 |
|
Select Committee report into teaching children to
read (April 05)
Ofsted reports
|
Ontario University evaluation
for the DfES
Other evaluations
|
|
The ability to read is the key to educational achievement.
Without a basic foundation in literacy, children cannot
gain access to a rich and diverse curriculum. Poor literacy
limits opportunities not only at school, but throughout
life, both economically and in terms of a wider enjoyment
and appreciation of the written word. This inquiry was
motivated by the Committee's firm belief that all children
should get the best teaching possible in this crucial
area.
This inquiry has focused specifically on the methods
used in schools to teach children to read. We fully
acknowledge that the acquisition of reading is an extremely
complex subject, which is influenced by factors outside
a school's control, such as socio-economic background,
neurological development, the language of instruction
and the experiences and stimuli a child encounters at
a very early age, as well as many others. These factors
deserve a thorough treatment which has not been possible
in the limited time available to us. However, we do
consider that teaching methods have a significant impact
on a child's chances of becoming a fluent reader.
The Government tells us that primary school children
have never been more proficient readers. It claims this
achievement as the outcome of its National Literacy
Strategy (now Primary National Strategy), introduced
in 1997. Others question the true extent of this success,
claiming that the proportion of children experiencing
significant difficulties with reading is larger that
these figures suggest. As data generated through Key
Stage tests can be skewed by associated factors, such
as teachers 'teaching to the test', we recommend that
the DfES commission an independent evaluation of trends
in reading standards among
primary school children which would make clear the scale
and nature of the problem faced, and provide a basis
for further policy work.
Even if Government figures are taken at face value,
at age 11 around 20% of children still do not achieve
the success in reading (and writing) expected of their
age. This figure is unacceptably high. Furthermore,
there is a wide variation in the results achieved by
schools with apparently similar intakes. This differential
achievement suggests that problems do exist, either
in the implementation of the Government's strategies
or inherently in the methodology it promotes.
During this inquiry, we took evidence from witnesses
who argued that phonics programmes should have more
prominence in the early teaching of reading (these programmes
concentrate on establishing an early understanding of
sound-letter correspondence). We took evidence from
others who questioned the utility of this approach,
preferring to focus on the development of vocabulary
and the enrichment of linguistic experience, as well
as from those who support the current Government advice
in the form of the Primary National Strategy.
It is unlikely that any one method or set of changes
would lead to a complete elimination of underachievement
in reading; however it seems that at present around
20% of eleven-year-olds are not reading at an age-appropriate
level. We recommend a review of the NLS to determine
whether its current prescriptions and recommendations
are the best available methodology for the teaching
of reading in primary schools. Further large-scale,
comparative research on the best ways of teaching children
to read, comparing synthetic phonics 'fast and first'
with other methods (for example analytical phonics and
the searchlights model promoted in the NLS) is necessary
to determine which methods of teaching are most effective
for which children. It may be that some methods of teaching
(such as phonics) are more effective for children in
danger of being left behind. This research should be
commissioned by the DfES. As far as possible, this study
should use control groups to take account of factors
which may have a bearing on reading outcomes, for example,
teacher knowledge and ability, socio-economic background
and gender.
Corresponding research into other factors affecting
reading acquisition, such as the development of cognitive
skills and the age at which reading is first taught
formally, is also necessary. But research cannot be
of use unless teachers are fully informed of its findings
and consequences for classroom practice. Improvements
to teacher training are necessary to ensure that all
teachers of reading are familiar with the psychological
and developmental processes involved in reading acquisition.
In addition, we note that the pre-school sector is generally
characterised by a low skilled and low paid workforce.
Upskilling in this area would result in important benefits
to children's development and reading readiness.
Other factors implicated in underachievement are the
early development of literacy, oral and communication
skills, as well as a love of literature and reading,
and parental involvement in teaching children to read.
The stimuli a child experiences before the time he or
she enters primary school and begins to be taught to
read formally are vital to success in reading. Early
childhood development of communication skills and experiences
of literacy in its widest sense have a significant effect
on a child's preparedness to learn to read. Opportunities
can be enhanced through pre-school programmes, but the
engagement of parents to provide educational development
in the home is key. Recent initiatives aimed at fostering
this engagement have been shown to significantly improve
outcomes. In this context the Government's 'Every
Child Matters' reform of children's services has
a central role.
