One of the great strengths that we feel that Salley has to offer you is that it is a prevention programme too rather than solely an intervention programme. Thus Salley can be used with all. We do not wait until the child has begun to fail before they begin the programme.

Waiting for the child to fail and then putting in place a recovery programme, is of questionable value. It can be psychologically damaging for the children who have to attend – as their self perceptions are magnified. A recent study (Hurd 2009 in progress), of year 5 children, found that children placed in numeracy “catch up” or “intervention” groups designed to boost a school’s SAT’s performance, had their worst fears realised. Up to this point, they had not necessarily felt like “failures” but this approach rather than helping them, damaged their self esteem for all academic subjects.

Such programmes, like "Reading Recovery" whilst effective are also expensive. There are studies that indicate that the groups that need help the most are less likely to have successful experiences. Goldenberg (1995) reports that in New Zealand, where "Reading Recovery" was developed, classroom literacy instruction has not solved the problem of disproportionate underachievement by low-income, non-white minorities (1995, p. 105). This is also observable in America where children from low income, inner city, populations are on average performing on the 20th percentile on national norm-referenced measures for literacy (Grossen, Coulter & Ruggles, 1997). If "Reading Recovery" is least effective in the lowest performing schools then this creates serious questions about equity and raises questions about this type of intervention as a strategy to raise literacy levels. We would argue that because attitude and self esteem are so difficult to build, change and develop once there is one negative experience that programmes like Salley focus on the learning and personal development needs of all.

Through Salley, children have all the tools that they need to become successfully literate. We would argue that this should be available as a matter of right, rather than as a later interventionist strategy once the child has already perceived themselves as failing in some way. 

Julia Douëtil, of the Reading Recovery National Network, in a recent conference address stated “Failing to deal with persistent literacy difficulties costs us dearly: spending up to £2.5 billion a year through year-on-year special educational needs provision, including in-school support and Statements of SEN. And this figure does not include the hidden costs of truancy, disaffection and behavioural problems.”  She further added “there are long-term effects to society of not investing wisely in children who are failing in literacy after a year in school. There is a real need to champion the needs of children early on and there are severe consequences of not doing so”.

We believe that the Salley approach helps to prevent the need for phase 3 interventions. We also believe that by addressing a number of areas that impact on teacher expectations, the glass ceiling is not only lifted, but in some cases shattered.

What do you think?

Angela Hurd