Better Basics Evaluation by Tolka Area Partnership

Tolka Area Partnership: Better Basics Evaluations Evaluation of the Reading Programme: Hannah Grene (Barncat Consulting) and Dr. Thérèse McPhilips (St. Patrick’s College), 2011. Evaluation of the Maths Programme: Prof. Mark Morgan (St. Patrick’s College), 2011.

Better Basics: Key Points



Better Basics is a reading and maths programme designed to improve the reading and maths ability of children in local schools, primarily those schools serving areas experiencing disadvantage.



Trained volunteers, mostly local parents, paired with children with a reading or maths age deficit of 6 to 18 months, and carry out one-toone reading/maths sessions with the child for 15 minutes, three times a week over a 10 week period.



Programme targets ‘grey area’: children in the ‘middle group’ of learners. Those children who do not have such serious learning difficulties that they qualify for more intensive learning support, but are still in need of some extra help.



Programme is extremely cost-effective.



Works in partnership with local schools and their staff (Principal, SCP Staff, HSCL, Reading Recovery, Maths Recovery, Resource Staff)



Both elements of the programme piloted in schools in the Tolka Area Partnerships catchment area.



Evaluation of the Reading Programme by Hannah Grene (Barncat Consulting) and Dr. Thérèse McPhilips (St. Patrick’s College) in 2011.



Evaluation of the Maths Programme by Prof. Mark Morgan (St. Patrick’s College) in 2011.



Following the pilot programmes and subsequent evaluations, we have developed a structured and sustainable rollout model.



Programme has both quantitative and qualitative outcomes.

About the Tolka Area Partnership

The Tolka Area Partnership is a local development company operating under the Local Community Development Programme (LCDP) which forms part of the National Development Plan. The LCDP is managed by Pobal on behalf of the Irish Government.

The Tolka Area Partnership was originally established as the Finglas Partnership Limited in 1991 by the Irish Government under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) to tackle long-term unemployment in the Finglas area.

Since then TAP has expanded its catchment area to include Finglas, Cabra, Ashtown, Navan Road, Royal Canal Park, the Phoenix Park and parts of Drumcondra, Glasnevin and the Botanic area developing an action plan to work in five specific areas: 

Services to the Unemployed



Community Development



Education and Youth Development



Early Childhood Development



Enterprise Development

Our vision is that all those living within the TAP area, and in particular those most at risk of poverty and social exclusion, will have increased opportunities to access education, training and employment and make a positive contribution to the communities within which they live and society as a whole. In articulating our vision we stand in solidarity with those experiencing poverty and work with them to empower their voice and advocate for a more just and equal society.

Contents

PART 1: An evaluation of The Better Reading Partnership Programme:

Page 6-68

A community literacy initiative of Tolka Area Partnership Hannah Grene & Dr. ThĂŠrĂ¨se McPhillips

PART 2: An evaluation of The Better Maths Programme

Page 69-80

Prof. Mark Morgan

PART 1:

An evaluation of The Better Reading Partnership Programme: A community literacy initiative of Tolka Area Partnership

Hannah Grene & Dr. ThĂŠrĂ¨se McPhillips, December 2010

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1. 1.2.

CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................... 8 RESEARCHERS’ BIOGRAPHIES ................................................................................................. 8

DR THÉRÈSE MCPHILIPS – LECTURER IN LITERACY EDUCATION, ST PATRICK’S COLLEGE, DRUMCONDRA - BSOCSCI(NUI), NT(NUI), DIP IN LEARNING SUPPORT (DCU), MED(CALIFORNIA), PHD(DU) ............................................................................................................. 9 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 2.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 10 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5.

LITERACY AND THE BETTER READING PROGRAMME ........................................................... 38 QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OF PUPIL IMPROVEMENT ............................................................ 39 QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF PUPIL IMPROVEMENT............................................................... 42 KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 43

FAMILY ...................................................................................................................................... 45 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5.

TARGET SCHOOLS ................................................................................................................ 30 WHERE DOES THE BETTER READING FIT IN THE SCHOOL’S LITERACY SUPPORT SYSTEM? .... 32 OTHER PROGRAMMES........................................................................................................... 33 VARIATIONS OF BETTER READING ....................................................................................... 34 KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 35

PUPILS ........................................................................................................................................ 38 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4.

WHO ARE THE READING PARTNERS?.................................................................................... 24 RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF READING PARTNERS ..................................................... 24 READING PARTNER TRAINING.............................................................................................. 26 READING PARTNER SUPPORT................................................................................................ 28 READING PARTNER SATISFACTION ....................................................................................... 28 KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 28

SCHOOLS ................................................................................................................................... 30 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5.

WHY WAS BETTER READING ESTABLISHED? ........................................................................ 17 CHOOSING AN INTERVENTION MODEL – BETTER READING BRADFORD ................................ 17 AN OUTLINE OF THE BETTER READING PARTNERSHIP .......................................................... 18 ADAPTATION OF BETTER READING TO THE LOCAL CONTEXT .............................................. 20 ADMINISTRATION OF BETTER READING IN THE TOLKA AREA PARTNERSHIP ...................... 22 KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 22

READING PARTNERS ............................................................................................................. 24 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6.

CONCEPT OF LITERACY ........................................................................................................ 10 LITERACY SUPPORT IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS ........................................................................... 11 DELIVERING EQUALITY IN SCHOOLS .................................................................................... 12 THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY LITERACY INITIATIVES ................................................... 14 KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 16

THE BETTER READING PARTNERSHIP ............................................................................ 17 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6.

TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................ 9 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 9 A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................... 10

LITERACY AND THE FAMILY ................................................................................................. 45 PARENTS’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE BETTER READING PARTNERSHIP ...................................... 46 EFFECT OF BETTER READING ON PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT ................................................ 47 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 47 KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 48

FUTURE FOR THE PROGRAMME ....................................................................................... 49 8.1. 8.2.

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 49 THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOLS .................................................................................................. 49

8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6. 8.7. 8.8. 8.9. 8.10. 8.11. 8.12. 9.

SCHOOL COMPLETION PROGRAMME .................................................................................... 50 HOME SCHOOL COMMUNITY LIAISON .................................................................................. 50 NATIONAL EDUCATION WELFARE BOARD ........................................................................... 51 THE JUNIOR CERTIFICATE SUPPORT PROGRAMME ............................................................... 51 BETTER READING WITHIN THE PARTNERSHIP ....................................................................... 51 BETTER READING AND BETTER MATHS ............................................................................... 52 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OF BETTER BASICS .................................................................... 52 BETTER BASICS COORDINATOR ........................................................................................... 53 FUNDING .............................................................................................................................. 55 POTENTIAL FOR NATIONWIDE ROLLOUT ............................................................................... 55

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 56 9.1. 9.2. 9.3.

BETTER READING STRENGTHS ............................................................................................. 56 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE ................................................................................. 57 OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 58

10.

ACTION POINTS ....................................................................................................................... 59

11.

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 59

11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4. 12.

EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................... 59 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ......................................................................................................... 62 HERTFORDSHIRE READING TEST .......................................................................................... 63 EXAMPLE OF A READING ATTITUDE ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 67

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 68 Results as Gauged by Maths Recovery Teachers .......................................................................... 76

SUGGESTED CHANGES ................................................................................................................... 78 FURTHER COMMENTS.................................................................................................................... 78 CHANGES FOR IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................... 79 Recommendations: Context and Specific Suggestions .................................................................. 80

Many individuals provided valuable assistance and support in the course of this evaluation. Barncat Consulting would like to gratefully acknowledge the contribution of all the interviewees, whose valuable insights helped to shape the following document. The Steering Group: Anne Fitzgerald, Local Employment Services Manager, Tolka Area Partnership; Brendan Delaney, Director on the Tolka Area Partnership Board; Marian Farrelly, Principal, St Joseph Girls’ National School and Paul Downes, coordinator of the Educational Disadvantage Centre at St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra: gave generously of their time, providing important direction and guidance. The staff of the Tolka Area Partnership were extremely helpful, and particular mention must be made of the assistance of the chief executive Michael Bowe, and the friendly and efficient reception staff. Finally, a special acknowledgment is due to the Better Reading Coordinator and the Better Reading Partners, without whom the programme would not be possible.

Introduction 1.1. Context The Better Reading Partnership was launched as a pilot in Ireland by the Tolka Area Partnership in February 2008. The programme is designed to improve the reading ability of children in local schools, primarily those schools serving areas experiencing disadvantage. Trained adults, mostly volunteers, known as Reading Partners are paired with children with a reading age deficit of 6 to 18 months, and carry out oneto-one reading sessions with the child for 15 minutes, three times a week over a 10 week period.

In September 2010, having piloted the programme for almost three years, the Tolka Area Partnership decided to commission an independent evaluation of the programme. Following an open call for tenders, the contract was awarded to Barncat Consulting, and was carried out by Hannah Grene and Thérèse McPhilips, with the assistance of Helen Bartlett. 1.2. Researchers’ biographies Hannah Grene – Director, Barncat Consulting – BA (TCD), LLM(NUIG)

Hannah Grene established Barncat Consulting in 2007, to provide independent consultancy and research in the not-for-profit and community development sector. Barncat undertakes a variety of projects including surveys and evaluations, research and reports, teaching and facilitation, and successful applications for funding. Hannah has extensive evaluation experience across a wide range of projects, including those focused on educational initiatives for young people experiencing disadvantage.

Dr Thérèse McPhilips – Lecturer in Literacy Education, St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra - BSocSci(NUI), NT(NUI), Dip in Learning Support (DCU), MEd(California), PhD(DU) Dr Thérèse McPhillips is a lecturer in the Education Department in St Patrick’s College Drumcondra, where she specialises in literacy education. She has extensive teaching experience in both special and mainstream classes and was principal of a special school for children with specific reading difficulties before joining St. Patrick’s College. She has wide ranging interests in literacy with particular interest in the approaches and methodologies used to support reading development in the inclusive school.

1.3. Terms of reference Tolka Area Partnership provided ten terms of reference for this evaluation (see Appendix 8.1). These have been borne in mind throughout the conduct of the research and the drafting of the report

Broadly speaking, the Partnership wished to address two principal evaluation questions. The first was: how effective is the Better Reading Partnership? In the terms of reference, this was divided into three sections: Better Reading overall, the impact on and benefit to the participants and the impact on and benefit to the schools. These are addressed in Sections 3, 5 and 6 below. It was also evident that the Reading Partners themselves, and the children’s families, were key players in the programme and are addressed in Sections 4 and 7 respectively.

The second question was: what is the future of the Better Reading Partnership? While this was initially only touched on as one of the overall Better Reading terms of reference, this assumed a more important role in the course of the evaluation. owing to present budgetary circumstances and the overall national situation. Section 8, therefore, is devoted to assessing this question.

1.4. Methodology Both quantitative and qualitative analysis were used to evaluate Better Reading. Quantitatively, detailed statistics were available from the Better Reading Partnership 9

from January 2009, and were extensively analysed by the principal evaluator. The evaluator also carried out a survey with the 18 target schools in the area, both those participating in Better Reading and those not, which received 14 responses.

A total of 35 individuals were interviewed for this evaluation. This included a focus group with 11 Reading Partners, 12 face to face interviews and 12 telephone interviews. A full list – identified by role, not by name – is provided in Section 11.2.

As the programme is carried out in one-to-one sessions, it was not appropriate for the evaluators to shadow the sessions. However, one evaluator attended an informal Reading Partners’ support meeting, while the other evaluator attended an end of course celebration in one of the participating schools, where parents, Reading Partners, volunteers and resource teachers gather to celebrate the achievements of the Better Reading pupils and give the children the opportunity to read aloud. Reading Partners also keep detailed records which include their own observations and comments from the children, teachers and occasionally the parents, and these were reviewed in detail for the evaluation, together with other programme documentation including training materials, Reading Partner application forms, information and publicity material and project plans and progress reports.

1.5. A note on terminology The Better Reading Partnership is referred to throughout the text as ‘Better Reading’ or ‘the programme’, to distinguish it from the Tolka Area Partnership (formerly the Finglas Cabra Partnership), referred to here as the ‘the Partnership’. The abstract personal pronouns ‘him’ and ‘her’ are used in alternate chapters; however, Reading Partners are always ‘her’ as this reflects the current reality. Pupils’ names have been changed. 2. Context and Background 2.1. Concept of literacy Definitions of reading and reading literacy have changed over time. For example, the Programme for International Pupil Assessment (PISA) goes beyond defining reading as decoding and comprehension, defining it as the ability to ‘understand, use and reflect on written texts in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge

and potential and to participate in society’ (OECD, 2006, p.21). The Department of Education’s recently released draft report on Better Literacy and Numeracy for Children and Young People states that: ‘Literacy includes the capacity to read, understand and critically appreciate various forms of communication including spoken language, print, broadcast media, and digital media.’ (DES, November 2010, p.9.) The Chairperson of the National Adult Literacy Agency has said that ‘literacy is not just about reading and writing – it’s about having the confidence to do more in life’ (http://www.nala.ie/about-nala).