Download the whole report from www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmeduski.htm
Read the National
Literacy Trust's reponse to the Education and Skills
Select Committee inquiry, Nov 04.
Mike Baker, BBC Education correspondent
There is nothing like a debate over the teaching of
reading to get temperatures rising. The media over-reacts,
politicians jump on bandwagons, parents get worried,
and teachers become defensive. The first week in April
2005 -also the first week of the general election campaign
- brought a prime example of this. The Education Select
Committee, in its last throw of this Parliament, published
a report which said the figure of one in five pupils
failing to reach the expected levels in reading in England
was "unacceptably high". The government took
a lot of flak.
Ministers clearly felt this was harsh, pointing out
that since 1997 the numbers of 11-year-olds reaching
the required levels in reading had risen from 67% to
83%. It could also be argued that there was no benchmark
for the numbers of children who should be at the "expected"
level.
Before 1997 no government had ever defined this level
of reading skills. Nor were there any targets for what
percentage should reach that level. As for the question
of what "expected levels" mean, no-one has
ever satisfactorily answered that. Is it the level of
the average child? If so, getting 83% to that level
would represent over-achievement. Or is it the minimum
level a child should reach by that age? In which case,
83% may not look quite so good, although if children
with special needs (up to 20%, depending on the definition)
are discounted it might be regarded as not so bad.
Definitions aside, however, England's record on reading
is actually pretty good when compared with other countries.
But while average reading standards are not as bad as
the headlines may have suggested, an important question
remains: why the big variation in achievement between
schools and pupils? For independent confirmation of
England's good record on reading, you need only turn
to the Pirls (Progress in International Reading Literacy
Study) report of 2003. This compared the reading skills
of 140,000 10-year-olds in 35 countries. England ranked
third, beaten only by Sweden and the Netherlands. England
not only beat similar European countries such as France,
Germany and Italy but was also well ahead of the other
English-speaking countries in the survey: the United
States, New Zealand and Scotland.
However, England also had the widest span of reading
abilities. The most able pupils led the world in reading
skills. They are premier league readers. But the least
able readers were in the relegation zone: below their
equivalents in Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Czech
republic, Russia, and Hong Kong.
So what is going wrong with our least able readers?
Is it something to do with the way they are taught?
This is where the debate tends to get heated. Reading
experts have long waged war over the relative merits
of phonics, "real books" and "look-say".
The advocates of phonics (a method of decoding words
by learning the sounds of groups of letters) have won
most of the recent battles. From a position of isolation
15 years ago, phonics is now back at the heart of the
National Literacy Strategy, the approach that underpins
the teaching of reading in English schools.
But for some that is not the end of the battle. The
supporters of a particular type of phonics - synthetic
phonics - believe it is the Holy Grail of literacy.
They have demonstrated considerable success in an experiment
that has been running in primary schools in Clackmannanshire.
Moreover, they have been able to show particularly good
results with boys and pupils from disadvantaged homes.
As the select committee concluded, synthetic phonics
is certainly worthy of closer attention. But the problem
for policy-makers is that synthetic phonics is an all-or-nothing
approach. It does not sit alongside other methods. It
means putting all your eggs in one basket.
The essence of synthetic phonics is that, before children
are even introduced to books, they go on a crash course
to learn the 44 basic sounds of letters and groups of
letters. The idea is that this equips them to decode
a very large number of regular sounding words. They
are then introduced to books that contain only these
words and - hey, presto! - they find they can read.
This can be marvellous for their confidence. I have
seen it in action and it is impressive. But champions
of synthetic phonics say it is the essence of this approach
that it is not mixed with other methods: it is synthetic
phonics "first, fast and only".
Still, you might say, if it has worked in the pilot
projects what is the problem? Well the trouble is that
there is a tendency in any pioneering project for the
initial focus, enthusiasm and energy to boost results.
But it is not necessarily the same when it is rolled
out over a longer period, a wider range of schools,
and when the excitement and novelty have worn off. Now,
of course, it could be that synthetic phonics holds
the answer to the under-performance of England's poorest
readers. But to introduce it wholesale would be to take
a big risk with the others who already out-perform most
of the rest of the world. And it could be that there
are other explanations for England's under-performing
tail of poor readers.
