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.
Discussion in 'Early Years' started by kenadams777, Jul 20, 2010.
In my experience it depends on the level of training and understanding of the person
and surely that applies to any teaching
The only recent 'evaluation' of RR which I know of was produced by Jean Gros, Director of Every Child a Reader (aka Reading Recovery). At least, that is what Appendix 5 of the report says...
Is there another one produced completely independently of RR, ECAR or any organisation connected in any way with RR?
There's this independent review:
Resurrecting this long-dead thread to look at the new findings that the lowest children who took part in the RR scheme were twice as likely to achieve five or more good GCSEs including English and maths than similar children who did not do RR.
This did nothing to change or challenge the issues with RR.
The principle issue with the research supporting RR is that the data sets were manipulated by researchers to only report those which made progress rather than those who did not. So if these same data sets are being used for this comparison at GCSE it is largely meaningless.
RR is fundamentally flawed in primary schools, because the basis is Whole Language rather than phonics (synthetic or analytical). So straight away any school using it will be undermining any other reading instruction.
Considering the age at which is is delivered, it is just a fast way to ingrain confusion in reading skills, which is why sustained improvement is routinely found to be lacking unless researchers doctor their data.