“It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it,” to quote from Bananarama (obviously my main reason for writing this blog).  I would suggest that there is a nugget of truth to the words of the song.  In education, at least, I know that sometimes the rush to new initiatives and continual improvement can lead to more emphasis on what is being done and rather less on how it is being done.  I have every sympathy with schools, who often seem pulled from pillar to post with constantly changing agendas. Organisations like the EEF have done a great job in drawing attention to a range of different educational interventions and this can leave schools feeling that they need to find the next thing.  Despite constantly saying that there is no silver bullet out there, I know that many wonder whether it is just that they have not found it …yet.  Combine this with limited time and resources and a pressure to yield quick results and I think schools are in danger of spending less time on what I think would actually make the difference.  I think the balance needs to shift – less time spent on constantly looking for something new to do and more on considering what is needed in the context of each school and how to ensure that this is planned and managed effectively so that it is done well. 

“Putting Evidence to Work - A School’s Guide to Implementation” (EEF, February 2018) may have slipped under the radar for some schools, but I would heartily recommend reading it and suggest that this is the one EEF guidance report that underpins all others.  In this blog, I reflect on my experience working with schools and on the EEF report to highlight some of the key factors that schools might consider as they write and execute their school development and action plans.

Don’t try to do too much

Schools are continually improving systems but bound by finite time and resource.  One of the biggest limiting factors to successful implementation can be lack of capacity to truly commit.  It is ever more important to define exactly what school priorities are and to keep these manageable or there will be the chance of schools doing everything and achieving nothing. 

Be precise about what you are aiming to achieve

What is the problem that you are trying to solve?  Time spent on really understanding the answer to this question is time well spent.  Be careful not to fall into the trap of picking an intervention off the shelf because it is there.  Does it solve the problem you actually have?  In fact as a school, you may already have tried to solve this problem before, so consider what you learnt from any previous experience.  Is this about tweaking what you already have or is there a need for wholesale change?  Consider the options and school needs and reflect on the evidence of what others have done effectively in similar contexts.  What could you do to solve your problem? 

Plan for success

One of my favourite sentences in the whole EEF guidance is, “Treat implementation as a process, not an event.”[1] How often do we plan a one off training session or a discrete monitoring activity? Yet we know that the coordinated development of an idea with support provided over a period of time will have increased chance of impact and is more likely to be sustained.  Successful implementation will be based on considering your specific school context and planning the process carefully.

---

Is your school ready for this?  Is there a shared understanding of what you are trying to achieve?  Do you have the capacity and resource to allow this to be successful?

What exactly will the intervention or change in practice look like?  How will things change?

What is necessary to make this happen?  When will non-negotiables be needed and when will it be necessary for leadership to be looser?  

What support will be needed at different stages towards implementing this?  What external support and internal capacity will be drawn on at different points?

What are you expecting to see at the various stage of implementation?  What are the expected outcomes? 

---

In planning the stages carefully, consider all levels of the organisation and their needs.  As the EEF guidance identifies, “Typically, the application of a single strategy alone will be insufficient to successfully support the implementation of a new approach.”[2]  It is therefore imperative to identify specific needs at different organisational levels and carefully plan to meet these in an appropriate sequence and so that different strategies reinforce each other.   In addition to planning for staff needs, ensure that structural changes are made so that changes in practice can happen.

As an example, I can think of one school, whose focus was developing pupils’ use of accurate mathematical language.  They carefully planned buy in to the vision and upfront teacher training, ensured that they had the classroom resources to support their changes, made time for the initiative, had even set up a programme of peer discussion and development during the initial stages and had planned in time for review and evaluation.  However, the school had forgotten to consider support staff needs.  Some teaching assistants misunderstood sessions designed to focus on accurate mathematical talk and unwittingly diverted attention from the use of language towards completing and recording calculations.  By forgetting to plan for support staff understanding and development, the initiative was jeopardised.   

Make sure you take your team with you

It is essential that all staff understand the vision for what is trying to be achieved and this permeates across all areas of school life.  When considering how to develop parental engagement within one school, I remember that across all meetings with different groups: SLT, governors, teaching staff, support staff, external visitors, parent groups… there became a familiar addition “What about parents?  Where do they fit into this?”   Through pulling together what was known about the school challenge and what was needed from a range of stakeholders, the problem became focused and the vision became a share one. 

Although school leaders will be key players in ensuring that the implementation is aligned with the school’s mission, shared widely with the team and remains a priority, other members of staff will be key in success.  Can you make use of school opinion leaders through assigning them new initiative and use these to model to and support others?  What matters is how the new changes become a lived reality within school and this will be everyone’s responsibility. 

A culture of openness to evaluate honestly and a feeling of trust to try out things and make mistakes is crucial.  This kind of culture takes time to build and when starting out it is key to know who your blockers and your champions are.  Champions can be used to build capacity and drive and blockers should be ignored at your peril.  Blockers can tell you much about where staff feel vulnerable and understanding this can enable issues to be tackled. 