Again the Pirls study may offer some clues. Unsurprisingly
there was a strong overlap between high reading ability
and enjoyment of reading for fun outside of school.
Yet in England, 27% of 10-year-olds said they "never
or almost never" read for fun outside of school.
This was higher than the international average of 18%.
There was also a strong correlation between watching
a lot of television or playing computer games and lower
than average reading ability. In England 40% of 10-year-olds
said they played computer games every day, well above
the international average of 26%. Similarly, 20% of
English children said they watched television or videos
for five hours or more a day, compared to the international
average of 12%. It seems very likely that this 20% or
so who watch a lot of television, play a lot of computer
games and never read for fun represent the bulk of the
"unacceptably high" figure of 20% who fail
to reach the expected standards of reading in school.
This surely suggests that the key to this under-performance
is not the result of England's teaching methods (which
are producing results to match the best in the world)
but of what is going on in the homes of a substantial
minority of children. On this basis, the most effective
policy would be to ban TVs and computer game consoles
in the homes of children who fail to spend at least
an hour a day reading for pleasure. Somehow I don't
think any political party or government could do that.
But it does suggest that any review of reading methods
should proceed very cautiously before rejecting the
current mixed economy approach, which, for most pupils,
is getting pretty good results. Synthetic phonics may
be the answer in certain circumstances, and especially
for children with little other exposure to reading,
but a longer and wider pilot scheme would surely be
a sensible precaution before getting every child to
do synthetic phonics "first, fast and only".
(BBC website, 9 April 2005)
A selection of headlines, 7 April 2005…
"MPs savage Labour education strategy" Telegraph,
"Schools still cannot teach pupils to read by age
of 11" Times
"MPs call for phonic system to tackle school illiteracy"
Guardian
"Call for literacy strategy rethink" TES
|
Ofsted, February 2005, reference
HMI 2395
This report concludes the second year of a two-year evaluation
of the national literacy and numeracy strategies, and covers
the early stages of the implementation of the Primary National
Strategy. Following visits to 120 primary schools, inspectors
found that the quality of teaching in the literacy hour and
the daily mathematics lesson has continued to improve and
fewer lessons are now "unsatisfactory". However,
a third of lessons are "no better than satisfactory and
this holds back further improvements in standards."
Inspectors found that while nearly all schools welcomed the
Primary National Strategy and its vision for combining excellence
in teaching with enjoyment in learning, some are reluctant
to change established methods that may have played a key part
in raising standards in literacy and numeracy. Others have
taken steps to reorganise their curriculum, linking subjects
so that pupils have a chance to use literacy and numeracy
across the curriculum or increasing the time allocated to
a particular subject to enable activities to be extended.
The report recommends that schools should integrate their
established literacy and numeracy provision with the wider
vision of the Primary National Strategy to "develop a
broad, rich curriculum and improve standards".
Download a copy from www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications.
Ofsted, February 2003, reference
HMI 1009
On the basis of national curriculum tests and annual Ofsted
inspections, 24 schools of varying size and location were selected
as case studies on the implementation of the National Literacy
and Numeracy Strategies. The report presents examples of good
and bad practice in getting started, analysing school and pupil
performance, training and support, effective teaching, assessment
and keeping up momentum. Inspectors recommend that in order
to raise attainment in English or maths, headteachers and staff
should gain a thorough understanding of the principles and detailed
workings of the two strategies; use data analysis and day-to-day
assessment to identify pupils' strengths and weaknesses and
ensure that teaching is matched to their needs; focus training
closely on these needs and include all teaching and non-teaching
staff where possible; and monitor the effect on teaching and
learning, and whether changes are making any difference.
Copies can be downloaded from www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications.
See press coverage below.
Heads willing to make unpopular choices get the most out
of national initiatives to boost reading and maths according
to a report by the office for Standards in Education. Ofsted
examined how a sample of 24 schools had coped with the national
numeracy and literacy strategies.
They said that the most effective heads "are not afraid
to make difficult or unpopular decisions", and had encouraged
frank, sometimes painful, discussions of their school's weaknesses.
The report concluded that heads could create a culture of
improvement in literacy and numeracy by:
- making a convincing case for the need to change
- involving all staff
- having detailed knowledge of the two strategies
- calling in outside support where needed.
