Phonics International Forum Index Phonics International
an International Online Synthetic Phonics Programme
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Literacy Centre launch at Inst of Education - RR links?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Phonics International Forum Index -> All sorts of articles, blogs, research and topics to stimulate debate!
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:57 pm    Post subject: Literacy Centre launch at Inst of Education - RR links? Reply with quote

A colleague wrote the following to me recently raising questions about the basis for the 'International Literacy Centre' about to be launched at the Institute of Education in London. Here are some initial questions about this 'Centre':


Quote:
I am booked for the launch of the International Literacy Centre tomorrow evening. I have begun to realise how completely tied up with Reading Recovery it is.

When I rang the number for the event to ask for directions, I was answered with the words, "Hello. Reading Recovery".

Julia Douetil is a key note speaker at the launch:
Head of the International Literacy Centre
Head of the European Centre for Reading Recovery
a “national leader for Reading Recovery early literacy intervention, and Every Child a Reader.”

Michael Rosen is another of the three speakers and no more needs to be said about him.


The following information about Reading Recovery is summarised by courtesy of Susan Godsland, website author of www.dyslexics.org.uk :

Quote:
Reading Recovery is a 1-1 intervention (Wave 3) programme which uses 'word memorisation and other teaching practices from the 'whole language theory of reading'(HoC Sci/Tech committee).

It is taught by extensively (and very expensively) trained teachers and used with a very narrow age group; children in Y1. Note that, '(T)eacher judgement of need determines entry to the programme' (Rose 2009 p63).

In an article for the Independent, National Co-ordinator for RR, Julia Douetil, claimed that, "These are children for whom, for some reason, phonics hasn't worked" (Independent 30/10/08 ).

Over the course of a year the school's RR teacher will give a handful of children individual tutoring for half-an-hour daily; around 90-100 sessions for each child. Despite this massive input, a significant number (23% RR's own figures) of children are failed by the programme and are 'referred on' i.e. need further intervention.

Documents on the then DCSF's RR 'Toolkit' webpage revealed that it cost a school £82,830 to employ an RR teacher part-time (0.5) for 4 years. Using RR's own figures which have each teacher tutoring 9 pupils a year, RR costs over £2,600 per child. Independent researchers put the cost closer to £5,000. Because of the extremely high cost of implementing Reading Recovery, many cheaper copies have appeared which are based on exactly the same principles -see below.

Dr.Singleton was a key contributor to the now archived, DCSF-commissioned, Rose report on Dyslexia (Rose. 2009). On the subject of Reading Recovery, he said, ''Only 12%–15% of Reading Recovery children completing their programmes between 2003 and 2007 achieved a Level 2a or above in Key Stage 1 Reading National Curriculum assessments, the level at which children can tackle unfamiliar words and have therefore developed a self-sustaining word recognition system'' (Singleton 2009 p11)

Singleton also pointed out that Reading Recovery measured children's progress using the BAS-II word reading test; 6yrs.7mths ''was the average reading age of only those children who responded well to Reading Recovery''.

Singleton added that a child can achieve a RA of 6.7 on BAS-II ''with knowledge of only a few words'' as ''only 21 words on the test have to be read correctly, which can be easily achieved by a child who has memorised some very high frequency common words (e.g.the,up,you,at,said,out) and knows and can use single letter sounds, plus the simple digraphs 'sh' and 'th'' (Singleton p117)

Reading Recovery is ''a multi-cueing, non-systematic approach'' (Sir Jim Rose SPELD conference AU)

''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'' (D. Mcguinness. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/evchlint/me1302.htm)


It will be very interesting indeed, and important, to discover whether the title 'International Literacy Centre' is just another way of promoting/linking with Reading Recovery.
_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is Elizabeth Nonweiler's report of the International Literacy Centre launch - as suspected, it is more of Reading Recovery - but extended for all ages:

http://rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5937

Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Yesterday I went to the launch of the International Literacy Centre (ILC) at the Institute of Education (IOE) in London. I discovered that the ILC is a branch of Reading Recovery, founded by Reading Recovery leaders. The ILC aims to provide a range of interventions for children and courses for their teachers beyond and including Reading Recovery.

This is the beginning of the introduction in their leaflet: “The International Literacy Centre is a not for profit organisation driven by the moral imperative that being literate is an essential, a right and a joy. We believe that all children should receive the support they need to become effective, efficient and enthusiastic readers and writers.”

Julia Douetil, Reading Recovery lead trainer and co-ordinator – and head of the ILC – described it as “a social enterprise”, but said they would be looking into charitable status. She wants it to go beyond children and their schools to parents and communities.

The ILC has 4 strands for different age groups: Early Years Literacy, Reading Recovery, Grow@KS2, Grow@KS3. In addition, for the primary stage, there is “Which Book Consultancy” and the “Excellence in Literacy Quality Mark”. The same theories guiding Reading Recovery will guide the other programmes.


Please click on the link above to read the details of the various programmes of this initiative.

