Unconvention Update: Reading - Week 2
Exploring the tensions between evidence, teacher experience, structured literacy and the realities of teaching children to read in Irish primary schools.
One of the most interesting developments in this week’s reading discussion has been the way two different literacy approaches, Reading Recovery and UFLI, ended up exposing many of the same tensions within Irish primary education.
What became immediately clear is that teachers seem to be wrestling with a far more complex question: how do we support children who struggle with reading in a system where time, resources, training and consistency all feel increasingly stretched?
Reading Recovery: Between Research and Experience
The discussion around Reading Recovery revealed a significant divide between research concerns and lived classroom experience.
On the research side, contributors shared and discussed recent work by Jen O’Sullivan questioning whether Reading Recovery remains aligned with current evidence on reading instruction. Central concerns included the use of cueing systems, the duration of the intervention, questions around long-term effectiveness, and the lack of an independent national evaluation of Reading Recovery in Ireland.
This theme was reinforced by research presented by Lorraine Gilleece and Aidan Clerkin, which noted that while Reading Recovery is widely used in DEIS schools and generally valued by principals, the available Irish evidence still makes it difficult to confidently determine whether its overall impact is positive, negative or neutral. The researchers also raised broader questions about how Ireland evaluates educational interventions generally, pointing to the lack of robust evidence in many areas of educational policy and intervention.
However, the conversation did not remotely settle into a simple “Reading Recovery doesn’t work” narrative. In fact it was quite the opposite.
Several teachers spoke passionately about the transformative impact Reading Recovery had on individual children, particularly in DEIS contexts. One teacher described children entering the programme unable to read and leaving it reading fluently several levels above their starting point. Others spoke about how Reading Recovery fundamentally changed the way they taught literacy, particularly in terms of assessment, planning and tracking children’s progress.
This creates what could become one of the most important tensions in this entire unconvention, never mind reading: how should schools reconcile research evidence with teachers’ direct lived experience of seeing children make substantial progress?
Another major theme emerging from the discussion was context. Several contributors questioned whether international critiques of Reading Recovery fully account for the realities of educational disadvantage in Irish DEIS schools. One contributor pointed out that maintaining reading gains can be extraordinarily difficult where children return home to environments with low literacy levels, limited access to books and little reinforcement of reading outside school. In this framing, the question becomes less “Did Reading Recovery permanently solve literacy difficulties?” and more “What might have happened without any intervention at all?”
This led to a broader underlying question that remained unresolved throughout the discussion. The question was: compared to what?
If Reading Recovery is to be reduced or replaced, what intervention currently exists that combines the same level of individual attention, structured assessment, teacher training and intensity of support? Contributors repeatedly returned to the fear that criticism of Reading Recovery may result in removing a support without providing something demonstrably better in its place.
UFLI: Structure, Simplicity and the Search for Certainty
If the Reading Recovery discussion centred on intervention and evidence, the UFLI discussion focused much more on classroom instruction itself.
Many contributors spoke positively about UFLI Foundations, praising its explicit structure, sequential progression, repetition and emphasis on decoding and encoding. Teachers who supported the programme repeatedly highlighted the clarity it provides both for teachers and pupils. Several reported noticeable improvements in children’s confidence with spelling, writing and phonics knowledge, particularly in infant and early primary classes.
One recurring point of praise was UFLI’s simplicity. Supporters argued that the programme strips phonics instruction back to core principles without excessive visual distraction or unnecessary complexity. Others appreciated the consistency of practice and revision built into the programme, particularly for children with literacy difficulties.
However, enthusiasm for UFLI was far from universal.
A significant number of contributors questioned whether the current enthusiasm around UFLI reflects another cycle of education’s tendency to embrace “the next big thing.” Several experienced teachers noted that they had previously seen similar enthusiasm around programmes such as Jolly Phonics and Letterland. This produced considerable scepticism around the idea that any programme itself could function as a “silver bullet” for reading instruction.
One of the strongest critiques of UFLI related to engagement and child-friendliness. Some contributors described the programme as visually dull, repetitive and overly monochrome, particularly in comparison to more playful and multi-sensory approaches such as Jolly Phonics. Others worried that an overemphasis on highly structured phonics instruction risks removing creativity, imagination and enjoyment from early reading experiences.
Interestingly, even among teachers who strongly supported UFLI, there was a repeated insistence that programmes themselves are only tools. Several contributors argued that teacher expertise, responsiveness and understanding of how children learn to read remain more important than any individual scheme or commercial programme.
Another important tension emerged around standardisation. Some teachers valued the consistency UFLI offers across a school, while others worried about overly rigid implementation. There were concerns raised about programmes becoming overly prescriptive, with one contributor describing examples where creativity and child-led responses appeared to be actively discouraged.
Emerging Themes Across Both Discussions
What is striking is that despite appearing very different, the discussions around Reading Recovery and UFLI repeatedly converged around the same deeper questions.
Teachers consistently returned to the issue of teacher expertise. Whether discussing interventions or phonics programmes, there was widespread agreement that no programme can replace a knowledgeable teacher who understands how children learn to read.
There was also a growing frustration with “silver bullet” thinking in education. Contributors repeatedly questioned whether schools are too quick to move from one programme or initiative to the next in search of certainty, while broader structural issues remain unresolved.
Another recurring theme was the sheer complexity of modern classrooms. Teachers described trying to deliver increasingly specialised literacy instruction in classrooms with enormous ranges of ability, growing additional needs and limited support. This often sat alongside concerns about curriculum overload and insufficient time for sustained literacy instruction.
Perhaps most interestingly, the discussions exposed a growing philosophical divide about the purpose of early reading instruction itself. Some contributors prioritised explicit, systematic and highly structured instruction grounded in cognitive science and repetition. Others worried about what might be lost if reading becomes too mechanistic, over-programmed or disconnected from joy, creativity and a genuine love of books.
At this stage, no consensus has emerged.
However, the discussion has moved well beyond simplistic arguments about phonics versus balanced literacy or one programme versus another. What is emerging instead is a much more serious conversation about evidence, teacher expertise, disadvantage, curriculum priorities and what children actually need in order to become successful readers.
The discussions continue, and I couldn’t be happier to see that. One of my biggest bugbears in the education system is a lack of dialogue. Education can be emotive but it’s important that we question everything. My hope is that this unconvention brings all the voices to the table where we can respectfully engage with one another.