1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Reading Recovery...

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by kenadams777, Jul 20, 2010.

  1. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    This is one of the frustrating things children can use a computer but they can't ask for a drink or put on their coat. We had one child who referred to all fruit as "nana" and all drinks as "bocky" and that was the sum total of her communication another who used a variety of grunts (which mum apparently understood ) as she passed him sweets, pop or crisps in response. A quick search of this forum will reveal numerous threads on the subject of toilet training (or lack of) but that is just one area of physical development children are demonstrating delay we see reception children who crawl up steps or require an adult to help children who don't even recognise a knife and fork and eat everything including mashed potato with their fingers or sit and wait for an adult to feed them. One of the most shocking things is many of these children have been in day care since an early age in the care of trained professional.
     
  2. ahh yes I see. The definite effects of toxic childhood are being evidenced then. I think one of the biggest challenges to nursery education nowadays is to provide enough, effective, focussed small group opportunities for children to communicate about meaningful experiences with knowledgeable, skilled communicators -adults, older children etc. This modelling is crucial but numbers, free-flow play, time and space for depth of imagainative play, for exploration and physical play, for the whole EYFS stepping stones curriucula make its achievement in any worthwhile, consisent and beneficial way very difficult. I think I would almost say it is the biggest challenge. nine months in a nursery class is just not long enough,to allow the repetition, familiarity, adaption and evolution from familiar to unfamiliar necessary before they hit reception with its new routines, set hours, assemblies and playtimes etc. Reggio Emilia's piazza's and atelieristas without pressure until the age of six might just offer a better model than the fragmented schooling base of the UK. Cutting to the chase, bringing out what's inside not sticking plasters onto the outside is perhaps the only way these kids can catch up on what was missed either in the day-care or in the life of buggies, car-seats/tv breakfasts and media-deleria of life in which most of us are now warm-bathed daily.
     
  3. .....in your opinion....
    What was derogatory? I merely questioned some practices and attitudes. Surely that is how we improve?
     
  4. ...oh and the water tray thread was ridiculous[​IMG]
     
  5. It aint what you say, teejay, it's the way that you say it....
     
  6. urmmm .... "Stop dumbing down year 1" springs to mind.
     
  7. ...and how would that comment be derogatory to EYFS teachers / practitioners / staff....? My point was that to engulf Year 1 in the bureaucratic nightmare that is EYFS would be a backwards step. Year 1 children need to be taught properly. Ask any parent of a year 1 child. Then come back.
     
  8. Maizie I don't apologise for not being sugar-coated,and not beating around the bush. I don't have the time. People on here should stop being so precious and realise they are paid to do a job, and a very important job. We waste so much time *****-footing around people when if you just tell them straight they can change and improve. And if they can't they can change jobs.
     

  9. You worry that all infant teachers are going to become engulfed in an EYFS nightmare? EYFS only applies in England.
     
  10. I don't know what your previous postings were about teejay but as on of the 'people on here' who may be 'precious' and who does realise 'I am paid to do a job.' I think the issues boil down to what job I am paid to do and who is teling me how to do it? I wonder what it is you are so certain about? The reality of being with young children everyday informs many of the comments on here. THe reaity of the bureaucratic burden, of the tension between what seems to be right for children in a system which is based on a historical accident and certain social circumstances (startign school at 5). In addtion with the greater awareness we have of other countries and other systems, other ways of thinking and approaching the state of early chilldhood, and being a nation which is facing as a democracy many, many difficult, unreconcilable demands. One does wonder who are the ones who expect others to jump and to what tune? he head? an advisor? an inspector? the latest government minister?
    You yourself are contributing here in your holidays, that shows you too are reflecting and adding a bit extra to all this to support your own growing understanding. We are all so ignorant I often think (well I am). Often we think we don't know enough, yet we have fallen into the trap of seeming to need ever clearer direction from someone else. Directives, programmes of study etc. Yet this saps our own self, seeds doubt and makes us suspicious of those who are trying to listen to their heart and find responses to children and parents and colleagues wthout resorting to structures and controls. I started reading this yesterday and I realised I know so little about my own cournty and the origins of my beliefs, my principles, my convictions, my assumptions and even my basic frame of reference. Maybe others on this forum do. The 'job to do', what is it then? To reflect, think and try to share that activity in practical ways through professional activity? There is perhaps here as always a tension between schooling and education, which all of us professing to thelatter are trying to resolve it with the former.