It is within this broad framework that the Better Reading Partnership is situated. Better Reading is not intended to teach children how to read, nor to support those with specific learning difficulties. It is intended to support the school by giving children falling behind their peers individual, structured and empathetic attention, to enable them to progress in their understanding, appreciation and confidence in reading.

2.2. Literacy support in primary schools

Children who are achieving at or below the twelfth percentile in standardised literacy tests are entitled to additional support in literacy (DES, 2000). This support is organised by the school according to a three-stage model known as the ‘continuum of support’ as follows:

Stage 1: - additional support from the class teacher (in-class support)

Stage 2: - in school support, e.g. supplementary teaching provided by Learning Support/ Resource Teacher (DES, 2000).

Stage 3: - external or specialist support e.g. psychologist/ speech and language therapy/ occupational therapy (DES, 2003)

This is a relatively recent change from an individual to a school resource allocation. Schools receive additional resources (teacher/s) to support language needs, literacy needs, and special educational needs according to enrolment, size, gender and SES status of the school (DES, 2005). 11

Middle management support is recommended to support the identification, assessment and support for pupils with additional or special educational needs. Schools now have the flexibility to prioritise pupils according to their individual needs and are encouraged to develop special education support teams within the school (DES, 2005).

The children targeted by the Better Reading Partnership and other community based literacy initiatives are generally above the 12th percentile, although they may fall into Stage 1. They are sometimes referred to as the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;middle groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of students- those not assessed as having a specific learning difficulty, but falling behind their peers in terms of fluency and confidence.

2.3. Delivering Equality in Schools

Ireland has traditionally prided itself on its good reading literacy scores, when compared to other OECD countries (PISA 2001 & 2006). However, the 2009 PISA shows stark declines in this performance. Ireland was 5th for reading literacy of 15 year olds among OECD countries in 2000; it has dropped to 17th in 2009. (PISA 2010). While a number of factors over the past decade must be taken into account (the steep increase of EAL learners in the schools, the emphasis on inclusion in the mainstream system of learners with special needs and the successful efforts to decrease early school leaving), this is still an unprecedented decline in a developed country. Our own National Assessments are not much more encouraging, indicating that there has been no discernible improvement in the literacy standards among primary pupils in Ireland in over thirty years (DES, 2010). There is also a very significant gap between reading literacy levels in schools serving areas experiencing disadvantage and the national average (Eivers, Shiel & Shortt, 2004).

Educational disadvantage has been the subject of much debate and action over the past 15 years and this has resulted in legislative change, curricular reform and various intervention measures including Education (Welfare) Act, (2000) which established the National Educational Welfare Board, and the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act (1999). Following much consultation, a detailed outline of how 12

services, supports and resources were to be deployed to target educational disadvantage was published in 2005. Delivering Equality of Opportunity in SchoolsAn Action Plan for Educational Inclusion (DEIS) integrated eight existing programmes1 under a new programme called the School Support Programme (SSP) (DES 2005). Many of the measures of the past 15 years have focused on providing additional human and financial resources to address such issues as early education, literacy and numeracy supports, the role of the family and the community in education and early school leaving. Schools serving areas experiencing high levels of poverty are classified as DEIS schools. These schools receive additional teacher resources such as reduced pupil-teacher ratio (20:1 in infant classes; 24:1 in senior classes) and a home school community liaison teacher.

Evaluations of literacy within the DEIS schools have revealed serious issues. A study of literacy attainment in disadvantaged schools identified almost 30% of these pupils with severe literacy difficulties (at or below the tenth percentile) compared with 10% nationally. Just 3% of pupils in socially and economically disadvantaged schools attained the 90th percentile, compared to 10% nationally (Eivers, Shiel & Shortt, 2004). A further in depth report of twelve disadvantaged schools reported 43% of pupils in the lowest quintile of attainment in literacy and numeracy and that their scores declined as they progressed through school (DES, 2005). This is described as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Matthew effectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; whereby the stronger readers continue to read and steadily improve and the underachievers tend to avoid reading and so the downward spiral continues. (Stanovich, 1986). Positive interventions are required to break this cycle of underachievement.

Efforts to improve literacy standards in Ireland, therefore, are currently concentrated on the DEIS status schools. Under the DEIS framework, the high-end goal is to reduce the proportion of pupils with serious literacy difficulties in primary schools serving disadvantaged communities to less than 15% by 2016. Two of the initiatives available to schools under DEIS include Reading Recovery and First Steps. Reading 1 The schemes currently operating under the School Support Programme are: Home School Community Liaison Scheme; School Completion Programme; Support Teachers Project; Giving Children an Even Break ;Breaking the Cycle; Disadvantaged Area Scheme and Literacy and Numeracy Schemes.

Recovery is a school-based early intervention programme designed to give children who have difficulties in reading and writing a period of intensive, individual teaching. The programme was developed by distinguished New Zealand educator Marie Clay, and has been used to great effect in Ireland, the UK, New Zealand and the US. The programme focuses on the lowest achieving children aged 6 years. Specially trained teachers take pupils on a one-to-one basis for thirty minutes a day over eighteen to twenty weeks. First Steps helps schools to address literacy targets in a structured way, by matching children’s performance in oral language, reading and writing and providing activities and structures for development. In many schools the framework is used to develop children’s skills in writing. Despite these efforts, a recent review of the implementation of the literacy element of the DEIS strategy raises concern (NESF, 2009). The report found little evidence of progress towards the high-end goal of reducing the proportion of children with literacy difficulties in disadvantaged areas. It highlighted the economic and social costs of this lack of effectiveness, quoting a UK study which found that costs from failure to learn to read in the primary school years was over the life-course to age 37 between £1.73BN to £2.05 BN every year (NESF, 2009). The recent draft national plan to improve literacy and numeracy in schools (DES, November 2010) has underlined the need for the system to re-focus the priority given to literacy and numeracy in schools. This report states the need to improve the teaching and learning of literacy and numeracy among Irish pupils by ‘reducing the percentage of children performing at or below Level 1 [the minimum level of achievement on the National Assessments] by at least five percent at both second and sixth class by 2020’ (p.12).

2.4. The importance of community literacy initiatives The Department of Education and Science and the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs will: ‘continue to support family literacy initiatives in communities served by DEIS schools; in allocating support, priority will be given to projects (at early years and school level) that have been evaluated and proved to be effective through evaluations’ (DES 2010).

The recent DES draft plan on better literacy and numeracy acknowledges that ‘parents and communities play a vital role in literacy and numeracy’ and commits to

supporting such initiatives, particularly those proven to be effective through evaluations, as is highlighted in the quote above (DES 2010).

A number of investigations and reports over recent years have been instrumental in formulating this position. The Educational Disadvantage Committee, reporting in 2005, argued forcefully for a strategy that went beyond schools to end educational disadvantage. They highlighted that: ‘For a child to engage meaningfully in the education process, parents and families must be supported in being strongly involved in their child’s education, both by the school and by the community. A holistic approach, whereby every family member is engaged, should be the ultimate goal.’ One of their recommendations therefore was to: ‘Promote closer links between school-based initiatives and community education initiatives in areas of educational disadvantage, with flexibility in the mechanisms of funding and delivery.’ (Educational Disadvantage Committee, 2005)

Despite the excellent work carried out by DEIS in the intervening years, in 2009, the NESF report on child literacy and social inclusion mentioned above noted that there remains a gulf between school and community that needs to be bridged before the literacy strategy in disadvantaged communities can be truly effective.

The report particularly stressed the importance of the Home School Community Liaison programme, as well as wider community links, in strengthening the strategy on literacy. Accordingly, the NESF commissioned a companion report mapping community literacy initiatives in Ireland.

The report found that there were gaps in the provision of initiatives outside schools and in some cases, an overlap. However, the report concluded that: ‘the strengths of many of these initiatives are that they are located in disadvantaged communities, have a strong focus, target groups, key objectives and are being rigorously evaluated’ (NESF, 2009).

Noting that the systematic use of community resources has been rather limited, the report recommended that the government policy should adopt an integrated approach,

building links between schools and communities in the development of literacy supports.

The importance of volunteer literacy initiatives is supported by international research. A study commissioned by the UK Department for Education and Science (DfES) entitled ‘What Works for Pupils with Literacy Difficulties: The Effectiveness of Intervention Schemes' concluded that ordinary teaching ('no intervention') does not enable children with literacy difficulties to catch up, thus reinforcing the case for early one-to-one intervention. It also found that where reading partners are available and can be given appropriate training and support, partnership approaches can be very effective. The partners need to be given a clear approach to follow; otherwise both they and their 'tutees' get confused (Brooks, 2007). A meta-analysis of 21 studies of Reading Partnering tutoring programmes in the US concluded that such programmes can be effective, and, interestingly, it did not make a difference to the effectiveness whether the tutors were college students or graduates, parents or community members (Ritter, Barnett, Denny and Albin, 2009)

In broader terms, community initiatives also resonate with both national and EU policy on active citizenship. The European Commission are currently undertaking a large scale study of active citizenship across the EU, funded under the Europe for Citizens initiative. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs have responsibility for progressing the active citizenship agenda, with the support of the Steering Group on Active Citizenship. 2.5. Key findings 

Better Reading is a model of reading support that fits within the broader concept of literacy, which embraces not only word recognition and comprehension, but also developing confidence as a reader, enjoyment of reading, and engaging with books. In this sense the reader is developing ‘an ability to understand, use and reflect on written texts in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential and to participate in society’ (OECD, 2006, p.21).



Better Reading is designed to support the middle group of learners – those falling behind their peers, but not assessed as having a specific learning difficulty.



The gap between literacy achievement in schools supported by the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) and those serving middle-class areas remains worryingly wide, indicating the need for further innovative efforts.



In its draft literacy and numeracy plan, Department of Education and Science has committed to supporting family literacy initiatives in communities served by DEIS schools, particularly those proved effective through evaluation. This is therefore an extremely timely opportunity to evaluate Better Reading.

3. The Better Reading Partnership 3.1. Why was Better Reading established? In 2007-08, the Partnership conducted research identifying the needs and gaps in primary school provision in the Finglas Cabra area (Finglas Cabra Partnership, 2008). 17 local primary schools took part in the research. One of the findings was that principals felt there was a need to address the ‘grey area’: children in the ‘middle group’ of learners. These are children who do not have such serious learning difficulties that they qualify for more intensive learning support, but who are still in need of some extra help. This point was taken up by the Partnership’s primary principals’ forum, a quarterly meeting between local principals and Partnership education personnel. It was agreed that such an initiative could usefully employ volunteers, which would have the added benefit of involving the local community, a core pillar of the Partnership’s remit.

At the time, one school was already participating in the pilot of Wizard of Words, a very similar reading partners programme initiative run by Barnardos (discussed further in section 5.3 below). However, this was not open generally to schools in the area. Moreover, participating Wizard of Words volunteers are required to be 55 and over, and as it was felt that the initiative should involve the parents where possible, the Partnership decided to establish their own model. 3.2. Choosing an intervention model – Better Reading Bradford The Partnership therefore looked for a model which combined community participation with a structured and proven approach to support the development of

literacy. They decided upon the Better Reading Partnership, an intervention model developed by Bradford Local Education Authority in 1996. The programme was based on research by distinguished New Zealander literacy researcher Marie Clay, who created the very effective intervention of Reading Recovery. The programme was designed as a complement to Reading Recovery in the UK and importantly, was aimed at the group of middle learners whom the Tolka Area Partnership wished to target.

Statistics collected by the Bradford Local Education Authority (now Education Bradford) show significant reading gains as a result of the intervention, ranging from a reading age gain of 3.8 months to 13.3 months, over the ten week programme.2

In addition to training school-based staff and Reading Partners to deliver the programme, Education Bradford offer a three day training course to representatives from other authorities interested in setting up the Better Reading Partnership in their area, and the programme has been rolled out extensively across the UK. The Education Coordinator at Tolka Area Partnership trained in Better Reading in Bradford in 2007, and

then proceeded to recruit and train the Better Reading

Coordinator, Reading Partner volunteers and some school-based personnel.

3.3. An outline of the Better Reading Partnership The following is a summary of Better Reading as it operates in the Tolka Area Partnership â&#x20AC;&#x201C; deviations from the Bradford model are discussed below.

The programme is delivered by trained Reading Partners, mostly volunteers, in local primary schools through 15 minute sessions, three times a week, over a 10 week period. At the beginning of the programme, the Reading Partner is usually either provided with a one page report from the class teacher, flagging up any behavioural or learning difficulties the child may have, or has a face-to-face discussion with the teacher about the child. A letter is sent to the parents, asking for permission for the child to participate in the programme.

Results of sample studies from 5 Bradford primary schools in 2009-10, using the Suffolk reading age test. Available at http://www.talking-partners.org/, accessed 29 October 2010.

In the first session, the pupils’ reading level is assessed by the Reading Partner according to the Hertfordshire Reading Test, an assessment which is quick and easy to administer (see example in appendix 10.3 below). The Reading Partner also writes a detailed initial observation of the child’s reading ability.

