READING RECOVERY AND THE FAILURE OF THE NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL LITERACY STRATEGY LITERACY STRATEGY Evidence from the Progress in International Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and Reading Recovery Monitoring Reports g y g p Willi William E. Tunmer & James W. Chapman E T & J W Ch Institute of Education Institute of Education Massey University
Introduction Introduction • In response to growing concerns about NZ’s relatively l large inequities in literacy achievement outcomes, the i iti i lit hi t t th government established the Literacy Task force in 1999. • Taskforce responsible for providing recommendations aimed at raising literacy achievement of all students but i d t i i lit hi t f ll t d t b t with particular attention given to “closing the gap between the lowest and highest students ” between the lowest and highest students. • Recommendations of the Taskforce constituted national d f h kf d l literacy strategy but no fundamental changes in NZ’s approach to literac ed cation recommended approach to literacy education recommended.
• Over a decade later, concerns were still being expressed about the literacy achievement gap. In December 2011, the Briefing to Incoming Minister stated: h B i fi I i Mi i d “ … the gap between our high performing and low performing the gap between our high performing and low performing students remains one of the widest in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These low performing students are likely to be M ā ori or Pasifika and/or from low socio ‐ economic communities. Disparities in education appear early and persist throughout learning ” (p 8) early and persist throughout learning. (p. 8) • Based on these findings the Briefing concluded that: Based on these findings, the Briefing concluded that: “The greatest challenge facing the schooling sector is producing equitable outcomes for students.” (p. 23)
NZ’s high degree of variability in literacy NZ s high degree of variability in literacy achievement outcomes is surprising for two reasons: reasons: • NZ has a unified national education system y with a relatively uniform approach to literacy instruction and intervention. • Reading Recovery (RR), an early intervention program implemented throughout NZ in the 1980s, has as its stated purpose bringing struggling readers to average levels of t li d t l l f performance within 20 weeks.
Evidence that NZ’s National Literacy Strategy has Failed Evidence comes from latest Progress in International Evidence comes from latest Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 report. • PIRLS focuses on achievement and literacy learning experiences of children from 45 countries in grades equivalent to Year 5 in NZ (9 ‐ year ‐ olds). i l Y 5 i NZ (9 ld ) • Reason 9 ‐ year ‐ olds tested – period during which students typically move from “learning to read” to d i ll f “l i d” “reading to learn.” • 5 ‐ year cycle of assessments administered in 2001, l f d d 2006, and 2011.
• • PIRLS includes a test of reading comprehension and a PIRLS includes a test of reading comprehension and a series of questionnaires, given to principals, teachers, parents and students to obtain information on parents, and students, to obtain information on reading behaviours, reading attitudes, and home and school contexts for reading. school contexts for reading. PIRLS reading comprehension test is designed to assess PIRLS reading comprehension test is designed to assess two aspects of reading literacy: • Purposes for reading • Processes of reading comprehension
Two purposes account for most of the Two purposes account for most of the reading done by young students: • Reading for literary experience • Reading to acquire and use information
Four types of comprehension processes are assessed across the two purposes of reading (literary experience, across the two purposes of reading (literary experience, acquiring information): • Focus on and retrieve explicitly stated information – • Focus on and retrieve explicitly stated information – usually contained within a sentence or phrase. • Make straightfor ard inferences • Make straightforward inferences – usually connecting s all connecting two or more pieces of information contained with text. • Interpret and integrate ideas and information – involves d d d f l processing text beyond the phrase or sentence level, often drawing on background knowledge and often drawing on background knowledge and experiences. • Evaluate content language and textual elements • Evaluate content, language and textual elements – usually involves going beyond constructing meaning from text to critically reflecting on the text itself. from text to critically reflecting on the text itself.
For PIRLS 2001 assessment, scaling li procedures based on Item Response Theory were used to establish an international scale with a mean of 500 and a standard deviation with a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. To monitor within ‐ country changes in mean y g reading achievement across assessment cycles data from subsequent assessments cycles, data from subsequent assessments (2006, 2011) were linked to the 2001 scale.
PIRLS 2011 results – large disparity between good and poor readers has continued despite policies and resources aimed at p p closing gap. • Average reading achievement score for NZ in PIRLS 2011 not significantl NZ in PIRLS 2011 not significantly different either PIRLS 2001 or 2006.
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and percentiles of the reading , , p f g achievement scores for New Zealand as a function of PIRLS test cycle Percentile Scores Mean Scale Standard 5 th 95 th Test Cycle Score Deviation Percentile Percentile 529 93 360 668 PIRLS 2001 532 87 374 664 PIRLS 2006 531 88 373 666 PIRLS 2011
• Number of countries that significantly outperformed NZ (20) exceeded number of f d NZ (20) d d b f countries that NZ significantly outperformed (17), similar to PIRLS 2006. • Of six English ‐ speaking comparison countries, all but one significantly outperformed NZ.
Table 2 PIRLS 2011 mean reading scores for English ‐ speaking comparison g f g p g p countries Country Country Mean Scale Score Mean Scale Score Standard Deviation Standard Deviation 5. Northern Ireland 558 76 6. United States 556 73 10 I 10. Ireland l d 552 552 75 75 11. England 552 82 12. Canada 548 69 23. New Zealand 531 88 27. Australia 527 80
• Trend data revealed that, although there were more Trend data revealed that although there were more increases than decreases in mean reading scores across countries from 2001 to 2011, NZ showed no across countries from 2001 to 2011, NZ showed no significant increases in reading performance. Standard deviation and range (between 5 th and 95 th • percentiles) for NZ’s reading scores almost unchanged from PIRLS 2001 and 2006 and exceeded values of most other countries, including those of six English ‐ speaking comparison countries. • Large differences in reading scores between L diff i di b P ā keh ā /European and M ā ori/Pasifika students unchanged over past decade. h d t d d
Table 3 Mean reading achievement scores for New Zealand as a M di hi t f N Z l d function of ethnicity and PIRLS test cycle Ethnic Group Ethnic Group P ā keh ā / Asian M ā ori Pasifika Test Cycle European European 552 540 481 481 PIRLS 2001 552 550 483 479 PIRLS 2006 558 558 542 542 488 488 473 473 PIRLS 2011 PIRLS 2011
PIRLS established international benchmarks (low, PIRLS bli h d i i l b h k (l intermediate, high, advanced) based on type of questions students were able to answer. i d bl • • No significant changes from PIRLS 2001 or 2006 No significant changes from PIRLS 2001 or 2006 results in relatively high percentage of NZ students who failed to reach low international benchmark who failed to reach low international benchmark, despite general improvement across countries in percentages of students reaching benchmarks from percentages of students reaching benchmarks from 2001 to 2011. • NZ’s 8% failure rate exceeded by only 13 countries (Australia = 7%). (Australia 7%).
Child Children differ greatly in the amount of literate cultural diff tl i th t f lit t lt l capital they posses at school entry. • Literate cultural capital – a generic term referring to important reading ‐ related knowledge and competencies important reading related knowledge and competencies that are an outgrowth of activities in the home environment that support early literacy development. environment that support early literacy development. • Research indicates that the higher the level of literate Research indicates that the higher the level of literate cultural capital possessed by children at the beginning of school, the more they profit from instruction, they y p y learn to read sooner, and they read better than children who have less literate cultural capital.
Recommend
More recommend
