|
Evaluation of the National
Literacy Strategy
| Academic
findings and recommendations
|
Press
reports
|
Less progress in writing
Writing has not shown the same improvement as reading according
to national evaluations. Researchers have found that there
is a link between children's performance, the ways writing
is assessed and the methods teachers use to interpret the
writing component of the NLS. In schools where reading scores
are high, children who make less progress in writing may not
get the support they need. (2000a) "Where teachers made full
use of shared and guided session to model and scaffold children's
writing development, children's writing showed good progress."
(2000b)
Recommendations (2000b)
- use a wide range of texts
- use challenging texts
- use open-ended and challenging questioning
- develop a good relationship with the class
- plan and teach to objectives
- encourage purposeful and contextualised use of metalanguage
(comma, adjective) among the students
- be aware of pace
- establish regular routines and well-rehearsed organisational
strategies
- use explicit teaching (provide modelled and guided
writing activities, scaffolded activities at all stages
of the writing process such as brainstorming and planning
in shared work and in independent and guided work)
References
Ros Fisher, Maureen Lewis and Bernie Davis (2000a) "Progress
and performance in National Literacy Strategy classrooms," Journal
of Research in Reading, vol. 23, no. 3.
Ros Fisher, Maureen Lewis and Bernie Davis (2000b) "The implementation
of the literacy hour in small rural schools," Topic,
issue 24.
Overviews of research on writing
Even though there have been signs that the NLS is raising standards,
Rhona Stainthorp from the University of London has argued that
it is too soon to draw firm conclusions on the long term benefits
of the NLS, particularly as children's individual differences
are not sufficiently looked after in the NLS. She argues that
unlike Reading Recovery, the Strategy's interventions for poor
readers, namely the Additional Literacy Support programme and
the KS1 Intervention programme, do not use highly trained teachers
but assistants. The NLS has not yet solved the problem of catering
for the needs of dyslexic children who have difficulty with
letter-sound correspondence and basic word reading, a problem
that affects writing at KS2. Precocious readers may also become
bored with whole class phonics, indicating the need for a diagnostic
assessment for determining a more challenging programme of study.
Recommendation
The NLS should employ teaches skilled in the assessment and
diagnosis of reading and writing performance and in the application
of research practice.
Reference
Rhona Stainthorp (2000) " The National Literacy Strategy and
individual differences," Journal of Research in Reading,
vol. 23, no.3.
According to researchers from the University of Newcastle, whole
class teaching has not encouraged opportunities for pupils to
question or explore ideas to help them regulate their own thinking.
The researchers have identified the problem of teachers adapting
to the new curriculum without changing their old teaching styles
or patterns of interaction with the children. Consequently,
many of the innovations of the NLS are not implemented and as
a result, children are not developing their thinking skills.
They suggest that this has significant implications when research
has suggested that pupils develop their cognitive framework
when they are given opportunities to talk about their understanding
in their own ways, and therefore increasing their knowledge
and understanding of what they are taught.
Recommendation
Teachers acknowledge what their pupils have to say. Teacher
questions during the literacy hour should include "telling,
suggesting, negotiating and listening" which "are designed to
free pupils to give their own views, to reveal their knowledge
and areas of uncertainty and to seek information and explanation
through questions of their own."
Reference
Maria Mroz, Fay Smith, Frank Hardman (2000)" The discourse
of the literacy hour," Cambridge Journal of Education,
vol. 30, no. 3.
Sue Beverton, School of Education, University of Durham,
has found that teachers are implementing the NLS in different
ways and this has implications for the ways in which the strategy
is assessed.
- Organisation of the curriculum: "Implementing
the Framework for the NLS is having a major impact upon
how infant, junior and primary schools organise their curricula.
Discrete subject teaching is now predominant for literacy,
becoming prominent for numeracy and may well spread further."
- Impact on English programmes: "The wider teaching
of English, following the current Programmes of Study, may
be in some jeopardy. English as a subject may be narrowing.
The stress in the Framework upon reading and writing is
threatening the breadth and depth of the subject."
