Layered Literacy Interventions

Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie, Lesley Drake, Susan Godsland

Derrie Clark
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Kent

Layered Literacy Interventions

Post by Derrie Clark » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:47 pm

fourthhttp://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publi ... 391806.pdf

The fourth layer - for the hardest to teach children - will be Reading Recovery. Then Every Child can become a reader.

Is this the Reading Intervention that money from the Budget will be funding?

How do we get access to this money for 'reading interventions' or has it already been allocated?

Derrie Clark
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Kent

Post by Derrie Clark » Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:41 pm

From the pre-budget report:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/571 ... apter6.pdf

see page 21, para 6.74

The Every Child a Reader, and Reading Recovery, is to be rolled out Nationally. As this is for Year 1 pupils (who are selected as the most likely to benefit from this one-to-one teaching) perhaps we (well the likes of Mazie, Jim, Dick, etc) will be able to pick them up in Year 5, 6, 7 . . . with the kind of teaching that Rose is recommending.

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Post by Susan Godsland » Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:49 pm

IMO, the roll out of the whole-language, remedial programme Reading Recovery is another 'NATIONAL SCANDAL' .

To inflict RR on already damaged children is to add insult to injury.

:twisted: :evil: :twisted:

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Post by maizie » Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:52 pm

Derrie, do you remember Ruth Kelly (of blessed memory :( ) announcing that money would be put into schools to finance dedicated 'specialist teaching' for struggling readers?

Well, surprisingly, it did actually happen. A substantial sum was added to our school budget via the Standards Fund, this Autumn, and and even more substantial sum is flagged up for next year. Not ring fenced, alas. A very little of it has come my way, but a couple of new support posts have been created in other departments-not connected with literacy in any way. Well, HTs have to consider whole school needs, haven't they :roll:

At least it hasn't funded a Reading Recovery teacher :)

Derrie Clark
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Kent

Post by Derrie Clark » Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:43 pm

We MUST be able to do something about this :?:

I really do think that everybody wants an improvement in literacy standards - it just seems to be down to a general lack of understanding.

At least there is a growing acceptance that what is happening at the moment isn't working (even if there IS a significant under estimation of what is really happening - as Dave Philpot points out, at least 2 in 5 pupils are failing) - with only 44% of pupils achieving an A-C in English GCSE.

If we were to go along the lines of Reading Recovery we will need an awful lot of personal tutors coming into schools. What is going to happen to the 25% to 55% who are currently not achieving sufficient literacy levels in Year 2 and throughout KS2, KS3 and KS4? My fear is that the resources, once again, will go to those powerful enough and articulate enough to argue for them.

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Post by maizie » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:53 pm

We MUST be able to do something about this :?:
Derrie, you have set me off thinking hard!

I think the rrf has a lot of hard thinking to do, too.

A great deal has been achieved, but the forces ranged against 'us' are very strong. Just look at the QCA presentations on elsy's thread, the govt. backing of Reading Recovery, the 'petition' on the TES blog, the less than enthusiastic information on SP coming out of the Dfes, the thousands of teachers & TAs who don't believe in or understand SP, the number of academics ditto, the effective organisation and funding of organisations like UKLA (you can't read their message board unless you become a member - that's a nice little earner for you!) and the lack of accountability at all levels, so often flagged up by Debbie.

This needs a coherent and well organised body to counter it. How many of the people who post on here, and who are doing a fantastic job as individuals, would be able/willing to become part of that body?

chew8
Posts: 4164
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Post by chew8 » Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:06 am

We need to get our heads properly round the studies which can be accessed at

http://www.everychildareader.org/

There is something on p. 23 of the Institute of Education evaluation which suggests that comparisons were made between Reading Recovery and other interventions, including RML, and that RR produced the best results, but we need someone with research credentials to unpick this for us. I have e-mailed Diane asking if she could cast a professional eye over the studies, but she hasn't really had time to reply yet.

Jenny.

chew8
Posts: 4164
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Post by chew8 » Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:36 am

Diane has now replied - unfortunately she can't do anything at present as she is out of the country for the next few weeks.

Jenny.

g.carter
Posts: 1859
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:41 pm

Post by g.carter » Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:21 pm

The Reading Recovery groups received 30 minutes one-to-one daily for 4 to 5 months. Did the control groups? Even I could have achieved these sort of outcomes with my daily dose of flaky phonics way back before I had heard of Diane McGuinness. Any one-to-one teaching will get results but there are academics and tutors throughout the English speaking world who testify to the ceiling Whole Language teaching hits at around 8-9 years old, when decoding skills are lacking for more complex multi-syllable words, and for subject-specific text.

Who is going to take responsibility for the failure that emerges at that stage of development? Or will SATs disguise the problem and leave secondary school teachers to pick up the bits?

'The DfES is contributing around half the cost of the £10m. project. Other sponsors include KPMG etc. etc. etc.

Note the chilling rider : 'Every Child a Reader also aims to eXplore the potential for those teachers to support tailored literacy teaching more broadly within a school, BEYOND those receiving intensive one-to-one support.'