During each session, the child reads three books, spending approximately five minutes on each (see Table 1 below). Books are colour coded according to the child’s ability. The first book (‘the familiar text’) is chosen by the child out of three or four texts he has previously read. This gives a positive start to the session, with opportunities for the Reading Partner to praise the pupil on his progress. One Reading Partner also commented: ‘Giving Eoin the opportunity to select his own books has been key to his progress.’ (Reading Partner final observation). The second book (‘recently introduced text’) is the book that was introduced as the third book in the previous week, so that the child is already familiar with it. The final book is a new text chosen by the Reading Partner, with the child’s interests in mind.

The second book is used to carry out a Running Record once a week. Running Records are assessments where the Reading Partner asks the child to read a short passage aloud, and the Reading Partner marks the number and type of errors made.

Structure of the 15 minute Better Reading session 3-5 1. Familiar text

Child chooses from previously read texts

minutes

Text introduced as the new text the previous session; Reading Partner carries out Reading 3 2. Recently introduced text Record on this once a week.

minutes 5-7

3. New text

Child reads with Reading Partner support

minutes

Table 1: The Better Reading Session

The Reading Partner also has the option of writing comments on each session, and several Reading Partners write quite detailed comments. Any sessions missed, and

reasons why, are noted. Halfway through the programme, a letter is sent out to the parent, outlining the child’s progress.

At the end of the ten-week period, the Reading Partner administers the Hertfordshire Test again, and notes the improvement. The Reading Partner also completes a final observation record. The pupil himself has the opportunity to comment on the programme, as does the teacher. The Better Reading Coordinator then sends a final progress report to the parents. When a group of children in a school have completed the programme, a celebration/ceremony is held where the children read out loud to the Reading Partners and their parents, and are awarded certificates for their participation in Better Reading.

‘Jack really enjoyed the final celebration and relished the

challenge of reading in front of his mother, the other parents etc., which was absolutely wonderful to see, for a boy who lacked such confidence before.’ (Reading Partner final observation).

3.4. Adaptation of Better Reading to the local context One of the questions to consider is how much Better Reading has been altered from its original form, and how much the integrity of the programme should be preserved. Education Bradford are generally keen to preserve programme fidelity insofar as possible, and are currently considering developing a ‘quality mark’ which would be awarded to organisations carrying out Better Reading according to best practice and guidelines. However, the Bradford coordinator stressed that: [The important point is to] ‘keep the ethos behind the programme..to develop independence and confidence...to turn passive learners into active learners.’

A number of adjustments were made to the Better Reading Partnership as developed by Education Bradford, both at the outset and as the programme developed. In fact, one of the principals highlighted that one of the strengths of Better Reading was its fluidity, as opposed to other more rigidly structured programmes. (Principal B).

One major difference is that Better Reading in Bradford is run primarily with schoolbased staff, such as teaching assistants. They do also have a number of volunteer programmes, but these are largely run in a business context, where an employer allows staff to participate in the programme during working hours. However, in these 20

cases, the programme is generally delivered over a 2o week period, for 20 minutes sessions, just once a week.

In the Tolka Area Partnership, while some school-based staff such as School Completion Officers have completed the training, the main focus has always been on community volunteers. The programme is also targeted at Reading Partners who do not have a full time job, and there was therefore no need to deviate from the standard 15 minutes sessions three times a week, over a 10 week period, except in a handful of individual cases. This more intensive, shorter intervention is probably the better model, as the Reading Partners and children can build a rapport more rapidly. Also, given that absences sometimes arise, a once a week model might potentially mean that one or more weeks might pass without a session taking place.

In Bradford, Reading Partners do not complete Running Records. Running Records have been flagged by Reading Partners and the Better Reading coordinator here as rather complex, and the coordinator has noticed that sometimes, Reading Partners drop out after learning about taking Running Records. In order to prevent this problem, the coordinator now runs an information session for prospective volunteers, so that they can understand what they will be doing before they sign up.

Another difference is that Better Reading is significantly more centralised in the Tolka Area than in Bradford. This is again linked to the fact that the majority of Reading Partners in Bradford are paid staff in the schools â&#x20AC;&#x201C; there is therefore less work involved in recruiting and supporting Reading Partners, and schools maintain their own records. This does, however mean that the success of Better Reading in Bradford is more difficult to evaluate. Their 2010 statistics mentioned above were garnered from just 5 of the participating primary schools; by contrast the present evaluation draws on the comprehensive statistics collected by the Better Reading Coordinator, in which every participating school is represented. Particularly given the stress placed on evaluation by the Department of Education, this indicates the need for a continued central coordinator, who can properly monitor the impact of the programme.

3.5. Administration of Better Reading in the Tolka Area Partnership Better Reading was established, and initial training delivered, by the Partnership’s Education Coordinator, an experienced teacher and youth worker, seconded from the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee (CDVEC). A Better Reading Coordinator was recruited in 2008 on a 2.5 day per week basis, to administer the programme. This role included: recruiting, supporting and managing the volunteer team; recruiting and supporting schools for the programme; communicating with parents and guardians; monitoring progress and maintaining statistics and records. She was then trained by the Education Coordinator to deliver the training herself, and has played a part in sourcing additional funding for the programme.

Building on the success of the Better Reading programme, the Education Coordinator also developed a companion numeracy programme, Better Maths. This is currently still in its first pilot year, and is being administered by the Partnership’s Education Projects Officer. It is also undergoing a formative evaluation and Barncat Consulting has liaised closely with the Better Maths evaluator.

The Education Coordinator returned to the VEC in March 2010, under a general recall of all seconded public and civil servants, but the Education Projects Officer and the Better Reading Coordinator have continued to run the programmes under the supervision of another senior manager. In early 2011 the local Community Development Programme will be integrated into the Partnership, which will involve significant restructuring. This evaluation will feed into that process. 3.6. Key findings 

Better Reading was established by the Tolka Area Partnership in 2008, to fill a gap perceived by local schools in supporting the ‘middle group’ of learners, just above those who qualify for reading support.



It was modelled on a successful programme developed by Education Bradford in the UK.



Better Reading involves trained Reading Partners, usually volunteers, working with a child over ten weeks, three times a week for 15 minutes per session during the school day.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Better Reading Bradford is administered to a greater extent in the schools than the Tolka Area Better Reading, which is administered centrally by the Partnership. While a degree of school ownership of the programme is desirable, the central control by the Better Reading Coordinator ensures that the programme is effectively monitored.

4. Reading Partners 4.1. Who are the Reading Partners? Approximately half of Reading Partners are parents of a child in the school where they volunteer, while others are members of the community who enjoy working with children or have a particular interest in education. To date, all Reading Partners have been female. Efforts should be made to address this gender imbalance. It is important that children have male as well as female role models, particularly given the preponderance of female primary teaching staff. All Reading Partners have been Garda vetted, and in accordance with local procedures, for working with children and young people.

The Reading Partners themselves feel it is important to stress that they are not teachers, feeling that the pupil will often be more relaxed. (Reading Partner focus group). â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;They assume that you are another teacher. I tell them, â&#x20AC;&#x153;I am not an ogre, I am not here to test you.â&#x20AC;? (Reading Partner B). This also helps to reinforce the idea of reading for pleasure, rather than just as an educational activity.

Better Reading has also trained several School Completion staff, a staff member from the Traveller Education Support Organisation, resource teachers and staff from Barnardos. While some of these participate fully in the programme and submit reports to the Better Reading Coordinator, others implement the programme but keep their own records and some have used the training as useful background to their day job, rather than implementing the programme in full. Furthermore, staff have often struggled to find the time to implement the programme as part of their day job, and feel that the programme is more suited to volunteers than to paid staff (School Completion Coordinator B). Therefore, in terms of programme fidelity, reinforcing reading for pleasure, and in the interests of maintaining centralised records for evaluation, the programme works best with volunteers.

4.2. Recruitment and retention of Reading Partners A review of Reading Partner application forms revealed a large diversity of channels through which candidates had heard about the programme. These included newsletters, www.activelink.ie (community development website), internet searches,

DCU Volunteer Fair, Volunteering Ireland, through a friend and through a colleague. This points to considerable effort on the part of Better Reading Coordinator. More than half (22) of the Reading Partners were recruited through their childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s school.

There is a relatively high turnover of Reading Partners. The Better Reading programme has trained 60 Reading Partners since January 2009. 41 of these went on to implement the programme; 19 did not. Of those that did not, reasons are given in some cases: the individual got a job; college or work timetables were changed so that the Reading Partner was no longer available; a family member was ill. The coordinator also mentioned that they had a number of dropouts when they reached the Running Records stage. This has been rectified by the introduction of a new Introductory Session, which prospective Reading Partners can attend before committing to regular reading partnership.

An average of 16 Reading Partners participated during each term. The programme generally runs in the Sept-Dec term, and again from January to Easter, but not in the summer term. Most Reading Partners take two children per term. Overall, an average of 2.9 courses per Reading Partner were completed. Eight Reading Partners continued into a second term, and two of those were with the programme for all four terms.

A high level of turnover and some slippage from training to participation is common in a community volunteer programme. A number of observations can be made, however. As discussed above, some of those who trained, particularly paid staff, regarded it as useful training, but did not necessarily commit to delivering the programme itself. Secondly, the retention appears to be best where the Reading Partner is a parent of a pupil in the school where they volunteer. The number of Reading Partners (41 active in total, an average of 16 per term) differs from the original target of 50 active Reading Partners. This was as a result of a deliberate decision by the Better Reading Coordinator, who felt that 50 was unsustainable, in terms of the time taken up in recruitment, training and support. This seems like a reasonable call, given that the Coordinator works on a 2.5 day per week basis, but attention could be paid to widening and strengthening the volunteer base, and improving retention. The schools would play a key role here.

4.3. Reading Partner Training The Reading Partners are generally trained over 5 half day sessions. Training covers the philosophy and approach of Better Reading, how to conduct the one to one sessions including role play, how to administer the reading assessment (Hertfordshire Reading Test) and how to administer Running Records. Three sources of information are stressed: meaning (‘does that make sense?’); structure (‘does that sound right?’) and visual (‘does that look right?’), and detail given on how to work on all three. Figure 1: Excerpt from Better Reading training slides

While the evaluators did not get the opportunity to observe the training in progress, the training material review is impressively comprehensive and conforms to good literacy instruction practice. The Reading Partners learn to develop a range of prompts to use during the session, aimed at helping the child to progress as an independent reader. This includes predicting (‘what do you think will happen next?’); explaining (‘why do you think he did that?’); reflection (‘what do you think might have happened if he didn’t do that?’) and personal response (‘did you like this book?’) The effectiveness of this type of approach is highlighted in the literacy research which explores the importance of helping children to become metacognitive readers, that is, readers who are strategic learners, aware of their own thinking processes and decision-making. (Paris, Lipson & Wixson (1994); Kazmierczark, 2007).

Asking Questions To encourage: 

Prediction



Explanation



Inferring - reading between the lines to go bey ond the inf ormation in the text character f eel about leaving home?



Recapping -



Summarising



Reflection



Personal responses to texts



Evaluation (particularly non fiction texts)-what are the benefits of this idea? What are the problems/adv antages?



Comparison of different authors

- what do y ou think? - why do y ou think the man said that?

who was the last person to see

eg . How does the

É ?

- what do y ou think might hav e happened if

É ?

Figure 2: Excerpt from Better Reading training slides

The training emphasises the importance of maintaining records and observations, and a significant proportion of the training is devoted to helping the volunteers understand and maintain Running Records.

There is no initial reading or suitability test for Reading Partners. Concern about Reading Partner ability, however, has rarely been an issue, and the Better Reading Coordinator has had just one case where a Reading Partner had to be discouraged from carrying out the programme. In general, Reading Partners who are not suited to the programme tend to drop out before starting in the schools.

4.4. Reading Partner support Reading Partners benefit greatly from meeting as a group of peers and exchanging experiences with Reading Partners in other schools. A new volunteer commented: It’s very reassuring talking to people who have been there…because it doesn’t always go [according to plan]’ (Volunteer D). The Better Reading Coordinator organises quarterly Reading Partner support meetings and one-to-one final meetings with each Reading Partner. She has also recently instituted a regular office hour each week, where Reading Partners can drop in and discuss any concerns or suggestions.

4.5. Reading Partner satisfaction There appears to be a high level of satisfaction among the volunteers with the programme. As one volunteer put it: ‘On a personal level, the job satisfaction is unbelievable…you see phenomenal changes from such a small thing.’ (Volunteer L).

There is clearly an excellent relationship established between the Better Reading Coordinator and the Reading Partners. One volunteer described the Better Reading Coordinator as ‘a beacon at the end of the phone’! (Volunteer E).

The programme, with its training and support, is also an excellent lifelong learning opportunity for the volunteers. Some of the volunteers have even gone on to paid roles in the education system, such as a special needs assistant. Also, as a resource teacher commented: ‘Some volunteers may not have had the most positive experience of school’ (Resource teacher B). The programme allows them to re-establish good relations with schools, pupils and the concept of learning.

4.6. Key findings 

As all the Reading Partners are currently female, efforts should be made to address this gender imbalance, to provide male as well as female role models. 28



While some individuals trained by Better Reading are paid staff, the programme appears to work best with volunteers as Reading Partners. in terms of programme fidelity, reinforcing reading for pleasure, and in the interests of maintaining centralised records for evaluation.



