“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