So, Reading Recovery and multi-cueing reading strategies - discredited by research on reading - fight back and grow.
_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite


Last edited by debbie on Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Susan



Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 25
Location: Exeter

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://nifdi.org/news-latest-2/blog-hempenstall/402-the-three-cueing-system-in-reading-will-it-ever-go-away
The three-cueing system in reading: Will it every go away?

http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/newsletter/archives/solitudes.pdf

Quote:
Marilyn Jager Adams: ''In the world of practice, the widespread subscription ot the belief system that the three-cueing diagram has come to represent has wreaked disaster on students and hardship on teachers''
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Susan, for the links above.

I thought it would be pertinent here to include the UK Reading Reform Foundation's response to the, then, government's action (the Department for Children, Schools and Families) to promote and fund Reading Recovery as its intervention of choice. This choice was not supported by the Science and Technology select committee - but I was told by the current Department for Education (DfE) that the government was committed to funding Reading Recovery until 2014. How appalling that governments might make very unaccountable decisions and then be tied in to commitments for funding and promotion when it is shown that this is not an accountable decision:

http://www.rrf.org.uk/pdf/RRF%20re%20S&T%20Report.pdf

Quote:
When the Committee asked Diana Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools) what alternatives to Reading Recovery were considered, she admitted that she did not know the answer. Carol Willis, the DCSF’s Chief Scientific Adviser, referred the Committee to Greg Brooks’ publication, ‘What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties’ (2002). Brooks does not place Reading Recovery high in the rankings of
th th and 45

The choice of Reading Recovery as the core intervention of the ECAR programme was made during the pilot phase led by the Every Child a Chance Trust. The Department saw no reason to change this when taking on the programme for national roll out. (par 35)

According to its website the Every Child a Chance Trust was set up in 2007, but ‘Every Child a Reader’ was set up by Reading Recovery in 2005. Reading Recovery was the intervention interventions: out of 77 studies, the two that used Reading Recovery appear in 30 position when comparing Ratio Gains (p. 137-141) - hardly an outstanding intervention.

The government’s response to the question about alternatives to Reading Recovery is equally unsatisfactory: because Reading Recovery was the organisation which set up the pilot. This begs the question of just who is in the driving seat here. Is it Reading Recovery or the DCSF?


It seems to me that Reading Recovery pervades everywhere and it could be considered arguably disingenuous to use titles such as 'Every Child a Reader' and 'International Literacy Centre' which is a shift away from saying outright 'Reading Recovery Intervention' or 'Reading Recovery Literacy Centre'.

I came across an advert for 'Big Cat Collins' reading books yesterday and noted that a selling point was that it was in line with Reading Recovery.

Isn't it dismaying that 'Reading Recovery' persists as an apparent ideal to be in line with when the approach to early reading and special needs has been discredited over and again by international studies -so much so that reputable researchers have collectively written about their alarm with the continuous promotion of Reading Recovery in place of other intervention alternatives based on systematic synthetic phonics practice.

When will we truly move forwards with professional development - deep knowledge and understanding about the dangers of multi-cueing for so many learners?

Despite the government in England promoting systematic synthetic phonics programmes so heavily based on its investigation into the research and leading-edge practice, subsequent to this various publishers continue to promote and sometimes develop new material and claim it is in line with Reading Recovery.

Oxford University Press's Project X reading scheme started off by claiming it was in line with both synthetic phonics and Reading Recovery (how can it be both - they are not the same approach), and then OUP got on board with Read Write Inc, and then brought me in to develop a rigorous systematic synthetic phonics programme to start off their Oxford Reading Tree reading scheme (hence, ORT Floppy's Phonics Sounds and Letters), but then they amalgamated with Nelson Thornes and now sell PM Readers which is a Reading Recovery linked scheme. This is surely a backwards step?

What messages will teachers receive about this fudged and inconsistent approach to reading instruction by governments and publishers?

Yesterday I think it might have been you, Susan, who flagged up a lovely description of a young girl's reading journey in a home-schooling context.

It was very telling about the different short and long-term 'reading profiles' developed in children/beginners through different routes of being taught to read - read about the little girl's pattern of 'reading' despite the fact she sounds as if she is amazingly able.

You and I know how even amazingly able learners can be seriously disadvantaged by multi-cueing reading strategies (features of Reading Recovery teaching) which distract children away from applying alphabetic code knowledge and blending. This probably explains why so many Year One children described as 'able' or 'fluent' readers made so many errors when reading the nonsense words in the statutory Year One Phonics Screening Check in England. It isn't that they were trying to "make sense' of the words because they had been very clearly told that they were nonsense words - it is that their reading profile, or habit, is to take quick stabs at words (guessing from a quick glance). Some children were described as 'sounding out correctly' but then could not blend the sounds to come up with a plausibly decoded word - perhaps this was lack of blending practice through distraction by the multi-cueing route to reading?

I'll find the link to the blog...
_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a very clear description by a home-schooling father who notes the dangers of not focusing well enough, or consistently enough, on teaching the alphabetic code and blending skill to his very able daughter.

