Literacy Centre launch at Inst of Education - RR links?
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:57 pm
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':
The following information about Reading Recovery is summarised by courtesy of Susan Godsland, website author of www.dyslexics.org.uk :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.
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.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/p ... me1302.htm)