Why the New Zealand National Literacy Strategy Has Failed and What Can Be Done about It: Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and Reading Recovery Monitoring Reports

Autor/inn/en	Tunmer, William E.; Chapman, James W.; Greaney, Keith T.; Prochnow, Jane E.; Arrow, Alison W.
Titel	Why the New Zealand National Literacy Strategy Has Failed and What Can Be Done about It: Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and Reading Recovery Monitoring Reports
Quelle	In: Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18 (2013) 2, S.139-180 (42 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1940-4158
DOI	10.1080/19404158.2013.842134
Schlagwörter	Foreign Countries; Literacy Education; Public Policy; Educational Policy; Reading Achievement; Scores; Achievement Gap; Reading Tests; Benchmarking; Program Effectiveness; Outcomes of Education; Evidence; Constructivism (Learning); Individualized Instruction; Intervention; Elementary School Students; New Zealand; Progress in International Reading Literacy Study; Burt Word Reading Test + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ausland; Öffentliche Ordnung; Politics of education; Bildungspolitik; Leseleistung; Lesetest; Lernleistung; Schulerfolg; Evidenz; Individualisierender Unterricht; Neuseeland
Abstract	For the past 15 years, the New Zealand government has initiated major efforts to reduce persistently large inequities in achievement outcomes in literacy education, including the development of a national literacy strategy. The aim of this study was to provide an analysis of the factors that have contributed to the failure of this strategy and what can be done to overcome the problem. We began by presenting evidence in support of the claim that the national literacy strategy has failed, drawing on data from the PIRLS 2011 study and the latest annual monitoring report of Reading Recovery (RR) data. We then identified three interrelated factors as contributing to the failure of the national literacy strategy: (1) a constructivist orientation toward literacy education, (2) the failure to respond adequately to differences in literate cultural capital at school entry and (3) restrictive policies regarding the first year of literacy teaching. In the final section of the paper, we reviewed research in support of what we maintain is the most effective strategy for reducing the literacy achievement gap: the use of differentiated instruction from the outset of formal schooling that takes into account interactions between school entry reading-related skills (high versus low literate cultural capital) and method of teaching reading (constructivist versus explicit approaches). We also argued that RR should be replaced with an intervention program that is based on contemporary theory and research on reading and targets those struggling readers who need help the most. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10