UK Government unaccountable when Reading Recovery rolled-out

Whether or not you are using the Phonics International Programme, feel free to visit this informal 'Chat' forum!
Here you will find all sorts of interesting articles, links to research and developments - and various interesting topics! Do join in!
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

I'm flagging up this important thread again.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Professor Diane McGuinness's submission for the 2009 Science and Technology select committee (parliamentary) inquiry includes some very interesting background as to why English is particularly difficult for learning to read and spell:


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... me1302.htm
3. 'Every Child a Reader.' Here is an example of our ignorance and the failure to insist on proper scientific evidence in making critical decisions. This project was supported by the government, and funded by the tax payer with support from KPMG and Esmee Fairbairn. It resurrects the old, failed Reading Recovery programme that relies mainly on sight word memorization (see submission from Jennifer Chew for details). Several years ago, a letter was sent to members of the U.S. Congress with 31 signatures of the top researchers in the field of reading urging Congress to suspend support for RR because independent research showed the method had no effect. It is extremely costly to implement, re teacher training, tutoring time, and materials. Not only this, but RR "research" is notorious for misrepresenting the data. In a recent publication by the Institute of Education, the same problems appear. 1. Nearly half of the children from the 145 strong "RR-tutoring group" were dropped from the study at post-testing, while the control group remained intact. (Barely a mention of this, and no attempt to solve the problem this creates.) 2. The RR group received individual tutoring, the control group got none. One could go on. The published paper bears the hallmarks of a bona fide "scientific" journal, until a closer inspection reveals it is published by Reading Recovery. No chance for an impartial peer review process here.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

The new organisation 'International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction' (IFERI) has a thread on this topic here:

http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Here is the latest paper by Professors Chapman and Tunmer critiquing the efficacy of Reading Recovery:


http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewto ... f=4&t=1054

Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues

James W. Chapman

William E. Tunmer

First published: 10 July 2018
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Tom and Hilary Burkhard wrote this paper in 2009 about the misguided official promotion of Reading Recovery under the umbrella of 'Every Child a Reader' in England. Reading Recovery persists under this umbrella in England to this day:

https://www.policyexchange.org.uk/wp-co ... feb-09.pdf
Debbie Hepplewhite
Post Reply