Evidence Check 1: Early Literacy Interventions - Science and Technology Committee Contents

Memorandum submitted by the Every Child a Chance Trust (LI 14)

  Response to evidence check on the Government's policy on literacy interventions for school children with reading difficulties and the evidence base for the Every Child a Reader programme


1.1  This submission is from the Every Child a Chance Trust, a charity which aims to

  unlock the educational potential of socially disadvantaged children through the development and promotion of evidence based, early intervention programmes. The charity was initiated by the KPMG Foundation and is funded by a coalition of business partners and charitable trusts. It is a successor body to the KPMG-led coalition that set up the Every Child a Reader 2005-08 pilot initiative to tackle the problem of a static 6% of children (35,000 a year) entering secondary school without even the most basic skills in reading and writing (below National Curriculum Level 3—that is, with literacy skills at or below the level of the average seven year old).

  1.2  Every Child a Reader provides one-to-one literacy intervention to six year old children. Its purpose is to ensure that every child achieves age related expectations at the end of Key Stage 1, when they are seven. It funds schools to employ and train specialist teachers who deliver daily one-to-one teaching for the children with the most severe difficulties, and provide training, coaching and support to other adults (usually teaching assistants) who deliver lighter-touch interventions for children with less severe needs.

  1.3  In 2008 the Trust handed over the delivery of Every Child a Reader in its entirety to government, for roll out through the National Strategies. The Trust retains a residual involvement, which includes an independent monitoring function of the national roll-out and work to enlist local business support for primary schools involved.


  2.1  Every Child a Reader was set up in 2005 as a result of two year's investigation into literacy interventions by the KPMG Foundation. The Foundation met with dyslexia experts and experts in the government's National Strategies, and consulted Professor Greg Brooks' authoritative review of the field. As a result, they concluded that the internationally used Reading Recovery intervention should be at the heart of the Every Child a Reader programme.

  2.2  Reading Recovery was not selected because it was the only effective literacy intervention. In a research review commissioned by the then DfES in 2002[1] Greg Brooks had identified 19 interventions with an evidence base of success in the UK. Reading Recovery was selected, however, because it was the only one of these schemes identified that could reliably meet the aims of the programme—to tackle the needs of the lowest-achieving 6% of children and bring them back quickly to the level of their peers early in their school careers.

  2.3  The rationale for the choice was that:

    — Reading Recovery achieved higher rates of gain than any other programme aimed at non-readers—four times the "normal" rate of gain;

    — it had been shown to be particularly effective long-term for children who live in poverty. The Reading Recovery 2004-05 national evaluation had shown that 40 % of children on the Reading Recovery programme were eligible for free school meals compared to the national figure of 18%).Yet 84% achieved average literacy levels for their age as a result of the programme;

    — evidence from international research suggested that other "cheaper" forms of early intervention using teaching assistants and volunteers, or group rather than one-to-one work, were not successful with the lowest-attaining children;

    — Reading Recovery was the only intervention for which there was convincing evidence of impact that was sustained over a number of years, Much research has demonstrated that the effects of literacy interventions that produce strong initial gains tend to "wash out" over time. Most of the interventions reported on by Greg Brooks evaluated impact before and after an intervention; many followed up children's progress after six months to a year. Only Reading Recovery and Family Literacy had followed up children's progress over a number of years. A long-term study by the Institute of Education followed up over 600 children who had received Reading Recovery in England in 1997 or 1998. Four to five years later, 51% reached Level 4+ in reading in their end of Key Stage 2 tests compared to 82% of all children. Without Reading Recovery, their chances of achieving Level 4+ would have been almost nil;

    — Reading Recovery was based on early intervention, which is more cost effective than intervening when children are older and difficulties are more entrenched, and

    — it had the potential to impact on overall literacy standards across the school, providing cost benefits that would be greater than those assessed per child directly supported. Most reading intervention programmes do not aim to impact on children other than those directly supported. Reading Recovery does; it emphasises the benefits of having a highly trained literacy expert in the staff and encourages schools to exploit this fully so as to impact on standards across the school. This means it provides cost benefits that extend well beyond the eight to 10 children directly taught each year.

