http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ces-reform
Expensive but effective programmes such as Family Nurse Partnership and Reading Recovery, a reading tuition programme for six-year-olds, eventually pay for themselves many times over, but would not have got off the ground without Whitehall sponsorship under a Labour government.
I've flagged this article up as another example of how Reading Recovery is so firmly entrenched.
What literacy teaching and intervention would pay off so much better in all senses (educationally and financially) compared to Reading Recovery and its methodology - and contribute to increased lifechances to a greater extent?
If there was to be a 'count' of the number of articles in the media related to driving up literacy standards - as an example of intervention then invariably 'Reading Recovery' is held up as either the gold standard - or the one and only example of intervention.
This is at the heart of the problem - its embeddedness in the 'establishment' - in many countries across the world.
It's longevity, its formalised and institutionalised organisation seemingly makes it impossible to question or shift 'officially'.
Even when it is questioned - heavily - the organisation and uptake of RR carries on regardless. This is just one recent example:
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Mass ... y-2013.pdf
So, we have a self-fulfilling set of circumstances.
Just because something exists and is used widely, does not make it right or the best thing to continue with regardless of questions and regardless of transparent evidence which DOES raise questions about its methodology, its efficacy, its cost and its uptake.
However, I do not want to take away from the article above which raises the issue of poverty, education and the need for support for some mothers and parents more than others. Who could argue with that.
Failing children in poverty continues worldwide does it not.