3 November 2026
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins
Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party
Subject: Labour’s Position on Structured Literacy, Reading Recovery and Evidence-Based Education
Dear Mr Hipkins,
I am writing on behalf of Dyslexia Evidence-Based (DEB), a community of approximately 10,000 members, to express our serious concerns about Labour’s increasingly unclear position on structured literacy, Reading Recovery and evidence-based literacy instruction.
For months, parents have been seeking clear answers from Labour. Instead, your public statements and those of your education spokesperson, Ginny Andersen, have created further confusion.
These are children’s lives and futures we are talking about, not votes.
Leadership starts at the top. When the leader of a political party publicly commits to structured literacy, parents should reasonably expect that both the leader and the education spokesperson understand what structured literacy is, why it matters and what instructional practices are consistent with it.
Yet Labour’s statements have left families questioning what the party intends to retain, what it proposes to change and whether instructional practices we have spent years advocating to move away from could return.
This raises a serious question of trust.
How can parents have confidence in Labour’s commitment to evidence-based education when the explanations continue to change?
1. March 2022 — Your previous comments on learning to read
When the Better Start Literacy Approach was announced in March 2022, you publicly discussed children learning to read by sounding out words and looking at pictures, indicating that both approaches could be used.
This distinction matters.
Pictures can support comprehension and discussion about a text. However, encouraging children to use pictures or context to guess unfamiliar written words is not an appropriate substitute for accurate decoding.
Research into how children learn to read has provided substantial evidence supporting explicit, systematic instruction in the alphabetic code, alongside the development of language comprehension.
Mr Hipkins, has your understanding of how children learn to read changed since 2022?
And will Labour explicitly rule out a return to three-cueing practices for identifying unfamiliar words?
2. August 2026 — Ginny Andersen’s statements about instructional approaches
On 17 August 2026, in written correspondence to me, Ginny Andersen stated that teachers should have access to:
“a range of evidence-informed approaches”
She also described structured literacy as:
“an important part of that toolkit”.
These statements raised immediate concerns.
Structured literacy is not simply one commercial programme or one tool among competing theories of reading instruction.
It is an evidence-informed framework that allows teachers to differentiate teaching while maintaining consistent instructional principles.
At a PPTA event in August 2026, Ms Andersen reportedly stated:
“Structured literacy is a method that helps, an evidence-based way of learning. Where that bites is where that’s mandated, and that’s where you have to do it, and you’re making schools do just one way, and you’re stopping teachers having a range of tools to reach out with the child. That’s where the test starts to fail.”
If structured literacy is recognised as evidence-based, why is requiring schools to provide that instruction being presented as a problem?
Teachers already have professional flexibility within structured literacy. They can adapt instruction, adjust pacing, choose resources and provide targeted or intensive support.
A national framework does not require identical teaching for every child.
For children with dyslexia, that distinction is particularly important.
3. October 2026 — Your statements across the three leaders’ debates
6 October — TVNZ Leaders’ Debate
During the first leaders’ debate, you were questioned about the compulsory hour of reading, writing and mathematics.
You responded:
“Give the schools the discretion.”
You also stated:
“Schools should make the best decisions on how to deliver the curriculum.”
Regarding the curriculum rollout, you stated:
“No, we’re saying that we’re going to slow it down.”
These comments indicated Labour intended to change the compulsory daily-hour requirement and give schools greater flexibility.
However, the compulsory hour and the structured literacy mandate are two separate matters. Changing one does not necessarily require changing the other.
14 October — NZ Herald/Newstalk ZB Leaders’ Debate
During the second leaders’ debate, you again discussed flexibility for schools and the requirement for an hour of reading, writing and mathematics.
You stated:
“Of course we’re already doing at least an hour of reading, writing and maths. They should be able to have the flexibility to structure the day in what is best for those kids.”
When questioned about structured literacy, you expressed support for the approach, describing it as:
“Developed under our government and I’m very supportive of it.”
You also referred to phonics as one way of learning to read.
This raises a concern about how you understand structured literacy. Phonics is not an alternative to structured literacy; systematic phonics is an essential component of it.