  2.4  Importantly, Reading Recovery was selected because it had an infrastructure of training and quality assurance capable of being progressively scaled up whilst also securing what is called "fidelity to the programme". Scaling up was possible because of the presence of a national team of trainers who could train local authority "Teacher Leaders", who in their turn would train teachers in schools Fidelity means that those delivering an intervention continue to deliver it in the same way, to the same standard, however long it is since they had their initial training. Research has shown that this is a key issue in any form of intervention—over time, there is less fidelity and more variability in impact. Reading Recovery has a high degree of fidelity because, once trained, Reading Recovery teachers must attend ongoing training year on year and be observed by the Teacher Leaders in order to retain their accreditation. Teacher Leaders similarly have to attend ongoing training and be observed training teachers in order to retain their place in the programme.


  3.1  Research was examined on schemes which might provide the same impact as Reading Recovery at lower cost. It showed that whilst alternatives such as teaching in groups rather than one to one, and support from teaching assistants rather than trained teachers, can be effective for children with less severe difficulties, they do not work for the lowest attaining children.

  3.2  A number of studies had documented the greater impact of one to one teaching when compared to group instruction. Pinnell and her colleagues,[2] for example, compared the effects of one to one teaching with partially trained teachers, group teaching with fully trained Reading Recovery teachers and a control group. Pupils in the "Reading Recovery as designed"' group significantly out-performed other groups on all measures. Children in the "group teaching" model made progress, but not sufficient to catch up to the average, and the progress was not so well sustained at later follow up.

  3.3  A large-scale, high-profile $9.6 million study in the US[3] provided intensive help in groups for third and fifth graders who were struggling to learn to read (80 hours of help, one teacher to three students, using structured phonic programmes). The study found that the help improved skills for eight year olds but was less effective for 10 year olds. The interventions were also very much less successful with low-income children. And even where there was improvement, the children did not catch up with strong readers, who were continuing to advance.

  3.4  These findings contrasted with those for Reading Recovery, where annual data reports had consistently demonstrated that an average of 37 hours of one-to-one teaching enabled 84% of UK six year olds to catch up completely with their peers.

  3.5  Research was also examined which documented the failure of traditional small group remedial instruction to close the gap for children from poor and minority group backgrounds.[4] Bob Slavin, for example, found that pupils who are already doing well do not benefit substantially from one to one tuition, but that for those who are seriously struggling it can be essential. He examined the effectiveness of five one to one literacy tutoring programmes used in the US, including Reading Recovery, across sixteen separate cohorts Comparing the cost of one to one tutoring with class size reduction and the cost of an additional teaching assistant in each classroom, he found that tutoring was more cost effective.[5]

  3.6  Comparing the use of a trained teacher as opposed to a teaching assistant or trained volunteer, the research reviewed pointed to differential effects according to the degree of literacy difficulty that an intervention has to tackle. Greg Brooks, for example, reviewed the Better Reading Partnership intervention, in which volunteers or teaching assistants work one to one with children for ten weeks. He concludes that the programme led to "gains in all year groups as long as the children had started reading; it is not successful with non-readers".

  3.7  Hatcher[6] evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention implemented on a daily basis by a trained teaching assistant, who alternated between small group and one-to-one teaching. The programme was targeted at children showing reading delays at the end of their first year at school. It was successful for the majority of children, but not for all: between a quarter and a third of children showed a decline in reading standard scores over the period of the intervention. Those with severe reading problems at the beginning of the study and children in receipt of free school meals had the poorest response to the programme.

  3.8  The conclusions drawn from this research were that the most efficient and cost-effective approach in Every Child a Reader would be a "layered" one in which highly trained teachers worked with the hardest-to-teach children, but teaching assistants worked one-to-one with children in the next layer of need, and with groups with those children who are just below the level of their peers.

  3.9  There was also evidence that teaching-assistant-led interventions were more effective when the assistant is supported in school by a literacy expert. Cartwright,[7] for example, compared outcomes on the teaching assistant-led Fischer Family Trust Wave 3 intervention programme for two groups of children: those where the work of the assistant was supported and supervised by a trained Reading Recovery teacher, and those whose work was supported and supervised by their school's special educational needs co-ordinator. 68% of the children in the first group succeeded in doubling their normal rate of progress, compared to only 26% in the second group. Similar results are reported by Canning.[8]

  3.10  Every Child a Reader was designed on the basis of these findings, with Reading Recovery for the very lowest achieving 5% nationally, and other less intensive interventions for the next lowest 15% delivered by teaching assistants and volunteers supported by the school's Reading Recovery teacher.


  4.1  Once designed, the programme was piloted in 2005-06 in 500 schools and the impact evaluated through Reading Recovery's routine system for gathering pre and post test measures on all children involved (with post-tests always carried out by a teacher who has not taught the child), and through research commissioned from the Institute of Education in which outcomes for Year 1 children in 21 schools with Reading Recovery were compared with those for children in 21 matched comparison schools without the programme.

