Implementing a new national literacy imperative: problems, positives and possibilities
Noeline Alcorn
Wilf Malcolm Institute for Educational Research
University of Waikato
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
Concern about literacy standards, especially the performance of the lowest achieving students, is widespread. Over the past fifteen years, a variety of national strategies have been developed, for example, the introduction of the Literacy Hour in the UK. A key feature of these strategies has been a move away from reliance on withdrawal programmes, such as Reading Recovery, for children whose reading has not progressed, towards greater emphasis on regular class teaching and teacher professional development. The aim of such strategies is to ensure that fewer children need remedial programmes and that overall achievement rises. During the past decade there have also been major changes to assessment practices and tools. One aspect of this has been a welcome emphasis on formative assessment to guide students and teachers in identifying strengths, weaknesses and gaps in knowledge. Teachers have been encouraged to engage in evidence-based practice, using achievement data to plan their classroom teaching. But in addition they are expected to set their own results alongside regional and national figures to gain an accurate picture of how their students compare with national norms.
Successive New Zealand governments have taken pride in the literacy achievement of most school students but recent survey data (PISA and PIRLS) has shown a disturbing gap between higher and lower achieving children. One initiative to combat this trend was the decision by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to appoint a team of Literacy Development Officers (MOE, 2003). The 13 officers work in local and regional MOE offices, but are also accountable as a national team. They work with primary school (Years 1-8) principals and literacy leaders, helping schools gather and analyse appropriate literacy data and develop literacy action plans, and brokering professional development to help schools implement the plans. To date, they have had involvement with 538 primary and intermediate schools (26% of total). The University of Waikato has been contracted to evaluate the success of this initiative and the extent to which change and improvement in schools is sustainable
Research design
The project makes use of mixed methods. In 2006 researchers visited a random sample of schools nationwide to interview staff and gather documentation: they have administered two questionnaires to LDOs, carried out document analysis, reviewed literature focussed on international literacy interventions and their evaluation, and on change management. In 2007 they have conducted a series of case studies, shadowed each LDO for a day, and supervised action research enquiries by LDOs to test the robustness of this method for ongoing evaluation of practice. They meet several times annually with the LDOs as a group, feeding back findings as well as supporting them in designing action research studies. While the focus of the completed study will assess the evidence of the scheme’s contribution to raising student literacy achievement in schools the LDOs work with, the focus of this paper is on the policy and operational aspects of the initiative. The findings reported are thus interim ones. This paper address expectations of the LDO role and the qualities demanded of those appointed; the ways in which LDOs work in schools: and the impact of the LDO initiative on the wider network of literacy support funded by the MOE. A final section raises emerging issues.
The Role of LDO: Genesis, context and expectations
The team leader for the project was appointed in November 2003 and between early 2004 and mid 2005, 13 LDOs. Since then there have been some personnel changes. The team has engaged in substantial professional development, both individually and as a group, and explored effective ways of working within existing literacy networks. They are all women, mid-career education professionals with diverse backgrounds in literacy, school leadership and professional development. While most were appointed in cities where they were already well known professionally, most of them had to establish themselves in the wider surrounding regions where schools can be isolated geographically and professionally.
LDOs report general satisfaction with their roles. Aspects they enjoy are the opportunities for personal professional growth, for reading and professional dialogue, and relish being able to concentrate on literacy. Helping schools and teachers change and improve student achievement, the variety of the job, the feeling that they are pioneers and innovators (“being part of an evolving role”), are all important to them. Aspects they find challenging are keeping the balance between influence and direction when working with schools, dealing with the broad expectations of others, maintaining relationships across the literacy network, having several lines of accountability and reporting, and locating support for schools. They see the key dimensions of their role as:
building effective professional relationships with schools;
supporting schools in their particular literacy needs;
challenging thinking in schools by encouraging principals to look at wider literacy issues and plan teaching focussed on raising student achievement;
incorporating current research in literacy/teaching and learning into their own practice and sharing it with schools.
Their MOE managers, when asked what qualities LDOs need to be effective, focused on three key areas:
§ deep knowledge about assessment tools and analysis and of literacy;
§ good interpersonal skills and personal confidence to allow them to hold intentionally challenging conversations with a wide range of principals to induce/precipitate change;
strategic thinking and an ability to delegate.
The LDOs had the task of raising awareness among schools of the availability of their services. They had to learn about the schools in their region and develop a sense of their literacy needs. Demand for their services grew as principals discovered that not only was their literacy expertise to be tapped but they could provide funding for teacher release and professional development. Gradually, as their work became more widely known, they have needed to prioritise their in depth involvement with schools, assessing need on the basis of achievement data, school size, and the percentage of Maori and Pacifica students. Schools, which have to invite the LDO to work with them, must be willing to engage in developing a literacy action plan to be followed over a two year period or longer, to make literacy the prime professional development focus for the staff, and to contribute an equivalent amount of money for teacher release.
LDOs’ work in schools
When a school agrees or requests to work with an LDO the latter is expected to work with the principal and literacy leaders, helping them design a literacy action plan with measurable targets. The basis for this plan is data analysis and diagnosis of key literacy needs. One school may find that all its classes are achieving below age norms in reading fluency. Another may score well in decoding without much evidence of comprehension. Literacy leaders may decide that writing skills are pressing or decide to target particular children or groups such as Maori boys. The plan will set targets for achievement and also develop professional development (PD) programmes for teachers. The LDO does not provide PD herself: rather her task is to broker its provision and provide funding to allow teacher release for PD and planning. In general LDOs turn to literacy advisers attached to the School Support Services teams employed by universities under contract from the MOE. If this support is unavailable for any reason they may approach Learning Media, National Library advisers, or private providers to assist. In some cases it has proved possible to make use of literacy expertise already on the staff or in a neighbouring school. In some districts schools agree to group together in a cluster to work on a literacy issue, though they may also have different goals within this broad framework. The LDO maintains an ongoing relationship with the school, continuing to monitor progress and provide encouragement and challenge as needed. Part of the role is to plan for sustainability so that the gains in understanding and practice can continue once the intensive support has ended.