(TES, 28 February 2003)
Final report of the external evaluation of England's National
Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education, University of Toronto, January 2003, reference
DfES 0101/2003
This final report summarises key findings from four years
of data collection. It also looks at what the strategies have
added to the knowledge base about large-scale reform and draws
out implications for future education policy. The evaluation
found that the strategies have led to major shifts in the
teaching of literacy and numeracy, resulting in an improved
range and balance of elements covered, an increased use of
whole class teaching, greater attention to the pace of lessons,
and planning based on learning objectives rather than activities.
There is "considerable evidence" that teaching has improved
substantially since the strategies were first introduced although
there is also considerable variation, suggesting that sustained
professional development activity will be required if these
improvements are to be sustained. It is more difficult to
draw conclusions about the effect on pupils' learning.
The researchers conclude that the high profile 2002 targets
"probably skewed efforts" towards achievement on tests rather
than effective learning; some headteachers and teachers interviewed
expressed doubt about whether increases in test scores represented
comparable increases in pupil learning. The researchers suggest
that although the strategies have got off to a good start,
the full benefits to teaching and learning have not yet been
realised. If the narrowing of the gap continues between pupils'
results in the most and least successful schools and LEAs,
it would be a significant measure of success.
Available free from DfES publications on 0845 60 222 60. The
executive summary is also available separately. See press
coverage below and an extract of its conclusions relating
to the community beyond the school.
High targets for 11-year-olds in maths and English are becoming
counter-productive and narrowing the curriculum, according
to the official report on the national literacy and numeracy
strategies. It said national targets may no longer motivate
teachers, particularly if they are seen to be unrealistic.
The researchers, led by Michael Fullan from the University
of Toronto, were brought in by the Department for Education
and Skills to evaluate the two strategies over three years.
Two-thirds of those consulted on the 2004 targets said they
were too high, but the Government has refused to lower its
goal of 85% of 11-year-olds reaching level 4 in English and
maths.
The report, Watching and Learning 3, calls for a shift
to "consolidation targets, aimed at maintaining standards,
and suggests more note should be taken of other types of progress
schools make.
The report concluded that the strategies have been generally
well-implemented and well-supported by schools. Teaching has
improved substantially since the strategies were introduced.
But it said the intended changes in teaching and learning
have not yet been fully realised. A key challenge will be
to motivate teachers whose knowledge is still weak to do more,
when they already feel overwhelmed by new initiatives.
The report's recommendations include:
- increasing the number of teachers who are strategy experts
- less central control and more ability for teachers to
adapt and refine practice
- reducing teachers' workload.
The report says the strategies are good value for money and
that the balance between national direction and local expertise
is a firm foundation for future progress.
Setting targets helped mobilise teachers early on, according
to the research. But by 2002 the high political stakes resting
on 11-year-old test scores was skewing teaching methods and
narrowing the curriculum.
"We caution that setting ever-higher national targets
may no longer serve to mobilise and motivate, particularly
if schools and local education authorities see the targets
as unrealistic."
The Government has already confirmed that the targets for
2006 will be the same as those for 2004: 85% of pupils to
achieve level 4, the expected grade for 11-year-olds, and
35% at level 5 in maths and English.
"Much has been accomplished and this should be celebrated.
At the same time a careful look at the progress of the strategies
reveals no shortage of challenges for the years ahead,"
said the report.
(TES, 24 January 2003)
The executive summary of Watching and Learning 3, the final
official evaluation by researchers from Toronto University
of the effectiveness of the national literacy and numeracy
strategies, includes a section on reaching out to the community
beyond the school. This section has been reproduced in full
below because the National Literacy Trust considers this aspect
to be crucial if progress is to be made and sustained. The
highlighting is ours.
Beyond the School
The government is well aware of the importance of involving
parents in efforts to improve pupil learning. At the beginning
of the Strategies, parallel programmes (the National Year
of Reading and Maths Year 2000) were launched to encourage
parents to help strengthen their children's literacy and mathematical
skills. Family literacy and numeracy programmes have been
funded as well to help parents improve their own skills. In
spite of these efforts, the potential contribution of parents
to their children's learning has not been realised. At the
school level, headteachers and teachers try to engage parents,
but with varying degrees of success. Schools in disadvantaged
communities report particular difficulties, perhaps related
to some parents' own ambivalence towards school, their lack
of conviction that education will improve their children's
lives, and the overwhelming pressures many families in these
communities face.
Pupil outcomes are shaped by many factors outside of the
school. In fact, the relationship between socio-economic status
and educational achievement is recognised as one of the most
stable relationships in educational research. As is appropriate,
the main focus through NLS and NNS has been on the school
- what schools can do to improve pupil learning through improved
teaching practice. To close the gap between high and low
performing children, however, may require more attention to
out-of-school influences on pupil attainment. If this is the
case, government efforts to strengthen connections between
education and other policy areas that support families and
communities will be crucial.
(Extract from the executive summary of Watching &
Learning 3 - Final Report of the External Evaluation of England's
National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, January 2003)
Ofsted, November 2002, reference HMI 555
Despite the failure to meet to Government's much-publicised
target of 80% of 11-year-olds reaching level 4 in English
by 2002, Ofsted concludes that the NLS has had a significant
impact on the standards and quality of teaching in primary
schools in its first four years. The rise in spelling test
results for both boys and girls in 2002 is attributed to a
marked shift in teachers' understanding of and attitudes towards
the role of phonics. However, inspectors note that teachers
still do not give enough emphasis to phonics during shared
reading in Reception and Year 1. In addition, teachers in
Years 3 and 4 still do not understand sufficiently the importance
of phonics in improving reading and spelling for these year
groups. Ofsted concludes that the government should undertake
a critical review of the NLS, paying particular attention
it its usefulness in improving literacy standards across the
curriculum. They should also review the guidance on the use
of phonics, particularly in Years 3 and 4.
Contact Ofsted publications on 07002 637833 or visit www.ofsted.gov.uk.
Press coverage of report - Ofsted
calls for review of literacy strategy (29.11.02)
Ofsted, December 2001, reference HMI 332
Ofsted reports mixed success in the strategy's impact on
standards in 2000-2001, with the proportion of pupils reaching
level 4 or above in English at key stage 2 unchanged since
last year, at 75%. The number reaching the expected levels
for writing rose three percentage points, to 58%, reflecting
a sharper focus on the teaching of writing. However, results
for reading fell one percentage point to 82%. While the gap
between reading and writing remains, improvements in writing
suggest the gap is beginning to narrow. Nevertheless, attainment
in writing is still too low and lags far behind that in reading.
At key stage 1, those reaching level 2 or above rose one percentage
point in reading and two percentage points in writing, to
84% and 86% respectively. An increase in spelling attainment
from 72% to 75% achieving level 2 or above was welcomed. Girls
continue to outperform boys at both key stages, particularly
in writing.
The quality of shared reading continues to be good at both
key stages and increasingly teachers are using the work on
shared texts to make the link between reading and writing.
More schools are removing guided reading from the literacy
hour to teach it at other times. The quality of shared and
guided writing has seen a steady improvement over the last
year. The Grammar for Writing training is beginning to have
a positive impact although the quality of independent work
has not improved and nor has the plenary.
There is little transfer of information about English teaching
between teachers at key stages 2 and 3. Many primary headteachers
and Year 6 teachers have no knowledge of what pupils might
encounter in English in Year 7. This has significant implications
for the continuity of pupils' learning as they move from primary
to secondary school.
Contact Ofsted on 020 7421 6800 or visit www.ofsted.gov.uk
RfA 6041
Second annual report of the evaluation of the implementation
of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, September 2001,
ISBN 1 84185 5537
In the second year of the evaluation the initial emphasis
on understanding the strategies at central level is expanded
to also include value for money and the view from schools.
One of the notable areas of success is the breadth of influence
on teaching and learning; the strategies have influenced virtually
all schools in England, moving literacy and numeracy to top
priority, and observance of the strategies and dedication
of time appears well established. However, the influence of
high profile national targets is also recognised and researchers
note some evidence of efforts being skewed in order to increase
one highly publicised score, at the expense of the rest of
the curriculum. One of the most striking features of the implementation
is the way elements of the strategy have been adapted in response
to feedback about progress and challenges, while maintaining
coherence within the strategies themselves and with other
policies. The report cautiously concludes that at this
stage the strategies appear to have provided good value for
money, making a significant impact in the classroom for a
relatively small level of additional expenditure. For long-term
effectiveness of the strategy various issues are raised, including
the depth of change required in teaching practice and the
need for successful evidence-based strategies, the use of
data and the need to more fully engage parents and families
in children's learning.