There is a relatively high turnover of Reading Partners, while parents of children in the schools where they volunteer are most likely to stay with the programme long term. While some degree of turnover is inevitable in a volunteer based programme, attention should be paid to recruiting volunteers who are likely to stay the course, and the schools will be instrumental in this regard.



The training material for Reading Partners presents an overview of good practice in reading instruction with sensitivity to suitability for volunteer delivery. Reading Partners learn to develop a range of prompts to help the child develop as an independent reader.



There appears to be a high level of satisfaction among Reading Partners, both in their work with the children and with the support they receive from the Better Reading Coordinator. It is also an important lifelong learning opportunity for the Reading Partners, not all of whom would have attained a high level of education.

5. Schools 5.1. Target schools It is not formally stated in the Better Reading literature which schools are targeted, but under the Tolka Area Business Plan 2010, the target groups are listed as T16 (disadvantaged communities), T20 (potential early school leavers/young people at risk of underachieving) and T21 (young people with behaviour/learning difficulties â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ie. children whose difficulties are the result of social factors rather than an impairment). In practice, the programme focuses its promotion efforts on the DEIS status schools within the Tolka Area, without excluding non-DEIS schools who express an interest in taking part, and one is currently involved. This seems to be a sensible approach. They are also currently piloting the programme in a school for children with behavioural difficulties, and another such school has expressed interest in participating. Finally, they piloted the programme in one secondary school (discussed in Section 5.4).

Better Reading has done extremely well in involving its target group; of the 18 DEIS primary schools in the area, 12 have participated in the Better Reading, and a further 2 are on board to participate shortly.

Of the four target schools with no involvement in Better Reading, two are running a similar reading initiative, Barnardos Wizard of Words, and Business in the Communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Time to Read (discussed further in Section 5.3 below). One school expressed an interest in finding out more about Better Reading on receiving the survey, and one felt that as almost half their teachers were trained in First Steps approaches to teaching reading and writing, they did not have a need for a further inschool literacy initiative. It is therefore clear that the Better Reading Partnership has almost maximum possible coverage of its target schools.

However, not all of the participating schools have participated in each of the four terms examined in this study. None of those surveyed indicated that this was because the programme did not work for their school; the reason in the majority of cases was the lack of available Reading Partners. This is an ongoing challenge â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not necessarily because of a lack of Reading Partners but because of geographical distribution.

Reading Partners must be placed in a school close to where they live or to a school on a bus route as many of them do not have access to a car. Many of the Reading Partners are parents of a school child, and are therefore assigned to their child’s school.

It must be noted that these difficulties are greatly alleviated where the school plays a more active role in recruiting Reading Partners, and where there is a school ‘champion’ for the programme, either the principal or a resource teacher. This conclusion was drawn by looking at the three schools which have participated over all of the four terms examined. In the first, which also put forward the most children for the programme, completing 31 courses in all, the programme is enthusiastically supported by a resource teacher, and the Reading Partners are committed parents. In a second school, the Home School Community Liaison teacher played a large role in instituting the programme and in the third (the non-DEIS school), the principal brought a flyer to a Parents’ Council meeting. One parent started the training, and she then helped to recruit other parent Reading Partners. In another school, which has participated in every term since coming on board in September 2009, a Reading Partner made this comment: ‘[The school] is brilliant. The resource teacher is in and out all the time and obviously really cares.’ (Reading Partner C). On the other hand, one volunteer mentioned that in her school, she frequently found that there was no room allocated for the Better Reading session, and sessions sometimes had to take place in a hallway or in the canteen. She felt that this was an indication that the school was not yet fully behind the programme.

It is clear that a committed champion within the school is needed to ensure the sustainability of the programme. Furthermore, while the principal is the key link person in most schools, the programme is most effective where there is a resource teacher, school support staff member or committed group of parents willing to take it on. Where there is a designated Literacy Coordinator, this would be an appropriate link person. This is understandable, as principals are very busy people, whose first concern must be for curricular and in-school activities. This may also contribute to a reluctance on the part of the principal to commit to the school taking on greater ownership. As one principal commented: ‘It is great that they [the Partnership] take

responsibility for it. A lot of schools wouldn’t have that many books, and we have five million things to do already!’ 5.2. Where does the Better Reading fit in the school’s literacy support system?

There is a delicate balance between State provision of services and community responses but for the most part, community [literacy] initiatives arise out of a lack of provision. (NESF 2009).

All of the primary schools participating in Better Reading have an extensive literacy support system, partly because all except one are participating in the School Support System under DEIS. All of the schools indicated in the survey that they provided small group support with a resource or support teacher, and all but one indicated they had external specialist support, such as access to a psychologist or speech and language therapist. Half (7) of the schools also provided one to one support with a Reading Recovery teacher. Reading Recovery generally results in what a Reading Recovery teacher interview referred to as ‘dramatic gains’ in reading ability, but understandably, is limited to the very lowest achieving readers in the school, those below the twelfth percentile. This is true of most of the reading supports available in the school.

However, there are also children in every school who are above the twelfth percentile, but are still below their normal reading age, or are ‘just above the border of receiving learning support’ (Resource teacher A). Another principal of a DEIS Band One school made an interesting point: ‘Learning supports are generally targeted at those below the tenth percentile, but there are many children above the tenth percentile who are not performing to the best of their ability. In my view, that is what brings scores down in DEIS schools – it makes the curve very flat.’ (Principal B).

As discussed above, Better Reading was initially set up to tackle this middle group of children, and many of the principals commented on its usefulness in this regard. ‘It’s working very well for us, in Senior Infants and 1st class. Oftentimes, they don’t have a learning difficulty - it’s a case of confidence.’

(Principal A). ‘[The children

participating] are just above the border of receiving learning support. It’s going well this year, we appreciate the programme very much.’ (Principal E).

This suggests that, despite the availability of a range of literacy supports to the schools participating in Better Reading, Better Reading does indeed address an important gap, and according to the testimony of the principals is addressing it well. However, we must now look at whether Better Reading is duplicating the work of other community initiatives. 5.3. Other programmes While the NESF emphasised the strengths of many community initiatives, they pointed to a degree of unnecesary duplication. The report states that: ‘There is overlap in some cases with expertise developing in parallel, and in most cases, these small projects remain local and do not scale up’ and that ‘groups often work in isolation from each other, and this may result in overlap and duplication of effort and a waste of scarce resources.’ (NESF, 2009). Interestingly though, they also acknowledge that the existence of overlap ‘may lead to unnecessary duplication in some cases, whereas, in others, it can create more choice for local residents.’

It is incumbent upon us therefore, to look at other programmes available in the Tolka Area. Among the schools surveyed, three other voluntary literacy initiatives were taking place: Wizard of Words, Time to Read and Paired Reading (see Table 2 below).

Barnardos Wizards of Words is a much more structured programme, with intensive training and a strong volunteer commitment, and it currently has a very low volunteer drop-out rate. However, all volunteers must be over 55, which means that the programme is not suitable for parental volunteers, although grandparents may be involved. Furthermore, it is in a pilot stage at present in just eight schools in Dublin and Limerick until 2010, including two in the Tolka catchment area. It has received seed funding from Atlantic Philanthropies, and is currently undergoing a very rigorous quantitative evaluation, including the use of randomised control trials. It would be useful for Tolka Area Partnership to keep in touch with the Wizard of Words Coordinator, as there may be opportunities for mutual learnings and cooperation. 33

The Time to Read initiative by Business in the Community works with volunteers who are sponsored by their employers to work in the local schools. It is operating in one school in the Tolka area. Of the schools surveyed, three indicated that they used ‘Paired Reading’, where each pupil in the class in turn spent ten minutes reading with a parent recruited by the school. This is more inclusive, but less intensive than Better Reading, and it is important to note that these parents are not trained. All of the schools using Paired Reading also had links to Better Reading. One principal felt that Paired Reading was a good complement ‘for parents who wouldn’t feel comfortable with formal training’ (Principal C) and another principal had used it as a replacement for Better Reading ‘when no Reading Partners were available, we roped in a couple of parents.’ (Principal D). This principal had not realised that these parents could avail of the Better Reading training, and was interested when the option was explained. Committed parents in this programme might be encouraged to train with Better Reading.

The Better Reading Partnership serves by far the greatest number of schools – fourteen, compared to two or three participating in the other initiatives. In terms of volunteers, it is the most flexible, open to all interested members of the community.

Given the small number of schools covered by the other schemes, there is relatively little overlap. The school participating in Time to Read, and one of the schools participating in Wizard of Words, felt that their needs were fulfilled by these programmes. Another school, however, participated in both WoW and Better Reading , feeling that Better Reading could ‘pick up slack’ from WoW by concentrating on the older classes (Principal F). Wizard of Words is designed for 1st and 2nd class only, while the Better Reading is open to all children from Senior Infants to 6th class.

5.4. Variations of Better Reading As mentioned, the Better Reading has also been piloted in a school for special behavioural needs, and one secondary school. Both were run on slightly different 34

models to the primary school delivery. In the special needs school, nine teachers were trained in Better Reading, and just one volunteer. This had just started at the time of the evaluation, and so it was too early to assess. Another special needs school has also expressed an interest in participating.

In the secondary school, an even more innovative model has been employed, whereby senior students are trained as Reading Partners, to read with first year students. The evaluation has not looked at this programme in detail, relying exclusively on internal reviews carried out by the Better Reading Coordinator. Originally, the programme was designed to be run with Transition Year students as Reading Partners, but their frequent absences from school disrupted the courses. The programme then trained 6th and 5th year students instead. The feedback from the 1st year students has been positive: ‘I used to hate reading and I don’t anymore’; ‘They recommend good books for us to read…books they think we’ d like which is great’; ‘They really get us interested in the book which is good’ are some of the comments made. The 6th year students were ‘surprised and delighted’ to get this feedback, which ‘gave them a boost’ (Better Reading internal review). Problems persisted, however, with Reading Partner absences, especially as the Reading Partner did not always inform the 1st year that they would not be available.

The programme in the secondary school is clearly worthwhile, and an excellent innovative variation on Better Reading. However, the evaluators’ view is that the Partnership should concentrate on their original target, the primary schools, and work on establishing the programme firmly and sustainably in those schools. Nonetheless, it would be worth discussing the model and sharing the review findings with the Junior Cert Support Coordinator, to see if there may be some synergies with her current proposal to train Junior Cert support librarians in Better Reading (see Section 8.3 below).

5.5. Key findings 

Impressively, Better Reading has achieved almost maximum coverage of its target schools. 14 out of the 18 DEIS schools in the Tolka Area are involved with Better Reading, and one more has expressed an interest in participating. 35



However, not every school participated every term, largely due to a lack of available volunteers in their area. An examination of the most successful schools shows that where there is a champion within the school, who is willing to play a part in recruiting and support volunteers, there is a much more constant supply of Reading Partners. This underlines the importance of having a key link person within the school.



Despite the availability of a range of literacy supports to the schools participating in Better Reading, Better Reading does indeed address an important gap, in targeting the ‘middle group’ of learners, and according to the testimony of the principals is addressing it well.



While three similar programmes do operate within the target schools, there is little overlap and Better Reading has by far the widest coverage. Paired reading, in which parents read with each child in the class in turn runs in parallel with Better Reading in three participating schools. Committed parents in this programme might be encouraged to train with Better Reading.



While a pilot of Better Reading, using an innovative model whereby senior students work with 1st years, has been successful, the evaluators’ view is that the Partnership should concentrate on building a strong and sustainable programme within their target primary schools.

Community reading and

Schools in Tolka

literacy

Co-ordinated by

Reading Partners

Better 14

Tolka Area Partnership

Partnership Wizard of Words

Barnardos

reading

members; all welcome

Community

Over 55s

the and

participating companies Paired

Parents and community

Target children

3 days, based on Reading

Children in the

Recovery model developed All

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;middle group of

by Marie Clay

learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Wizard

Business Time to Read

Classes

Area

initiative

Reading

Training

School

Employees

participating companies

Parents or other adults.

Words

Children

just

programme developed in 1st and 2nd class

above the twelfth

the US.

percentile

Yes

None

Seven

eight

year olds

Age varies school to school

Table 2: Community initiatives in DEIS schools in the Tolka Area

Parents read with each child in the class in turn

6. Pupils 6.1. Literacy and the Better Reading Programme A balanced view of reading literacy comprises the following elements: phonics; phonological/phonemic awareness; vocabulary development; comprehension skills and fluency development, as illustrated in Figure 3 below.

O r a l la n g u a g e V o c a b u la r y

P h o n e m ic aw are n e ss

• W o rd d e fin itio n s • W o rd m e a n in g s • R e p e a tin g u s e in m u ltip le co n te x ts

• S e g m e n tin g • B le n d in g • Is o la tin g so u n d s • C o u n tin g s o u n d s

R e a d in g w ith C O M P R E H E N S I O N U n d e r s ta n d in g

C o m p r e h e n s io n s tr a te g ie s • P re d ic tin g • B u ild in g k n o w le d g e • M a k in g co n n e c tio n s • S u m m a risin g • Q u e s tio n in g

• S o u n d su b s titu tio n

D E C O D IN G

P h o n ic s • L e tte r/s o u n d • B le n d in g • W o rd p a tte rn s • O n s e t rim e • Irre g u la r w o rd s • M u ltis y lla b ic w o rd s

F lu e n c y • R e p e a te d re a d in g • P a ire d /S h a re d • E c h o re a d in g • C h o ral re a d in g

Figure 3: Elements of reading literacy

The research tells us that the elements outlined above need to be included in effective literacy instruction (NRP, 2000). However, other aspects of reading are equally important: reading motivation and engagement in reading, types of books available, time spent talking about books (Gambrell, 2009).

