2. “Why government education initiatives work – or don’t The evidence base for policy” What we have learned from Reading Recovery and Every Child a Reader Dr. Sue Burroughs-Lange University of London Institute of Education

3. Our premise ‘In the first three years of school, educators have their one and only chance to upset the correlation between intelligence measures, social class and literacy progress, and between initial progress and later progress.’ Dame Marie Clay

4. We thought we had the evidence base! Mean reading age gain of 21 months Average programme length 18.5 weeks (less that 5 months) ‘Accelerated progress’ at 4 times normal rate ‘Progress’ at twice the normal rate

5. What has worked A strong evidence base and transparent, high quality evaluation A partnership that goes beyond government A demonstration of cost benefits (and ensuring enough people know about these)

6. Three important Questions for the evidence base How do we know these children: couldn’t have learned to read and write more cheaply than Reading Recovery ? wouldn’t have learned to read and write just as well without Reading Recovery ? can go on learning after Reading Recovery? - even in the most challenging contexts

7. What £2,500 buys RR at 6 other support 6-11 The big difference is ……. The costs to a primary school

8. From here….

9. To here…in 12-20 weeks

10. On entry to Reading Recovery

11. After 14 weeks

12. The matched low attaining groups in 2005

13. Serving similar London areas Schools with RR Comparison schools Free school meals 40%42% EAL49%47% Children on school roll 358 Children in Year 1 4649

14. Some evidence from other interventions in the London study 2005-6 Average scores at end of year 1 assessment for no-RR children, by alternative forms of support. Support Number of RRBAS WordWRAPSWriting Provided childrenBook level Reading AgeReading Age Vocabulary ELS3175y 6m5y 10 m3.2 RML2435y 4m5y 8m2.1 Supported Reading1875y 7m5y 10m2.7 Phonics Practice3145y 6m5y 8m2.3 Speech &2325y 3m5y 7m2.5 Language TA 8055y 6m5y 9m2.6 Support SENCO+EAL1915y 1m5y 4m2.2 support

15. Progress in reading compared at 3 points 1 year follow up: BAS = 7yrs 9mWRAPS = 7yrs 5.6m 6yrs 9m 6yrs 9m

16. National Curriculum levels in Reading Year 2 lowest groups NC Reading Level Comparison groups Children who received RR Children in RR school did not access RR Number % % % W 139.6 311.5 Level 1 4533.11013.5415.4 Level 2 7655.96486.5 (84) 1973.1 Level 3 21.5

17. Writing Vocabulary means lowest groups at 3 points

18. WRITING Lowest groups 2007 National Curriculum assessments NC Writing level Comparison group Children who received RR in Year 1 RR School did not access RR Number % % % W 2014.811.3517.2 Level 1 3727.41215.4413.8 Level 2 7757.06583.3 (80) 2069.0 Level 3 10.7

19. What works against us Accountability frameworks not aligned to the initiative Short-termism in government goal setting ‘Fads’- ill-founded but with popular appeal (and ensuring enough people know about these)

20. An important question now is: “What will happen to ECaR (and look-alikes) when it moves from being a partnership to being a purely government initiative, with all the top-down language of rolling out, and enforcement, and monitoring, that makes LAs and schools feel disempowered?” Jean Gross, ECC trust