Available free from DfES Publication on 0845 60 222 60, reference
DfES 0617/2001.
Ofsted, November 2000
Ofsted reports that the National Literacy Strategy has brought
about a transformation in the teaching of reading, with a
very positive effect on standards achieved by both girls and
boys. However, the Strategy has had much less of an impact
on writing. The report states that attainment in writing remains
low and lags far behind attainment in reading. Results for
writing at key stage 2 improved by only 1%, whereas reading
results improved by 5%.
Boys do less well than girls in all aspects of English at
both key stages, the overall attainment of girls is now 9%
ahead that of boys. At key stage 1 the gap is particularly
marked; girls outperform boys at level 2 by 9%. The gap for
reading at key stage 2 narrowed to 6%, but is at 15 for writing
and more than half of all boys transfer to secondary education
having gained no more than level 3 in writing.
The report lists features of good practice for raising boys'
writing standards, drawn from discussion with effective schools
and local authorities. These are:
* The performance of boys and girls in all year groups is
monitored regularly and systematically.
* Teachers set clear targets for each unit of work and make
objectives for each lesson clear and attainable.
* There are resources which are of interest to boys as well
as girls.
* Boys are encouraged to draw on their interests out of school
as a source of material for writing.
* Good use is made of ICT, practical activities and investigation.
* Boys are encouraged to take risks, to "have a go" and (from
an LEA advice document) "use competitive instincts constructively."
Phonics is still not given enough attention. The report states
that the teaching of phonics is not always regular or systematic
and the coverage of phonic knowledge at key stage 1 is often
slow.
The report states that two modifications to the literacy
hour have been particularly effective. When teaching writing,
the more confident and successful teachers changed the structure
of the literacy hour so that word level teaching was taught
first, followed by text level work. Teachers could then draw
a direct link between text level work and the writing undertaken
by pupils in independent and group work. The second modification
involved the provision of extra time for independent and group
work for children to develop writing skills. The report recommends
that the National Literacy Strategy put more emphasis on the
teaching of writing in training and should ensure that training
includes guidance on how the literacy hour may be modified
to support further the teaching of writing.
The use of information and communication technology to support
the teaching of literacy remains limited and though many schools
realise its potential, few are clear on how to make the best
use of it.
Contact Ofsted Publications on 07002 637 833 or visit www.ofsted.gov.uk
- publications - to download a pdf copy
Ofsted, December 2000, reference HMI 238
This report is based on inspections of special schools that
"welcomed the national literacy strategy and were making a
positive attempt to implement it."
All pupils made at least sound progress in the development
of their literacy skills and almost all made good progress.
In several schools for pupils with emotional and behavioural
difficulties there were some pupils whose literacy skills
had improved significantly, for example, moving from level
1 to level 3 in less than two years.
Many schools found it difficult to purchase suitable resources
and so had to make their own. The report praised the high
level of teachers' preparation of resources and materials,
observing that some of the best lessons for pupils with severe
learning difficulties were enhanced by resources made by teachers
and teaching assistants. The report calls for publishers to
produce more books, tapes and material to meet their needs.
The report noted that an important aspect of the success
of the Strategy was from contributions from other professionals
such as speech and language therapists.
Phonics teaching and personal writing are areas that need
to improve and action needs to be taken to improve links with
parents. Few schools had established good working partnership
with parents to reinforce pupils' literacy skills and interests.
Further training is recommended for teachers and their assistants
to develop a greater insight into the earliest stages of literacy,
particularly for the support of pupils with speech and language
impairments.
Contact Ofsted on 07002 637 833 or visit www.ofsted.gov.uk.
Senior research associate Nancy Watson, University of Toronto
describes the approach taken to evaluating the UK national
literacy and numeracy strategies in September 2000 Literacy
Today: The Canadian challenge
The full report is available on the DfES standards site at
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk-
this is a direct link to the document. (If you have difficulty
- go to the standards site, then to publications within either
literacy or numeracy).
According to Michael Fullan and his research team from Toronto
University, the Government's £800 million strategy for
improving literacy and numeracy in primary schools is beginning
to show results, but the gains could be just due to more time
being spent on the 3Rs.
