Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

5.5.2 Key Stage 1 results of Reading Recovery children in England, 2003– 07
A key conclusion in reports published by ECaR is that evidence from National Curriculum
assessments in reading and writing at the end of their second year of formal schooling
indicates that Reading Recovery not only raises children’s literacy standards but also
puts children ‘on track’ for becoming independent readers:
“The programme has demonstrated that providing Reading Recovery is an effective
solution to early literacy difficulties. Over three quarters of the children involved – the
hardest to teach children in the schools where it is hardest to raise standards – have
been returned to average or above literacy levels for their age after only 41 hours of
one-to-one teaching.” (ECaR, 2008, p.54)
Reading Recovery reports often use achievement of Level 2 or above in Key Stage 1
National Curriculum assessments in reading and writing as a ‘benchmark’ to demonstrate
that Reading Recovery has enabled children to become independent readers:
“In national curriculum terms, the children moved from a level ‘W’ (working towards
National Curriculum Level 1) to Level 1A. Level 1A would put them well on track for
achieving Level 2+ (the nationally expected benchmark) at the end of Key Stage 1,
when they are seven.” (ECaR, 2008, p.12)
“Almost three out of four children who received Reading Recovery attained level 2 or
above in National Assessments for reading (71.6%), and two out of three for writing
(60%). This included children who did not achieve the goals of the programme, and
those who received RR in Y2 and were still part way through their series of RR lessons
when National Assessments took place. Children who achieved the goals of Reading
Recovery had an even greater likelihood of success in National Assessments, with 17 out
of 20 (83%) reaching level 2 or above in reading and 14 out of 20 (69%) in writing.”
(Douëtil, 2007a)
Presenting the results in this fashion may lead to the (erroneous) assumption that all
three sublevels of Level 2 are equivalent in terms of the likely prognosis for children’s
continuing successful progress in reading (Level 2+ is described in the second quote
above as “the nationally expected benchmark”). However, level-by-level comparisons to
all-England samples presented below for 2006 and 2007 reading National Curriculum
assessments challenge conclusions drawn from these ‘headline’ figures.
Figure 5 shows the figures from the Annual Reports on Reading Recovery compiled at
the Institute of Education for the years 2002–03 to 2006–07, i.e. the percentage of
Reading Recovery ‘accelerated progress’ children who completed their Reading Recovery
programme and reached the criteria for discontinuation who went on to achieve Level 2
or above in Key Stage 1 National Curriculum assessments in reading and writing. It can
be seen that the reading results are consistently better than the writing results – as,
indeed, they are nationally.
Performance profiles of ‘accelerated progress’ children and all children who completed
Reading Recovery programmes in Key Stage 1 reading National Curriculum assessments
are shown in Figure 6 (2003-04), and Figure 7 (2004-05) (data from Douëtil, 2004,
2005).
Intervention for Dyslexia 111