Children are motivated by their increasing competence, and this increase in reading leads in turn improved motivation, forming a virtuous cycle (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999). The Reading Partners’ own perception of the programme and its success is that fluency and confidence are the most important achievements, with confidence being measured by the pupils’ 38

willingness to attempt to identify new words, reduced fear or avoidance of reading, and willingness to say that they don’t like the book.

This last point is important. The more time children spend reading, the better readers they become (Eivers, Shiel and Shortt, 2004; Stanovich, 1986; Allington, 2002). Better Reading has an important role to play in terms of instilling a love of reading for recreation. Aspects of the programme that promote this are the fact that it is one to one, the fact that it is not perceived as a lesson and the fact that the child gets to choose books herself from an appropriate range. Added to this is an element of flexibility which the Reading Partners themselves introduce. For younger children, or children with short attention spans, Reading Partners reported using games such as word bingo to keep them focused (Reading Partner observations). Another Reading Partner took an even more innovative approach: ‘I had a little fellow, he said he hated reading, but it was just a fear factor, you know. So I asked him what he liked to do and he said his [Nintendo] DS. I asked him do you ever read the captions on your DS? He said no, so in the last session, I got him to bring in his DS and we read the captions together.’ (Reading Partner I). At the other end of the scale, Reading Partners found that 5th class children wanted to read the same novels as their friends, and were offended and bored with the ‘kiddy books’ that were suitable for their ability but not for their age group. One Reading Partner recounted that a pupil was not progressing by week 4, and so the Reading Partner asked her to suggest a book she might like to read. She mentioned Roddy Doyle, so the Reading Partner brought several from home for her to choose from. The pupil’s reading ability improved dramatically and she told her Reading Partner: ‘I love reading this book – it doesn’t feel like reading.’ (Reading Partner focus group). Including popular writers in the classroom library such as Roddy Doyle, and other writers who use an engaging vernacular style can motivate children to read, and they will learn that literacy is about more than just reading in a classroom context. Choice of books is hugely important in enhancing motivation to read. A selection of both fiction and non-fiction books to choose from and a variety of genres is also important.

6.2. Quantitative measures of pupil improvement Introduction

The following section looks at both quantitative and qualitative measures of pupil success. In addition to examining the results, it also looks at the record collection methods in place, with a view to enhancing ongoing internal monitoring.

Quantitative data collection in Better Reading

As mentioned above, the Reading Partners administers the Hertfordshire Test (appendix 10.3) at the beginning and end of the course. This has been used since the inception of the programme. It must be understood that this is merely a ‘snapshot’ of the pupil’s progress, and does not provide a comprehensive picture of the child’s reading ability. Another point to consider is that it is normed on an English, not an Irish population.

Despite these caveats, the Hertfordshire Test is simple, useful and easy to administer for volunteers – a more comprehensive measure would need to be administered by professional educators. It establishes a baseline at the beginning of the course and a means to map progress at the end.

Running Records are also administered once every week. As mentioned above, Better Reading in Bradford do not use Running Records with volunteer Reading Partners, considering them too complex. However, the volunteer Reading Partners here have been successfully trained in administering Reading Records, which are a very effective assessment method, and should therefore continue to be used. As one Reading Partner commented, ‘[They are] daunting at first, easy when you get the hang of it’. (Reading Partner M) At present, though, the Running Records are only for the Reading Partner’s own mapping of the child’s progress, and are then kept on file with the coordinator. It would be useful to photocopy the records, and share them with the child’s class teacher. The teacher could also play a role in interpreting the results of the Running Records. Finally, Reading Partners would be well placed to assess the child’s self-perception as a reader. A sample of a ‘Reading Attitude Survey’ is provided in appendix. Given that the Reading

Partners already feel that there is a large amount of paperwork (Reading Partner focus group) this should only be considered if it is decided to drop one of the other tests.

Quantitative outcomes According to Better Reading Hertfordshire testing, the average reading age improvement over the 10 week period was 5.5 months, ranging from no change to a one year increase in reading age. This suggests that the pupils improved at more than double the expected progression, as their actual age would have increased by slightly over two months over the duration of the course. Given the the range of methods used to test children’s reading ability, it is difficult to compare this progress to that achieved by other interventions – and, indeed, to distinguish progress made thanks to the Better Reading from that achieved by general classroom teaching in the same time frame. As mentioned above, the test is not a comprehensive measure of the child’s overall reading ability. In some instances, no change in the child’s reading age was noted. One Reading Partner commented: ‘The test showed that Jenny had not improved in reading age, but the teacher noted an improvement and Jenny really enjoyed the sessions.’ (Reading Partner final observation). This makes the point that Better Reading is about improving confidence and fluency, not just decoding and reading accuracy. The Hertfordshire Test provides a useful snapshot of the child’s reading ability before and after the course, but should not be relied upon exclusively to evaluate the results.

Sessions missed during the the ten week course are also recorded, and reasons usually given. An average of 5 out of 30 sessions were missed. This was for a variety of reasons – sometimes due to the child’s absence from school that day, sometimes due to the Reading Partner being unavailable, or sometimes because of a special event or closure at the school. On the whole, an average of one session every two weeks missed does not appear to be a hugely significant number. One teacher even commented that Better Reading had a positive effect on a child’s school attendance. ‘Her attendance has improved hugely during her time on BRP.’ (Teacher comment, final observation). It must also be noted that where the Reading Partner was in a paid 41

capacity (e.g. School Completion Officer), absences were more frequent. This is not due to any laxity on the Reading Partner’s part; but is rather a reflection of their very busy roles within the school, and the perception that Better Reading is just one tool that they might employ in carrying out their job.

The Better Reading Coordinator wanted to know whether schools would like the sessions missed to be made up, if the Reading Partner were available. The majority were enthusiastic, but pointed out that it would not be possible to reschedule for a different day in the same week, as the classes might not suit. However, most would be happy to continue into an eleventh or twelfth week. It might be sensible to plan, with both Reading Partner and school, for a twelve week implementation slot, so that any sessions missed can be made up in the extra two weeks.

6.3. Qualitative measures of pupil improvement As the Better Reading Coordinator noted: ‘The Hertfordshire Test only measures how a child performs on a particular day – if she’s not in great form, she might not do that well. That’s why the final observations are so important.’

Qualitative data collection

The Reading Partners make extensive comments on the sessions, and the child and the teacher also have the opportunity to make comments. Some of the Reading Partners felt that there was too much paperwork, saying that they would prefer to spend the time reading with the child, rather than taking notes, and the Reading Partner records show that there is a wide range in the amount of notes written by the Reading Partner. When questioned about this, Better Reading Coordinator acknowledged that not everyone had the time or inclination to write detailed notes, and therefore she made a point of meeting with each Reading Partner at the end of each 10 week course, rather than relying solely on their written notes to send the final progress report to the parents. This shows remarkable diligence, and it should be noted that this could not be achieved without a dedicated coordinator.

Qualitative outcomes 42

‘It's been terrific - it really just gives them that confidence, the one-to-one time’ (Principal A).

You can hear confidence building as they read a book (Reading Partner B).

Patrick really benefited from 1:1 contact. It has really helped his focus on reading and his confidence in his ability is much improved. (Teacher comment, final observation). Above are just some of the comments that mention children’s confidence, clearly a significant outcome for this programme. Overcoming a fear of failure is hugely important to prevent a fatalistic approach - ‘I know I won’t succeed, so why should I try? - which has been shown to be associated with early school leaving, and a risk of drug taking and other self-harming. (Ivers, McLoughlin & Downes 2010; Downes, Maunsell & Ivers,2006) As discussed above, an interest in reading beyond the classroom is also a key outcome – motivation is a key factor in improving literacy. Comments such as the following suggest that this is being achieved: ‘Daniel’s attitude to reading appears to have improved, and he even asked me if I knew of books he might like!’ (Reading Partner final observation). Q: Have you enjoyed the programme? A: Yes, I bring books home (Pupil comment). ‘Each day she would tell me in detail what happened in the book after reading it at home.’ (Reading Partner final observation).

6.4. Key findings 

Quantitatively, the Hertfordshire Test shows an average improvement of 5.5 months over the 10 week reading period. While the Hertfordshire Test provides a useful snapshot of the child’s reading ability before and after the session, it should not be relied upon exclusively to evaluate the results.



A number of qualitative measures are also collected by the programme, including volunteer, pupil and teacher comments. Better Reading seems to have an enormously positive impact on children’s confidence, motivation and interest in reading outside the classroom.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

While the number of sessions missed per course were not hugely significant, it might be helpful for the course to be run over 12 weeks, instead of 10, so that the last two weeks could be used to make up sessions missed, if any.

7. Family 7.1. Literacy and the family A model developed by Uri Bronfenbrenner offers a framework to view the interconnected worlds of the child and how each system impacts on the child’s learning. The child’s immediate and individual world, his home and school (microsystem), the interconnections between these worlds (mesosystem) and further links to a wider world (exosystem) all impact on the child’s learning. He concludes that:‘A child’s ability to learn to read in the primary grades may depend no less on how he is taught than on the existence and nature of ties between the school and the home’. (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Parents are their child’s first teacher and role model and have a strong influence on their learning. Over the last three decades in the UK, a large body of research has focused on the role of the family with a particular emphasis on the early years in order to raise literacy standards (DfES, 2007). This research has highlighted three important findings: families and parents are critical, the home is crucial and early intervention is vital.

There is a clear link between family circumstances and literacy attainment. The value placed on literacy in the home, time spent reading with children, and the availability and use of reading materials have all been identified as important elements in children's reading success (Snow, Burns and Griffin, 1998). Access to reading materials, not just in school but also outside school is a key element in enhancing the reading development of all children. Children from lowincome households have been shown to have a limited amount of reading material available, and to be more significantly affected by summer reading loss (Mraz and Rasinksi, 2007). In Tolka Area Partnership’s own local research, ‘principals identified family and environmental factors as the key underlying reason for pupils being behind their peers and their chronological age in relation to literacy and numeracy.’ (Finglas Cabra Partnership, 2008) The Dept of Education’s recent draft national plan on literacy and numeracy states that: ‘Given that pupils spend only 15 per cent of their time at school, the impact of the home on pupils’ development and attainment cannot be underestimated.’ (DES, 2010).

7.2. Parents’ involvement in the Better Reading Partnership At present, Better Reading communicates with parents or guardians in the following ways: at the beginning of the course, an introductory letter is sent to the parents, with a permission slip for them to sign; midway through the course a progress report is sent to the parents and at the end of the course, a final progress report is sent to the parents and they are invited to an end of course celebration, where children have the opportunity to read aloud.

The coordinator was particularly keen to know whether this was sufficient parental contact, and so the question was asked both in the principals’ survey and the Reading Partner focus group. Most of the schools felt that this level of involvement was fine, but some suggested that it might be a good idea to invite the parents in to meet the Reading Partners, either at the beginning of the programme, or midway through. Meeting the Reading Partner could have a positive outcome for parents who may be encouraged to continue the reading habit at home or perhaps become interested in getting involved as a Reading Partner themselves.

For their part, Reading Partners felt they had little or no contact with the parents and receive no direct feedback from them (Reading Partner focus group). Occasionally, some indirect feedback is given by the class teacher, such as: [The teacher] told me that Liam’s mam had said that she saw a huge improvement in his reading and how happy he had become to read, she said she saw a big difference. (Reading Partner final observation). There was a sense that the Reading Partners would also like some feedback on how they were doing themselves. However, Reading Partners were conscious of the need for boundaries and some showed a lack of confidence ‘writing about someone else’s child’ (Reading Partner D). At present, the coordinator edits and sends out the final reports to parents. If one-to-one meetings were to take place, Reading Partners would have to be highly attuned to any sensitivities and to conduct the meeting accordingly.

Rather than prioritizing one-to-one meetings therefore, it might be useful to put a greater emphasis on the end of course celebrations. These celebrations are a wonderful opportunity for the children to show their parents that they can read aloud with confidence, for parents to meet with Reading Partners and understand what they do, and for the school to show their support for the programme. 46

7.3. Effect of Better Reading on parental involvement

As mentioned above, time spent reading with children is a key factor in reading success, and in some cases, the Better Reading Partnership acts to counteract a lack of parent-child reading at home. ‘It is of great benefit to him as he doesn’t get enough one on one time…there is little evidence of reading in the home’ (Reading Partner final observation).

