reading recovery annual report for ireland: 2012–13 annual report 2012-13v2.pdfdriving...

http://readingrecovery.ioe.ac.uk | 1

Reading Recovery Annual Report for Ireland: 2012–13

Published by European Centre for Reading Recovery, Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL. Tel: 020 7612 6585 Email: [email protected] Web: http://readingrecovery.ioe.ac.uk

Data supplied by International Data Evaluation Center at the Ohio State University.

The name Reading Recovery is a registered trademark of the Institute of Education, University of London.

mailto:readrec%40ioe.ac.uk?subject=

http://readingrecovery.ioe.ac.uk


Contents page

Reading Recovery and the Irish Primary School Curriculum ...Page 4

Where is Reading Recovery in Republic of Ireland? ...Page 5

The continuum of support ...Page 6

Reading Recovery and children ...Page 7

Reading ...Page 8

Writing ...Page 9

The wider benefits of Reading Recovery ...Pages 10

Driving professional development at all levels ...Pages 11-15

References ...Page 16

AbstractReading Recovery is an intensive, daily, one-to-one intervention for the lowest achieving literacy learners after one year in school. Highly skilled Reading Recovery teachers work in school with the lowest attaining children individually.

Reading Recovery teachers also offer learning support or work as a resource (Special Educational Needs), as well as working alongside class teachers and others in school with responsibility for literacy interventions. This provides wider benefits to the investment in the training and ongoing professional development of a Reading Recovery teacher. This report presents an overview of Reading Recovery for the academic year 2012–13. It also provides information on where and how Reading Recovery is offered in schools across the Republic of Ireland. Results for children and schools are reported, alongside case studies that evidence the impact on standards and effectiveness. This report demonstrates the continued success of Reading Recovery in Ireland, enabling over nine out 10 of the lowest attaining young readers to catch up with their classmates.

4 | Ireland annual report

Reading Recovery teachers at school level

• Teach children in Reading Recovery on a daily basis (the other half of the day as either resource (SEN), learning support or class teachers)

• Work with class teachers and others in school with responsibility for literacy• Support colleagues’ understanding of literacy teaching and learning:

whole classroom approaches to teaching literacy, including teaching phonics systematically

Teacher leaders at local level

• Teach children in Reading Recovery • Deliver professional development and support Reading Recovery teachers • Work with teachers in schools to develop effective literacy teaching beyond

Reading Recovery, for example work on Guided Reading, and develop lighter touch interventions

• Oversee communications, quality assurance, monitoring etc. at a local level• Work in multi-disciplinary teams on a regional basis as part of the

Professional Development Service for Teachers

National leaders at the Institute of Education

• Deliver Initial and Continuing Professional Development for teacher leaders• Teach children in Reading Recovery • Oversee communications, and dissemination• Provide accreditation, quality assurance, monitoring and reporting at a

national level

Reading Recovery and the Irish Primary School CurriculumReading Recovery is a short-term early intervention for children who have the lowest achievement in literacy learning in their first years at school.

Children are taught individually by a specially trained teacher for 30 minutes each day for an average of 12-20 weeks. The goal is for children to develop effective reading and writing strategies in order to work within an average range of classroom performance.

Reading Recovery works alongside the taught curriculum in schools, addressing the complex individual difficulties of children who, for whatever reason, have not responded to classroom teaching.

Some children struggle to respond to phonics teaching or to engage effectively with print until Reading Recovery teachers help them understand how the sound/letter system works in text reading and writing.

Children’s writing arises from their oral language and experience as their teacher helps them to compose their thoughts and words in written form. Children read from a wide range of texts, selected carefully by their teacher to match their current competency in reading.

