency

Over recent years, I've embarked on a journey to understand the role of fluency in mathematics, particularly concerning basic fact recall. As a teacher of Year 1 and 2 students, my focus is primarily on addition and subtraction, although some students have begun exploring multiplication and division.

Before developing my scope and sequence in 2021, my approach was heavily influenced by the 'discovery' camp in mathematics, I believed that a focus on basic facts and any sense of timing not only caused anxiety, but completely ignored the 'beauty' of mathematics. 

This discovery/inquiry method celebrated student-developed strategies and often delayed explicit teaching. My understandings were informed by the New Zealand Numeracy Project and the work of Jo Boaler, I have long since realised they limitations of both. My journey into Structured Literacy prompted me to reassess my mathematical thinking, acknowledging that while many practices had really merit, some of my previous practices were based on misconceptions.

Debunking Myths Around Mathematics Learning

Let's address some common myths about mathematics learning that I once held true to:

• Myth: Timed tests cause math anxiety. Fact: Math anxiety is dispelled by ensuring students have the skills and foundations to perform the calculations.

• Myth: Mathematics needs to be fun and engaging, and discovery alone achieves this. Fact: Success in mathematics is the most engaging and motivating factor. True enjoyment comes from the feeling of capability.

• Myth: Problem-solving must precede foundational learning for authentic understanding. Fact: While problem-solving is crucial, foundational skills provide the necessary tools for effective problem-solving later allowing learners to generalise their understandings to new but related concepts.

• Myth: Memorising facts is not genuine learning. Fact: Understanding relationships between numbers and having a strong number sense enables students to recall facts efficiently, to 'remember' them quickly, thus reducing cognitive load.  

• Myth: Focusing on basic facts discourages students from enjoying maths. Fact: My students' enthusiasm for mathematics has never been higher, with basic facts being just one component of our learning.

Discovering the Instructional Hierarchy

A pivotal moment in my journey was discovering the Instructional Hierarchy through the Knowledge For Teachers Podcast and the  Chalk and Talk podcast. This framework, discussed by Sarah Powell and Amanda VanDerHeyden, clarified the science of learning for me. It outlines a structured approach to learning, starting with acquiring understanding through concrete materials and strategies, followed by building fluency, and finally, enabling generalisation and adaptation.   I will not go into great detail here as a quick google will lead you to ample information written by people much more knowledgeable than I.

Building Fluency Through Structured Practice

My approach to building fluency first involves my scope and sequence, first written in 2021 and incorporating blocked and spaced practice. 

This year, I've also focused on a retrieval practice schedule, significantly improving fluency in areas where students have acquired foundational understandings.   I found that last year, I was not deliberate enough with retrieval practice, having a schedule has helped me keep on track with this.

Inspired by Brian Poncy, I have used taped tests and various retrieval practices to strengthen fluency, focusing not only on basic facts but also on numeral writing.

The Power of Relationships in Mathematics

Over the past two years, I've learned that fact learning without a solid schema is ineffective. Instead, students thrive when they understand the relationships between numbers. This understanding enables quick recall and builds speed through repeated practice. For instance, knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 helps students deduce that 2 + 3 = 5 and 3 + 2 = 5, facilitating rapid recall.   When understanding relationships between numbers, children first need a strong sense of the 'value' each number symbolises, then using visual tools such as hundreds boards and number paths helps children to really cement these relationships.  

Generalisation in Action

This year, I've witnessed the power of generalisation. By focusing on fluency in addition, students naturally generalised subtraction. Although we didn't explicitly practice subtraction retrieval, their understanding of the relationship between addition and subtraction allowed them to extend their fluency.  Understanding generalisation has also helped me work smarter when it comes to fluency building, spending time on what will give learners the biggest bang for their buck, rather than going over facts that I know they will achieve fluency with without as much time spent on them.  

 This generalisation of subtraction evident in recent assessments where students demonstrated strong generalisation skills.  In these assessments children had two minutes (three and a half seconds per fact.) Once the two minutes was up, the picked up a felt and completed the rest, this allowed me to assess fluency and accuracy.

Focus on Doubles and Bonds to Ten

Our journey began with an emphasis on doubles and bonds to ten. These foundational skills are essential for building mathematical fluency. Interestingly, we observed that facts such as +0, +1, and bonds with five, while requiring some specific focus, tend to develop naturally as children begin to understand the relationships between numbers.  Therefore most of our retrieval practice focused on doubles and bonds to ten.  Interestingly I have found that using a hundreds board has really helped children cement their doubles, knowing the counting in twos (in even numbers) pattern and attaching this to what we knew about the sum of a double, really helped for this understanding to be cemented.  

The Role of Woodin Patterns

Woodin patterns play a crucial role in helping students quickly grasp facts involving numbers up to ten. By regularly engaging with these patterns, students are able to build quantities to ten effortlessly. This regular practice lays the groundwork for fluency in other areas.  These are of course the foundation of my scope and sequence.

Expanding to Halves and Teen Facts

Once students master doubles, introducing halves becomes a natural next step. With just a bit of teaching, students readily grasp the concept of halves and needed to take up none of our assigned retrieval practice time. They already had the fact, they just needed to turn it around.  Similarly, once the place value of teen numbers is introduced, children swiftly develop recall for these facts. Understanding the commutative property further enhances their ability to achieve fluency in a wide range of mathematical facts.  Explicitly showing children that if they know 4+ 3 = 7, the know 3 + 4 = 7, frees up a lot of the cognitive load and means we don't need to practice both of these as seperate facts.

Assessing Fluency and Confidence

Written Tests and One-on-One Interviews

In addition to written basic fact tests, I conduct one-on-one interviews to assess students' declarative speed. Ideally, I aim for students to recall facts within two seconds, while also checking on accuracy beyond this time frame.