  4.2  In the context of the CSR review for the 2008-11 financial cycle, the business and charitable partners involved in Every Child a Reader provided information to government in the autumn of 2006 on the impact of the first year of the programme, and the case for extending it more widely from 2008. This submission is tabled here as Appendix 1.[9]


  5.1  The Institute of Education evaluation[10] found that in the year of the main study (2005-06), those children who received Reading Recovery in school Year 1 achieved significant gains in all assessments compared with those who did not. At the end of the year the literacy achievement of children who had received Reading Recovery was in line with their chronological age. The matched comparison group in schools without Reading Recovery (but using a range of other small group and one to one interventions) was 14 months behind their chronological age.

  5.2  In July 2007 the literacy achievement was again compared of those same children remaining in the same 42 schools. The phonic and word reading, and writing measures were repeated along with a new reading comprehension measure. At the end of school Year 2 the children who had received Reading Recovery in Year 1 were achieving within or above their chronological age band on all measures and were still around a year ahead of the comparison children in schools where the programme was not available. The Reading Recovery children had an average word reading age of 7y 9m, compared to 6yr 9m for the comparison children. The gender gap that was noticeable amongst low attaining comparison children, with boys lagging behind girls, was not evident in Reading Recovery schools, where there was no gender gap. Writing achievement showed a significant difference between Reading Recovery and comparison children. At the end of Year 2, the children who had received Reading Recovery were able to write twice as many correctly spelled, words as those children who were in the comparison group.

  5.3  Over 86% of those who received Reading Recovery in Year 1 went on to achieve an age-appropriate level 2+ in National Curriculum Reading assessments at end of Year 2. This percentage is higher than the whole national Year 2 cohort, of whom 84% achieved Level 2+ in 2007. 77% of Reading Recovery children achieved National Curriculum Level 2b+ (the national cohort figure was 71%). None of Reading Recovery children were working towards Level 1 (non-readers). Comparison figures for the matched lowest achieving children in non-Reading Recovery schools were 57% achieving National Curriculum Level 2+ and 30% Level 2b. In the comparison groups almost 10% of low achieving group were still non-readers (Working towards Level 1). In writing, over 83% of those who received Reading Recovery in Year 1 went on to achieve the age-related National Curriculum Level 2+, compared to 80% in the 2007 National Year 2 cohort, and 57.7% in the comparison groups.

  5.4  The study also followed up progress in classroom literacy. A word recognition and phonic measure was repeated and "Progress in English 7" comprehension measure was used with the Year 2 classes. Children in sample classrooms with Reading Recovery available to the lowest group when in Year 1, ended Year 2 with an average reading age 3+ months above that of children in comparison Year 2 classrooms.

  5.5  In February 2007 (updated in December 2008), the US Department for Education's What Works Clearinghouse published the outcomes of a three-year independent review of the experimental research on Reading Recovery.[11] The WWC report found that Reading Recovery has positive effects on students' alphabetics skills and general reading achievement. A finding of positive effects is the WWC's highest rating, on a four-point scale based on the quality of the research design, the statistical significance of the findings, the size of the difference between participants in the intervention and the comparison conditions, and the consistency in findings across studies.

  5.6  A recent review by Bob Slavin and his colleagues[12] included Reading Recovery as one of its three top-rated programmes available in the UK. The review also, however, noted that outcomes for Reading Recovery were less positive than might have been expected, and suggests that other one-to-one tutoring programmes have higher weighted mean effect sizes.

  5.7  The difference between these conclusions and those of the independent US government's What Works Clearinghouse relate to the exclusionary criteria used. Studies were excluded if they used pre and post-test measures designed by the experimenters. ("Experimenter-made measures were accepted if they were comprehensive measures of reading, which would be fair to the control groups, but measures of reading objectives inherent to the experimental program (but unlikely to be emphasized in control groups) were excluded"). Many international studies of Reading Recovery do use a measure designed by the programme originator—called the Observation Survey. This includes a test of text reading in which children are asked to read aloud from levelled (graded by difficulty) readers, while testers record the error rate. There are also tests of letter identification, hearing and recording sounds in words, and the number of correctly spelled words child can write unaided. Although designed by the programme originator, the Observation Survey test is a reputable, standardized test of early literacy skills and not specifically linked to Reading Recovery teaching methodology; it includes areas that form part of many batteries of tests of early literacy and most definitely covers reading objectives that control groups would also be covering.

