Here is another response to Emily Hanford's journalism describing the lack of evidence-based reading instruction in a Western Australian university:
I'm a recent grad from a major WA university, having just completed a 4 year Primary Bachelor of Education.
I can tell you that in those 4 years we were very rarely exposed to any sort of evidence-based practice, and when we were it was explicit instruction being glossed over in the one special ed unit we did, as an "alternative" sort of practice. We may have spent one week on the topic.
It wasn't until my final semester this year that I was exposed to explicit instruction, SSP and the science behind reading - despite having completed four literacy units throughout my degree. The only reason I was even exposed to this was that I chose to complete two ELECTIVE units as part of my special education specialisation. Lucky for me, these units were run by one of the very best in this area, so not only was I exposed to it, I was receiving seriously eye-opening quality instruction.
Of the nearly 200 grads from my primary cohort, only about 40 of us will have taken these units. I've got friends who have graduated with me who will be teaching next year with no knowledge at all of evidence-based reading instruction.
I know that many of my peers turn up their noses at the mention of explicit instruction and evidence-based practice because a constructivist ideology was so privileged throughout our studies. Ultimately, they turn up their noses because many of the school of education faculty we have studied under have done the same.
Since the release of Emily Hanford's audio documentary I've seen and heard more and more stories of the same.