Table 1: Reading Recovery professional infrastructure

The Irish curriculum for English language (NCCA, 1999) is underpinned by five key principles:

1. Listening, speaking, reading and writing are integrated in the process of learning language

2. The curriculum is concerned not just with language learning but with learning through language

3. The development of oral language is equally as important as reading and writing in an integrated language process

4. The teaching of reading is part of a rich and varied curriculum, based on a child’s overall experience of language and the world, and involves the use of a range of word identification strategies

5. The process of writing is as important as the product and is viewed as part of the language learning process

The implementation of Reading Recovery™ in Ireland adheres to and supports these principles.


Where is Reading Recovery in Republic of Ireland?

In 2012–13, Reading Recovery was taught in 361 schools.

These schools were supported by 442 teachers, a fifth of whom (19%) were in their training year.

The country was served by 9 teacher leaders, all of whom were experienced in the role.

» Carlow = 3 » Cavan = 13 » Clare = 6 » Cork = 42 » Donegal = 13 » Dublin = 108 » Galway = 25 » Kerry = 4 » Kildare = 12 » Kilkenny = 5 » Laois = 2 » Leitrim = 2 » Limerick = 15

» Longford = 2 » Louth = 14 » Mayo = 6 » Meath = 10 » Monaghan = 14 » Offaly = 9 » Roscommon = 5 » Sligo = 4 » Tipperary = 12 » Waterford = 8 » Westmeath = 9 » Wexford = 12 » Wicklow = 6

Map: © Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of IrelandCopyright permit no. MP 000313

Numbers of schools by county


The continuum of supportApproaches to intervention in the Irish Primary School CurriculumThe learning support guidelines (DES, 2000) place the concept of early intervention as central to school policy on learning support and the provision of supplementary teaching programmes in English.

Referring to research evidence, the guidelines consider the implementation of an intensive early intervention programme in the early primary classes (i.e. Senior Infants to Second Class) as an effective response to meeting the needs of children who experience low achievement and/or learning difficulties.

Reading Recovery is cited as one example of effective intervention.

Characteristics of successful interventions:• A specific timeframe• A shared expectation

of success• Small-group teaching or

one-to-one teaching • An intensive frequency

of lessons and fast paced instruction

• A strong focus on oral language development

• The development of phonemic awareness and other word identification skills

• Oral and silent reading of texts at appropriate levels of difficulty, and monitoring of comprehension

• The interconnected nature of listening, speaking, reading and writing

These characteristics all feature in the teaching of children in Reading Recovery.

A Reading Recovery teacher is a valuable resource in a school. Many also work as learning-support teachers in designated areas of educational disadvantage.

A Reading Recovery teacher plays an important role in developing and implementing whole-school support and intervention programmes.

A Reading Recovery teacher also offers guidance in the School Support process (DES, 2007) and works closely with parents to support the attainment of learning targets in their child’s Individual Profile and Learning Programme.


In 2012–13, 2,810 children benefitted from Reading Recovery. In addition, 13 children were reported as receiving other interventions supported by the Reading Recovery teacher.

One child in six in Ireland is at risk of poverty1. Reading Recovery has been effectively targeted to address the needs of children in poverty.

Of the 361 schools served, over half were within DEIS Band 1 or 2, and a further 27 were rural schools. Two out of three children identified for Reading Recovery were taught in schools within one of these three categories.

Boys outnumbered girls in the cohort by almost three to two. Eight out of 10 were from white Irish backgrounds.

1 Source: Central Statistics Office, ‘Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) 2009’, November, 2010

Only one in 10 did not speak English as their first language, though this represents a small but steady increase over the past three years.

This year saw a reduction in the percentage of children who had started Reading Recovery in Senior Infants and needed to continue in First Class.

Around 7% of the total cohort (number 195) were identified as ‘vulnerable’ children (e.g. children of asylum seekers, refugees or looked after children), 2% fewer than in the previous year.

Reading Recovery and children

Outcomes for different groups of Reading Recovery children The outcomes provide evidence that the gender achievement gap can be eradicated. 95% of both boys and girls reached age-related literacy levels. This is consistent with previous years findings.

