“Too poor to learn? That’s too bad, for many children”

Sue Burroughs-Lange

“Too many of England’s poorest children continue to be let down by the education system” .*
(OFSTED June 2013.)

OFSTED is rightly focusing attention on schools’ ability to support the learning of all pupils and narrow the attainment gap between pupils of different backgrounds. Foremost amongst the difficulties associated with poverty is a slow start into literacy, leading to an ongoing and increasing lag in becoming literate and in accessing the learning curriculum.

If a child’s literacy difficulties are not addressed early on, then the challenge of raising achievement appears insurmountable. My colleague Amanda Ince and myself have just published an edited book that looks at the evidence and policy around early literacy intervention and the possibilities, if adequately supported, of long-term benefit for society (in terms of alleviating social and financial costs later on) and quality of life for those ‘let down’ individuals. (Reading Recovery and Every Child a Reader: History, policy and practice. London:IOE Press, 2013).

In wishing to highlight the needs of the more isolated and small groups of children in poverty to be found in more affluent areas, Sir Michael Wilshaw drew attention to the recent improvements in achievement in schools with associated high levels of poverty – in Inner London, Birmingham, greater Manchester, Liverpool, and Leicester. Interestingly, these areas were among the first to introduce the early literacy intervention Reading Recovery, which, initially with the support of the then Conservative government, was rolled out across their most needy schools. Then, with leadership support and the literacy expertise of their Reading Recovery teacher, many children across the primary years were helped to raise their literacy levels through the national scheme ‘Every Child a Reader’. Classroom practice was improved and interventions were matched in intensity and focus to the diagnosed needs of targeted groups across schools. The impact of having all children reading at age-appropriate levels was to raise achievement levels across the curriculum.

Sir Michael says that inspections will be tougher in the future on schools that are letting down their poor children. This will take the form of re-inspection. He also suggests sub-regional challenges to raise the achievement of disadvantaged children. A less punitive and more constructive suggestion is that teachers on funded schemes be directed to under-performing schools in less fashionable or more remote or challenging places. Our book provides insights and critique of what works in effectively turning around expectations and practice to bring about positive change in achievement, even in the most challenging contexts.

The current government introduced the, slowly increasing, pupil premium as an aid to enhancing the learning of children in poverty. However, its laissez-faire approach to directing the use of funding at school and district level means for many schools that insufficient funds are available to support the salary of those early literacy specialists that research has shown to have a proven track record in bringing about a sustained increase in achievement levels for the hardest to reach in particular. Sir Michael described the circumstances of many of these children as ‘labelled, buried in lower sets, consigned as often as not to indifferent teaching’. ‘Indifferent teaching’ benefits no child’s education; it is even more damaging for children whose progress is already delayed. Longitudinal data show that teachers know how to stop this, if adequate funding can be directed to achieving this goal.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized
2 comments on ““Too poor to learn? That’s too bad, for many children”
  1. Thank you for drawing attention to your important new book about combating the effects of poverty through the education system, and for pointing out that the government’s laissez-faire approach to the use of the pupil premium grant needs urgently to be reviewed and reconsidered. The government utters fine words about local decision-making and public accountability, but does not bother to check whether schools are listening. For example, it names and acclaims 48 schools in connection with the PPG awards scheme but only about a third of these schools have complied fully with the legal requirement to publish relevant information on their website, and – incidentally – at least four fifths of them have failed to publish adequate information and objectives on their website in relation to the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

    Hopefully your book will help concentrate the government’s mind, and lead to a more constructive, professional and effective focusing of resources.

  2. Richard Boxall says:

    This is a thought provoking analysis of the mismatch between governmental rhetoric about entitlement for poor children (albeit linked to increased state funding) and the variable and often unsubstantiated means through which schools direct funds on behalf of those children.
    School leadership decisions about the use of the pupil premium should be served by data which verifies long term impact for the target group. This book provides a sound basis for making such decisions and also for ensuring equable national provision . Thanks to all concerned!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

@IOE_London

Enter your email address

Want to keep up with IOE research?