- Impact on skills: "The emphasis upon reading and
writing skill development is similarly raising concerns.
Are pupils applying those skills to real contexts and problems?
Or is the style of learning fostered by the Literacy Hour
helping to create dependency upon the teacher?"
Reference
Sue Beverton (2000) "Implementing the National Litearcy Strategy:
How are teachers managing?", Topic, Issue 23.
The following quotation from Andrew Goodwyn and Kate Findlay's
research from the University of Reading on the impact of the
literacy hour sums up what they refer to as "phase-related
role reversal":
"It has broken the implicit belief that primary and secondary
schools are often different planets in an age when interplanetary
travel for teachers themselves is just possible but not really
desirable. Even more iconoclastically, secondary schools certainly
saw themselves in the past as a very important planet around
which smaller moons called primary schools, orbited and annually
received parties of young aliens who had to be taught the
ways of the real world by the real expert teachers. Our research
shows very clearly that these big secondary planets are in
a state of considerable shock. They find the young aliens
alarmingly knowledgeable and their teachers challengingly
expert. As a result, secondary teachers are discovering how
to travel and are returning mightily impressed and not a little
daunted at the task they face. So the NLS is fostering meaningful
exchanges between primary and secondaries with the genuinely
different element in the 'upward' flow of expertise, hence
our term 'role reversal'."
Shaping literacy in the secondary school: policy, practice
and agency, Andrew Goodwyn and Kate Findlay, University
of Reading.
Press Reports
Children on a 12-week booster programme for literacy progressed
faster than their classmates, research from Leeds University
has found.
The study of 1,200 pupils involved in the Further Literacy
Support programme from the National Literacy Strategy found
half of children taking part progressed one curriculum level
during Year 5 - twice as fast as expected. Only 35% of pupils
not on the programme progressed this fast.
The support programme is aimed at 10-year-olds who are predicted
to just miss the expected level 4 in the national tests. In
addition to the usual literacy hour, pupils spend three 20-minute
sessions a week working in groups of up to six with a teaching
assistant.
Dr Roger Beard, co-director of the research, said that as
pupils on the programme were already lagging behind their
classmates, the extra progress they made meant they were merely
catching up rather than outperforming their peers.
But the study found that the extra ground that pupils made
up on the 12-week course was still evident at the end of the
year. Pupils did not slip back once the course ended.
Further work is being done this year to find out whether
pupils who took the course go on to achieve level 4 at the
end of Year 6.
(TES, 13 February 2004)
Academics have estimated that children who benefit from the
National Literacy Strategy, which costs £25 per pupil,
could earn an extra £5,500 over their lifetime. A report
from the Centre of Economic Performance at the London School
of Economics evaluated the effect of the National Literacy
Project (NLP), the precursor to the strategy.
Professor Stephen Machin, director of the centre, and Dr
Sandra McNally, research officer, compared literacy scores
in primary schools with NLP with those in schools where the
programme had not been introduced. They found the percentage
of pupils gaining the expected level 4 in their Year 6 English
test increased by 12.2 points between 1996 and 1998 compared
to an increase of 8.8 points in non-NLP schools. They also
compared the GCSE results of pupils who had been a part of
the scheme with those who had not, and found a similar pattern.
The researchers say: "The results of our analysis strongly
corroborate the view that the literacy hour under the NLP
significantly raised pupil performance in the primary schools
that were exposed to it."
By looking at how reading scores affect future earnings,
it was estimated how much more pupils could earn as a result
of having better literacy skills. It concludes: "Whichever
way one looks at it, the benefits of the literacy hour seem
to be large and the costs small."
(TES, 13 February 2004)
National test results apparently showing a transformation
in 11-year-olds' English achievements from 1996 to 2000 came
about largely because the standard of the reading test fell,
official research has revealed. A three-year study, finally
released this week by the test regulator after the TES disclosed
it had remained unpublished for nearly two years, reveals
that gains in reading were to some extent "illusory".
The research, commissioned by the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority, found that the pass mark for key stage 2 English
was set five marks too low in both 1999 and 2000.
