EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF TWO ALTERNATIVE EARLY LITERACY PROGRAMS : READING RECOVERY AND SCHOOLWIDE EARLY LANGUAGE & LITERACY ( SWELL )

This study attempts to provide quantitative and qualitative data on the effects of two alternative early literacy programs in schools with a large enrolment of children at risk of literacy failure. The two programs under review were the Schoolwide Early Language and Literacy Program (SWELL), a structured whole class program for kindergarten, Year 1 and Year 2, and Reading Recovery, an individualised intervention program, provided to low progress children in Year 1. One large and one small school from low income areas, where SWELL had been implemented in kindergarten and Year 1, were carefully matched for region, size, ethnicity and socioeconomic status with two schools where Reading Recovery was provided to low achieving students in Year 1. Pre-tests were carried out at the beginning of Year 1 to establish equivalence among subjects. Post-tests using five early literacy measures at the end of Year 1 indicated significantly higher scores for children in the SWELL schools on four of the measures. On the fifth measure, there was a significant effect, in favour of SWELL students, in the large SWELL school only. When children receiving either individualised or group intervention were examined separately, it was clear that Reading Recovery was the most effective form of intervention for the children it accessed. However, as not enough children were able to benefit from this individualised intervention in the control schools, particularly in the large school, no significant differences emerged between control and experimental schools for all at risk children receiving intervention on any of the five literacy measures. Implications of these results for the most effective delivery of early literacy programs to students in schools with a large enrolment of low progress children were then discussed. There is no doubt that the acquisition of literacy is an educational, ethical and economic imperative. While, fortunately, most children acquire the concepts of reading, writing and spelling at school with ease and enjoyment, far too many at risk and disadvantaged children find these tasks both daunting and elusive. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that children who have experienced quality preschool programs and close parent/preschool liaison will find the early encounters with a school literacy curriculum a much easier process than their less fortunate peers (Gullo & Burton, 1993). Conversely, children whose preschool experiences have been less satisfactory and who come from less supportive homes, both emotionally and cognitively, will find the transition from home to school a much more problematic one. However, in the light of both the resilience and the vulnerability of young children, and assumptions underlying a general risk-and-protective framework, (Cichetti, 1984; Sroufe & Rutter, 1984), there is a strong expectation that less than ideal forms of child care and parental interaction can be compensated for by positive experiences in the classroom (Belsky & Mackinnon, 1994). Indeed, early classroom experiences are much more critical in shaping the potential for success of children who are at risk of school failure, than they seem to be for middle-class children. This has been found to be particularly so in the acquisition of literacy, where early instructional variables appear to be intimately associated with children's literacy success. This proactive role of the school, in respect of literacy, has been reinforced by a recent longitudinal study which found that schools which had a well-developed reading program in kindergarten produced long-term benefits for all students, but particularly so for those classified as socially disadvantaged or at risk (Hanson & Farrell, 1995). Converging evidence on the critical role of early school instructional programs has also been provided by Scanlan and Vellutino (1996) in their longitudinal study of 1400 middle to upper-middle class kindergarten children whose first language was English. Their conclusion was that `the reading success of children who enter school lacking in the rudimentary reading skills appears to be more sensitive to instructional variation than is the success of children who enter with better-developed skills' (p 62). Furthermore, they identified instructional programs that placed greater emphasis on phoneme awareness, alphabetic mapping and word identification skills as those most likely to prevent reading impairment in at risk middle class children. The importance of early exemplary literacy instruction has also been recognised by Slavin and his associates from Johns Hopkins University with the development of the Success for All Program, (Slavin, Madden, Karweit, Dolan & Wasik, 1992), designed particularly for disadvantaged students, and showing impressive effect sizes which maintain into Year 3. To a lesser extent, the critical role of systematic instruction in kindergarten also underlies the philosophy behind the Reading Recovery Program in New Zealand. This is an internationally acclaimed and widely reviewed (see Shanahan & Barr, 1995) individualised early intervention program which is provided only to those children who have failed to benefit from a year of formal reading instruction in kindergarten. In New Zealand, a small country with high literacy rates, standardised procedures for school enrolment, and most elementary regular teachers trained in the Reading Recovery Program (Watson, 1988), there is a homogeneity of classroom instruction in the kindergarten year not necessarily typical of other educational systems. This combination of uniform systematic kindergarten literacy instruction, followed by an individualised intervention in sympathy with the Year 1 classroom program, appears sufficient to meet the literacy needs of most low-progress New Zealand children. However, in many schools and school systems where a majority of students could benefit from additional support, (as in the United States and Australia), a different set of issues emerges (Hiebert, 1994, p.23). Currently, in NSW, Australia, as in many other countries, Reading Recovery has also been adopted as the main intervention program for at risk readers in Year 1. However, early schooling in NSW differs considerably from that in New Zealand, so that the efficacy of Reading Recovery in New Zealand cannot be automatically generalised to Australian conditions (Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred & McNaught, 1995). In NSW, children can start school from the age of 4 years 6 months and it is possible to have an age discrepancy of almost one year in kindergarten classes. This age disparity influences selection procedures for Reading Recovery intervention in Year 1, since Reading Recovery teachers typically select the oldest low progress children for immediate placement in the Program. Furthermore, there is no uniformity of early literacy instructional practices in the kindergarten year in NSW. More recently trained teachers tend to use a whole language approach to curriculum objectives, as most teacher training institutions have adopted this philosophy of early literacy acquisition for the last 15 years. More experienced teachers, on the other hand, seem to be using a more phonically based approach, with a significant number of early educators adopting an integrated position. In addition, teacher training in early literacy does not occupy a large part of many preservice programs, with the result that many newly graduated teachers must learn on the `job', adopting the methods that are characteristic of the specific school to which they have been appointed. Consequently, many children who are either socially disadvantaged or otherwise at risk do not receive uniformly systematic instruction in their kindergarten year, making their selection for Reading Recovery intervention more problematic than it appears to be for their New Zealand counterparts. Furthermore, children in Australia, on discontinuation from the Reading Recovery Program, re-enter a Year 1 classroom often less sensitive to the intervention program than is the case in New Zealand. The NSW system of education, while also centralised, is the largest in the Southern Hemisphere and has, as its constituency, an extremely socially and ethnically diverse group of children, differing dramatically in its exposure to early literacy concepts. Similar disparities between students' prior literacy experiences can be found in the urban and suburban school systems of the USA (Hiebert, 1994). We know from research in the US (Shanahan & Barr, 1995), and in Australia (Wheldall, Center & Freeman, 1993), that children in both these countries entering the Reading Recovery Program in Year 1 have lower literacy scores than their counterparts in New Zealand, and that the overall level of literacy, as measured by book level reading, is lower among regular Australian children at the beginning of Year 1 than it is in New Zealand. It may be unduly optimistic to believe that an individualised program, no matter how effective for the students that it accesses in its country of origin, can, on its own, address the concerns of a large cohort of low progress students found in many Australian schools. If we are to achieve the most effective early literacy instruction for our large number of at risk learners, we should be looking at the quality of instruction in the kindergarten year, the specific intervention procedures that follow in Year 1 and the children that they target, as well as the classroom program in Year 1 that supports that intervention. At the present time, in a large number of disadvantaged schools in NSW, an early literacy program, derived from the USA Program, Success for All, but significantly altered and modified for Australian conditions is being evaluated. This program has been adapted and extended for use with Australian school children (Center & Freeman, 1994; 1995), in collaboration with researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Bal