The achievement gap between poor children who received Reading Recovery and their more advantaged peers was narrowing, with 93% and 97% respectively achieving age-related literacy levels.

Children for whom English was an additional language made accelerated progress at the same rate as their English-speaking peers, 95% attaining age-related expectations as a result of their Reading Recovery lessons.

Of 105 children in traveller communities who completed their lesson series, eight out of 10 met age-related literacy levels, an increase on the previous year.

540 children were removed from the SEN register following Reading Recovery and 24 were recommended early for formal assessment.


Reading Recovery is an early intervention. Teachers work with the lowest attaining five to seven year olds in the school.

The majority of children are identified for Reading Recovery after their first year of formal schooling (Junior Infants).

Whilst these children had learned some letters, sounds and words, almost all were unable to apply that knowledge to reading and writing.

Over seven out of every 10 children on entry were at Reading Recovery Book Level 2 or below. These children were essentially non-readers. Moreover, almost a quarter of children could read no written text at all at entry.

In around 18 and a half weeks nearly 19 in every 20 children who completed their Reading Recovery lesson series had caught up with their classmates and were working at age appropriate levels of literacy; slightly higher than the previous year.

Reading

ProgressChildren progressed from a reading age of five years and one month, Book Level 2 (see example), to a reading age of six years and 10 months, Book Level 18 (see example).

They made, on average, a gain of 21 months in around 18 and a half weeks, making accelerated progress at around four to five times the normal rate.

Children who did not catch up with their classmates (known as referred) still made progress, a reading age of five years and seven months, Book Level 8 (see example). This was made in a slightly longer lesson series, usually an average of around 21 and a half weeks.

These children have learned how to use their knowledge of letters and sounds to decode text, and to understand and enjoy stories. They have moved from being non-readers to accessing reading and writing in their class, but still needing some support.

Level 2

Level 8

Level 18

Figure 1 (pie chart, left): Book Level on entry to Reading Recovery for children with completed programmes


Reading and writing are reciprocal processes. What children learn in reading supports and complements their writing and vice versa. Writing is an important element of Reading Recovery.

During their daily lessons, children learn how to compose sentences to write down their own ideas. They are taught explicitly how to use their phonic knowledge to spell regular words.

As children progress they extend their control of more complex grammatical structures.

They are taught more complex or irregular spelling patterns, and they build a vocabulary of words they can write automatically in order to become fluent writers.

They become able to compose ‘on the run’.

Children like Sarah (see writing examples, below) have learned very little about writing before being identified for Reading Recovery.

They are typically unable to write the letters and sounds they know, or to use phonics to help their spelling (see ‘At entry to Reading Recovery’). Many are unable even to write their own name.

Writing

At entry to Reading Recovery

At exit from Reading Recovery

Follow up session

ProgressChildren who had made accelerated progress in writing (95% of the cohort) at the end of their Reading Recovery lessons were now attaining at the appropriate level for their age group.

Sarah was able to use her new understanding of letters and sounds to compose and write messages and stories (see ‘At exit from Reading Recovery’, a task to hear and record sounds in words).

Children who completed their Reading Recovery lessons continued to make impressive progress afterwards, as Sarah’s independent class work demonstrates (see ‘Follow up session’).

As well as being able to control more complex spellings post-programme, children were also able to express more interesting and challenging ideas and to sustain a lengthy composition.


The wider benefits of Reading RecoverySt. Aiden’s National School is a small school in the west of Ireland with rural DEIS status. It is a mixed school with a current enrolment of 76 pupils, three mainstream classroom teachers, learning support allocation of 15 hours per week and 8.5 hours of resource teaching.

Reading Recovery has enabled significant changes to the school’s approaches to managing pupil needs in literacy learning.

Ruth Towey, the school’s Reading Recovery teacher, explains: “...The results have shown with increasing success from year to year, it [Reading Recovery] was a worthwhile decision that allows us to continually reduce the numbers of children progressing through the school with literacy difficulties.”