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Post by maizie » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:43 pm

The Reading Recovery groups received 30 minutes one-to-one daily for 4 to 5 months. Did the control groups?
Lets not call them 'control groups', Geraldine! Teachers in schools of similar profile (intake, EAL etc) identified 8 children in each class who were 'considered to be struggling' according to the teachers and 'school records' (records unspecified). This resulted in 145 children in the RR schools and 147 children in the non RR schools. Of the 147 children in the non RR schools, 93 were reported as receiving NO support/interventions (63%).
In text reading, children who received RR were, on average, more than 14 book levels higher thanat the beginning of the year.....childrenwithout access to RR on average made 4 book level gains
Now, this couldn't be because the RR children were being specificly coached on the levelled books, could it?
Significant effects were also found for writing..in writing, children who received RR could write about 6 words correctly ast the start of the year and more than 45 words at the end...
Not 45 HFWs by any chance? Only 45 words at the end of Y1. Is this a creditable achievement? After how many hours of one to one tuition?

It (RR) is one of 19 interventions for which Brooks (2002) found evidence of substantial impact, with children making around 4 times the normal progress over the programme..
This refers to Brooks 'What Works for children with Literacy difficulties' 2002 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/up ... /RR380.pdf Reading Recovery came nowhere near the 'top' of the interventions. The intervention showing the highest ratio gain (RG) was the phonics based 'Acceleread-Accelewrite' with an RG of 16.1 (extraordinary!)

RR came well down the list with an RG of 2.9, 11 places down in the 'ranking'. (p 146 for summary chart)

g.carter
Posts: 1859
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:41 pm

Post by g.carter » Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:07 am

Well, i should have put 'control' firmly into quotes...dfes doesn't do 'control' groups. All that matters is that there's £20 million AND the extra money promised by Brown in this week's mini-budget has already been ACCOUNTED for by Institute of Ed./Reading Recovery according to press release (or whatever they got together on 6th December). How do they know Brown's earmarked money is for Reading Recovery?

And, for Lesley if she sees this - tho don't want to spoil the week-end -tes.co. TESS - Ayrshire.....only you could do justice to this one...

chew8
Posts: 4164
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Post by chew8 » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:29 pm

I have now had the following from Diane McGuinness, who has managed to have a quick look at the London Institute of Education evaluation of Reading Recover. I am posting it here with her permission.

Jenny.

'I have read this report, and there are three main problems - one of which you have spotted. It makes no sense for children to score an average of 100 standard score (normal) and then be described as virtual non-readers for the age at time of testing. Both can't be true.

There is no doubt that the children receiving RR did significantly better in the final tests at the end of the year than they did at the beginning, and significantly better than the "control group." But then, there are control groups and control groups. The RR children received extensive one-to-one tuition during their second year of school, and the so-called control group -- children without RR, got no consistent treatment. In fact, the description of what they received is so vague as to be non-existent. And then, we encounter this fatal phrase: "A surprising number of children were not reported to receive any form of support even though they had been identified as the lowest attaining in their class." Note also, whatever interventions these children did receive were carried out by untrained teaching assistants, not by teachers, and certainly not by teachers as thoroughly trained as RR teachers are. The RR training is (or was) hugely expensive and time consuming.

Finally, the equally important point, that while the trained RR children are at the national average for their age after the training, they are certainly not far above it. In the Willows project in the states, where the children are all introduced to my programme, Sound Steps to Reading, all students but one in each of two class are scoring in the top 10 percentile of national norms. Many children were off the chart, scoring at 99.99 percentile -- this would be four or five years above norms. Furthermore, despite a couple of children with quite severe language delays, etc. no child scored below the national average at the end of the school year. Fiona Nevola's remedial programme gets an average of 2 years gain in 18 hours of tutoring, many children gaining 3 to 4 years in that time. This programme is considerably cheaper than RR. However, we have only pre and post test scores on our population (about 3 years worth of data), and no "control group" receiving something else. BUT - the real test of RR is surely not a comparison between it an nothing, but between it and programmes costing a fraction of the cost which get far greater gains. Shouldn't the government/DfES be doing a study like this!!'

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Post by Susan Godsland » Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:51 pm

This paper also needs a thorough going over:

http://www.everychildareader.org/pubs/n ... search.doc

Derrie Clark
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Kent

Post by Derrie Clark » Sun Dec 10, 2006 6:54 pm

Can't see this one there (but I did only skim read):

Title: Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery Program.
Author(s): Iversen, Sandra, Massey U, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Tunmer, William E.
Source: Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 85(1), Mar 1993. pp. 112-126.
Publisher: US: American Psychological Assn
ISSN: 0022-0663 (Print)
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.1.112
Language: English
Keywords: Reading Recovery Program with vs without systematic instruction in phonological recoding skills, 1st grade at risk readers
Abstract: Sought to determine whether the Reading Recovery Program would be more effective if systematic instruction in phonological recoding skills were incorporated into the program. First-grade at-risk readers were divided into 3 matched groups of 32 children each; a modified Reading Recovery group, a standard Reading Recovery group, and a standard intervention group. The children in the modified Reading Recovery group received explicit code instruction involving phonograms. Results indicated that, although both Reading Recovery groups achieved levels of reading performance required for discontinuation of the program, the modified Reading Recovery group reached these levels of performance much more quickly. Results further indicated that the children selected for Reading Recovery were particularly deficient in phonological processing skills and that their progress in the program was strongly related to the development of these skills. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

g.carter
Posts: 1859
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:41 pm

Post by g.carter » Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:11 pm

If anyone has access to the Yahoo bri site - I recommend a search there on reading recovery references . The latest posting referring to RR has a superb posting by 'palisadeck' and if she sees this i'll ask if the part referring to reading recovery can be pasted here.g

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests