View
215
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
“Why government education initiatives work – or don’t
The evidence base for policy”
What we have learned from
Reading Recovery
and Every Child a Reader
Dr. Sue Burroughs-Lange
University of London Institute of Education
Our premise‘In the first three years of school, educators
have their one and only chance to upset the correlation between intelligence measures, social class and literacy progress, and between initial progress and later progress.’
Dame Marie Clay
We thought we had the evidence base!
• Mean reading age gain of 21 months• Average programme length 18.5
weeks (less that 5 months)• ‘Accelerated progress’ at 4 times
normal rate• ‘Progress’ at twice the normal rate
What has worked
• A strong evidence base and transparent, high quality evaluation
• A partnership that goes beyond government
• A demonstration of cost benefits
(and ensuring enough people know about these)
Three important Questions for the evidence baseHow do we know these children:
• couldn’t have learned to read and write more cheaply than Reading Recovery ?
• wouldn’t have learned to read and write just as well without Reading Recovery ?
• can go on learning after Reading Recovery?
- even in the most challenging contexts
What £2,500 buys• RR at 6• other support
6-11
The big difference is …….
The costs to a primary school
From here….
To here…in 12-20 weeks
On entry to Reading Recovery
After 14 weeks
The matched low attaining groups in 2005
Serving similar London areas
Schools withRR
Comparison schools
Free school meals
40% 42%
EAL 49% 47%
Children on school roll
358 358
Children in Year 1
46 49
Some evidence from other interventions in the London study 2005-6
Average scores at end of year 1 assessment for no-RR children, by alternative forms of support.
Support Number of RR BAS Word WRAPS WritingProvided children Book level Reading Age Reading Age Vocabulary
ELS 31 7 5y 6m 5y 10 m 3.2
RML 24 3 5y 4m 5y 8m 2.1
Supported Reading 18 7 5y 7m 5y 10m 2.7
PhonicsPractice 31 4 5y 6m 5y 8m 2.3
Speech & 23 2 5y 3m 5y 7m 2.5Language
TA 80 5 5y 6m 5y 9m 2.6Support
SENCO+EAL 19 1 5y 1m 5y 4m 2.2support
59 59
7975
9389.6
58
6569
81 81
58
50
60
70
80
90
100
BAS IISept2005
WRAPSSept2005
BAS IIJuly 2006
WRAPSJuly 2006
BAS IIJuly 2007
WRAPSJuly 2007
Rea
ding
Age
in m
onth
s
RR
No RR
Progress in reading compared at 3 points
1 year follow up: BAS = 7yrs 9m WRAPS = 7yrs 5.6m 6yrs 9m 6yrs 9m
National Curriculum levels in Reading Year 2 lowest groups
NC Reading Level
Comparison groups
Children who received RR
Children in RR school did not access RR
Number % Number % Number %
W 13 9.6 3 11.5
Level 1 45 33.1 10 13.5 4 15.4
Level 2 76 55.9 64 86.5
(84)
19 73.1
Level 3 2 1.5
Writing Vocabulary means lowest groups at 3 points
6.2
45.4
65
6.5
20.6
34
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Begin Year 1 End Year 1 End Year 2
Wo
rds
ex RR
Sch no RR
WRITING Lowest groups 2007 National Curriculum assessments
NC
Writing level
Comparison group
Children
who received RR in Year 1
RR School
did not access RR
Number % Number % Number %
W 20 14.8 1 1.3 5 17.2
Level 1 37 27.4 12 15.4 4 13.8
Level 2 77 57.0 65 83.3
(80)
20 69.0
Level 3 1 0.7
What works against us
• Accountability frameworks not aligned to the initiative
• Short-termism in government goal setting
• ‘Fads’- ill-founded but with popular appeal
(and ensuring enough people know about these)
An important question now is:
“What will happen to ECaR (and look-alikes) when it moves from being a partnership to being a purely government initiative, with all the top-down language of rolling out, and enforcement, and monitoring, that makes LAs and schools feel disempowered?”
Jean Gross, ECC trust
Recommended