  5.8  Another exclusionary criterion applied in the Slavin review was studies where post-tests were not done by an independent tester. A recent major Randomised Controlled Trial by Schwartz et al[13] was excluded because there was an assumption that post-tests were done by the teacher who has taught the child. This is not the case; in Reading Recovery post-tests are always done by someone other than the child's Reading Recovery teacher—a "link teacher" from the school receives a half day training and conducts the tests.

  5.9  A further exclusionary criterion was absence of data on the matching of groups at pre-test. This means, for example, that an important long term follow up study of Reading Recovery is omitted. This study[14] followed up 121 children in 13 different schools who were between 10 and 12 years of age and who had Reading Recovery when they were six. The comparison group of 121 children were those who at six had also had reading difficulties but had not been sufficiently low on the literacy test to warrant being included in the programme because they were not the very lowest achievers in the age group. At follow up the Reading Recovery children wrote longer, more accurate and qualitatively better prose than the controls, were more positive in their attitudes to reading, and had higher reading accuracy and comprehension (by on average 12 months for reading accuracy and 13 months for reading comprehension). This study was rejected because there was no data on the initial matching of children in experimental and comparison group. But the point is that the comparison group were higher achieving at the age of six, but ended up behind the Reading Recovery group at age 10n to 12.

  5.10  In claiming that the effects of Reading Recovery do not last, the Slavin review relies heavily on a study by Hurry and Sylva, published in 2007, but does not note that this study is a re-analysis of data from a much earlier study of children who took part in Reading Recovery in 1992, when Reading Recovery was very much in its infancy in England. Much has changed in the intervening 18 years. The intervention itself has developed with revised core procedures taking account of research and further developments in understandings about, among other things, phonological skills in reading. Because of the National Literacy Strategy children are less likely to go back into classroom contexts where they will not receive ongoing literacy support. More recent studies show that gains are maintained.

  5.11  In considering the Slavin review it is also important to note that it includes interventions targeted at the lowest 33% of the literacy attainment range. There can be no assumption that what works for the broader group will be the same as what works for the lowest 5% of the attainment range who are targeted for Reading Recovery. Any conclusion that, for example, interventions delivered by paraprofessionals are as effective as those delivered by specialist teachers need to be interpreted with this in mind.

  5.12  Recent critiques of Reading Recovery have also been made by Singleton,[15] and by Reynolds and Wheldall.[16] Again, researchers reviewed essentially the same evidence base as the What Works Clearinghouse and the Slavin review, but came to different conclusions. Singleton, for example, concludes that group intervention is as effective as one to one intervention, whereas Slavin reaches the opposite conclusion. Singleton, whilst recognising that independent research studies show benefits for many children on Reading Recovery programmes, argues that comparisons of the ratio gains made by children in Reading Recovery and in the other interventions reviewed appear on balance to favour the latter. His review, however, mis-represents the ratio gains from Reading Recovery and fails to take into account the very different starting points of children in the studies he includes, many of which targeted children who were only a little below average rather than having severe reading difficulties. He also argues that Reading Recovery is unlikely to be effective for dyslexic children because in his view the teaching of phonics in Reading Recovery is less than systematic. Yet phonics is taught daily in Reading Recovery and children are over the course of their series of lessons brought to the same level of phonic knowledge as their non-reading disabled peers.

  5.13  Reynolds and Wheldall present research which purports to show that the majority of children do not maintain the gains made in Reading Recovery. By their own calculations, however, 85% of children who had successfully completed Reading Recovery were working within or above the acceptable band for literacy subsequently. It is hard to see how that constitutes evidence of failure, given that the children in Reading Recovery were the lowest attaining before the intervention. 93% of the "comparison" group were working at those levels, but the comparison group were the remainder of the cohort after the lowest attaining had been taken out.

  5.14  A final critique of Every Child a Reader has come from those who are of the opinion that there should not be a need for any intensive and expensive intervention for children with literacy difficulties, once systematic teaching of phonics for all children is embedded. In response we would note that existing evidence dos not support the assertion. In the well-known Clackmannanshire study of synthetic phonics teaching, despite clear gains in spelling and word recognition in eleven year olds who were taught to read using by synthetic phonics, one in 20 pupils was two years or more below average in word reading, and almost a fifth of boys in reading comprehension. Even the best-known commercially available synthetic phonics programmes claim only to reduce the numbers of children who fail from 20-25% to 5%.[17] It is precisely at these very lowest achieving children that Reading Recovery is aimed.

