Steve Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 Not really FS, but early years in general I guess - the Every Child a Reader (ECaR) initiative seems to be having an impact, with us poor old boys getting a particular benefit. Read the press release here.
Marion Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 Is it only last year they rolled out Letters & Sounds with similar claims?
catma Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 well at ground level i can see the difference it's made both to teacher's confidence and children's attainment generally, all our CLLD schools achieved an 80% phase 3 and above outcome last year. Cx
catma Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 L+S, don't have the RR data but as I now have to lead on ECaR I think I soon will. one RR teacher has said to me that there is positive impact of L+S on the levels of children's skills when she screens and chn are "knowing more" as they come out of FS2 and this is a school with very poor levels of literacy on entry to F1. Cx PS this year we have to get 80% of our F2 children SECURE at phase 3 which is a lot tougher!
Marion Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 Sorry I'm just trying to reconcile L&S synthetic phonics with ECAR & RR which are mixed methods.
catma Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 I now - me too, but have to lead on both so I'll have to get my head around that one somehow!!! Our RR teacher trainer uses our L+S/LSL info though so will be asking her how she squares the circle!!
Marion Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 Personal feeling is that L&S should be given a period of time to prove itself (or otherwise) before rolling out a hugely expensive intervention programme which may not be necessary. I also think Y1 is too early to label a child as a failing reader as it doesn't take into account age/maturity/developmental levels.
catma Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 (edited) RR been around for a while though, this is the end of the second year of RR (now ECaR) so it's been running in parallel with CLLD focus. We have DCSF funding for the training schools though not a lot I have to say and it's not in all of them. I'm trying to keep an open mind as I was rather anti RR when it was first introduced! This initial relaunch has been finded by private enterprise up until now so hasn't been at our expense. Now DCSF are funding as results have shown impact. Edited May 10, 2008 by catma
Marion Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 Australia has just dropped RR because of concerns that early gains are short term http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2571006 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...7-13881,00.html http://www.ednews.org/articles/6025/1/Read...sful/Page1.html
Guest Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 We've been using RR for about 12 years.Our authority was involved when it was first introduced from new Zealand/Australia.Our school was part of a 7 year deprived area rengeration scheme and the RR teacher was funded by them and not the school.There has been a break in delivery due to funding.It works wonders for the few children who received it, but it is intensif so there is the debate whether any method would have similair rewards if each child got 1/2 hr sole attention on reading every day.The criteria for receiving it is very narrow so some children miss out.It does however work out that the children who 'qualify' are generally boys and often ones with class behaviour problems.The behaviour problems do improve in line with the increase in ability to read and take part in classroom activities fully.In the few girls that have received it its more often a confidence problem rather than behaviour and self esteme does improve.It is a shame that all children cannot benefit from smaller numbers etc All children learn differentely so no method will suit every child so I think its great they are exposed to differing approachs and can pick up on any method available that works for them.
Marion Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 All children learn differentely so no method will suit every child so I think its great they are exposed to differing approachs and can pick up on any method available that works for them. I agree my problem with RR is the cost £2500 per child (x 6 children per year group approx) for 12-20 weeks which I think could benefit more children if it were used to fund more TAs. I also feel if children are given daily 1-1 they are going to make progress using most methods of instruction.
catma Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 (edited) Those were my thoughts when it was first delivered back in the 80s/90s, and I'm still a bit in need of convincing. Of course it works but how could it not really!! Not sure about the long term gains - would love to know what happened to all my Yr 1 children who got RR way back when. Cx Edited May 12, 2008 by catma
Guest Posted May 13, 2008 Posted May 13, 2008 My daughter got it in year one and she's now 14 and year 9 and sitting her SAT's.I remember the headteacher seeking me out to explain that 'a bright articular child who had the home imput she's had should be off by now so we are going to try this'. She now in the top set at upper school who loves English literature especially Shakespere.She's sitting her German GCSE this year to 'get it out of the way' and has a C grade for her course work-not bad.Verbal skills are still more important to her
Recommended Posts