20 October — Stuff Leaders’ Debate
During the Stuff leaders’ debate, you discussed the Government’s structured literacy approach, stating:
“That’s a good scheme. It’s delivering results. I supported it. I supported it.”
When questioned about whether structured literacy would remain mandatory, you stated:
“Well, it already is mandated. Of course we’re going to continue it.”
You went on to say:
“Yes. We developed it. We developed it. And of course we were going to roll it out across schools.”
While this appears to be a clear commitment to retaining the mandate, your references to Labour having developed structured literacy raise an important question.
Labour previously funded the Better Start Literacy Approach, a specific early literacy programme. The current compulsory structured literacy requirements extend across the Years 0–10 English curriculum.
Can you confirm that your commitment to continuing the mandate refers to these current curriculum requirements in full, rather than the earlier Better Start Literacy initiative?
4. 22 October 2026 — Ginny Andersen’s response to Parents’ Alliance
In correspondence with Parents’ Alliance on 22 October, Ms Andersen stated:
“My concern is with a one-size-fits-all approach. Structured literacy can be an excellent tool, but teachers also need the flexibility to respond when a child needs a different approach or additional support.”
Again, the reference to a different approach raises questions.
What different approach?
Does Labour mean additional support within structured literacy, or does it mean allowing schools to replace structured literacy with another instructional approach?
If Labour is proposing alternatives, what are they, and what scientific evidence supports them?
5. 23 October 2026 — Your interview with Heather du Plessis-Allan
During your interview on Newstalk ZB, Heather du Plessis-Allan repeatedly questioned whether Labour would remove the compulsory structured literacy mandate.
You initially responded:
“No, of course we’re not, because we developed it. We introduced it.”
When challenged about Ginny Andersen’s comments, you stated:
“No, that is not what Ginny Andersen has said. What she said is that we’re not going to require schools to use only one testing model, which has been imported from Australia. We’re going to allow schools to continue to use a variety of different assessments. But the structured literacy model will remain in place because it’s working.”
You subsequently stated:
“No. What she has said is that we’ll give teachers the choice as to which assessment tools they use. It’s quite a different thing, Heather.”
However, when Heather specifically asked whether the mandate would remain, the following exchange took place:
Heather: “The mandate will not be removed?”
Chris Hipkins: “Well, the requirement to teach structured literacy is one that’s been carefully developed, carefully tested, and it’s working.”
Heather: “The mandate will not be removed, Chippy?”
Chris Hipkins: “Well, the rollout of structured literacy as an approach to teaching will continue under a Labour government.”
Heather: “Why will you not answer that question?”
Chris Hipkins: “Well, I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you’re talking about mandate.”
When Heather explained that teachers were required to teach structured literacy and asked whether Labour would remove that requirement, you responded:
“Heather, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.”
When pressed further, you eventually stated:
“We’re not going to be changing the literacy curriculum, the literacy part of the curriculum.”
Mr Hipkins, despite being asked repeatedly, you did not provide a straightforward yes-or-no answer about retaining the compulsory structured literacy mandate.
There is an important difference between supporting structured literacy, continuing its rollout and explicitly committing to retain the current compulsory teaching requirements.
Your explanation of Ms Andersen’s comments also does not reconcile with her written correspondence. She referred to different instructional approaches and additional support, not simply assessment tools.
During the same interview, you stated:
“Well, the structured literacy program, which is based on Better Start Literacy, is what we developed.”
This again raises questions about whether you are distinguishing between Labour’s earlier Better Start Literacy initiative and the broader structured literacy framework now embedded in the Years 0–10 English curriculum.
If Labour intends to retain the current compulsory structured literacy requirements, why was it so difficult to provide a clear and direct answer when repeatedly asked?
6. 27 October 2026 — Your interview with Mike Hosking
During your interview on Mike Hosking Breakfast, you stated:
“So structured literacy, that was work that was done under our Government to get that programme ready for implementation.”
You then acknowledged:
“It’s being implemented, it’s working and it’s successful. And I’ll give them credit for implementing it.”
If you acknowledge that structured literacy is working and successful, why does Labour continue to leave uncertainty about retaining its compulsory teaching requirements?
You also stated:
“My main criticism would be moving too hard, too fast on some of that because you should actually give the kids in particular the time to adjust.”
We recognise that education reforms require careful implementation, sufficient professional learning and appropriate resources.
However, parents of children who have struggled for years to learn to read are understandably concerned about further delays.
For those children, effective instruction cannot come soon enough.
7. 27 October 2026 — Ginny Andersen on Ryan Bridge
During the Newstalk ZB education debate, Ginny Andersen was asked whether Labour would retain mandatory structured literacy.
She stated:
“We would make sure it’s still in right throughout the curriculum. It’s a fundamental part of how people are being taught, but in some cases there are children who can’t focus for a whole hour.”
She later stated:
“Structured literacy will remain in place the way it is now, but if some kids can’t focus for an hour, and some kids can’t focus for an hour—”
When Erica Stanford explained that structured literacy and the one-hour requirement were separate matters, the following exchange took place:
Erica Stanford: “Well, they are different things.”
Ginny Andersen: “Really? Well, I thought it was.”
The exchange suggests Ms Andersen was confusing the structured literacy mandate with the separate one-hour requirement. This raises further questions about Labour’s understanding of structured literacy and its commitment to retaining the current compulsory requirements.
8. 29 October 2026 — Labour’s Election Manifesto
On 29 October 2026, Labour released its election manifesto, What Better Means for New Zealand.
Three areas of the manifesto raise further questions.
Structured literacy
Labour has expressed support for structured literacy and continuing curriculum work already underway.
However, supporting structured literacy is not necessarily the same as retaining the compulsory requirements for how it is taught.
Will Labour retain those requirements in full, including the provisions relating to struggling learners?
Professional learning and development
The manifesto states:
“Shift professional development funding away from costly external contracting and towards teacher-led development.”
Structured literacy requires specialist knowledge and training.
Many teachers have invested considerable time developing their understanding of the science of reading, learning and instruction.
Teacher-led professional development can be valuable, particularly when experienced teachers provide ongoing coaching and support.
However, it cannot be assumed that every school already has the expertise necessary to train others in structured literacy, dyslexia and intensive intervention.
Will Labour continue to fund specialist evidence-based PLD, including external providers where their expertise is required?
How will Labour ensure that teacher-led professional development is scientifically sound, consistent and effective?
Standardised assessment, academic decline and accountability
Labour’s manifesto states:
“Move away from excessive standardisation and high-stakes testing.”
This raises serious questions about Labour’s approach to measuring educational achievement, identifying children who are falling behind and holding the education system accountable.
These concerns are heightened by comments made by Labour’s education spokesperson, Ginny Andersen.
Ginny Andersen’s comments on academic decline
During the Aotearoa Educators Collective (AEC) Sunday Watch — Political Roundtable, Ms Andersen stated:
“Where there’s this concoction or manufacture of a problem, which is academic decline. And yes, we can always improve literacy and numeracy. And yes, there’s a variety of methods. But I think there’s a deliberate making of a problem. And then conveniently finding a solution that just happens to be…”
Mr Hipkins, these comments are deeply concerning to parents whose children have struggled in New Zealand’s education system.
Ms Andersen appears to be questioning whether the problem of academic decline is real, rather than simply challenging the Government’s proposed solutions.
Labour was in government for six years, from 2017 to 2023. During that period, too many children continued to struggle with literacy, and parents repeatedly raised concerns about ineffective instruction, delayed intervention and the lack of nationally comparable achievement information.
Ms Andersen is entitled to question the Government’s policies and the evidence supporting them. However, questioning whether academic decline itself is a manufactured problem is a very different matter.
If Ms Andersen believes academic decline has been manufactured, she can continue to hold that view. But children cannot afford another six years of education policy that fails to recognise and respond to their difficulties.
For too long, parents were reassured that their children were doing fine, even when they were falling significantly behind.