The successful implementation of Reading Recovery on a one-to-one basis lead to an interest in the possibilities of targeting bigger groups of children with a similar style of instruction.

Ruth recalls: “Before starting Lift Off to Literacy, we gathered data to enable us to monitor the impact of the change of approach.

“In 2009, 3.8% of pupils scored at or below the 16th percentile, with 69.3% of pupils...between the 17th and the 50th percentile.

“From the 51st to the 84th percentile 19.2% of pupils were falling in this range. And 3.8% were in the 85th – 98th percentile. 3.8% were above the 98th percentile.

“This meant that the majority of our pupils were falling in the low average to average range of scores.”

Four years later, the profile of pupil attainment is quite different. There are many more children now attaining in the average range (51st-84th percentile) with a jump form 19.2% to 30.9%.

Although the percentage of pupils in the lowest scoring bracket has decreased only slightly, this includes only one pupil out of the classes who have benefitted from Reading Recovery and/or Lift Off to Literacy.

The remaining pupils making up the 3.6% below the 16th percentile is made up of pupils in 5th and 6th class; these pupils were not able to benefit from either of these interventions due to their age.

Into their 4th year as a Reading Recovery school, already the impact of Reading Recovery and the spin off classroom programme Lift Off to Literacy are clearly observable.

Ruth reflects: “The first tranche of pupils who received Reading Recovery are now in 4th class. No pupils in that group are currently in need of or in receipt of Learning Support for Literacy.

“In fact, apart from our current Reading Recovery pupils we have only one pupil in receipt of Learning Support for Literacy from 4th class down.

“Reading Recovery has had the effect we were hoping it would. We have reduced the number of pupils with difficulties in reading and writing in our school. More than we anticipated.

“It has also impacted on our school in other ways as we have found ways to share effective approaches for literacy teaching.

“As a staff, we have become better teachers of literacy, with a new openness to sharing our knowledge and experience.

“This has benefited class teaching, team teaching, in-class support and early intervention teaching alike”

PRs 2009 2013≤ 16th 3.8% 3.6%17th–50th 69.3% 47.3%51st–84th 19.2% 30.9%85th–98th 3.8% 14.5%≥ 98th 3.8% 3.6%

Table 2: Percentile Rank (PRs) changes in pupil attainment using Reading Recovery and Lift Off to Literacy.


Driving professional development at all levelsReading Recovery can provide the impetus to a whole school focus on professional development.

The Reading Recovery teacher can bring together groups of colleagues to use her knowledge and skills to support the development of teaching strategies for pupils with less severe literacy difficulties.

One such school is St. John the Evangelist N.S in Adamstown, Lucan. Name of teacher, Reading Recovery teacher, shares her story.

Introduction of Reading Recovery to the SchoolHaving spent 21 years as a classroom teacher in a Junior School, I moved to St. John’s when it opened in September 2007, teaching EAL and later moving to a combination of EAL and learning support as our provision developed as described above.

In September 2010, I began training in Dublin West Education Centre as a Reading Recovery teacher.

While challenging, Reading Recovery training was very interesting and enlightening. I learned how to help the lowest achieving children make great strides in reading and writing, and that much of what we as teachers think is clear instruction can be very confusing to some children.

Reading Recovery training has taught me to be a much more detailed observer of reading and writing behaviour and to always look at where the child is at, where he needs to go next and how I can best facilitate that move.

It has also taught me to be a much more focused teacher, becoming more aware that what I ignore is as important as what I teach and that less teacher talk, using very specific praise and prompts is a very effective way to teach reading and writing.

Benefits to individual childrenAt present I teach four children in Reading Recovery daily. As each child’s Reading Recovery programme lasts for 12-

20 weeks, eight children can complete a Reading Recovery programme in each school year.

Since September 2010, eight children have completed their Reading Recovery programmes in this school and four programmes are ongoing.

All of the eight children whose programmes are completed made accelerated progress, moving from being the lowest achieving children in their class to working at least within the average range in their class.

All children who have been discontinued from Reading Recovery are re-tested at three and six months following discontinuation.

School background:St. John the Evangelist N.S opened in September 2007 with 59 pupils and four teachers and has grown in size steadily with a current enrolment of 345 children and 22 teachers, including one principal, 14 class teachers, three learning support teachers and four English as an additional language (EAL) teachers.

Pupils come from a wide variety of backgrounds with approximately 90% from families where parents were born outside Ireland. When we were first given access to a learning support teacher in September 2008, EAL and learning support operated separately in the school.

However it very quickly became apparent that there was too great an over-lap between the two to continue in this way. So in May 2009 we began investigating how best to organise the provision of additional support throughout the school, combining language and learning support. Commencing in September 2009, this combined approach forms the basis of our current arrangement.


In line with school policy (and Guidelines from NEPS) children who finish Reading Recovery revert to a Classroom Support Plan (CSP) which outlines the pupil’s needs and the actions, including teaching and management approaches and home–based action, to support the child. Three and six month checks, standardised tests and teacher observation are used to review the CSP.

Above is a profile of John (pseudonym), a typical example of a child who has completed the Reading Recovery programme this year (see, tables 3–5).

Sustained progressShortly after Reading Recovery John’s class participated in Lift-Off to Literacy (described in following sections).

Based on pre-programme tests carried out on each child in the class, John

was placed in the group working at the highest level in the class. He continued to progress in line with the other children in the group.

The results of the post Lift-Off to Literacy tests place John fourth in the class in terms of book level.

While the above scores clearly show that the typical Reading Recovery pupil makes great progress at reading and writing, scoring at least within the average range, other benefits which are not so easy to quantify, include greatly increased motivation and self-esteem.

In the case of John, prior to and at the start of his Reading Recovery programme he rarely participated in class without being specifically asked to.

Since completion of Reading Recovery he is much more outgoing and participates enthusiastically, eagerly

and voluntarily. His parent reports that he often chooses to read at home for enjoyment, which is something he would have been unwilling and unable to do previously.

Reducing learning support case loadJohn is an example of a typical child before and after Reading Recovery.

To date none of the children who have participated in Reading Recovery have needed further school support. This means that the provision of additional support to these children, who a short time ago were the lowest achieving children in their class, is no longer necessary.

Without Reading Recovery it is highly likely that they would all have required additional support during much of their time in our school.

Table 3: Scores at initial assessment(Please note: Stanines of 4–6 are considered to be within the average range)

Book Level

Letter I.DN = 54

Word ReadingN = 23

Concepts About Print

N = 24

Writing Vocabulary

Hearing and Recording

Sounds in Words

N = 37

B.A.S. Word Reading

RS ST RS ST RS ST NO. ST RS ST RS RA0 51 4 6 1 3 1 8 1 21 1 2 4:10

Table 4: Scores after 20 weeks of Reading Recovery instruction (74 lessons)20 53 OAR 23 OAR 18 OAR 27 OAR 35 OAR 27 6:10

Table 5: Scores at three months post Reading RecoveryBook Level B.A.S. Word Reading Writing Vocabulary

RS RA NO. ST23 42 7:10 46 OAR


Over time this will have a profound impact on the case load for the provision of support in the school.

Benefits across the whole schoolAfter my Reading Recovery teaching, I’m involved in in-class teaching. This in-class teaching incorporates adapted Reading Recovery procedures to use in station teaching.

Part of my duties in the school is to coordinate the development of the school’s oral language and English plans.

Many strategies learned in Reading Recovery training have been used to benefit other pupil groups in the school as outlined below.

Lift-Off to LiteracyIn August 2011, Dublin West Education Centre ran a summer course for teachers in schools with Reading Recovery.

Three members of the support team participated in this training to deliver a new initiative called Lift-Off to Literacy.

