04/12/2013
Decades of research tells us that where kids are after two years at school will likely be where they always are in relation to their age peers. Add to this the Matthew Effect (Stanovich 1985) which describes the sn*******ng effect for both good and poor readers – the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. What we end up with is kids who are behind from the beginning getting further behind, and soon it’s not only the reading books they can’t read but also the maths and science books. Now they're failing across the curriculum, switching off, and more than likely getting into trouble.
Successive governments have poured $40m a year into Reading Recovery for the last 30 years and this has not and will not fix the problem. Reading Recovery requires schools to take the lowest students – fine in 1983 – but no longer so. When I was a Reading Recovery Tutor in 1985, the teachers I trained could recover up to 16 students a year. Many schools now struggle to recover less than half that number and many of those children do not go on to succeed in the regular classroom. Nowadays the lowest students often have little English vocabulary whether English is their first language or not, and many are functioning with the literacy levels of three year olds. These students do not get up to speed in their first year of school and then they clog up the one-on-one Reading Recovery programme. In addition to this, Ministry teacher professional development initiatives benefit white middle class students but do little to raise the achievement levels of the lowest groups, typically Maori and Pasifika.
At Iversen Publishing, we've developed a programme, (Quick60), which is having amazing results in the schools in which it is implemented. This programme was developed from the research of Iversen and Tunmer (1993) and Iversen, Tunmer and Chapman (2005 ) and works for groups of students rather than one-on-one, which makes it very suitable for Maori and Pasifika. Professional development is embedded within the programme so that it can be delivered by inexperienced teachers and teacher aides without further long-term training. All these features make it much more cost effective than Reading Recovery and it’s producing better results. I’ve attached the results from a six week national trial that we did at the end of 2010 and also an article that appeared in the Papakura Courier reporting on the success of Edmund Hillary School. Edmund Hillary’s data shows that since adopting Q60 their percentage of students at or above national standards has risen from 5% to 55% and is still rising. Next year with the implementation of a Quick60 Prevention Programme to cut off failure before it starts it is anticipated the percentage will be 75%+ at or above National Standards. Pretty damn good for a very low Decile 1 school with a 99% Maori and Pasifika roll.
It’s time to stop blaming everyone and everything including National Standards for the failure of our lowest students and to start looking at what we’re doing and/or not doing in classrooms from New Entrants upwards. Doing what we’ve always done will get us the results we’ve always had for our high performers. But doing what we’ve always done is progressively disadvantaging those who most need our expertise.