We cannot afford to return to a system where educational difficulties remain hidden because the information needed to identify them is not collected.
You cannot address academic decline by ignoring the data, and you cannot use data that you do not collect.
Standardised assessments are not simply about testing children. They provide information that teachers, schools, parents and policymakers need to make informed decisions.
For children with dyslexia, assessment is particularly important. It helps identify difficulties early, determine whether instruction is effective and establish when additional or more intensive intervention is required.
Nationally comparable assessment data also allows us to identify patterns of underachievement, examine whether particular groups of children are being left behind and evaluate whether education reforms are delivering improvements.
Without this information, how can parents know whether their children are progressing appropriately? How can schools evaluate their interventions? And how can the Government be held accountable for educational outcomes?
However, there is an important distinction between excessive high-stakes testing and using reliable, standardised assessments to inform teaching and monitor achievement.
Labour needs to explain exactly what it proposes to remove.
Does its policy include the phonics checks at 20 and 40 weeks? Does it include twice-yearly standardised assessments? Will schools still be required to collect and report nationally comparable achievement information?
And if Labour intends to remove any of these measures, what will replace them?
Does Labour accept the evidence of declining educational achievement in New Zealand? If so, will you publicly clarify whether Ms Andersen’s comments reflect Labour’s official position?
For our dyslexic children, this is not simply a question about assessment policy. It is about ensuring that difficulties are identified before years of learning are lost.
We have already experienced the consequences of a system where too many children were allowed to fall behind without effective intervention.
We must not return to that.
What specific assessment measures will Labour retain, what does it propose to remove, and how will it guarantee that parents continue to receive reliable, nationally comparable information about their children’s progress?
9. 3 November 2026 — Your interview with Kerre Woodham on Newstalk ZB
During your interview with Kerre Woodham, you were asked whether Labour would bring back Reading Recovery.
You stated:
“We haven’t made that commitment.”
You continued:
“I can’t make the commitment to bring it back in the previous form that it was in.”
You also stated:
“Reading Recovery does work well for some kids, but we also do know that it doesn’t work for all kids.”
Mr Hipkins, the research into how children learn to read is clear. Skilled word recognition develops through learning the connections between letters and sounds, not by guessing words from pictures or context.
Reading Recovery was built around Marie Clay’s theories of literacy acquisition, including practices that are inconsistent with what we now know about how children learn to read. Major evaluations have raised serious concerns about its long-term effectiveness, including evidence of negative outcomes for children who received the intervention.
Why would Labour even consider returning to a programme with such serious evidence against its traditional approach?
Is this about scientific evidence, or are longstanding ideologies, professional relationships and institutional connections to Reading Recovery influencing the discussion?
Our children’s education must come before loyalty to any programme, academic or organisation.
Parents have spent years fighting to move away from ineffective literacy practices. We should not have to fight that battle again.
Mr Hipkins, when you were asked whether Labour would bring Reading Recovery back, the answer should have been a straightforward no — not a defence of a programme whose traditional instructional practices and long-term effectiveness have been seriously challenged by research.
Our children deserve evidence-based instruction, not another return to the past.
10. The consequences for children and families
Mr Hipkins, I want you to understand what these continuing uncertainties mean for our families.
For years, parents of dyslexic children were told their children would catch up, that they needed more time or that they simply were not ready.
Many families had to seek private assessments, specialist tuition and professional advice because their children were not receiving the instruction or intervention they needed.
Children lost confidence. Some developed a deep sense of failure. Others progressed through school without acquiring the literacy skills necessary to access the curriculum independently.
Parents trusted the education system, and for too many children, that system failed to provide effective support.
The changes now being implemented offer an opportunity to rebuild that trust.
But that trust cannot be rebuilt when political leaders continue to provide different explanations about the future of literacy instruction.
We are not asking Labour to endorse one commercial programme.
We are not asking teachers to abandon professional judgement.
We are asking for a consistent, evidence-based framework that protects every child’s opportunity to learn to read and write, with additional support according to individual needs.
