We need the best for our most vulnerable children, and it is not Reading Recovery
"We need the best for our most vulnerable children who are struggling to read and there is an overwhelming body of research that has said for many decades that Reading Recovery teaches children how to read like poor readers."
"This move to Structured Literacy is a worldwide phenomenon. It is not just happening in New Zealand. It's taken a long time. The research has been going for 40 years, no 50 years now, and it has just taken a long time to filter down to the schools."
Many thanks to Micaela Bonnar and Betsy Sewell for their contributions to this podcast which aired on RNZ on 23 May.
The decision to end public funding of Reading Recovery (rebranded as Reading Recovery and Early Literacy Support) was well overdue
We were pleased that Minister of Education, Erica Stanford MP, announced earlier this month that Reading Recovery and Early Literacy Support (RR&ELS) will no longer be funded by the government after the end of the current contract (ending January 2025). There is an abundance of well-designed, rigorous research that does not support Reading Recovery as a highly effective intervention for struggling readers.
The recent research mentioned in the podcast, that Reading Recovery claims to show that the Minister has made the wrong decision, is deeply flawed and cannot be used as a basis for making those claims. The report is not a peer-reviewed research study, and poor assessment tools were used - not a strong basis for investment.
And even just a cursory reading of the report will surface worrying signs of the efficacy of the ‘refresh’ to change long-held practices and mindsets based on the flawed ‘Balanced Literacy’ and ‘Whole Language’ basis of Reading Recovery which is still a core part of the programme. For example, the report mentions that the refresh met active resistance by some RR teachers, was inconsistently implemented when it was carried out, and created confusion within schools as they tried to figure out how to use it and, importantly, how to make it consistent with a structured approach to literacy where that had already been adopted by the school.
The podcast also failed to mention that there were other research trials undertaken as well and reported on at the same time. These were for three accelerative structured approaches to literacy initiatives for learners in Years 3–8 undertaken by Learning Matters, Canterbury University (Better Start Literacy team), and Massey University. They all involved different programme designs but all showed that students made significant progress.
The Synergia report from 2020 that Jesson refers to in the podcast was basically a survey asking teachers if they thought RR is effective, and a some data evaluation of RR’s own data. This is hardly an independent, robust study.
The Minister's decision follows in the footsteps of other Education Ministers and school districts across the world, who similarly decided to cease public support for Reading Recovery because better alternatives existed. For example, the NSW Education Minister made this decision back in 2016!
The focus should rightly be on supporting and retaining highly passionate and skilled literacy teachers, not worrying about the legacy of Dame Marie Clay and the universities who have failed to move with the evidence
While we have long campaigned for government funding to RR&ELS to stop and the funding to be used instead to ensure every school can employ a highly trained Structured Literacy intervention teacher, we do feel for the current Reading Recovery teachers in schools and Reading Recovery tutors, who are potentially facing job losses.
The announcement could have been handled better, and more planning could have been done to set out what is coming next.
We hope that any affected staff will be given the opportunity to upskill in high quality Structured Literacy PLD focused at Tier 2 & 3 level and be provided with ongoing instructional coaching support so that they can be retained in our teaching workforce. Those dedicated and passionate teachers, and our struggling students deserve nothing less.
--------------------------------
For those who are looking for more background information on Reading Recovery (and the more recent rebrand) we have several really informative blogs on our website, written by James Chapman, Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology at Massey University that set out the issues with the programme.
‘And + And’ rebrand won’t hide stale practice (July 2023)
”It is misguided to mix the three-cueing “balanced literacy” teaching model and other features of whole language with explicit attention to foundational language skills. The two approaches are largely incompatible. Adoption of phonics and phonemic awareness could only be successful if RR rejected the emphasis on three-cueing. Indeed, it would be truly refreshing if RR acknowledged the shortcomings and limitations of the three-cueing approach.” - Professor James Chapman
The Claimed Success of Reading Recovery is Based Largely on a Myth (August 2021)
We also suggest these other radio interviews:
Radio interview of Professor Chapman and Associate Professor Rebecca Jessen from Reading Recovery from November 2022 (James speaks from 19mins onwards)
Radio interview with Prof Henry May, author of large scale study on effectiveness of Reading Recovery in US, and Professor James Chapman from May 2022. This very large longitudinal Federally funded study in the US found that children who were initially successful in the programme, performed worse than similar children who didn’t receive RR, 3 to 4 years following the programme. This study was initially touted by RR as proof the programme was working.
