Reading Recovery

I just read a very disturbing article by Alexandra Smith in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 31^st December, 2017. The article reported on the New South Wales (N.S.W.) government’s decision to axe the $50 million dollar Reading Recovery program even though it may have had some impact on students who are really struggling with basic reading. The government claimed that gains were often short-lived. 

This is a concern because this very important decision was made with little consultation with educators, policy makers and caregivers. Furthermore, it has been timed to coincide with the Christmas/New Year's break when many educators, policy makers and caregivers are away on holidays. The government does acknowledge that there have been gains and that these gains were not followed up with ongoing support and consolidation. 

There are two essential questions that need to be answered: Has Reading Recovery been adequately implemented in New South Wales? and How has it been implemented elsewhere? Reading Recovery Council of North America, for example, wrote a very comprehensive report - ‘What evidence says about reading recovery?” They found there is substantial scientific evidence to support Reading Recovery’s effectiveness with lowest-performing first-grade students. They also stated that Reading Recovery does not claim to be the only solution to the nation’s reading problems. However, it seeks the right to be considered as an early intervention option for state and local educational authorities.

More recently on the ABC Radio National, Life Matters Program (Thursday 11^th February, 2016 11:58am)  What evidence says about Reading Recovery  Amanda Smith asked Dr Michael Bezzina, director of teaching and learning at the Catholic Education Office in Sydney, what he thought about Reading Recovery. He supported the continuation of Reading Recovery and stated, "We have a success rate of 90 per cent. Kids with English as a second language are doing better than the rest of the cohort… We've tracked our ex-Reading Recovery students over 20 years, and by year three those kids who were in the lowest 20 per cent of readers in year one, 20 to 30 per cent are in the top two bands of the NAPLAN test."

If there is compelling evidence for the effectiveness of the program then why axe it? Maybe, I can offer some insights from my own research into literacy and learning difficulties. Many research studies have attested to the efficacy of individualised tutoring program, not only in literacy but also in mathematics as well. My own research has supported this. Reading Recovery is one that has been around since the 1970s and so needs to reflect change in line with ‘evidence based’ research. The reading Recovery Council of North America maintained that ‘policy makers have the responsibility to consider evidence from a wide range of perspectives and validated research models.” The question is, has this change taken place systematically in N.S.W. in the light of recent research?

Reading Recovery is, however,  not a panacea for all literacy problems. The reason that it targets children in year 1 is that it is an early intervention program that is meant to supplement other literacy lessons in the classroom. Its purpose is to provide extra meaningful literacy opportunities in a direct and systematic way. It was not meant to replace other literacy activities (such as phonic lessons)  in the classrooms but to compliment them. Thus, an early intervention program, such as Reading Recovery should be in integrated part of a comprehensive literacy effort.

Reading Recovery was not meant to be a remedial reading program but a preventative measure for students that are at risk of failure. In most cases these students tend to have poor language exposure and poor experiences with book reading at home before starting school. They usually require extra literacy input to give them the necessary skills to keep pace with their more literate peers. On the other hand, students with specific learning difficulties most likely will not benefit from Reading Recovery as they need to have their specific learning problems addressed, often with a program that addresses their particular needs. 

In conclusion: Reading Recovery should:

1. be an integral part of an overall year 1 program for students who are considered to be at risk of failure at school;
2. not include students that have a specific learning difficulty;
3. include ongoing training and  improvement in light of recent research; 
4. offer diversity by being included as one of several approaches, according to need; and 
5. supplement other literacy activities in the classroom rather than being a replacement for them.

Peer2Peer: Mentoring

Most children have the potential to achieve and succeed in their life goals. However, not all children receive the support that they need. In fact many students simply give up and drop out of school. One of the most effective ways to learn and succeed in academia is to link with a peer mentor. The word 'mentor' comes from the Greek word for 'steadfast' and 'enduring'. It is interesting to note that researchers have found that young people who overcome poverty to reach tertiary education often have a mentor  as a role model. The American 'Student2Student' program is an example of one such voluntary project that aims to develop this type of mentor and mentee relationship.

The Student2Student mentoring program gives American high school students the opportunity to mentor younger middle school and elementary school students. The program matches students with their future career interests. It provides an enriching platform to guide the younger student by connecting with older mentors with community resources. It benefits everyone. The mentor is given an opportunity to invest time and effort into guiding younger students while developing collaborative and leadership skills. Younger students benefit from this as they are guided in their future aspirations by linking to motivated older mentors and possibly developing connections to community and business interests.

