---

Reading Recovery Programme

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for raising this important issue. He spoke with a great deal of passion and conviction. I am sure that those of us who regard these matters enthusiastically are not unique; there are many others outside this place who feel that passion. I certainly feel it having spent 13 years in a classroom as a teacher of young children before coming to this place. The central feature of the case for enhanced reading recovery programmes is not simply about literacy or academic achievement, crucial though they are. As the hon. Gentleman has made clear, the capacity to read is closely linked—I apologise if there is a very child-centred feel to my remarks—to self-esteem, behavioural patterns in school and beyond, and the ability of all children fully to be involved in the school community and to access the entire curriculum. I shall not succumb to the temptation of relating anecdotes of my experiences, but I will say that one could guarantee that at one of the urban schools in which I taught, such behavioural problems and the more deep-seated problems on the estate could be traced back to the problems of underachievement, particularly in literacy. One could pinpoint those cases almost universally. That was the reality of the situation. I shall not get into the debate about standard assessment tests and particular statistics of achievement, on some of which the hon. Gentleman and I may beg to differ, other than to comment on the target culture that he mentioned. As a teacher—and professional, I hope—I know that we all felt that pressure very strongly. Mercifully, SATs have now gone in Wales. The teaching profession went through the rigours and stipulations of the national curriculum and the emergence of the literacy and numeracy hours. I welcomed the literacy hour because it gave me a focus as a new teacher, but many children simply could not keep up. For them, it was absolutely meaningless to look in detail at text for an hour every day and analyse word patterns. Those were children in years 5 and 6, not the youngest children about whom the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned, as we all are. There is no doubt that a huge number of children are missing out. At the core of this debate are issues of inclusiveness and entitlement. I have seen figures that suggest that 440,000 adults in Wales—25 per cent. of the population—have serious literacy difficulties. We are told that young offenders in pupil referral units are missing out on basic educational programmes, but as the hon. Gentleman has said, the failing is much earlier on. We know that early intervention works, and that with approaches of the types suggested, two thirds of the children involved will go on to achieve expected levels at the end of key stage 1. Given that early impetus, and without extra help, half of those children will achieve expected levels four years on at the end of key stage 2. That is why it is vital to build a culture of reading and appreciating books. That is not just a middle-class phenomenon. I remember parent interviews and that all too often if I dared to suggest that there was work to be done at home, the response was that these matters are the responsibility of schools. Parents think, ““My children come here at 9 am and they leave at 3.30 pm. It is your responsibility.”” That is a real and broad phenomenon. I would send home reading books every day, but with the full expectation that they would be brought back unsigned the next day, week or, indeed, month. I understand why some of the pilot schemes have been focused on urban areas, because there is, of course, a huge need there, but there is also a need in rural areas such as those represented by me and other hon. Members. In a small village school with one underperforming child who has behavioural problems, the problem is magnified in the whole school community in the same way as with larger numbers of children in urban areas. The ““every child a reader”” pilot is admirable—5,000 five and six-year-olds are being helped—but it is inevitably limited in its scope, and it will end in 2008. When I spoke to its director yesterday, she told me that she hopes that the experience of the pilot will win the hearts and minds of decision makers. I hope that the Minister will give us assurances about its future, its expansion and the promotion of such schemes after 2008. Will he also say something about rural areas? In what environment, therefore, can reading be effectively taught to children who are perhaps two, three or more years behind their chronological reading age? Having taught classes ranging in size from 14 to 36 pupils, I know that the intensive catch-up programmes that are required cannot take place in a conventional class environment. Gone are the days when a teacher would dutifully hear children read every day, let alone teach those with particular difficulties. Early intervention is therefore the key. Normal teaching does not enable slow readers to catch up. Although we are right to praise the work done by the increased numbers of classroom assistants and teachers, this debate is not about class sizes. Of course, reducing class sizes will help, and my party has a lot of good things to say about the issue, but what we need is more focused intervention. Nor can measures to promote reading be latched on to special educational needs policy in schools. SEN budgets are tight, SEN timetables are often full on the action and action plus levels and there is the issue of statementing. Yesterday, I spoke to a special needs teacher who said that"““50 per cent. of the children””—" not only in year 1, but in years 5 and 6—"““need extra teaching of reading.””" However, that teacher must rely on some of her children being away ill to fulfil the requirements of those who remain and give them the time that they need, even in her special needs classes. She strongly feels that she cannot deliver what is required without extra focused resources, and although I used to manage a small school improvement budget, it was never enough to supply anything other than the occasional focused support. All that points to the need for bold, imaginative and direct intervention focused on books. There are instances of children who do not know how to open a book, let alone read one; they do not understand the mechanism of turning pages or what the little numbers in the corners are. We need to build in an approach that deals with such issues, because if we target them early on, we shall be making a long-term investment in the future. That will help children who simply do not read at home, who do not have books at home and who would not dream of going to a library. It will help boys who are uninterested in reading or who are fully aware that they are slipping behind the girls—there is a strong gender issue here, too. A huge amount of pioneering work has been done in individual schools—it has been largely inspired by what has happened in New Zealand—and we have heard of the good work that is being done in Nottingham. However, I was struck by the thoughts of the educationist Barbara MacGilchrist, who wrote:"““Short-term uncoordinated initiatives to raise standards do not work...To combat underachievement in reading, a long-term, system-led strategy, nationally co-ordinated and locally managed is required.””" We need a joined-up approach at different levels of government in Scotland, Wales or England—I says that as someone who represents a Welsh constituency—to put the issue on the agenda. That approach was clearly articulated by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. However, this is not just about schools or the six hours for which I had children in my care—it is about the other 18 hours, too. A key component of any reading policy must be reading in the home. The overwhelming research evidence shows that a huge difference can be made when parents, neighbours, family members and carers get involved. I commend the work of the Family Reading Campaign and the BBC, which has been promoting reading and writing in a way that actively involves parents and particularly fathers—again, there is a gender issue here, because reading is left to the wife. I am quite proud of the fact that I was sitting reading the last chapter of ““The Magic Faraway Tree”” with my daughter on Sunday night. I do not know whether Enid Blyton is in vogue, but my daughter got a lot out of it. She was certainly stimulated by the experience, and both my three-year-old and my six-year-old are stimulated by the English and Welsh language books that come home from school. The aim must be to build parents’ confidence in their own literacy skills, although that is a huge job, and we have heard of the shortfall in the past. Although there are issues about how Sure Start will be evaluated and about the way forward, it has made a big difference, particularly in the most deprived areas. In particular, I pay tribute to Book Start, which has been significant and has given many young children their first experience of books. It is managed by Booktrust, funded by Sure Start and delivered by libraries and local health services. My wife and I had twins just before Christmas, and I look forward to them having their bag of books from the local health service when they are a little older. Such measures have made a big difference for many families. I commend the report produced by Jim Rose, which was commissioned by the DFES. In it, he states that"““developing children’s positive attitude to literacy, in the broadest sense, from the earliest stage is very important…For the youngest children, well before the age of five, sharing and enjoying favourite books with trusted adults…is at the heart of this activity. Parents and carers should be strongly encouraged in these pursuits and reassured that, in so doing, they are contributing massively to children’s literacy and to their education in general.””" That really is an endless task, and it needs clearer, focused direction at all levels of government. Finally, let me say something about the key issues of teacher training and the training of experts in reading recovery. There are many failings in teacher training, and I endured a one-year postgraduate certificate of education course in which the education that I received in special needs was minimal. None the less, although the £20,000 salaries that we are talking about for intensive provision to promote reading will cost a lot, most of us here will agree that that cost is ultimately worth paying.