This is a model of in-class support providing station teaching where each station mirrors a segment of a Reading Recovery lesson.

It is supported by a number of school visits by a Reading Recovery teacher leader as well as by opportunities to attend Teacher Professional

Community (TPC) sessions with teachers in other schools delivering Lift-Off to Literacy.

In line with our commitment to early intervention, together with analysis of our 1st and 2nd class standardised test results, we decided it was appropriate to introduce Lift-Off to Literacy in our two first classes over two separate blocks of eight weeks each.

It is delivered for one hour, four days a week by the class teacher and three members of the support team, with each teacher taking responsibility for a particular teaching station.

In order to measure the efficacy of this initiative the children are tested on word reading, hearing and recording sounds in words and book reading both prior to and post Lift-Off to Literacy.

To date one class participated in Lift-Off to Literacy during the first school term and the other class commenced their eight week series of lessons at the end of January 2012.

The statistics below show that this initiative has been very successful to date.

Similar to Reading Recovery, other immeasurable effects, such as dramatic improvements in motivation and self-esteem, have also been noted in the children

both during and since Lift-Off to Literacy.

Below is an outline of the progress made by the children who were involved in Lift-Off to Literacy for eight weeks during October, November and December.

Average Reading Age (using Schonell Word Reading Test)• September 2011: 6.8• December 2011: 7.2

Book Reading Level (using Running Records)• Average book level on

entry: 6.9• Average book level on

exit: 15.9

September 2011• 54% reading below

level 7• 31% reading between

level 8–20• 9% reading above

level 20

December 2011• 0% reading below level 7• 34% reading between

level 8–10• 35% reading between

level 13–17• 23% reading at level 23• 8% reading above

level 25

Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words• September 2011: 63%

were below average when tested in this area

• December 2011: 90% were average or above when tested at exit


Guided readingAs a direct result of Lift-Off to Literacy training, guided reading has been introduced in classes from Junior Infants to 5th Class.

This approach mirrors the strategies employed by a Reading Recovery teacher during the teaching of the “new book”.

We considered this approach to be especially appropriate to meet the specific needs of the children in our school as it includes a very strong emphasis on language development, focuses on teaching and developing complex strategic activity while providing good opportunities for high volume reading.

As learning intentions are shared with the child during guided reading lessons, this approach is compatible with our assessment for learning practice.’

Changes to our approach to teaching spellingSince September 2011 our school approach to teaching spelling has been altered reflecting procedures and theory from Reading Recovery.

The child is encouraged to work with his eyes to see parts of words at the same time as working with his ears to isolate patterns in speech.

In this way, instead of learning to write lists of words, the child is taught strategies to use what he already knows about letters and words to get to new words.

Changes to practices in learning support/EALSince being introduced to the school, Reading Recovery has impacted significantly on practices in learning support/EAL.

Teaching children to articulate words slowly has now become part of the phonological awareness element of EAL Year 1.

We were in the process of developing the structure of the literacy element of our EAL Year 2 lessons and professional development around Reading Recovery procedures has clarified this greatly for us.

Reading Recovery has reframed our understanding of early literacy learning behaviours which has provided clarity in determining targets for the children in need of additional support.

Consequently, this has impacted on the planning process to ensure the children are enabled to achieve the desired literacy behaviours. Moreover, our learning support lesson structures are now based on a Reading Recovery lesson.

Since June 2011 the support team have used running records to assess reading ability as well as strategic activity being used and this information has been used to inform teaching and learning.

Junior Infant baseline assessmentIn spring 2010 the support team identified a need to design a baseline test to be administered to Junior Infants within the first six weeks of starting school, to help inform our teaching and learning and to identify children who may need additional support.

We began working on developing this in collaboration with three other schools. A subtest on Concepts About Print (CAP) using some information from the L.A.R.R. test was devised.

Due to time constraints it was decided that the CAP subtest would be omitted and used instead as the basis for a classroom programme.