In Australia there are at least 1 in 10 students of low socio-economic backgrounds that do not meet the minimum reading standards of the national tests (NAPLAN) in years 3, 5, 7, and 9. Over 40% of the adult population in Australia do not have adequate literacy skills to cope with the demands of modern society. Moreover, people with low literacy skills are less likely to complete school, more likely to be unemployed and on social security, as well as more likely to experience poor health. The 'Smith Family' is a charity organisation that believes that every child deserves a chance in life. They support more than 638,000 Australian children living in poverty. One of their major concerns is that children in low socio-economic circumstances receive the extra support with reading.

The Smith Family have a peer mentoring program also called 'student2student program. In their 2013 report, 'Improving through peer support: The student2student program' they give a summary of the effectiveness of peer support for reading. In this report they state "Literacy skills are central to an individual's employment prospects, the ability to manage one's health, be an informed consumer and an active citizen. Without solid literacy skills it is very difficult to achieve technological literacy and governments and businesses are increasingly using digital platforms to provide a range of services."

At the completion of their 2012 student2student program more than 9 out of 10 students (93%) showed an increase in their reading ages relative the the start of the program. Approximately 64% of the mentees made an overall gain of at least 6 months in their reading performance. Mentors generally agreed that they had enjoyed participating in the program, particularly when they saw evidence of their buddy's reading improvement and engagement. The report goes on to say, "There is considerable evidence on the effectiveness of using trained peer tutors in programs aiming to support children with reading difficulties (Woolley and Hay, 2007). Peer tutoring is based on co-operative learning, and when children are in an environment of mutual support, where co-operation, shared goals and a sense of responsibility for the reading process are promoted, a sense of belonging, accomplishment and increased motivation will be achieved (Grimes, 1981 cited in Woolley and Hay, 2007). The one-on-one nature of peer tutoring is seen as contributing to increasing the student’s engagement as well as maintaining their attention to the text for longer periods of time (Woolley and Hay, 2007). The last is important given the relationship between reading frequency and skill." 

Above are two peer mentoring support programs that have been highly successful. Even though they have a similar name their focus is slightly different. However, one wonders if the essential elements of both programs could be combined. This would simply mean matching older and younger students with the same interests.

References:

Grimes, L. (1981). Learned helplessness and attribution theory. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 91-100.

Woolley, G. E., & Hay, I. (2007). Reading intervention: The benefits of using trained tutors. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30(1), 9-20.

Oh, my goodness, we have slipped!

Oh, my goodness, we have slipped!

At the end of last year international comparisons of student reading levels revealed that Australia had slipped - we are now 27th out of the 50 countries mentioned in the report. This has come as a shock considering Australia's previous high ranking in reading performance within the OECD countries, as reported through the Programme for Student Assessment (PISA) over recent years.

In my last blog entitled 'A decade of lost action in reading; Let's get some balance!' I commented on an earlier article by the Weekend Australian that reflected the shock and horror that rippled through the media, educational establishments, and the public in general. It was obvious that some reactionaries were looking for someone or something to blame, such as the whole language approach to reading,  teacher educators, universities, and who ever else they could possibly think of. The Rowe (or Nelson) Report (2005) was cited as having the answers, however, many of the report's recommendations were never implemented.

The Weekend Australian (19-20th January) article entitled 'Rowe inquiry spelled out how children can be taught to excel in reading' seems to have put this very emotional reaction into some rational perspective. In this article Gregor Ramsey, a prominent Australian educationalist, gives some balance to this debate. He acknowledges the importance of the Rowe Report and articulates that the report focused on both phonics and whole-language strategies as part of a balanced approach to the teaching of reading.

He reminds us that the report viewed parents as having a key role in the development of children's reading outcomes. The question is, "Are parents more involved with teaching reading than they were in 2005?" Possibly not much more!

Generally, research shows that greater parental involvement in assisting children with reading at home will improve their children's reading outcomes. For family tutoring programs to be effective schools need to identify productive home literacy practices and give the necessary training and ongoing support for parents and care givers. Successful family reading programs will help children to read more effectively while fostering positive home and school cultures that promote cooperation and the sharing of resources between homes and schools.

Visit my video interview, "Tutoring: Collaborative approaches to assisted Reading." and also see my blog series called '10 Principles for Assisting Reading" for some tips on how to assist reading at home or at school.