Be practical

There is much evidence that high-quality up-front training for teachers is beneficial in enabling successful implementation[3] [4].  It is crucial to ensure that all key individuals receive this training, which should support understanding of the theory and rationale for new approaches and introduce necessary skills, knowledge and strategies.  It is also key to ensure that senior leaders are fully aware of the training received if they do not attend it and can support staff to answer any logistical questions that they may have as an outcome.  At a recent INSET I delivered, it was enormously important that senior leaders including the Headteacher were all present as this meant that they could hear staff anxieties and be able to address these and clarify expectations.

In addition to the initial training that will have allowed staff to reflect on how their practice will change, there needs to be time to address practicalities and changes in behaviour that might be needed.  For example, after an initial INSET training, I worked with teachers to provide some practical follow up support.  Key questions such as: “How will it change my planning process?  How do I actually access the resources?  Can I translate images onto my Smartboard?”  These are all significant questions in allowing teachers to implement their new approach effectively.  Once initial questions have been answered, follow up coaching will almost inevitably be needed to provide follow-on modelling, feedback and support.  

Review progress rigorously

Be clear about what you are expecting to see at different stages of implementation.  In schools, time is always at a premium so ensure that time is scheduled in to monitor and reflect on progress and to refine changes over time. 

---

What will be the early indicators? 

How will you know that the changes are having an effective outcome over time?

What will it look like when the changes are embedded?

---

Remember that progress in not linear.  There will be bumps along the road and how these are actively looked for and responded to will mark out how well changes can become embedded.  Depending on the stage of implementation, there may be a need to ensure fidelity to the initial approach and there may be a need to consider adaptations to ensure that change becomes part of daily practice. 

Sustain and celebrate

Once you have got to the point that staff are routinely using the new approach or intervention, it is key that this is sustained over time.  This is also a crucial time to reflect on what has worked and why.  Reflection at this point will support better understanding of the implementation process, which may well be able to be applied to other developments.  Celebrating successes can motivate and also allow wider understanding and application of the change.  As the EEF guidance identifies however, don’t leave this phase of implementation until you get to it - plan for it from the outset.

Learn lessons

I would suggest that even if an educational initiative is found not to work, after time spent developing implementation, this will enable the next decisions made by the school to be even more robust.  If leaders have planned well for implementation, they will be more aware of the reasons that unsuccessful initiatives did not succeed and can be more precise and focused in establishing what is needed next.  Self-evaluation before, during and after implementation will be key.

If we are going to give new educational ideas the chance to work and maximise impact, we need to give some quality time to implementation and ensuring that this is carefully planned for and managed.  After all, “Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how great an educational idea or intervention is in principle; what matters is how it manifests itself in the day-to-day work of people in schools.”[5]

---

References

[1] Putting Evidence to work: A school’s guide to implementation (2018) Education Endowment Foundation, p3

[2] Putting Evidence to work: A school’s guide to implementation (2018) Education Endowment Foundation, p10

[3] Putting Evidence to work: A school’s guide to implementation (2018) Education Endowment Foundation, p22

[4] Cordingley, P. et al (2015)  Developing Great Teaching:  Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development.  London:  Teacher Development Trust

[5] Kenned, M. (2016) How does professional development improve learning?  Review of Educational Re

Please note, this blog was first published in January 2022. Some information relating to KS4 was updated in April 2022. For an updated blog about the KS2 progress calculation methodology 2022, see here (September 2022). 

As schools start to prepare for a full return to statutory assessment as we knew it pre-Covid, a frequently asked question (amongst both primary and secondary colleagues) is ‘How will the progress measures be calculated this year?’

At Key Stage 4, the current cohort of Year 11 students will be the first whose Progress 8 scores will be based on prior attainment measures calculated from the ‘new’ (post-levels) Key Stage 2 data. (Last year’s Year 11 would have been the first such cohort, but progress measures were not calculated last year.)

And at Key Stage 2, the current Year 6 is the first of the cohorts whose Key Stage 1 assessments were made using the ‘Teacher Assessment Framework’ (rather than the previous system of National Curriculum levels) to sit KS2 tests. (The summer 2020 Year 6 cohort would have been the first, but SATs did not take place in that year, or indeed last summer.)

Therefore, at both of these Key Stages, the progress model will necessarily be different to that used in previous years. But how much do we know about the new models that will be used? 

Whilst we can make some assumptions and educated guesses about how the DfE might calculate progress, the truth is that nobody can say for certain. And the reason is that the DfE’s statisticians are going to want to see the actual data (i.e. the results of 2022 assessments) in front of them, so that they can explore which methodological approach has the greatest correlation, before making a final decision. Generally speaking, progress methodology is established in this way – find the approach that gives the best correlation between the input measures and the output measures – and build from there.

Let’s explore each Key Stage.

Key Stage 4: ‘Progress 8’

In previous years, establishing students’ prior attainment involved taking their raw scores in KS2 tests and converting these into a ‘fine level’, e.g. 4.75 would indicate a student whose test score was exactly three quarters of the way along the range of marks allocated to Level 4.