However, in addition to filling a gap, Better Reading can be seen to have a positive impact on reading within the family, which fosters the reading habit among children and encourages further interest in reading. We have already discussed how Better Reading contributes to the child’s individual interest in personal reading, but it is also striking how often the child reading to other people is mentioned. ‘Sharon always brought home books to read to her other brothers and sisters. Sometimes she said she would act out the stories in the books with her younger sisters.’ (Reading Partner final observation). ‘Q: What is your goal as a reader? A: Would like to read a story for me mam and Mrs. Walshe.’ (Pupil comment in initial observation). ‘At the start of the programme, Pavel told me that he would love to read to his little brother and recently he told me that he did, so result!!! (Reading Partner observation). 7.4. Further development In order to promote greater parental involvement, a holistic approach involving family, literacy and early intervention would be in order. The Early Childhood Coordinator at the Partnership is currently implementing: ‘A pilot programme for positive local interventions to support early childhood development (age 18 to 42 months) with regards to essential skills particularly language and literacy.’ (Tolka Area Business Plan 2010). If greater links between the Early Childhood Coordinator and the Education team were established, this would provide stronger links between parents and the Partnership, and a seamless transition from pre-school to school. A similar approach is being used by youngballymun, cited as a best practice example by the NESF (NESF 2010).

This holistic view of literacy, supporting the child’s early literacy experiences within the family, then in pre school, and later in primary school requires joined up resources within the community. Better Reading is an example of an effective programme which links community support and the child’s family, home and school. 7.5. Key findings 

In achieving better literacy, families and parents are critical, the home is crucial and early intervention is vital.



Better Reading communicates with the parents several times throughout the programme. Greater emphasis should be placed on the end of course celebrations, where parents have the opportunity to meet with Reading Partners, school supporters and hear their child read aloud – sometimes for the first time.



Better Reading sometimes fills a gap where the child receives little literacy support in the home, but can also be shown to have a positive effect on reading in the home, with children reporting that they read aloud to parents, brothers and sisters.



The Partnership should take a holistic approach to literacy interventions, establishing greater links between the Early Childhood and the Education programmes.

8. Future for the programme 8.1. Introduction As outlined above, the Partnership has been running Better Reading as a pilot since 2008, and commissioned this evaluation with a view to establishing the programme on a more permanent footing, if it was proved to be effective. They felt, however, that the Partnership would not necessarily remain the principal owner of the programme, and therefore requested that the evaluator meet with external stakeholders to explore their potential role in the programme. The evaluators were also asked to consider the possibility of nationwide rollout.

8.2. The role of the schools The role of the schools is clearly key, as the schools implementing Better Reading with the greatest success are those which take an active part in recruiting and supporting volunteers. The schools should be encouraged to do the following: 

identify a key link person for Better Reading;



actively promote Better Reading to recruit volunteers, particularly among the parents;



support Reading Partners logistically, informing them of pupil absences and ensuring that they have a suitable place for their sessions;



and enhance the communication between Better Reading and the parents by emphasising and encouraging parents, pupils and Reading Partners to attend the end of course celebrations.

Class teachers

One observation made by the evaluators is that there is relatively little contact between Better Reading and most of the class teachers, a finding borne out by the volunteers themselves (Volunteer focus group). If the Running Records were to be given to the class teacher, as evidence of the child’s reading progress, and interpreted to support the child’s future learning (e.g. miscue analysis) this information could greatly assist the teacher in future planning for the child. The class teacher could also be more involved in the end of course celebration. Finally, an introductory session to the Better Reading should be run for all interested teachers. 49

However, the schools should not be expected to run Better Reading themselves, without external support. This would be inefficient, in terms of organising training, maintaining a library, and monitoring impact and progress. The cross-school volunteer support structure is also extremely important for the sustainibility of the programme.

8.3. School Completion Programme It was suggested at the outset that the School Completion Programme might play a greater role in Better Reading. It is true that the School Completion Programme in the area was an early supporter of the programme, putting forward several members of staff for training. However, there are a number of reasons why the Better Reading is not necessarily the best fit here: 

Paid staff find it difficult to implement the programme as part of their day-to-day duties, and feel themselves it is more suited to volunteers.



School Completion staff would not be ideally placed to recruit volunteers, as their focus is more in the schools than the community.



School Completion staff focus very much on those at serious risk of early school leaving, which are not necessarily the same target group as Better Reading.



The focus of the School Completion Programme is around participation and attendance, not primarily literacy and numeracy.



Local School Completion Coordinators have a great deal of autonomy, so that each Coordinator would have to commit separately to administering the programme within her target schools.

Nonetheless, the School Completion Programme is an important stakeholder , undertaking extremely valuable work within the target schools, and should be consulted and liaised with as a key partner.

8.4. Home School Community Liaison Some stakeholders suggested that the Home School Community Liaison programme might be a better fit for the Better Reading programme. The time constraints of the evaluation did not allow for a full exploration of this possibility; however, the following initial observations can be made: 50



As with School Completion, the HSCLs’ time is often taken up in dealing with children in the most difficult family circumstances.



Each school has its own HSCL, meaning that the cross-school connection would be lost.

However, while literacy is not their main focus, Home School Community Liaison coordinators are often involved in establishing Paired Reading, and might be very helpful in recruiting volunteers for the programme. It might be suggested to the schools that the HSCL might play a role in promoting Better Reading.

8.5. National Education Welfare Board In May 2009, the Department of Education and Science extended the remit of the National Education Welfare Board and charged it with providing an integrated approach to attendance, participation and retention in schools. This included responsibility for both School Completion and Home School Community Liaison, and a brief to bring greater cohesion to these services, a task which is ongoing. It would be useful for the Partnership to follow this process, with a view to establishing where Better Reading might fit within this overall picture.

8.6. The Junior Certificate Support Programme The evaluator also met with the Junior Cert Support Programme National Coordinator. Interestingly, this Coordinator is planning to deliver Better Reading training to all of the librarians in the programme, who are dispersed in schools serving disadvantaged areas nationwide. While this is a different target group to the programme in the Partnership, it is an indication of the perception of the programme’s usefulness. It also may be a way of maximising training resources, and she has been in touch with the Better Reading Coordinator in this respect.

8.7. Better Reading within the Partnership Our findings show that Better Reading is a very effective model of partnered reading with pupils, which is supporting the literacy efforts in each of the participating schools in the Tolka Area Partnership. This level of community literacy support requires consistent resources in terms of managing and coordinating the Reading Partners and liaising with parents, pupils and school principals. In addition to this, the Partnership maintains records of pupils’ reading, and volunteer, 51

pupil and teacher comments, which are invaluable in monitoring and evaluating the impact of the programme. The programme, therefore, should continue to be supported by the Partnership in the medium term.

It should move from a pilot phase into a strategic phase, focusing on building capacity in the schools to take greater ownership of the programme, while at the same time retaining control over certain central aspects. However, a core strength of Better Reading is that it is a community initiative, and is not part of, but complements, the formal education sector. The Partnership is a trusted resource for the local community, and is ideally placed to engage with both schools and community volunteers, and other external stakeholders.

8.8. Better Reading and Better Maths Before outlining the proposals for the strategic development, a key point must be made with regard to the positioning of the programme within the Partnership. It is seriously inefficient that the Better Reading Partnership is currently run almost entirely separately from the Better Maths programme, which was adapted from the Better Reading model. While acknowledging that this arose unintentionally as a result of the recall of the Education Coordinator, who oversaw both, this should be dealt with immediately.

The report proposes that the two programmes be rebranded as a single initiative with two strands, Better Reading (the literacy strand) and Better Maths (the numeracy strand). For branding recognition, the evaluators suggest that ‘Better’ be retained in the title. A number of possible titles present themselves: Better Able, Better in the Community, Better Learning. A personal favourite is ‘Better Basics’ and we will use this to refer to this merged programme, for simplicity’s sake.

8.9. Strategic development of Better Basics This phase would require a shift in focus, with an emphasis on a strategic forward-thinking approach to funding and partnerships. To this end, a number of suggestions for structuring are made:



A finite timeframe for the next phase of development should be established – two to three years would be appropriate. The goal at the end of the phase should be to have established secure funding and a permanent home for the programme, whether in the Partnership or elsewhere. Nationwide rollout should also be considered as a possibility.



A standing Steering Committee should be established, to periodically review progress. If the members of the Steering Group which oversaw this evaluation were willing to participate, their contribution would be extremely valuable. Other stakeholders to include would be: the coordinator, principals or resource teachers in schools currently implementing Better Reading, a Reading Partner or Better Maths volunteer and representatives of local education supports such as SCP and HSCL. The committee should not exceed 8 members.



A new role of Better Basics Coordinator should be established.

8.10. Better Basics Coordinator This dedicated role would replace the Better Reading Coordinator role, and take the Better Maths out of the remit of the Education Projects Officer. It is likely that more than 2.5 days would be needed for this role, but a completely full-time role is not necessarily required, as a number of efficiencies would result in running the two programmes in tandem, such as: 

Schools could be encouraged to recruit Reading Partners for both at the same time, allowing Reading Partners to choose whether they worked on literacy or numeracy;



Schools who participate in one could be encouraged to participate in the other;



Schools could, in most cases, nominate the same key contact person for both projects;



Volunteer support, although it would have to remain separate in some respects, could overlap in some areas e.g.. the coordinator could have drop-in office hours for both Better Reading and Better Maths volunteers at the same time.

Key responsibilities

The following are suggested as the key responsibilities of the Better Basics Coordinator:



encourage and support schools to recruit their own volunteers for both Better Reading and Better Maths, with a view to this becoming completely owned by the schools;



cooperate closely with a key link person within each school;



maintain detailed and complete records, with a view to monitoring impact;



provide a strong support network for volunteers;



pursue strategic relationships with all key stakeholders;



and pursue sustainable funding opportunities.

Key responsibilities should preferably NOT include: 

Training. It would free up the coordinator’s time if they were not to deliver either Better Reading or Better Maths training themselves, but that this was done by an external professional educator. While this would represent an additional cost, it might be most cost effective in the long term, would increase the sustainability of the programme should it not be housed within the Partnership in future, and savings may be made by liaising with other interested stakeholders such as the Junior Cert Support Programme.



Volunteer recruitment. In the long term, this responsibility should be almost entirely devolved to the schools, although the Partnership might assist with general calls for Better Basics volunteers eg. advertising on Activelink, posting opportunities with Dublin City North Volunteer Centre, and putting up posters in the Partnership itself.



Promoting the programme in more schools. Better Reading has achieved almost maximum coverage of its target schools; however,not all schools are able to run the programme each term, due to lack of available volunteers. Better Basics should therefore concentrate on building a sustainable programme within the schools already on board.

Key competencies

The following are the competencies which the evaluators feel the Better Basics Coordinator should have: 

Excellent understanding of the Irish education system and current education policy, particularly around educational disadvantage; 54

ď&#x201A;&#x;

Excellent interpersonal skills;

ď&#x201A;&#x;

Attention to detail, in particular with regard to maintaining complete records;

ď&#x201A;&#x;

Data analysis and statistical skills.

8.11. Funding We recommend that the Partnership continue to provide core funding, through Pobal, for this next strategic development phase. However, during that phase, the Partnership should also explore supplementary funding possibilities. These might include EU funding (e.g.. Gruntvig funding for adult education, to fund the Better Reading Partner training). The progress of the draft report on Better Literacy and Numeracy should be followed closely, to see what form the commitment by DES to support family literacy initiative will take.

8.12. Potential for nationwide rollout The evaluators were also asked to explore the potential for nationwide rollout. We certainly see Better Reading as a programme with great potential for wider implementation. The next strategic development phase of Better Basics, therefore, should look more closely at this possibility. We would recommend the programme for consideration by other local Partnerships, and would urge the Tolka Area Partnership to disseminate this report through Partnership networks.

9. Recommendations The evaluators were asked to address two principal questions in the course of this evaluation: ‘How effective is the Better Reading Partnership? and ‘What is its future?’

9.1. Better Reading Strengths Our findings show that Better Reading has created a very effective model of shared/partner reading with pupils, which is supporting the literacy efforts in each of the participating schools in the Tolka Area Partnership.

Some of its strengths include: 

It is a model of reading support that fits within the broader concept of literacy, which embraces not only word recognition and comprehension, but also developing confidence as a reader, enjoyment of reading, and engaging with books.



It is in line with current government policy and academic commentary on the importance and value of community literacy initiatives.



It targets an important gap – the ‘middle group’ of learners and, according to the principals’ testimony, is doing it well.



It has a simple yet effective format that is easy for volunteers to deliver.



Reading Partner training presents a good overview of best practice in reading instruction with sensitivity to suitability for volunteer delivery. In particular, the Reading Partners learn to develop a range of prompts to help the child’s progress as an independent reader.



It has impressive coverage of its target schools, with 14 out of a total 18 DEIS schools in the area participating.



There is little duplication or overlap with other programmes in the area.



It has a series of internal monitoring methods, both quantitative (Hertfordshire Test, Running Records) and qualitative (volunteer observations, pupil and teacher comments).



The Hertfordshire Test results show an average of 5.5 months improvement in reading age over the 10 week period – more than double the improvement that could be expected in the absence of an intervention.



Better Reading seems to have an enormously positive impact on children’s confidence, motivation and interest in reading outside the classroom.



9.2. Recommendations for the future 

A number of external stakeholders are key in situating Better Basics within the overall education system and school strategy. These stakeholders include the School Completion Programme, the Home School Community Liaison, Reading Recovery and resource teachers in the schools and the Junior Cert Support Programme, and should be kept informed of developments in the Better Basics programme.



