Eng/Aus/USA: Greg Ashman, and others, respond to latest RR research announced in England

News articles, interviews, research, events and lots more - ready for your comments.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Eng/Aus/USA: Greg Ashman, and others, respond to latest RR research announced in England

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:48 pm

As I write, there is international outrage and incredulity being expressed via Twitter about the publication of yet another study of the Reading Recovery intervention programme - this time in England, claiming the long term effect of RR is better GCSE outcomes. I confess I am one of those people vociferously expressing my dismay.

Thank goodness for well-respected science teacher-blogger, Greg Ashman, who has immediately added to the debate with another of his many measured posts:

Another flawed Reading Recovery study to add to the pack


https://gregashman.wordpress.com/2018/1 ... -the-pack/

Do read Greg's post in full - it is not long. He concludes:

In short, this new study demonstrates nothing much, even if we are inclined to believe that Reading Recovery has some effect.

The reason it is necessary to critique studies of this kind is that there are so many of them. As they pile up, commentators make statements to the effect that no other reading intervention has generated such a wealth of positive evidence and the individual studies get buried behind Hattie- or Education Endowment Foundation-style ‘effect sizes’ that teachers and school leaders take as evidence of effectiveness.

But it is not evidence. It is a house of cards.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng/Aus/USA: Greg Ashman, and others, respond to latest RR research announced in England

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:51 pm

Tom Burkhard provides a 'comment' to Greg's post:

KPMG have form. In February 2009 Policy Exchange published our report on Every Child A Reader, the main vehicle for funding Reading Recovery in England under New Labour. We reported that KPMG’s analysis claimed that

“…by the age of 37, each illiterate pupil will have cost the taxpayer an additional £42,000. However, these savings are hypothetical—and the costs are not. KPMG’s report is strikingly at odds with an earlier American study which estimated that Reading Recovery returned thirty cents on the dollar, at best.”

The report took into consideration the cost of obesity to the taxpayer, yet of course there was no evidence whatever that RR kept children from getting fat. A similar howler was their claim that the programme cost ‘only’ £2,400 per child. This was just the cost to the school, and it ignored both the massive cost of supporting and training RR teachers and the fact that one in five RR pupils were ‘referred on’ for additional support. We found that the true cost was £6,000 for each ‘successful’ intervention, and of course there was no objective criteria to say just what consituted a ‘successful’ intervention.

One of the little ironies here is that Nick Gibb worked for KPMG before entering politics, yet once he became Schools Minister, ECAR was cancelled. Politcally, it was an easy decision: the schools we talked to were only too aware of what they could do with the money that was squandered on RR.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng/Aus/USA: Greg Ashman, and others, respond to latest RR research announced in England

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:53 pm

I'm adding further links to the topic of research on Reading Recovery:

The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know

Pamela Cook
Deborah R. Rodes
Kay L. Lipsitz


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=861
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng/Aus/USA: Greg Ashman, and others, respond to latest RR research announced in England

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:09 pm

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1054

Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues

James W. Chapman William E. Tunmer

First published: 10 July 2018
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng/Aus/USA: Greg Ashman, and others, respond to latest RR research announced in England

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:34 pm

People need to know what it looks like to give beginners and strugglers books to read independently that they cannot read without word-guessing - the multi-cueing word-guessing promoted through Reading Recovery and the levelled books. See Alison Clarke's detailed analysis of Stephan's experience:

This is a BORING book!


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1135

What does it do to Stephan's self esteem when being asked by his teacher to read a book that he cannot read. He is faced with being a 'non reader' and then he finds a way to deflect from this be saying what a 'boring book' he's been asked to read.

This is cruel - and bears no resemblance to teaching through the 'systematic synthetic phonics teaching principles' which includes providing beginners and strugglers with words and texts to read that they CAN read because we've equipped them with the alphabetic code knowledge and all-through-the-word blending skill to lift the words off the page without resorting to, or telling the child to, guess.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng/Aus/USA: Greg Ashman, and others, respond to latest RR research announced in England

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:57 am

Belinda Dekker writes about her daughter's personal experience and consequences of the Reading Recovery intervention:

The problem(s) with Reading Recovery


https://dekkerdyslexia.wordpress.com/20 ... -recovery/

Recovering from Reading Recovery

I read about the new Reading Recovery research with great skepticism. I have learnt a great deal in the last 5 years since my daughter struggled to learn to read. I have read literacy research until I wore my eyes out and gone to numerous professional developments. Most of all I have learnt from my daughter’s amazing specialist literacy tutor. I have’t been to one professional development where the strategies being taught were ones already being used by our tutor. She was our saviour when Reading Recovery failed spectacularly.


Read about Belinda Dekker:

Dekker Delves into Dyslexia

Advocate for the introduction of the phonics check in Australia. Advocate for the teaching of evidence based literacy instruction for every child in every school. The explicit and systematic teaching of Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary and Comprehension. Advocate for Dyslexia Awareness I support reputable organisations such as the Australian Dyslexia Association (ADA), Learning Difficulties Australia (LDA), the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), the FIVE from FIVE Project, and the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction (IFERI) AUSPELD and State-based SPELD organisations, as they all recommend the use of EVIDENCE-BASED TREATMENTS/PROGRAMS for learning difficulties. Mum to 2 delightful, amazing and creative kids. Mum to a kid with Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, Dyscalculia and anxiety. Admin of Dyslexia Support Australia Group, Dyslexia Awareness Australia and Dyscalculia Awareness Australia. Board of Directors SPELD NSW 10 Years a High School Teacher All my opinions are based not only on experience as a teacher, a mum and an administrator of Australia’s largest Dyslexia Support group but on research. I believe in the scientific method and the need for education to meet the same rigorous evidence based standards as the medical profession.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng/Aus/USA: Greg Ashman, and others, respond to latest RR research announced in England

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:38 pm

Maggie Downie, committee member of the UK Reading Reform Foundation, reviews Marie Clay's manual for training teachers in the Reading Recovery methodology:

http://rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2774

This review was undertaken some time ago, but is there any evidence to show that Marie Clay's guidance has been changed subsequently?

In England's context, arguably mandated systematic synthetic phonics provision for infants in the current National Curriculum will skew the results for any Reading Recovery intervention anyway. In other words, children should at least be getting systematic synthetic phonics provision in any mainstream classroom teaching even if the RR teacher focuses on phonics teaching incidentally - or badly.

The trouble is that the sequence of RR books means that children are asked to read books independently with alphabetic code in that they have not necessarily been taught. Systematic synthetic phonics proponents point at the need to give children cumulative, decodable reading books to practise their independent reading - not books that force or cause children to guess words they cannot recognise. And genuine SSP teachers would not teach or encourage beginners or strugglers to guess unknown words from the picture, context, initial letters or simply 'what would make sense'.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng/Aus/USA: Greg Ashman, and others, respond to latest RR research announced in England

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:15 pm

This is an important post to read via The Wrightslaw Way' as it is typical of the experiences of so many children subjected to whole language, multi-cueing word-guessing that is the underpinning rationale of Reading Recovery.

How many more years, and how many more children will suffer, before Reading Recovery is understood as being totally discredited in so many different ways including its methodology, it's effect on struggling readers, and the suspect findings/statistics of RR studies?


https://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/needles ... -recovery/

Needless to Say, “I Have No Use for Reading Recovery”

Posted on 07/08/2010

by Pete Wright
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Eng/Aus/USA: Greg Ashman, and others, respond to latest RR research announced in England

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:57 am

I'm cross-referencing this thread with one I've started on the 'General Forum' featuring harm to children by the way they've been taught to read:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1165

Return to “Around the World: News and Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests