---

Reading Recovery Programme

I am sorry, I am getting the wrong Member. We had a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday to discuss the SEN report. We have invested in SEN to the tune of a 43 per cent. increase in the past three years and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have an ongoing commitment. He made interesting points on reading and the involvement of parents. Reading should not be seen as something for girls or the middle class, or as a white thing. Part of my excuse for not being the best read Member of the House, to say the least, is that when I was a child neither of my parents could read particularly well in English. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned the value of family learning, which is happening in her borough. I recently visited a school in Camden that does a great deal of work on family learning, and it is a valued scheme that helps both children and parents. She also said that there are now three city academies in her borough, so Hackney, South and Shoreditch is setting the pace. I agree that it is far from the worst place in the country to live in—perhaps second best to Gloucester. She said that there has been an 83 per cent. improvement in the catching up of people who have benefited from reading recovery in her area. The hon. Member for Bristol, West made some interesting points, not least those on the economic enhancement of being able to read from an early age and the knock-on effect for the wider economy. I welcome this opportunity to discuss the literacy levels of children, particularly those from poorer backgrounds. The discussion ties into the debate on how to get the right support for children at the right time. I wish to set it in the context of our wider early years primary work on reading before turning to the distinct contribution of intervention programmes such as reading recovery. I shall also touch upon issues raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) on phonics. The ability to read underpins all educational achievement. It enables children to grow up equipped to take part in society, to have high expectations and to make the most of their learning. Being able to read is essential not merely because it is the foundation of all other learning but because of the joy that it brings to children and adults throughout their lives, not least in the case of Grace Allen, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North mentioned. It is also true of Zac Dhanda, although for someone aged 10 months it is a matter of chewing the pages of a book rather than reading them. My hon. Friend is concerned about the high number of children who leave primary school with reading difficulties that cause them real frustration and isolation. Ensuring that children are fluent, enthusiastic readers is a vital part of our goal to give every child the chance to fulfil their potential. We cannot afford to overlook pupils or leave anyone behind. We all stand to share the benefits of an economy and society with less education failure, higher skills, reduced crime and better health. My hon. Friend mentioned the stark statistic of the costs involved when young people end up within the criminal justice system. I believe that the figure that he mentioned was about a quarter of a million pounds a year. The Government have overseen significant improvement in educational achievement, particularly in primary schools. In 1997 one third of children left primary school without having mastered the basics of English and maths; now, three quarters achieve that in maths and about four fifths in English. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke said, this is certainly not a time for complacency. The literacy and numeracy strategies, and now the primary national strategy, have proved successful. The 2006 key stage 2 results are the best primary results that we have ever had. More pupils from all socio-economic groups are getting better results, but the performance gap between those from more and less deprived areas is still big, although it has narrowed. A significant minority experience problems that could lead to poor outcomes in later life. That point has been made by several hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber. We need to identify those children early on and work to ensure that their needs are met with a variety of different strategies. Reading recovery is important, but there is a range of things that we can and should do. The reforms that are outlined in the schools White Paper set out our aim to provide an education that is tailored to meet each child’s learning needs and abilities, and to narrow the achievement gaps. We shall support schools by providing resources and training to deliver personalised learning, with more catch-up lessons for children falling behind and more opportunities for schools to provide small group and one-to-one tuition for those children who need such extra help. We have made £990 million available to fund personalised learning between 2005-06 and 2007-08. That money is particularly targeted at schools that face the greatest challenges, including those with pupils from deprived backgrounds or with low prior attainment. It will be for schools themselves to decide how to use the resources available to them to meet the individual needs of their pupils. The Gilbert review, led by Christine Gilbert, is looking at ways to ensure that personalised learning is a reality in every classroom. It will set out a vision for how teaching and learning should develop between now and 2020. The review will report back to us by the end of the year and I look forward to hearing its recommendations. The renewed primary framework for literacy and mathematics was made available to schools at the beginning of this month and will help to raise attainment levels among all pupils. Through the framework, we have enhanced support to schools and early years settings, and drawn on latest classroom good practice and research. The literacy element of the framework draws on the findings of Jim Rose’s independent review of the teaching of early reading, which has been well trailed in this debate. Rose advocates quality first teaching, which comprises a blend of well-judged whole-class, group and individual work, as the most effective way to raise standards. He confirms that high-quality phonic work should be an inherent part of quality first teaching. The framework underpins Jim Rose’s recommendation that systematic phonic work set within a rich language curriculum is the best route for children in becoming skilled readers. I support the assertion that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North made that prevention is better than cure. To that end we are developing the early years foundation stage, which is also informed by Jim Rose’s findings. The early years foundation stage is about improving opportunities for all children from birth to the age of five, by giving them the best possible start in life and erasing the artificial divide between care and learning. Evidence shows that an integrated learning and care experience enables children to achieve the best possible outcomes. The early years foundation stage will provide children with the experiences and activities that they need to grow, learn and develop. It is quite a coincidence that earlier today I attended a conference that four children had arranged on the subject of extended schools. Extended schools, children’s centres and Sure Start are the best possible demonstration of our long-term commitment to early years. Hon. Members will be aware that we have surpassed our target for extended schools, with more than 3,000 having been created, along with more than 1,000 children’s centres, with a view to ensuring that every school is an extended school by the turn of the decade.