Deference to teacher judgement should not be prioritised above evidence-based instruction.
By Charles Ungerleider
A recent article in The Tyee discusses British Columbia’s CAD$30 million initiative to address dyslexia through early literacy screening and teacher preparation. Advocates argue this effort falls short without mandated teacher preparation in structured literacy, an evidence-based approach proven effective for students with dyslexia. However, the BC Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) opposes prescriptive legislation, emphasising teacher autonomy and diverse learning needs. Advocates urge BC to follow Ontario’s example of systemic reform.
Carole Gordon, First Vice President of the BCTF, criticises the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) Right to Read report described in The Tyee for lack of teacher consultation and an alleged over-emphasis on standardised testing. But Gordon’s criticisms do not acknowledge the substantial body of evidence supporting structured literacy and the ‘Science of Reading’, which emphasises the benefits of explicit, systematic instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness for struggling readers, including students with dyslexia. The evidence presented in the OHRC report and similar literature highlights the consistent effectiveness of these approaches in improving literacy outcomes, particularly for at-risk learners.
Phonemic awareness, which involves recognising and manipulating the sounds in spoken language, is a key predictor of early reading success. Explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness significantly improves children’s reading and spelling abilities. Teaching the relationships between letters and sounds enhances decoding and spelling skills that help to establish a strong foundation for later literacy development. Systematic phonics instruction has been shown to yield substantial benefits for students in kindergarten through sixth grade.
By focusing on procedural and contextual factors – such as teacher input, classroom diversity and concerns about rigid frameworks – Gordon avoids engaging with the considerable body of evidence that supports structured literacy. Her comments leave the impression that the BCTF’s position prioritises professional flexibility over a firm commitment to implementing evidence-based practices universally. Such a stance may be interpreted by some – especially parents with children challenged by dyslexia – as an unwillingness to align teaching practices more closely with the established s scientific knowledge about learning to read. This perceived reluctance to adopt evidence-informed practices may also contribute to the growing enrolment in private schools, where structured approaches to literacy are often emphasised.
Although it is difficult to be certain, Ms Gordon’s comments give this reader the impression that she believes professional judgement is unfettered. It is not. Professional judgement is the exercise of discretion among practices that have been shown to have a demonstrable impact on achieving desired outcomes or objectives. This concept applies across fields where practitioners rely on evidence-based practices, expertise and contextual understanding to make decisions tailored to specific situations.
Prioritising professional judgement over evidence in teaching practices is like a doctor insisting on treating a bacterial infection with herbal remedies instead of antibiotics because they ‘feel’ it’s better for the patient. While the doctor’s personal judgement might stem from good intentions, disregarding decades of research that prove antibiotics effectively treat bacterial infections would not only be unwise but potentially harmful to the patient. Similarly, in education, ignoring evidence-based practices like structured literacy in favour of subjective approaches can delay or hinder a child’s ability to succeed, especially for those with specific learning challenges like dyslexia.
This article first appeared on the author’s blog, On Education Canada.
This article appeared in the Sept 2025 edition of Nomanis.