  5.15  The experience of Every Child a Reader in the years 2005-09 has been that schools that make good use of synthetic phonics—for example, those that have been using Ruth Miskin Literacy or Phonographix systematically with whole classes for a number of years—also sign up readily for Reading Recovery. They report that while their synthetic phonics programmes work very well for the majority of children, a small minority remain non-readers. As an example, a school in Newham held up as a model of effective implementation of the Ruth Miskin approach (including one-to-one support from a teaching assistant for children who are experiencing difficulties) had in 2008 11% of children achieving below the nationally expected Level 2 or above in Reading at the end of Key Stage 1. In a similar school in Hackney, providing Reading Recovery for its very lowest achievers in addition to effective phonics teaching for all children, only 5% failed to achieve Level 2+.


  6.1  Our reading of the literature is that there are many interventions that work for children with literacy difficulties and many are cheaper than Reading Recovery. What needs to be considered, however, is whether alternative interventions will:

    — get children completely back to average rather than just narrow the gap between them and their peers;

    — work for children in the very lowest 5% of the achievement range—total non-readers; and

    — have an infrastructure of training and quality assurance to guarantee `fidelity to the programme' ie mean that as the programme scaled up, with more schools involved, it would continue to be delivered in a consistent way.

  6.2  Most research on literacy interventions reports effect sizes or ratio gains but does not report the percentage of children who catch up completely with their peers. Reading Recovery does this and in the first four years of the Every Child a Reader programme it has consistently been 77-78%.

  6.3  It is also important to analyse the effectiveness of interventions according to the severity of children's initial difficulties. Many reviews do not do this.

  6.4  It would be useful therefore for the Committee to be aware that there is not one answer of "what works" for children with literacy difficulties, but a more complex answer "what works for whom—at what age and with what level of difficulty". Every Child a Reader aims to provide a response of this level of complexity. As well as Reading Recovery for the bottom 5% nationally, it incorporates "layered interventions", in which the next lowest 15% receive lighter touch, less intensive (and cheaper) interventions delivered by teaching assistants and drawn from Greg Brooks evidence on what works. The Reading Recovery teacher supports the teaching assistants delivering these so that there is fidelity to the programme. This is what makes Every Child a Reader cost effective—targeting the more expensive, intensive intervention at the children with the greatest needs whilst at the same time providing for the whole of the bottom 20% with a variety of other less intensive/expensive programmes.

  6.5  It might be tempting, particularly in the current economic climate, to abandon the more expensive interventions for the children with the greatest difficulties. We have argued, however, that if we do not spend on the very bottom 5% and do what we know works reliably for them, then the costs to the public purse of this group later on will hugely outweigh the investment in Reading Recovery. Persistent literacy difficulties are linked to costly special educational needs provision, truancy, exclusion from school, reduced employment opportunities, increased health risks and a greatly increased link of involvement in the criminal justice system. These increased risks operate over and above those associated with social disadvantage in general, and those associated with lack of qualifications. A report we commissioned from KPMG, "The long term costs of literacy difficulties".[18] estimates that the resulting costs to the public purse arising from failure to master basic literacy skills in the primary school years are between £5,000 and £64,000 per child over a lifetime. On this basis £1 spent on Reading Recovery will save the public purse between £11 and £17 in the long term.

  6.6  Even within the school system Reading Recovery more than pays for itself. The cost of providing Reading Recovery is in the order of £2,600 per child. The average cost to a primary school of providing special needs and behaviour support to a child entering Key Stage 2 at the age of seven with reading difficulties is £2,400 over the four years until the child leaves the primary phase. The average cost to a secondary school of providing special needs, behaviour and truancy support to a child entering Key Stage 3 at the age of 11 with reading difficulties is £3,800 over the five years to age 16.

  6.7  It may also be tempting to let the market decide what interventions to provide to children with reading difficulties. In theory this is an excellent solution—provide school with the evidence and they will choose effective interventions. In practice, this begs the question of "Whose evidence"? In this response we have sought to demonstrate that truly objective evidence is hard to come by, that different reviewers come to different conclusions, from the same evidence base. We would also contend that all the evidence we have so far (see Appendix 1) suggests that schools are likely to choose low-cost teaching assistant-led interventions that have their place but will not meet the needs of the very lowest attaining children. It will also be important to consider the supply-side: where will schools get training and ongoing quality assurance from? One-off training typically leads to great initial enthusiasm and good results but then people revert to their default mode and end up delivering an intervention quite different from that devised by the programme originators. Any programme put forward for schools to draw down will need to demonstrate that it has an infrastructure capable of ensuring ongoing quality.