According to the Canadian research team, the reforms are
probably the most ambitious attempt in the world to raise
school standards by direct government intervention.
The team's report, Watching and Learning, says there
is not yet evidence that such practices can be counted on
to produce gains in literacy and numeracy and there could
be an impact on other subjects. According to Professor Fullan,
further gains are liable to be restricted by teachers' abilities
thus more money should be invested in training teachers.
The team's major criticism of the literacy hour is that it
fails to do enough to develop higher order thinking and deep
understanding. To do that, teachers need to develop children's
vocabulary and background knowledge, making sure that the
children in each class understand and remember what they have
been taught.
Results have gone up over four years from 49% of 11-year-olds
reaching the expected level to 70%. The report suggests the
improvements are probably the result of the strategy, the
priority given by schools to literacy and numeracy, and the
sanctions that are triggered by low scores.
The team produced the report from analyses of data and interviews
with project leaders and consultants. During the next 10 months,
researchers will carry out case studies of schools.
(TES, 7 July 2000)
This report draws on evidence from HMI inspectors and concludes
that the National Literacy Strategy is being implemented in
almost all classes in almost all English primary schools.
The report, however, points out that the Strategy has so far
been much more successful with the teaching of reading than
with writing, and there is still much improvement required
in the teaching of phonics.
The National Literacy Strategy; an evaluation of the first
year, Ofsted, December 1999, Ref: HMI 216 contact Ofsted
on 07002 637 833.
The National Literacy Strategy: an interim report,
published in June 1999
contact Ofsted on 07002 637 833.
In the spring term of 1999, HMI inspected the teaching of
literacy in 138 primary schools, evenly divided between those
in receipt of intensive support and those categorised as 'light
touch' or 'non-intensive' schools. Half of the 276 full literacy
hours observed were in Years 3 and 4.
Commentary and recommendations
- There are encouraging signs of improvement which indicate
that the strategy is beginning to make a positive impact
on teaching and learning. The increasing evidence of phonics
teaching at Key Stage 1, including reception classes, is
particularly encouraging. Less encouraging is the drift
away from the teaching of phonics as pupils move through
years 3 and 4.
- The balance between reading and writing is not yet right;
too many teachers appear to regard the NLS principally as
a strategy for the teaching of reading, to the relative
neglect of the direct teaching of writing. This has important
implications for the literacy target for 2002, since current
English test results are pulled down by the relatively weak
performance of eleven year olds (particularly boys) in writing.
- The great majority of teachers have adapted the teaching
of the hour as set out in the Framework. There is, however,
a anger that over complicated carousel arrangements in the
third part of the hour are preventing teachers from ensuring
that all of the tasks intended for independent work have
been worthwhile literacy objectives.
- There are encouraging signs of improvements in the management
and leadership of the implementation of the strategy by
headteachers. There is a strong correlation between the
quality of the leadership of the headteacher and the quality
of the teaching of literacy. More headteachers are observing
and evaluating the teaching of the literacy hour. However,
both headteachers and advisers need more training in how
to observe and provide detailed constructive feedback to
teachers.
- We can also take encouragement from the 80% of lessons
where the teaching was at least satisfactory at this early
stage of the strategy, but a greater proportion of the teaching
will need to be good if the ambitious target for 2002 is
to be achieved. The teaching is currently good in one half
of the lessons in the non-intensive schools, but good in
only two-fifths of the intensive schools in the sample.
At this early stage in the implementation of the strategy,
greater attention now needs to be given to:
- Improving the effectiveness of the headteacher in leading
and managing the strategy;
- Providing further training in their teaching of word-level
work;
- Improving the subject knowledge of teachers other than
literacy co-ordinators;
- Giving greater emphasis to the teaching of writing
- Ensuring that the fundamental principles of the strategy
are communicated through the 'cascade' model
Department for Education and Employment, February 1999, reference
NLSRR
The introduction of the literacy hour and the National Literacy
Strategy is underpinned by the evaluation of the National
Literacy Project, which provides evidence of how literacy
standards can be improved. This DfES report looks at some of
the likely demands that the National Literacy Strategy will
make on teaching skills and school management.
Download the report from www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/literacy/63541/.
| |
80px.gif)