    http://www.21learn.org/site/wp-content/uploads/parliamentary_paper.pdf
     
  11. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    All children need to be taught properly and most foundation stage teachers do a damn good job at teaching the children in their care as do most Y1 teachers
    I know you post on at least one parents forum try reading their opinions
    then come back
     
  12. I didn't expect you to!
    But how do you think you are going to effect any change if all you do is <strike>not beat about the bush</strike> attack people?
     
  13. I am training to teach reading recovery this year and have invited every member of staff in to observe the programme first hand. All have been very impressed with the childrens progress, independence at problem solving and confidence in self correcting. Most schools operate a phonics programme such as letters and sounds which in my opinion is fantastic and works for many children. What we need to remember is that the children highlighted for RR will have been doing letters and sounds (or similar) for a full year and that alone has not been enough for them to make the reqiured progress. Many have embedded confusions that until unravelled can go on to lose more and more confidence since what they are applying is not working. In my experience RR gives children confidence to apply what they learn in letters and sounds and take back to class what they learn in RR so are able to transfer the skills from both. These children need to make 4 times the progress of their peers to narrow the gap between them and with the greatest will in the world no teacher can possibly dedicate this much time to any one particular child. If these children can go out into our world literate and equipped to function and contribute in our society then the cost of this short intervention is worth every penny. The majority of feedback I have had is "what a shame every child cannot have this opportunity" I hope this is helpful
     
  14. dmfrost,
    Your comments are very similar to those of the Reading Recovery teacher who taught my son. The thing is, your comments, like those of my son's RR teacher, are based on what you hopefully believe is true but, unfortunately, are anything but.
    I'm sure you are convinced that you are doing the right thing by the chidlren you teach but how do you know you are helping or you are harming these children?
    For example, how would you know if the child was, in fact, previously taught synthetic phonics as you assume? How would you know if the child was taught synthetic phonics but taught so badly it was impossible to learn?
    How would you determine how much of the English Alphabetic Code they have mastered and where the gaps are in their knowledge?
    How would you determine when the child is using decoding as their primary strategy to 'read' and when they are using memorised whole words and guessing from context?
    You invited your collegues to observe your RR lesson and you claim they were very impressed? So this 'proves' RR is effective??? My son's RR teacher invited me to observe his lesson and I was very impressed because I didn't know enough about evidence-based teaching of beginning reading to know that what I was observing was the remedial arm of the discredited Whole Language philosophy of beginning reading.
    You comment that the children you teach go back into the classroom with more cofidence. I'm sure you believe they do, but where is your proof?
    You use RR leveled books to show progress but these levels have been discredited.
    You state that this intervention is worth every penny. Well it would be if it worked but since it has been proven to help, at best, one child in three that attends RR, then it is a waste of taxpayer's money and should be discontinued immediately.
    The following quote is from Bill Carlson, Reading Recovery: Just the Facts?
    <u>"... RR students' "success," reported by the RR teacher, much like the emperor's new clothes, is often not observed by the regular classroom teacher. The Chapman et al, (2001) study revealed a huge discrepancy between mean (near average) book level gains reported by the RR teacher (16.6), and gains reported by the classroom teacher (9.0) for the same (discontinued) children. Independent research supported the classroom teachers' assessments. "Because those who have a vested interest in the success of Reading Recovery collect and collate data from the children participating in the program, systematic bias may be introduced into the assessment process when a measure as unreliable as reading book level is used...." </u>
    http://www.nrrf.org/rr_carlson.htm
    The following papers are some of the many evidence-based papers that explains why Reading Recovery is a waste of taxpayers money and harms vunerable children by providing them with ineffective remedial instruction.
    Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L. & McNaught, M. (1995) An evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly
    www.literacycare.com/patients/interventions/readingrecovery.pdf
    Observations on Reading Recovery - by Dr. Patrick Groff
    http://www.nrrf.org/essay_ReadRec_10.html
    The Reading Recovery Approach To Preventive Early Intervention: As Good as it Gets? -- William E. Tunmer & James W. Chapman