  6.8  It may well be that further research will identify interventions as effective as Reading Recovery. It would be useful, for example, to trial methods based on phonics only, delivered on a daily one to one basis with the same level of intensity as Reading Recovery. Group interventions have already been extensively trialled and, in the view of most researchers, fail to deliver the same level of impact as one-to-one teaching, but it would be useful to re-run this mostly US research in a UK context. It may also be useful to further trial teaching-assistant led interventions, although in our view there are real issues here about placing the hardest-to-teach children with the least rather than most qualified adults—particularly in disadvantaged areas, where schools do not find it easy to recruit teaching assistants with the educational levels that teaching assistants often have in more advantaged areas.

  6.9  Whilst all this further research is undertaken, however, there are still large numbers of children failing to learn to read and write in our education system. Current evidence from Every Child a Reader shows that it is tackling this problem reliably and effectively. In 2008-09, 9,610 children received Reading Recovery through the programme. They made reading age gains of 21 months in five months (40 hours of teaching in daily lessons)—over four times the normal rate of progress. 78% of the children who finished their series of Reading Recovery lessons reached average or above average levels for their age. The programme almost doubled in scale between 2007-08 and 2008-09 but still maintained its excellent results and even improved on these. Overall Key Stage 1 standards in schools involved rose faster than the national average.

  6.10  These are solid, reliable results. The long-term return on the government's investment in Every Child a Reader in 2008-09 is likely to be in the order of £23 million to £0.3 billion. Until such time as we have evidence for alternative programmes that are equally effective and equally cost-effective, we would argue that there should be continued support for the national Every Child a Reader scheme.

October 2009

1   Brooks, G What works for children with literacy difficulties: the effectiveness of intervention schemes. London: DfES research report 380. Back

2   Pinnell GS, Lyons CA, DeFord DE, Bryk AS, and Seltzer M (1994) Comparing Instructional Models for the literacy education of high risk first graders. In Reading Research Quarterly 6(1), 83-101. Back

3   Torgesen, J, Myers D, Schirm, A, Stuart, E, Vartivarian, S, Mansfield, W, Stancavage, F, Durno, D, Javorsky, R, and Haan, C (2006) National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance NCEE 2006-4002, US Department of Education. Back

4   Allington, 2001; Allington and Cunningham, 2002, Shepard, 1991. Back

5   Slavin, R and Madden, N (2003) Success for All/Roots and Wings: Summary of research on achievement and outcomes CRESPAR: Baltimore, 2003. Back

6   Hatcher, P, Hulme, C, Miles, J, Carroll, J, Hatcher, J, Gibbs, S, Smith, G, Bowyer-Crane, C, Snowling, M (2006) Efficacy of small group reading intervention for beginning readers with reading-delay: a randomised controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47. Back

7   Cartwright, G Wave 3 Literacy: evaluation 2003-04. Unpublished study for Education Bradford. Back

8   Canning, J (2004) FFT Wave 3: report of findings from a 10-week pilot. London: Fischer Family Trust. Back

9   Not Printed. Back

10   Burroughs-Lange. S (2008) Comparison of literacy progress of young children in London schools: a Reading Recovery follow up study. http://www.ioe.ac.uk/schools/ecpe/readingrecovery/index.html Back

11   What Works Clearinghouse (2008) WWC Intervention report: Reading Recovery. US Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. Back

12   Slavin, R, Lake, C, Davis, S and Madden, N (2009) What Works for Struggling Readers. York: Institute for Effective Education. Back

13   Schwartz, RM (2005) Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 257-267. Back

14   Moore, M and Wade, B (1998) Reading Recovery: its effectiveness in the long term Support for Learning, 13, 3. Back

15   Singleton, C (2009) Interventions for dyslexia. London: No to FailureBack

16   Reynolds, M, and Wheldall, K (2007). Reading Recovery 20 years down the track: Looking forward, looking back. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54, 199-223. Back

17   Christopher Jolly, managing director of Jolly Learning (Jolly Phonics), personal communication. Back

18   Every Child a Chance Trust (2009) The long term costs of; literacy difficulties (2nd edn) London: Every Child a Chance Trust. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 18 December 2009