If it had been set as the study indicates it should have
been, the proportion of pupils performing to expected levels
would have fallen by ten percentage points. And Labour would
not have been able to claim such startling improvements in
primary English at the last election. Official figures showed
the proportion of children achieving expected levels rising
from 57% in 1996 to 75% in 2000. The correct 2000 figure should
have been 65%. The study also found that published results
for KS1 English and maths, KS2 maths and KS3 English and science
were reliable, but that KS3 maths pass marks may have been
too low.
The investigation involved pupils in Northern Ireland sitting
KS1, 2 and 3 tests in 1996 and then compared the results to
those of similar ability groupings of pupils taking 1999,
2000 and 2001 tests. In KS2 English, a first experiment saw
420 pupils taking the 1996 test scoring four marks higher,
on average, than 424 taking the 1999 test. A second experiment
saw a further 495 pupils taking the 1996 test averaging three
marks more than those sitting the 2000 version.
This suggests that the 1996 tests were easier. But the QCA
over-compensated in setting much lower-level thresholds or
pass marks for the tests, the research says. It lowered the
threshold for level 4 by 9 marks between 1996 and 1999, and
8 marks between 1996 and 2000. As a result, in the first experiment,
75% of the Northern Ireland pupils taking the 1999 tests achieved
the level 4 threshold, compared to only 65% among those taking
the 1996 test. In the second experiment, 67% of pupils taking
the 2000 test gained level 4 or above, compared to 65% taking
the 1996 version. Separate analyses of test results in six
English local authorities, and interviews with a group of
10 teachers, supported the findings. Ministers have highlighted
improving results in reading, apparently revealed by national
test figures, as a reason for focusing on improving pupils'
writing skills.
But the study said that most of the "disparity of standards"
between the 1996 test and later version came because the reading
pass marks had been set too low. The 245-page research report
raises questions about whether making tests more user-friendly
or "accessible" for pupils has affected levels of
difficulty. But it found no evidence that ministers had deliberately
made the tests easier.
(TES, 19 December 2003)
Research that casts doubt on improvements in national test
results has remained unpublished by the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority for nearly two years, according to the
Times Educational Supplement. The research suggests that scores
have risen partly because some tests have become easier. Failure
to publish it has raised concerns about the QCA's independence
from ministers.
The TES understands that the report - based on the biggest
study of its kind carried out on the key stage 2 tests - suggests
that pupil progress in some subjects is not as great as that
shown in official results.
The research (conducted by Alf Massey - an assessment expert
from the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate)
looked at 11,000 pupils, and tried to establish an independent
view as to whether tests became harder or easier between 1996
and 2001. The results suggest that in some subjects they became
easier.
Mr Massey would not reveal the details of the findings. But
he said: "The research does demonstrate that there were
genuine improvements in performance in schools across this
period. The big question is whether or not the improvements
that we were able to detect were as big as, or smaller than,
the changes in results in the national test levels."
However, there is no suggestion that the Government deliberately
made any test easier. Some got harder, the research found,
and there is evidence of genuine improvement over the period.
The research is expected to be published by the end of 2003.
(TES, 17 October 2003)
Figures from Durham University suggest that although 11-year-olds'
maths standards have improved substantially since 1977, their
reading and knowledge of vocabulary have not, despite a big
leap in national test scores.
The figures from Durham's Curriculum, Evaluation and Management
Centre represent the first large-scale attempt to subject
key-stage 2 test results to independent confirmation.
The findings, based on tests given to 5,000 Year 6 children
in 120 schools every year since 1997, question the credibility
of national test results. Unlike the national tests, the Durham
tests are the same every year. The schools do no preparation
for these tests, children do not see practice papers and results
are not published. They do not cover everything in the English
tests - having no spelling or writing component - but they
do include vocabulary knowledge and reading tests.
National test results suggest that English standards have
surged - 74% of 11-year-olds reached level 4 last year compared
with 48% in 1995. But the Durham tests found no such rise.