Try to read through to the end - it is a very important and very revealing description of the dangers of multi-cueing reading strategies and learning words as wholes word-by-word:

http://tdpower.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/phonics-vs-sight-recognition-reading.html
_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I heard from James Chapman himself this morning who very kindly encouraged me to point people in the direction of this article - he had heard about me raising this issue over in New Zealand!

http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Massey%20News/2013/8/docs/Report-National-Literacy-Strategy-2013.pdf

Quote:
WHY THE NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL LITERACY STRATEGY HAS
FAILED AND WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT

Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and Reading Recovery Monitoring Reports


William E. Tunmer
James W. Chapman
Keith T. Greaney
Jane E. Prochnow
Alison W. Arrow

Massey University Institute of Education
July 2013


So, I've linked this thread with the 'New Zealand flatlining' thread and with the Reading Reform Foundation thread.

Read this thread below which also includes the link to the Chapman et al article and to the further questions this issue raises about Reading Recovery and the International Literacy Centre both in England and internationally:

http://rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5937&p=48385#p48385
_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite


Last edited by debbie on Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:56 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is another Reading Reform Foundation thread relating to intervention programmes and practice showing that the DfE has not been consistent in its message to the teaching profession:

Whole language: the Medusa's Head


http://www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5360

Quote:
The section of the Rose Report about intervention, and Kelly's promise to implement it, seems to have been buried almost immediately by the DCSF. Despite Reading Recovery (RR) being way out of line with report's recommendations, outrageously, the then DCSF continued to encourage and fund schools to use RR as a Wave 3 intervention for Y1 children, AND recommended that they 'layer' RR with a range of other whole language interventions, all found under the Every Child a Reader (ECaR) mantle, to make sure it was firmly embedded through out the school. Furthermore, funding (and therefore implicit support) for RR and its clones is still available, though the government's formerly ring fenced ECaR funding has now been incorporated into the Dedicated Schools Grant.


Quote:
At the end of 2009, Parliament's Science and Technology committee questioned the use of Reading Recovery (and other whole language intervention programmes:

Evidence Check on Early Literacy Interventions http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 4/4405.htm
Having checked all the evidence, the all-party committee said: ''Teaching children to read is one of the most important things the State does. The Government has accepted Sir Jim Rose's recommendation that systematic phonics should be at the heart of the Government's strategy for teaching children to read. This is in conflict with the continuing practice of word memorisation and other teaching practices from the 'whole language theory of reading' used particularly in Wave 3 Reading Recovery. The Government should vigorously review these practices with the objective of ensuring that Reading Recovery complies with its policy''.

At the beginning of the summer holidays the DfE released its advanced training materials for SEN, including those for 'dyslexia'.
http://www.advanced-training.org.uk/module4/M04U15.html
What is buried in there? Miscue-analysis, Reading Recovery, NLP.....

_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite


Last edited by debbie on Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:43 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Further information about the efficacy, or lack thereof, of Reading Recovery - flagged up via Twitter:

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/rr.htm
_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is ironic, see the paper below headed with the Institute of Education logo describing the national expectations for Initial Teacher Training.

This paper refers to the 'core criteria' - and included in the government's official 'core criteria' is this stipulation:

Quote:
7. It is important that texts are of the appropriate level for children to apply and practise the phonic knowledge and skills that they have learnt. Children should not be expected to use strategies such as whole-word recognition and/or cues from context, grammar, or pictures.


http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/documents/Study_Teacher_Training/Phonics_BriefingPaperv1.pdf

Now Reading Recovery notoriously bases its approach on the very multi-cueing reading strategies described at point 7. above.

How does the Institute of Education square its simultaneous promotion of the Systematic Synthetic Phonics approach where teachers are instructed not to expect children to use multi-cueing reading strategies at the same time as housing and promoting Reading Recovery and the International Literacy Centre which is based on the multi-cueing reading strategies?

And under the International Literacy Centre umbrella, it looks like Reading Recovery has expanded to include intervention for older learners than the original focus of Year One children?

So - what ARE teachers and student-teachers to 'understand' and WHICH approach are they to regard as better for their pupils?

I think this continued muddled and contradictory guidance for teachers and student-teachers is truly unacceptable.

It's fudged and, in effect, sweeping under the carpet the huge and serious contradictions between systematic synthetic phonics practice and Reading Recovery practice.

Worst of all, the focus of Reading Recovery is very much on the weaker or slower-to-read children (now of all ages it seems). These are the very children who are most likely to be harmed by being presented with books that they cannot read and instilling habitual guessing of words they cannot read in order to get through the books.
_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm flagging this up again - it continues to be entirely relevant that programmes and practices focused on multi-cueing reading strategies persist and even dominate our education system - even here in England where Systematic Synthetic Phonics WITHOUT multi-cueing reading strategies is how teachers are SUPPOSED TO TEACH - but this is not happening in many schools - if not most.

Confused

See this graphic of School Profiles in England - profiles I predicted years ago when 'Letters and Sounds' (DfES 2007) was rolled out - and profiles that I see first hand in my work:

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Simple%20View%20of%20Schools.pdf
_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Phonics International Forum Index -> All sorts of articles, blogs, research and topics to stimulate debate! All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group