In September 2010 as I began Reading Recovery teacher training, I became familiar with the CAP test that forms part of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement used in Reading Recovery.

During professional dialogue with my teacher leader, on the subject of the inclusion of a CAP subtest in our baseline assessment, she


directed me to the work of Marie Clay (2000, page 16) which outlines the importance of assessing CAP:

“In simplest terms it reveals what the learner is attending to, both appropriately and inappropriately. To support learning a teacher needs to know what the learner is attending to. In the daily activities of the classroom, teachers can be good observers of what children know about literacy, and they find it relatively easy to see and hear what children know about letters and sounds, or about words. However, the knowledge tapped by CAP requires a well-designed task to uncover what children are attending to. It informs teachers about the literacy learning that already exists.”

This convinced us that the inclusion of the Sand and Stones CAP test should form an important part of our baseline assessment from September 2011.

In relation to our baseline subtest on phonemic awareness we were unsure as to the correct way to articulate the question designed to determine if the child can identify a word with the same onset sound as the word presented.

Again, due to having Reading Recovery in our school we were able to draw on the knowledge and expertise of a Reading

Recovery teacher leader to direct us to appropriate literature to clarify this.

Access CPD for staff membersIn spring 2011, my Reading Recovery teacher leader, delivered a CPD session to staff members from Junior Infants to 2nd Class and the Support Team, creating an opportunity for professional dialogue exploring the strategic activities involved in reading.

Strategies such as ensuring children can articulate words slowly and using Elkonin boxes as a route to developing the ability to hear and record sounds in words have since become standard practice in many of these classes.

Teachers were also introduced to the use of running records as a very powerful tool to ensure children are reading at an appropriate instructional level and to provide very useful diagnostic information on a child’s strategic activity in reading.

Hopes for future benefits in the schoolIt is expected that Reading Recovery will continue to bring further benefits to the school in the years ahead.

We have begun the process of introducing guided reading as our approach to teaching reading and it has now been prioritised as an area for development as part of

the school’s three year literacy plan.

Becoming aware of the benefits of delivering strong book introductions, thus creating awareness of the need to have a very strong focus on language in order to gain comprehensive meaning from text will link to the school’s oral language programme.

Consequently increased awareness of a strong focus on the development of oral language across the curriculum will be promoted.

It is hoped that classroom use of running records as a tool to ensure children are reading at an appropriate level as well as giving valuable information on the strategic activity being used in their reading, will become standard practice throughout the school.

Increasing awareness of the benefits of providing children with regular opportunities to engage in familiar reading and creating greater understanding of how to improve children’s fluency in reading are further areas where Reading Recovery theory and procedures can be applied.

Having examined the gains made by children who participated in Lift-Off to Literacy, hopefully this initiative may be extended into Senior Infant classes with more staff members being trained in its delivery.

Central Statistics Office (2010), Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) 2009. Dublin Ireland: Stationery Office.

Clay, M.M. (2000) Concepts About Print: Heinemann (Auckland NZ)

Clough, M. (2000). Roar like a tiger. PM Plus: Story Books Level 8. Thomsom Learning, Australia. Illustrations: Thomas, M

DES (2000) Learning support guidelines. Government of Ireland: Dublin

DES (2007) Special Educational Needs: a continuum of support – guidelines for teachers. Government of Ireland: Dublin; An Gum Giles, J. (1998). The Elves and the Shoemaker. PM Traditional Tales and Plays: Turquoise. Cengage Learning, Australia. Illustrations: O’Loughlin, S.

Giles, J. (2007). My accident. PM starters: Levels 2/3. Nelson Cengage Learning, Australia. Illustrations: Thomas, M.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (1999) Primary SchoolCurriculum - English Language [online] The Stationary Office. Available at:< http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/Curriculum/Eng_Curr.pdf>[Accessed 10 January 2012]

References

reading recovery annual report for ireland: 2012–13 annual report 2012-13v2.pdfdriving...

Documents