Unpacking the Victorian phonics mandate

Penny Harry

Photo by Jeff Djevdet CC BY 2.0

Reading is often a ‘hot topic’ but a new debate is currently unfolding in Australia. The 2024 Reading Guarantee report by the Grattan Institute states that Australia has failed our children and that one in three are lacking the essential skills required to read. The Victorian Government has since released the Victorian Teaching and Learning Model 2.0 (VTLM 2.0) and Victoria’s Approach to Teaching Reading. Schools are now mandated to teach systematic, explicit phonics to all students in Years F-2 for a minimum of 30 mins per day.

Undoubtedly, there will be many thinking ‘this is great, we are going back to basics.’ But as a former primary teacher and now initial teacher educator this raises some concerns. What about context and student ability? What about teacher and student agency? What about creativity? Are we reducing teachers from decision makers to presenters? Is a teacher’s full teaching repertoire suppressed in favour of a one-size-fits-all approach?

If you’ve ever taught little people, you know that 30 minutes will likely blow out to more like 40 minutes and by the time you adequately cover the other areas of the Big Six and then get ready to pack up, your literacy block is all but gone. Then it’s on to Maths, Science, Technology, PE, Library, Humanities, Languages, Art. It’s exhausting just thinking about it. When do teachers have the time to fit it all in, and do it well? How do they manage to keep their students engaged while catering to their often complex and diverse needs?

The Reading Wars–the debate about how best to teach reading–has been raging for decades. On one side of the ‘war’ we have educators, politicians and members of the public (including parents, grandparents and carers) advocating for a phonics first approach to teaching reading. That is, teaching children the letters and sounds in a systematic and explicit way. Think scripts, and a more recent development, PowerPoint slides.

the Reading Wars–the debate about how best to teach reading–has been raging for decades

On the other side, we allegedly have the Whole Language people who advocate for children being immersed in language and literature and taught to read in the context of real books. A misconception about those who support this approach is that if you plonk a child in a room full of books, they will learn to read by osmosis.

These debates are ongoing. According to the Report of the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000), “the pendulum has swung back and forth between holistic, meaning-centered approaches and phonics approaches without much hope of resolving disagreements.” Twenty-five years later,  the government is still perpetuating the war and singling out the ‘correct’ teaching of phonics as the answer to our failings with claims that this approach is “beneficial to all and harmful to none” (ABC News, 2024). But, what about  children who come to school with the alphabetic code ‘cracked’? Do they have to sit through a minimum of 30 minutes of systematic, explicit phonics per day as well?

“the pendulum has swung back and forth between holistic, meaning-centered approaches and phonics approaches without much hope of resolving disagreements” (NICHD, 2000)

Few areas of education spark as much heated debate—or confident assertion—as how children learn to read. Consistent with The Australian National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (Rowe, 2005) and the British Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading (Rose, 2006) the National Reading Panel (NRP) found that phonemic awareness and phonics play an equally important role in learning to read. Along with vocabulary, comprehension, fluency and more recently, oral language (Konza, 2014) these components (particularly phonics) are modishly referred to as ‘the Science of Reading’. However, Gotlieb, Rhinehart and Wolf (2022) warn that The Science of Reading “is neither static, nor reducible to the common assumption that it is synonymous with phonics, however important phonics is in instruction.” So, when a debate about teaching systematic, explicit phonics occurs, be prepared to hear ‘The Science of Reading’ as a rebuttal.

No one is disputing that there isn’t a science behind how the brain learns to read and that we need to learn how to decode, and surprisingly, some people are unaware that reading is not an innate skill and needs to be taught. However, the concern is if too much emphasis is placed upon the mechanics, then the magic and appreciation of reading for enjoyment could be lost or not even developed at all. Once we ignite the joy of reading, we want to keep it lit!

In response to the dominance of narrow reading models shaping literacy policy, Dominic Wyse and Charlotte Hacking offer a more holistic alternative that re-centres the role of the teacher and the learner. Wyse, a recent visiting scholar at Deakin University, hosted by REDI, and Hacking, an education consultant and researcher, developed the theoretical model the Double Helix of Reading and Writing in response to research on other influential models, such as the Simple View of Reading (SVR) and the Reading Rope. In contrast, their model promotes a balanced approach to teaching literacy, systematically connecting the key components of phonics, reading, and writing. Wyse and Hacking sought to create a framework not only for learning but also for teaching, refreshingly placing emphasis on student context, motivation, and the vital role (and expertise) of the teacher.

Dominic Wyse and Charlotte Hacking offer a more holistic alternative that re-centres the role of the teacher and the learner

Colleagues in the School of Education and I have expressed concerns that creative pedagogical approaches are being squeezed out due to factors such as time constraints and mandates. It has prompted us to conduct a scoping review on how arts-based pedagogies can be effectively utilised to enhance literacy skills, particularly phonemic awareness, oral language, prosody and fluency and teachers’ efficacy around this. It is concerning that teacher autonomy and creative approaches risk being overshadowed by commercial programs and ‘death by PowerPoint’.

This shift is not a result of teachers becoming complacent, but rather because they are being told that this is the direction education must take—framed as a necessary step toward achieving ‘results and consistency’. As outlined in The Education State: Excellence in Every Classroom, “consistent and high-quality classroom teaching delivers dramatic improvements in student learning.”  While the intention behind this emphasis is admirable, it raises important questions about how consistency is defined—and at what cost to professional judgment, innovation, and contextualised practice. With teachers overworked and pressed for time, who wouldn’t be tempted by the plethora of ‘evidence-based’ lesson suites available? But, forget context and diverse student needs, forget teacher agency and creativity – this is the future! The underlying message from the Department is get on board or get out.

Penny Harry is  Lecturer In Education, Deakin University, National Indigenous Knowledges Education Research and Innovation (NIKERI) Institute