Nonetheless, the Partnership is still best placed to lead Better Basics into a second, strategic development phase, as a trusted community partner in the Tolka Area. This level of community literacy support requires consistent resources in terms of managing and coordinating the Reading Partners, the volunteers, liaising with parents, pupils and school principals. In addition to this, the Partnership maintains records of all Better Reading courses, including test results, Running Records, volunteer observations and teacher and pupil comments. These are extremely important in monitoring the impact of the programme.



The pilot phase should be ended, and a finite period (2-3 years) should be set by the Partnership for the second, strategic development phase, at the end of which the programme should have secured sustainable funding and a permanent home, whether in the Partnership or elsewhere.



Better Reading should merge with Better Maths, to form a programme (‘Better Basics’) with two strands: Better Reading and Better Maths (assuming that the evaluation of Better Maths indicates that it is worth continuing.)



A standing Better Basics steering committee should be established.



A new Better Basics Coordinator post should be established, to administer and develop both Better Reading and Better Maths. Key skills for this person would include an excellent understanding of the Irish education system and educational policy, good administrative skills and excellent interpersonal skills. 57



The Partnership should take a holistic approach to learning, starting with the pre-school years, where they already have an Early Childcare Coordinator, with a new focus on literacy and numeracy. There should be enhanced cooperation between the pre-school and primary school programmes.

9.3. Operational recommendations The following are operational recommendations with regard to Better Reading – Better Maths is currently being evaluated separately, and those recommendations should be taken into consideration if the decision is made to merge the two programmes. 

The Partnership should concentrate on building a sustainable programme within its current target schools (primary DEIS schools), rather than expanding into new target audiences.

Schools should be encouraged and supported to actively promote Better Reading and recruit volunteers themselves, particularly amongst the parents. This may help also to enhance retention, as currently the most constant Reading Partners are parents of children in the school in which they volunteer. 

Efforts should be made to identify a key link person within each school.



Schools should be offered the opportunity to deliver Better Reading as a pullout programme during the school day OR as an after-school activity, provided a member of staff is willing to stay behind in the school to facilitate the programme.



As all Reading Partners are currently female, efforts should be made to address this imbalance. This requires the Partnership to consult with the schools on obstacles to male participation, and their current relationship with fathers in particular.



Training for the volunteers should ideally be delivered by a teaching professional.



Despite the complexity of Running Records, Reading Partners are coping well and these should continue to be used. However, copies should be given to the class teacher for further interpretation.



Class teachers should be offered an introductory session to Better Basics/Better Reading, to promote greater engagement with the programme.



Courses should be run over twelve weeks, rather than ten, to allow for any sessions missed to be made up in the extra two weeks. 58



Parents, class teachers and volunteers should be strongly encouraged to attend the end of course celebrations, as they are an excellent opportunity for informal communication between parent, school and Reading Partner, as well as a wonderful chance for the children to display what they have learned.

10. Action points  Draft a submission by the Partnership to the Better Literacy and Numeracy Draft National Plan (by January 31st).  Arrange a meeting between Tolka Area Partnership staff and the Better Reading and Better Maths evaluators, to discuss findings of both evaluations (after the Better Maths evaluation is completed).  Consider whether the Partnership might apply for funding for Better Reading training under the EU Gruntvig scheme for adult learning (by February 21st).

11. Appendices 11.1. Evaluation Terms of Reference

The overall terms of reference for the evaluation are as follows;

Better Programme

Reading 1. Assess the capacity and adequacy of the Better Reading Partnership to respond to local established or emerging needs and gaps in service provision

2. To assess the extent to which the programme that was actually implemented is in line with what was envisaged, as a funded model under the Community Development 59

Programme (LCDP) of Tolka Area Partnership

3. To determine the efficacy of the Better Reading Partnership

programme

overall

and

make

key

recommendations to Tolka Area Partnership for improving the programme and guiding future delivery decisions

4. Describe any models of positive practice and highlight the activities of Better Reading

programme in terms of

tangible outputs and outcomes as they refer to improving the reading ability of children (with reference also to a BRP post primary pilot project)

5. Explore the potential/feasibility of rolling out the Better Reading Partnership as a national programme and to consider Tolka Area Partnershipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role (if any) in that.

The Participants

6. To assess the suitability of the programme for target participants and to establish whether the program is meeting their specific needs

7. To measure the impact of the programme on the participants

The Schools

8. To assess the impact/benefits of the programme on local schools

9. To establish the schools with the greatest need for the programme and to consider a strategy for targeting these 60

schools going forward

10. Assess schools views/understanding of the impact of nonprofessional BRP Reading Partners

11.2. List of interviewees 1

Tolka Area Partnership Chief Executive

Tolka Area Partnership Manager

Better Reading Partnership Coordinator

Tolka Area Partnership Education Officer

Former Tolka Area Partnership Education Coordinator

Better Maths External evaluator

Education Bradford Better Reading Partnership Coordinator

Junior Certificate Support Programme Coordinator

[National School Completion Research Officer- check title]

School Completion Coordinator A

School Completion Coordinator B

Wizard of Words Dublin Manager

Principal A

Principal B

Principal C

Principal D

Principal E

Principal F

Principal G

Principal H

Resource teacher A

Resource teacher B

Resource teacher C

Reading Partner A

Reading Partner B

Reading Partner C

Reading Partner D

Reading Partner E

Reading Partner F

Reading Partner G

Reading Partner H

Reading Partner I

Reading Partner J

Reading Partner K

Reading Partner L

11.3. Hertfordshire Reading Test Better Reading Partnership

Hertfordshire Reading Test *To work out the Reading Age â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Stop at the line where the 4th mistake happens

Line

mistake

4th Boys

Girls

Reading Age

Reading age

Year

Month

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Unable to start

test 3

Finished before making 4 mistakes

Better Reading Partnership

Hertfordshire Reading Test

1. The dog has a ball 2. The cat is in the tree 3. I go to bed at six oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; clock 4. We are going to get some sweets 5. I have a cup of hot milk at bedtime 6. The children had crisps and cake at the party 7. My aunt gave me a whole pound for my birthday 8. The book was called The Mystery of the Disappearing Jewels 9. Nearly every car needs petrol, oil, water, air and a good engine 10. The puppy escaped through a hole in the fence and it was difficult to catch him 11. The teacher had a very stern face and so the boy did not argue 12. The thief took all the beer from the refrigerator as well as other valuables 13. The ambulance came quickly to the scene of the accident as the victim appeared to have hurt his knee and wrist 14. They went to a foreign restaurant which had an orchestra playing and the waiters wore smart black suits 15. The giant ate a huge dinner and as a result suffered from violent indigestion 16. The girl had an audition for a part in a major production at a famous London theatre 17. The yacht, which cost half a million pounds to build, was launched by the distinguished visitor 18. Severe weather conditions hampered the delivery of essential food throughout the northeastern region 19. The judge stopped the trial because the jury had been intimidated 20. It was a characteristic of Dad to say that, unless we took reasonable precautions, we could not go 21. The Nature Conservatory is to proceed under a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for a national reserve especially for wading birds 65

22. Smoking is a known cause of bronchitis, cancer, asthma and in exceptional cases of pneumonia 23. The prevailing tendency to abandon our artistic tradition leaves contemporary life bereft of philosophical significance 24. For some unknown reason the majority of the audience missed the ironic humour of the comedy 25. As societies progress the organisation of a legal system is indicative of the development of stable government 26. The production of an anti-caries vaccine may prevent the controversy over water fluoridation becoming a significant issue 27. The first practical initiatives by the Alliance will be the circulation of a parliamentary newsletter and distribution of a questionnaire 28. For some inexplicable reason my predecessor had disliked using the photocopying facilities in this office 29. The benign influence of certain Roman Deities was thought to protect the children from malignant forces 30. The psychiatrist diagnosed that the patient undergoing analysis was suffering from schizophrenia 31. Conspiracy to kill is an indictable offence and punitive measures are invariably taken.

11.4. EXAMPLE of a Reading Attitude assessment (Ref. First Steps, Western Australia, 2004)

Name:

Date:

Me as a Reader

How do you feel as a reader? Make this face look like that (insert Smiley face/ not smiley/ Sad face).

The kinds of reading I like to do are:

I like reading when:

I am getting better at:

My Reading Goal. Now I want to get better at:

12. Bibliography

Allington, R.L. & Johnston, P. (2002). Reading to Learn: Lessons from exemplary fourth grade classrooms. The Guilford Press: New York

Brooks, G. (2007) Research Report No 380: What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? The Effectiveness of Intervention Schemes, London: Department for Education and Skills (DfES).

DES (Department of Education & Science) (2010) Draft Report on Better Literacy and Numeracy.

DES (2003) Allocation for Resources for Pupils with Special Educational Needs in National Schools. Circular 24/03. Dublin: The Stationery Office; DES (Department of Education & Science)

DES (Department of Education & Science) (2000). Guidelines on Learning Support. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

DES Educational Disadvantage Committee, (2005). Moving Beyond Educational Disadvantage, 2002-2005.

Eivers, E., Shiel, G. & Shortt, S. (2004) Reading literacy in disadvantaged primary schools. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

Eivers, E., Shiel, G., Perkins, R. & Cosgrove, J. (2005). The 2004 national assessment of English reading. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

Finglas Cabra Partnership, (2008) Cracks in the Pavement: Primary Education Research, Findings from the research carried out by Finglas Cabra Partnership identifying the needs and gaps in primary school provision in the Finglas Cabra area. 68

Gambrell, L.B., Malloy, J.A. & Mazzoni, S.A. (2007) Evidence-Based Best Practice in Comprehensive Literacy Instruction . In Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (3rd Ed) Linda B Gambrell, Lesley Mandel Morrow and Michael Pressley. The Guilford Press: New York

Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume 111 (pp.403-422) New York: Erlbaum

Kazmierczak, S. (2007). Preventing Potential Weaknesses in Early Literacy Instruction in Downes, P & Gilligan, AL (Eds) (2007). Beyond Educational Disadvantage. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office

NESF (National Economic and Social Forum), (2009) Child Literacy and Social Inclusion: Implementation Issues, Report 39.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2006) Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA. Paris.

Paris, S.G., Lipson, M.Y & Wixson, K.K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. In R.B.Ruddell, M.R.Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.) Theoretical Models and processes of reading (4th ed. Pp.788810). Newark, De: International Reading Association.

PISA 2006, Assessment of reading literacy among 15 year olds. Comparison achieved using the PISA Country Profile Tool, http://pisacountry.acer.edu.au/.

PISA 2001, Assessment of reading literacy among 15 year olds. Comparison achieved using the PISA Country Profile Tool, http://pisacountry.acer.edu.au/.

PISA 2010, Assessment of reading literacy among 15 year olds. Comparison achieved using the PISA Country Profile Tool, http://pisacountry.acer.edu.au/. Accessed 29 October 2001. Ritter, G., Barnett, J, Denny, G. and Albin, G. ‘The Effectiveness of Reading Partner Tutoring Programs for Elementary and Middle School Pupils: A Meta-Analysis’ Review of Educational Research, Spring 2009, Vol. 79, No 1.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407

Quinn, S. (2007). Only Brainy and Boring People Read in Downes, P & Gilligan, AL (Eds) (2007). Beyond Educational Disadvantage. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

PART 2:

An evaluation of The Better Maths Programme Prof. Mark Morgan, June 2011

Context and background Educational disadvantage has been the subject of much debate and policy interventions over the last two decades including the establishment of the National Educational Welfare Board, and the DEIS initiative which sought to integrate eight existing programmes under a new programme. Additional resources have been made available to address such issues as early education, literacy and numeracy supports as well as early school leaving.

In looking at the broad picture of interventions to address educational disadvantage and school failure, it is evident that there is a need to move to new and imaginative approaches. Despite the efforts to address educational disadvantage the results of achievement tests in schools designated disadvantaged and indeed the statistics on early school leaving are quite disappointing. There is agreement that new directions are necessary. One suggestion that has gained widespread support is the need to give priority to the promotion of literacy and numeracy; there is evidence that intensive, innovative approaches to teaching reading and mathematics in classroom settings were often missing. There is agreement on a number of measures that could be considered including increasing time for instruction and focusing professional development activities on literacy and numeracy. Another factor that emerges as important is a concerted effort to help teachers and parents to set high expectations for what their children can achieve.

Another important factor that is crucial is targeting. The common practice to date has been to provide universal and similar provision for all children in schools that have been designated ‘disadvantaged’. However, the more recent targeting of groups of children who have fallen seriously behind has been recognised and has resulted in programmes like ‘Reading Recovery’ and more recently in ‘Maths Recovery’. As will be evident here, these three features are central to the present programme.

Background Research Three years ago, the local Partnership conducted research to help identify the needs and gaps in primary school provision in the Finglas Cabra area, involving 17 local primary schools. One of the findings was that Principals thought that there was a need to address the needs of childre in the middle group; children who do not have such serious learning difficulties that they qualified 72

for more intensive learning support, but who are still in need of extra help. It was agreed that such an initiative could usefully employ volunteers, which would have the added benefit of involving the local community.