Impressive Results

The results have been impressive. Most students in the class are either fluent or accurate in all targeted facts, and they exhibit remarkable confidence. Even if some students do not achieve recall within two seconds, the majority manage to do so within four seconds, which is outstanding.  

Below are some examples of these from a cross-section of the class, including a couple of Year One and Year Two students. The progress we've made underscores the effectiveness of our approach to building fluency in basic facts.

The Power of Fluency in Problem Solving

Fluency building has had profound benefits, especially in problem-solving. Last term, I noticed a significant improvement in my students' independence during problem-solving sessions, particularly within the change-based schema—an area that has traditionally been challenging. This newfound independence clearly aligns with their progress in mastering basic facts.

Rethinking Fluency: Beyond Memorisation

Building fluency isn't about rote memorisation. It's not about drilling facts into students' minds only for them to forget later. Instead, it's about employing the instructional hierarchy working first on acquisition. This means ensuring children take the time to master concepts and knowing when and how to build fluency. It's a gradual process, requiring spacing and numerous repetitions for many children to build speed over time.   It is then about using quick assessments to establish when a fact is 'known' rather than blindly going over the same ones time and time again, once known, there is not a lot to be gained by repeatedly practicing this skill, instead our time is best spent on those facts that are taking longer to embed.

The Importance of Mastery and Generalisation

Fluency is about remembering and allowing for an economy of thought. It frees up cognitive energy to tackle more complex problems and enables students to generalise their knowledge across different contexts. With fluency, problem-solving and rich discovery approaches become more meaningful, as students have the foundational knowledge readily available to maximise these experiences.

I used to worry about a focus on basic facts causing anxiety for my learners, but instead the reverse is true, they are  more independent and confident problem-solvers, and they engage more deeply with rich discovery-based learning because of their growing fluency in basic facts. 

Instead of steering away from fluency building because of a fear we will cause anxiety, we need to realise that an anxiety towards maths is caused by the feeling of not being capable of doing the maths.  There is nothing more motivating or engaging as the feeling of success.

What our children need most... safety!

 

This post is possibly going to come across as a little blunt, for that, I offer no apology.  By now, we should know better and we should be doing better!

Like many of you, I rejoiced when we got rid of national standards, but every day it becomes more obvious that this government is leading us back there, this time under the guise of science.

Don't get me wrong, if you are a follower of my blog, you will know that I support an explicit and systematic approach to the teaching of literacy and numeracy. However, my support comes with a warning label. This warning label clearly states that we should not blindly follow one way of working or one 'science' while ignoring what we know (or should know by now) about children.

So what is it our children need most? What our children need most right now is safety. In fact, I would go out on a limb here and say that without safety, anything else you do is a waste of time. If we want learning to be an outcome of what we are doing, we need to be talking to the cortex. This is absolutely impossible if a child does not feel safe. In fact, if they don't feel safe, all their brain will be focused on is identifying the danger and protecting themselves from it.

We create safe spaces by being developmentally responsive, trauma-aware, and neurodiversity-affirming, and by understanding the importance of working relationally. Ultimately, appreciating that all children are different and their pathway to safety may be completely different from another child's pathway.

We don't create safety by plonking a five, six, or seven-year-old, for that matter, on the mat and expecting them to learn in a structured way in the name of 'equitable' access to learning while completely ignoring them developmentally. This one-size-fits-all approach has me really worried. I hear and read daily about teachers struggling with the behaviour of their class, with little understanding of why this 'behaviour' is happening in the first place. Children being labelled as 'naughty' and learning support alarms being sounded simply because a child needs to move, and sitting on the mat for longer than fifteen minutes is more than their little body can handle. A child who is desperately trying to regulate, using strategies that involve movement or noise, will quickly be labelled disruptive in these environments.

This is not what safety looks like. I actually cannot fathom how we still have classes of junior children learning in 'sit-down, shut-up' environments with all we know now. People are so quick to complain about the extreme needs we see coming into our schools but not so quick to want to understand it.

What I love about striving to be developmentally responsive, trauma-aware, and neurodiversity-affirming (I say striving because we are always striving to be better, to do better, to be more consistent) is that these things are relational. They are also tightly woven in with play and taking an individual lens to each child. Play is a language, a language that helps us understand children if we take the time to learn it.

For a child to feel safe, they need to be in an environment that prioritises what they need. What they need is child-led play (for some, this will look more structured than others, and that is okay), rhythm and repetition, trusting relationships, and time. What they don't need is a day focused on getting to do what we 'need' them to do and how we 'need' them to do it every minute. What they don't need is to be labelled as naughty and disengaged.

The beauty is, we can have all this, and we can teach in an explicit and structured way. We can weave bite-sized learning throughout the day, teaching in a way that the brain can actually learn, focusing on the essentials and eliminating cognitive overload by appreciating that short bursts of learning are powerful.

What I have noticed through reading, particularly in Nathaniel Swain's book Harnessing the Science of Learning, is that schools gaining the most traction with the Science of Learning are schools that have also developed their understandings around trauma, development, and neurodiversity. This is not just a coincidence; this is because, if we don't prioritise safety, anything else we do will be a waste of time.

Play has been my biggest teacher. I started my journey into play many years ago now, and it has been the spark for everything else. Play taught me to notice, recognise, and respond. Play led me to relational approaches, a desire to better understand children, to understand the role of trauma and the stress response. It led me to explicit and systematic teaching, but rather than replace play, these things were simply enhanced by it. I see play as the greatest gift I was given as a teacher and as the greatest gift I can give to the children that come through my class and my school. Play is the ultimate vehicle for safety.

My cat might like to hide in boxes, but putting children in those boxes is just plain wrong.

I really recommend this podcast  in fact the whole series is fantastic!