27.11.2012 Views

What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? - Digital ...

What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? - Digital ...

What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? - Digital ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

(4) Redcar and Cleveland<br />

Very few details were available on this.<br />

Evaluation<br />

However, the LEA had collated data on over 1000 pupils, and the impact was substantial.<br />

Reference<br />

Unpublished data supplied by Andrew Taylor<br />

(5) Worcestershire<br />

Worcestershire began using BRP in 1999, as the approach adopted <strong>for</strong> an Innovative<br />

Development Project (IDP) funded by the Basic Skills Agency. Modifications to the<br />

Brad<strong>for</strong>d model were that the partners were parents, and they were asked to read two books at<br />

each session (not three), and they read <strong>with</strong> children twice a week <strong>for</strong> 15-20 minutes. One<br />

book was familiar, and the second was new, and the new text from each session became the<br />

familiar book <strong>for</strong> the next. In 2000-02, the LEA has trained many parents, and about 60 have<br />

achieved accreditation <strong>for</strong> this work. About 25 schools were using the scheme in 2002; in<br />

addition 10 schools in an Education Action Zone use it <strong>with</strong> teaching assistants.<br />

Evaluation<br />

The 1999-2000 IDP was evaluated by two researchers from the National Foundation <strong>for</strong><br />

Educational Research. The scheme was generally successful, but the LEA adviser<br />

commented (Anthea Main, personal communication, 29 September 2002) that ‘There were<br />

gains across all year groups as long as the children had started reading – it is not successful<br />

<strong>with</strong> non-readers.’<br />

Because the evaluation used a cross-over design, the phase 2 data from the first group to<br />

receive the intervention are effectively follow-up data. The phase 2 data from that group<br />

show that that group continued to make approximately standard progress. They were not<br />

making any further relative gain, but were maintaining the gain made in phase 1.<br />

Reference<br />

Brooks and Hutchison (2000)<br />

23

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!