Initially a model was sought that combined community participation with a structured and proven approach to support the development of literacy. The decision was made to develop the ‘Better Reading’ approach in line with an intervention model developed by Bradford Local Education Authority. The programme was based on the idea of Marie Clay, who created the very intervention of ‘Reading Recovery’. The programme was designed as a complement to Reading Recovery and importantly, was aimed at the group of ‘middle learners’ – the group that were identified as being in need of further support in the research with Principals.

The Better Maths Strategy and Programme The Better Maths programme is therefore based on the ‘Better Reading’ programme and involved two phases, one beginning in March 2010 followed by the second in October 2010 and finishing in early 2011. The programme is aimed at children who have fallen behind but not to the extent that they are eligible for Maths Recovery. The programme involve DEIS schools in the Finglas and Cabra area and as far as possible was intended to have a gender balance

For each phase, trained volunteers were placed in each school; each volunteer worked work with two students. The Education team of the Tolka Area Partnership worked with each school by selecting children on the basis of the agreed criteria. Similar to the ‘Better Reading Programme’, each session lasted about 20 minutes; in addition 10 minutes was allocated for getting to and returning from the session. The core ‘curriculum’ of the programme is the LFIN (Learning Framework in Number). There are four parts including base-ten arithmetical strategies, forward/back number word sequences, structuring number (1, 20) and early multiplication and division. For example, part B includes

three aspects, forward number sequences, backward number sequences and numeral identification (to ‘10’, to ‘20’, to ‘100’, to ‘1000’.

Associated with the LFIN are a number of principles of instruction which have guided the maths recovery project and underlie the Better Maths approach. These have been set out by Wright et al., (2006) and include the following: 

The tutor should understand the child’s approach to number and deliberately engenders more sophisticated strategies.

This principle highlights the need for the tutor to have an understanding of the ways in which a child’s knowledge of number progresses and develop a working model of how to progress this. 

The tutor should carefully observe the students and continually adjust or fine-tune the tutoring on the basis of these observations

The highlights the need for observational assessment and to base instruction on these observations 

Tutors should support the child’s verbally based strategies initially

This indicates that the child’s knowledge of number is initially verbally based rather than involving written form. The implication is that initial counting and calculating involve mental computing. 

The tutor should provide the child with sufficient time, which enable him/her to reflect and to engage with the results of that reflection

This provides a basis for later problem solving for which the understanding of number is critical. 

Children gain intrinsic satisfaction from learning, particularly the realisation that they are making progress

This principle should ensure that when children are working hard and they are successful, this is a very positive experience for the learner

Contrasting Traditional and New Approaches

Wright et al., (2006) contrast traditional approaches to early number teaching and learning with more promising novel approaches. Traditional approaches begin with a topic called pre-number 74

and which involves sorting, matching and classifying and putting objects into one-to-one correspondence. The next feature of traditional approaches involves the numbers in the range 110 in turn and then extending addition and subtraction to these numbers, followed by numbers in the range 11-20 in turn. The traditional approaches were especially influenced by the Piagetian model of young childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s number development.

In contrast the emerging approach identified by Wright et al., is based on the view that prenumber skills are not essential prerequisites for number knowledge and that teachers should develop childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s verbal knowledge of number words extending beyond 20 and even beyond 100 as soon as possible. They also suggest that the teaching of number should involve instructional strategies that do not rely exclusively on seeing materials and that children should learn the number words and numerals beyond ten before they learn about 2-digit place value. A related feature of the emerging approach is that place value knowledge should arise from children developing strategies for addition and subtraction involving two and three digit numbers.

Formative Evaluation This evaluation comprised two components that corresponded broadly with the two phases of the pilot programme. The guidelines for the evaluation are those set out in high-prestige texts on evaluation (e.g. Rossi, 2009). The approach for Phase One was a formative evaluation and involved monitoring the process of implementation of the programme. In accordance with the guidelines on formative evaluation, particular attention was given the following: (i) the suitability of the programme for the participants, (ii) that the conditions for the delivery of the programme are met and (c) the reaction of the recipients of the programme.

With regard to the methodology of this phase of the evaluation, information was sought from the volunteer tutors through a questionnaire in open-ended format. There were also interviews with the training personnel, the director of the Maths Recovery project (national director), maths recovery teachers in school and with Principals of the schools involved.

The results of the questionnaires to the tutors and as well as the interviews with Principals were very positive. Several ways were identified in which programme benefited pupils, not only in terms of the cognitive gains but also their enhanced interest in the subject. The tutors saw the training as preparing them for tutoring, they got satisfaction from seeing the children improve over the weeks and were especially pleased with the enjoyment that children derived from the activities in the programme. Several mentioned the way that the attitudes of the children had changed, especially with the involvement in what they saw as playful activities. It was also of interest that the tutors mentioned the benefits to themselves, particularly the experience they were gaining in relation to their plans to be teachers (this was a distinctive feature of this phase of the programme0.

Outcome/Final Evaluation

Main features of Phase 2 Schools and Teachers. The schools involved in the Phase 2 study were broadly similar in terms of pupilsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; background and other characteristics but with the important exception that a GaelScoil participated in this phase. This has the advantage of broadening the base of the intervention to a school with a different ethos, while at the same time building on what has been learned in other schools.

Maths Recovery Teachers. Because of the suggestions arising from Phase 1, the maths recovery teachers in each school were centrally involved in the selection of children for â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Better Mathsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as well as in the monitoring for progress. Their views on the programme will be central to this evaluation.

Timing and Duration. This phase lasted approximately 16 weeks and ran in most schools between October and January.

Results as Gauged by Maths Recovery Teachers The questionnaire to maths recovery features had four open-ended questions: (1) what were the best features of the programme? (ii) in what ways did the project benefit children in your school? 76

(iii) What changes would you recommend for another phase of the project?, and (iv) Have you any further comments? Completed questionnaires were obtained from the maths recovery teachers in each participating school.

Best Features With regard to the best features of the programme, the teachers commented on a number of features. A very positive aspect of the programme was the involvement of parents and people from the community in the programme. As one said: ‘Parents were involved in the education of their children ..and have received training with gains in their confidence. Another comment was: ‘People from the local community were coming into the school and becoming a part of the school activities’. A further reinforcement of this view was that ‘…….the collegiality and support of parents for each other created a good learning environment and helped to strengthen parent-teacher partnership’. The teachers also commented on the attitudinal/affective dimension of the children’s reaction to the programme. As on said ‘..there was an obvious increase in their confidence, not only in number but in all mathematical areas’. A related comment was that ‘..children were enthusiastic about maths in their classrooms, as a result of their involvement in the programme’. There was also some references to the parental changes of attitude; ‘..the parents gained greatly in selfconfidence and this was evident in their interactions with teachers and children’

Benefits to Children The teachers commented specifically on the individual attention to the children’s needs. As one said ‘The programme catered for their particular needs in a way that is difficult in normal circumstances’. Another commented on the ‘..excellent development of number skills’. There were also comments on the encouragement of children. One observation was that ‘..the individual attention served to motivate and encourage children whose confidence and competence increased accordingly’. Thus, there was a recognition that children had benefited both in terms of cognitive skills and motivation.

Suggested changes All the changes suggested by the teachers were made in the context of the very positive comments made above. One line of suggested improvement was in terms of the organisation of the project. As one teacher said, ‘We would like to build on the valuable bank of trained volunteers by involving more parents and to extend the project to another class level so that more children could benefit from the programme’

Another suggestion was around the possible link between what was being taught in class and the concepts and skills being taught by the volunteers. This could be organised in a number of ways. As one teacher said ‘The class teachers expressed an interest in having more information about the work being done by volunteers…with a view to reinforcing this work at class level and addressing any areas of difficulty’. Another comment was broadly on the same lines. ‘There would be merit in my getting to meet the volunteers more regularly so that their questions can be answered’.

Further comments The comments made under this heading largely reinforced those made relating to benefiting children. One commented that ‘..the programme is excellent and is a brilliant way to get parents involved in their children’s learning’. This teacher added that ‘…the word has spread and other parents are showing an interest in the work that is being done’. And a similar remark was that …’ we need involvement like by parents in activities in the school…it is not easy to bring this about’.

Other positive comments were focused on the positive attitudes of the volunteers. One such remark was ‘..the volunteers were dependable, enthusiastic and very easy to work with’. Another was that ‘…it was especially valuable to have parents involved in such an important activity in the school’.

Results As Gauged by Tutors

Five tutors responded to the questionnaire. Below we consider the results from these participants along the lines of the structure of that questionnaire, specifically: (i) Benefits to children, (ii) benefits to tutor and (iii) suggestions for improvement.

Best features of the programme With regard to the best feature of the project, the tutors identified the improvement in the learning of students. This was not only in terms of achievement but also the enhanced interest in the subject and their greater confidence. One commented as follows: ‘…working with children who made such progress was brilliant and it was pleasure to see how they enjoyed the activities. Another tutor commented specifically on the attitudes of the children. …’It was great to know that children loved coming to the sessions each day and that they were learning …and to see the progress that they have made’. Another mentioned that children had changed their views on involvement with maths: ‘the teachers said that children really got involved in the maths lessons…I became convinced that this programme can really make a difference’

Benefits to Tutor Much of what was said in this regard was indicative of the positive impact of the tutoring on children and their growth in self-confidence. As one said ‘…it made me feel really good to see the progress that children were making. Interestingly on the last occasion many of the tutors talked about the value of the experiences in relation to their plans to be teachers. On this occasion, one such comment was’. I am hopeful of getting on to a teacher training course and this experience will benefit me greatly’

Changes for Improvement There were a number of suggestions for the future development of the programme. Some thought that the time should be longer, while others thought that some other areas might be included. They were also concerned that there was a need to measure precisely what children had learned. Specifically mention was of checking advances children had made: ‘It would help

greatly if there was a before-after measure…and that would help to see if some other areas need to be catered for’.

However the vast majority of comments were positive as was the case for the earlier phase of the programme. One said that he/she ‘…was delighted to be involved and I am sure that all the work we did with the children will benefit them greatly. Another said the programme has the capacity ‘… to make such a differences in so many children’s lives and to improve both the children’s and their parents’ attitudes towards maths and indeed to school in general’

Recommendations: Context and Specific Suggestions Context of Recommendations Before putting forward the recommendations for future development, there are relevant contextual points that need to be considered. One concerns the recent policy changes that impinge on both curriculum and on services available in primary school, while the second is the ‘Better Reading’ programme which was introduced in a way that was parallel to the present programme. A final consideration has to do with the momentum towards greatly community/parental involvement in schools.

Recent changes in Policy For the future development of ‘Better Maths’ (and similar programmes) a number of features of recent Department of Education policy need to be taken into account. Many statements from the DES over the last year have emphasised the need to attend to basic skills particularly in literacy and to a certain extent in numeracy. This has followed similar moves both in the US and UK and reflects a view that recent international studies (especially PISA) has shown a deterioration in the relative position of Ireland in comparison to other countries in achievement in reading and mathematics. The emphasis on increased time in reading will certainly make a great difference, especially in schools serving disadvantaged communities.

A related issue has been the proposal (currently being brought into effect) to reduce the support to children through specialized teaching staff (including Teachers for Travellers and some other 80

areas of specialist support). This will mean that the available resources to teachers for children who are falling behind may be substantially less than in recent years. This would seem to create a context where there is a need for other forms of support to make up for what has been lost.

Better Reading Programme The ‘Better Reading’ programme which is similar and parallel to ‘Better Maths’ and supported by the Tolka-area partnership, has been evaluated by Grene an McPhillips (2010). Their report drew attention to several strengths of that programme, particularly its consistency with Government policy and the fact that it targets the ‘middle group’ of learners . They also noted that the programme has an effective format but one which is manageable for volunteers. With regard to the outcomes they noted that the programme has an enormously positive effects on children’s confidence, motivation and interest in reading.

School-Community Links Traditionally the involvement of parents and the local community in Irish schools has been modest in scope. However, various initiatives that have attempted to address educational disadvantage have begun to make inroads in this area. The best known programme is the homeschool-community liaison scheme which is now well established in schools serving disadvantaged communities. Some other programmes have a strong community component. For example, the Incredible Years programme which is in operation in a number of schools in the Dublin area and in Dundalk and Limerick has a specific component involving parents. We have mentioned above the ‘Better Reading’ initiative which as in the case of Better Maths requires a community dimension.

Recommendations 1. The Better Maths programme should be continued for a period of two years following which a review should take place with a focus on a possible extension of the programme, in the light of economic circumstances and the progress of the programme. 2. The next two years should be treated as a further trial period, during which innovative versions might be tried out. For example, the programme in the second half of the school year might involve Senior Infants, rather than first class 81

3. The link with the ‘Better Reading’ programme should be strengthened especially from viewpoint of organising volunteers and provision of training 4. Measures should be put in place to facilitate access to training on a basis that centres on the needs of volunteers rather than on the availability of trainers. The programme is now at a stage of development which justifies the training of local volunteers. 5. The focus of the programme on children in the ‘middle’ performance group should be maintained 6. As far as possible, the programme should involve parents and community members as in the present phase of the programme. 7. In a future phase of the programme, consideration should be given to an objective measure of the gains made by children (as has been done with the ‘Better Reading’ programme evaluation)