11. Questions requiring a direct response
I am asking you to personally respond to the following questions:
- Will Labour retain the current compulsory structured literacy teaching requirements within the English curriculum across Years 0–10, including requirements for instruction and intervention?
- Will Labour explicitly rule out the return of balanced literacy and three-cueing practices for identifying unfamiliar written words?
- Will Labour unequivocally rule out reintroducing Reading Recovery in its previous form or in any modified form, including under the Reading Recovery name?
- Is Labour considering bringing Reading Recovery back in a modified form? If so, what would change, and what scientific evidence supports that proposal?
- Why have you described Ginny Andersen’s comments as relating to assessment choice when her written statements refer to different teaching approaches?
- Does Labour recognise that systematic phonics is a component of structured literacy rather than a competing alternative?
- What additional instructional flexibility does Labour propose beyond the differentiation already available within structured literacy?
- Will Labour continue funding specialist structured literacy PLD, including external expertise where needed?
- Given Ginny Andersen’s comments questioning whether academic decline has been manufactured, does Labour accept the evidence of declining achievement, which standardised assessments does it intend to remove or change, and how will it measure improvement?
- Will Labour ensure that schools can continue to choose suitable programmes, resources and training providers within the structured literacy framework rather than requiring one commercial programme?
- What safeguards will Labour provide to ensure children with dyslexia and persistent literacy difficulties receive timely, explicit and appropriately intensive intervention?
- Will Labour commit to ensuring that future literacy policy changes are grounded in robust scientific evidence and evaluated outcomes?
Children deserve clarity and consistency
I have spent years advocating for children who struggle to learn to read, and I have listened to countless parents describe the consequences of ineffective instruction and delayed intervention.
This is not about supporting National or opposing Labour.
DEB will question any political party whose education policies are inconsistent with the evidence.
However, Labour is now asking parents to trust its commitment to structured literacy while leaving unanswered fundamental questions about what that commitment means in practice.
Your statements, Ms Andersen’s statements, Labour’s manifesto and the latest comments about Reading Recovery need to be reconciled.
Leadership starts at the top, Mr Hipkins. If you are committed to structured literacy, that commitment must be clear, consistent and understood by those speaking on behalf of your party.
Parents should not have to spend months trying to establish whether a political party intends to retain evidence-based reading instruction.
Our children’s education is too important for that.
Mr Hipkins, what I find particularly disappointing is the apparent lack of understanding of structured literacy demonstrated in these public discussions, alongside the lack of empathy shown towards parents whose children have been failed by the education system.
Throughout Labour’s election campaign, much of your education messaging has focused on teachers, their concerns and the flexibility they should have. Teachers are important, and they deserve to be supported. But where are the parents in these discussions? Where are the children who have struggled for years because they did not receive effective literacy instruction?
Parents have been asking reasonable, evidence-based questions about their children’s education. Yet rather than receiving clear answers, we have been left trying to interpret conflicting statements from your party’s leadership.
You cannot claim to put children at the centre of education while repeatedly overlooking the voices of their parents.
Education should never be a political football. Yet when Labour criticises the Government’s reforms without clearly explaining what it would retain, remove or replace, it creates the very uncertainty that parents have been asking politicians to end.
Mr Hipkins, by repeatedly avoiding direct answers to reasonable questions about structured literacy, Reading Recovery and evidence-based instruction, Labour risks turning children’s education into the political football it claims to oppose.
Our children deserve better, and parents deserve to be heard.
These are children’s lives and futures, not political votes.
Mr Hipkins, before Labour proposes changing literacy instruction, you should understand what structured literacy actually is.
Our children have already paid the price for educational failure.
They have lost years of learning, confidence and, in some cases, their mental health.
Those responsible for the decisions that failed them have faced little accountability.
Parents are asking you to understand the evidence. To listen to families. To stop gambling with our children’s futures.
Our children cannot afford another lesson in political failure.
I look forward to receiving a direct written response addressing the questions raised.
Yours sincerely,
Sharon Scurr
Founder, Dyslexia Evidence-Based (DEB)
Parent Advocate and Multisensory Structured Literacy Educator
www.deb.co.nz