The Department for Education and Skills said national tests
were a reliable measure. An inquiry into charges that the
Year 6 pass mark was lowered in 1999 to help the Government
reach literacy targets for 2002 found no evidence of political
interference. A DfES spokesman said: "It is not clear that
the Durham tests are measuring the same thing, therefore it
is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the comparison."
(TES, 10 May 2002)
Researchers say the literacy hour's focus on getting children
to read is hampering their ability to speak and think. Research
from academics from the universities of Cambridge, Durham
and Leicester shows that just one in 10 of the spoken contributions
that children make during the national literacy hour is longer
than three words - only 5% are longer than five words.
Linda Hargreaves of Cambridge University said the literacy
strategy did not encourage high-quality oral work and extensive
contributions. Infant teachers are also posing fewer challenging
questions - which might develop higher-order thinking - and
limiting the length and breadth of class discussions because
they are anxious to "cover the ground".
"In an educational climate dominated by monitoring, inspection
and test results, teaching for understanding was regarded
as an optional extra, permissible once the learning objectives
had been met," the researchers said.
Ironically, the development of oral ability and thinking
skills are two of the strategy's main objectives for primary
pupils.
The researchers found that infant teachers mostly pose questions
testing factual recall during the literacy hour. Yet the same
teachers ask more demanding questions in other areas of the
curriculum, which key stage 1 pupils are perfectly capable
of answering.
A paper in the Cambridge Journal of Education reported that
uninterrupted "interactions" of more than 25 seconds between
teachers and one child or small groups had declined dramatically
since the introduction of the literacy hour.
In 1996 these dialogues made up around a quarter of the communication
between pupils and teachers during KS2 lessons. But during
the literacy hour this type of communication has dwindled
to only 5% at KS2 and 2% at KS1.
Class size also affects the quality of communication. In
classes of fewer than 19 children, the researchers found that
the incidence of sustained discussion between teacher and
pupils more than quadrupled.
A Department for Education and Skills spokesperson said that
the research was based on evidence gathered more than two
years ago. The National Literacy Strategy is currently working
on material highlighting the importance of extending dialogue
to promote effective talk.
Pedagogical Dilemmas in the National Literacy Strategy: primary
teachers' perceptions, reflections and classroom behaviour,
by Eve English, University of Durham, Linda Hargreaves, University
of Cambridge, Jane Hislam, University of Leicester. Cambridge
Journal of Education, vol. 32, no. 1, 2002.
How do elementary school teachers define and implement interactive
teaching in the national literacy hour in England? By Linda
Hargreaves and Janet Moyles, Anglia Polytechnic University,
Roger Merry, University of Leicester, AS Fred Paterson, National
College for School Leadership, Nottingham, and Veronica Esarte-Sarries,
University of Durham. Presented at the American Educational
Research Association conference 2002, New Orleans.
(TES, 3 May 2002)
Primary teachers are working ore hours and pupils are taught
for longer but the arts are still being squeezed out and one-to-one
time with children is rare, research reveals
A new study which compares the life of primary teachers over
three decades has found testing, targets and league tables
have overloaded teachers and left schools struggling to cram
in the curriculum.
The study found that in some primary schools only 30 minutes
a week were spent on music and in some art was dropped in
Year 6. Since 1997, the year that the literacy strategy was
introduced, the allocation for science and technology had
declined from three to five hours.
Subjects were squeezed out despite an increase in teaching
time. In the early 90s around four hours a week were spent
on assembly, registration and moving to lessons but this had
been cut to two hours in 2001.
Schools began earlier, lunch times were shorter and afternoon
breaks had been axed.
The study, by Professors Maurice Galton and John McBeath,
commissioned by the National Union of Teachers, also found
that classroom style had changed substantially. Pressure on
time meant teachers were 50 per cent less likely to have chats
with individual children. Very little one-to-one immediate
feedback took place. Teachers did not have the tine to go
through a piece of work or hear children read. Marking was
mostly done away from children.
The typical teacher worked five hours at the weekend compared
with three hours in the 1970s.
(TES, 5 July 2002)
|
80px.gif)