A key feature of the LDOs’ work has to been to familiarise schools with literacy data collection and analysis as a basis for planning classroom programmes. While this is not altogether new – New Zealand teachers have used PAT diagnostic tests to assign students to nationally normed decile bands for almost forty years – the emphasis on studying detailed data to ascertain how well individual children, classes and schools are achieving in literacy is a novelty to many teachers. Analysing the data to set action goals and targets for teaching and learning, especially in writing, is also relatively new and depends on the range of tools available as well. The New Zealand government has opted for a high trust approach to accountability in assessment, has invested in new assessment tools to support formative assessment, and provided extensive professional development opportunities for teachers. Since 2003, schools have been required to engage in planning and reporting procedures mandated by the MOE While there is evidence (Hipkins 2007) that primary schools are beginning to do so effectively in literacy and numeracy at least, the Education Review Office (ERO) (2007) reports that many schools collect data because of the requirements but are uncertain about how to use results effectively in planning programmes or determining achievement targets. Since the majority of schools in which the LDOs now work have come to attention because of an unfavourable ERO report, or other expressed concerns, their understanding of the planning and reporting process may also need clarification.
The role of the LDO in helping schools understand and use assessment tools effectively is vital. There are now a plethora of such tools, designed for different levels in the school. As children enter school at five, many schools administer the School Entrance Assessment (SEA), which provides baseline data. Running records are used for most children on a regular basis and the 6-year-net data provides evidence of which children are under achieving and may need additional help through reading recovery. There are a series of national exemplars, Supplementary Tests of Achievement in Reading (STAR), Progressive Achievement Tests (PAT) in reading and listening skills, Prose Reading Observation, Behaviour and Observation of Comprehension (PROBE), Standardised spelling and word recognition tests, Assessment Tools for Learning and Teaching (asTTle), Assessment Resource Banks (ARBs) as well as less formal teacher observations. In addition, teachers have access to data from the National Education Monitoring Project, which reports on national attitudes and achievement on designated tasks across curriculum areas at years 4 and 8. These last results are based on light sampling of students across the country and provide valuable information on what children think and can do, and changes to these results over time. Small wonder that many teachers are confused and overwhelmed by data and its use.
Many of the assessment tools are designed for diagnosis, and asTTle is particularly designed to help students and teachers decide “what next” in the classroom on the basis of fine-grained analysis. However, all tests to a greater or lesser extent benchmark achievement against norms or standards. There is an increasing trend for LDOs to present principals with data illustrating national, local and school results in an effort to help them understand where their students fit and therefore where action is needed. Schools are encouraged to make use of wedge graphs detailing the progress of children in particular classes or areas and plot improvements. The balance between formative and summative assessment may become problematic in these instances.
Understanding of literacy has also become more complex. While Marie Clay’s seminal work, Reading: The patterning of complex behaviour (1972) has been pivotal in New Zealand reading courses for more than thirty years, LDOs report that their own intensive professional development has sharpened their awareness of its multi-modal nature and complexity and the changes wrought by near universal access to ICT. They also appreciate the need for children to develop critical literacy skills. Schools, on the other hand, tend to define literacy as learning to read and write (seen as discrete skills) and to discount the importance of oral and visual language or critical literacy or claim there is little time to address these areas. Some of the work of the LDO is therefore to challenge teachers to widen their perspectives and those of their communities. They admit, however, that the political imperative is raising achievement in reading and writing and also that not only school organization but also professional development opportunities funded by the MOE tend to focus on discrete aspects of literacy.
Relationships between LDOS, the MOE and professional development providers
The LDO initiative was established as part of the National Literacy Strategy, designed to ensure that all children ‘learn to read and write’ by age nine (TKI, 2007). Schools are required to give priority to literacy achievement, especially in the early years of primary education. A number of MOE funded initiatives are designed to support schools and teachers achieve this goal: the resourcing of Reading Recovery, designed to ensure that children falling behind at age six receive regular skilled one to one assistance, itinerant Resource Teachers of Literacy (including RT Maori), Second language support, National Library advisers, and literacy advisers employed by School Support Services to provide free professional development and support to teachers. While all these positions are government funded and monitored, not all work within the MOE itself. The LDOs work within this context.
Our findings show that the range of strategies under the umbrella of the National Literacy Strategy is not well aligned and thus implementation of the LDO initiative has caused some misunderstandings and resentment, particularly among School Support Services literacy advisers. The impact on the latters’ work has been considerable but their managers received no additional resources (money or staffing) for the work brokered by the LDOs. As a result they feel frustrated when they are unable to respond to requests to provide professional development to a school an LDO has worked with or are forced to defer such support. In addition, they feel that their other work, also mandated by the MOE, suffers. The six regional managers of SSS estimate that up to 75 % of the work of their literacy advisers is now based in LDO schools. While they understand the need to focus on high priority need schools they feel that the needs of other schools, which might need only brief support, are being marginalised. The advisers also resent that fact that though they have been working ‘in depth’ with schools for a number of years, the perception among the LDOs is that this is a new way for them to work. LDOs wonder if their expectations are in fact the same. Both LDOs and SSS have needed to invest substantial time on communication and learning to work together and in most regions have reached understanding and accommodation. In several regions there are now established “literacy networks” of those working to support teachers and schools in this area. A key task for these groups will be to continually address misunderstandings and assumptions.