     
  15. Hi Ken,
    I have not read all the posts on this thread but if it has not already been addressed, I think the comment from your original post, " ...seems a tad formalised and inappropriate for a 5yr old..." is actually a more important 'logical fallacy' that has the potential to do even more harm than RR.
    The idea that children can be 'too young to learn' is a basic tenet of the Progressive educational belief system. Don't be fooled by the term, 'Progessive' as this is belief system has been around sinc ethe beginning of compulsory education, although it often changes its name (Whole Language, developmentalism, constructivism, discovery, child-centred etc)
    ED Hirsch has written extensively on this and everything he writes is well worth reading. Some quotes and links follow;
    The impact of developmentalism (DAP) was well described by Prof. E. D. Hirsch, founder of the The Core Knowledge Foundation, in testimony before Congress:
     
  16. dmfrost said:
    I am training to teach reading recovery this year and have invited every member of staff in to observe the programme first hand. All have been very impressed with the childrens progress, independence at problem solving and confidence in self correcting.
    I have spoken to people who have observed these lessons and they are surprised at the outdated teaching method. I am surprised they are still training people to deliver RR, I didn't think the Government were funding it anymore? I can't see schools continuing to fund it without Government or Local Authority subsidy as it doesn't actually work although the one-to-one has to be beneficial. Thanks for the links yvonnemeyer.
     
  17. gcf

    gcf

    dmfrost:
    Almost all one-to-one teaching manifests immediate results for most children. But even by Reading Recovery calculations around 23% of Reading Recovery children fail. What's going to happen to them? And, of those children who show an initial spurt, many still won't be able to decode with ease and won't use decoding as their default approach when confronted with a new word. That means many of them won't be sufficiently fluent in reading skills to access the secondary curriculum.
    Struggling readers need a great deal of practice in acquiring basic skills and need to read,read,read books that are at an appropriate level for their alphabetic code knowledge. Surely it's far better to ensure that 5-6 year olds are getting consistent instruction and that those who struggle have the opportunity to read decodable books? This instructional approach is far more effective, and massively cheaper, than presenting them at 6 with the mixed messages that Reading Recovery promotes. It's also taking you away from class teaching presumably and another teacher has to replace you.

    The cost of Reading Recovery is horrendous. The cost of consistent synthetic phonics teaching with extra help from a TA for those who struggle is vastly more cost-effective. It's very tough to change direction but many of us have done so when we've found multi-strategy teaching to be harmful in the long runfor many children.
     
  18. I have not been online for sometime so have only just seen your message and I would like to respond to some of your queries.
    * All children on RR make progress. As you suggest any one to one method should help but in RR so much daily evidence and record keeping is collected about the individual child that can and is used towards any statement or other support that any less successful child may need to be referred for. The average child gains 24 months progress and my best child made 30 months progress in just 12 weeks. These children are reassessed at 3 and 6 monthly intervals to ensure they are maintaining progress and if not, strategies are put in place so that they do not fall back. Evidence shows that children in need of reading recovery acheive expected levels at KS2 SATs who without RR would have been expected to achieve W1.We are talking about the lowest 5% of children in Year 1 who after one full year on a phonics programme have not grasped the alphabetic code. They will still be getting daily phonics lessons in a whole class setting but this has clearly not been enough for that bottom 5%
    * Reading Recovery books are not easily decodable they are books from the general school reading schemes
    * I do not agree that RR gives children mixed messages. It is so individualised for every child and moves children on from what they already know and understand.
    * I am employed purely as a RR teacher so noone has to cover me
    *If you look crime & drug figures, the cost of unemployment and health related costs I do not think RR is expensive if we can make savings in those areas in the future. This was concluded in the recent independent evaluation of RR which found it to be cost effective especially once the wider impact was considered
     
  19. I feel insulted by your comments. You are entitled to your own opinions which I respect but some of your statements are totally wrong and I can back that up with evidence to the contrary
     
  20. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Surely that applies to any 1-1 intervention
     

Share This Page