However, since 2016, the system for reporting KS2 SATs results has involved converting the raw test scores into a continuous scale of ‘scaled scores’. These scaled scores are not as precise as fine levels were – each score represents a range of raw test marks rather than just a single mark (e.g. in the 2016 KS2 maths test, a scaled score of 101 was allocated to the mark range 65-69 out of 110). The raw scores for individual pupils can be downloaded from the DfE’s (soon to be decommissioned/replaced) key to success website.

Update (April 2022) – at KS4, the DfE have confirmed that, for the calculation of a pupil’s prior attainment, they plan to use the average of their scaled score in KS2 reading and scaled score in KS2 maths. However, the precise nature of the Progress 8 model, such as how the pupils are split into different prior attainment groups, will be released in the autumn.

NB the recent guidance does confirm how pupils will be split into the 3 broad prior attainment categories of ‘High’, ‘Middle’ and ‘Low’, although it should be noted that these broad categories do not form the basis of how Progress 8 is calculated. They are merely about slicing the cohort into 3 broad groups for data analysis purposes. The guidance confirms that the Low PA group will be pupils whose average scaled score is below 100, and High PA group will be those whose average scaled score is 110 or higher. (The Middle PA group are those in between – scores from 100 upwards but less than 110.)  This does represent a significant change to the distribution of students compared to the 2019 model (based on ‘fine levels’) – as shown in this table:

	Low	Middle	High
2018/19	12%	45%	43%
2020/21	33%	52%	15%

National Distribution of KS4 Students into Low, Middle and High Prior Attainment groups

Data source: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/key-stage-4-performance-revised/2020-21

For children who did not take the KS2 tests because they were working at too low a standard, teacher assessments will be used and converted into nominal scores. The pre-key stage standard system used back in 2016 and 2017, which has since changed, used categories PKG (79 points), PKE (76 points), PKF (73 points) and BLW (70 points).   Back in 2016, teacher assessments were submitted for all children, including those working within the standard of the tests, so again it’s possible that these could be used in calculating prior attainment for any children who were absent from tests. (WTS=91 points, EXS=103 points, GDS=113 points.)

NB whatever approach is decided upon for calculating prior attainment measures for this cohort, the chances are the approach is going to have to change a further few times over the next few years, as the DfE made several adjustments to KS2 assessment over the years 2016-2019: inclusion of P-level scores, changes to the Pre-Key Stage Standards, removal of the requirement to submit a teacher assessment in reading and maths for children working at the standard of the test etc.

The above is all about how prior attainment (the ‘input measure’) is calculated. As for the calculation of the ‘output measure’ (i.e. results in KS4 exams), the latest guidance confirms that this will follow virtually the same approach as the last time Progress 8 was calculated (2019). One key difference is that results from early entries (taken in 2019 or 2020) will not be included in the Attainment 8 or Progress 8 scores.

And, as is always the case in Progress 8 measures, the ‘expected value’ of the output – the P8 score of zero – will be based on the national average Attainment 8 score for students with the same prior attainment score in that year. The progress measure is always norm-referenced in this way – it demonstrates whether the students in that school made more or less progress than the average amount of progress in that particular year, but does not seek to make comparisons with progress made in other years.

Key Stage 2 Progress Scores

The first thing to say is that, although the DfE has said that KS2 data will not be published in the public domain for Summer 2022 results, they will “still produce the normal suite of KS2 accountability measures at school level and share these securely with primary schools, academy trusts, local authorities and Ofsted for school improvement purposes and to help identify schools most in need of support”. In other words, the data will be reported in Analyse School Performance and the IDSR. The phrase ‘normal suite of KS2 accountability measures’ implies that progress scores will be calculated.

Summer 2020 would have been when we found out what the new progress model would look like, as this was the cohort that completed KS1 in 2016, the first ‘non-levels’ cohort. But of course SATs didn’t happen in 2020 - nor did they happen in 2021 – so we are still guessing about how this model might work.

What we can say with certainty though is that the DfE only have teacher assessment data to go on at KS1. Although Year 2 teachers are required to administer KS1 tests, the scores from these are not collected.

So, as in the previous model, it seems reasonable to assume that point scores will be assigned to teacher assessment categories. It is also quite conceivable that the approach will once more be to combine pupils’ teacher assessments in reading, writing and maths to produce one prior attainment measure, which is used as the basis for calculating progress in each KS2 subject area. And the way those three measures are combined might, once again, be a weighted average, giving maths equal weight to the two elements of English. But, it must be emphasised, this is mere supposition at this point.

However the prior attainment measure is arrived at, the calculation of KS2 progress scores will be (as always) based upon determining the national average outcomes in KS2 SATs for each and every prior attainment score. Children’s progress scores are then the difference between their scaled score outcome and the national average scaled score outcome for children with the same prior attainment.

As with Progress 8 at KS4, it is a norm-referenced system. There must, by definition, be some schools that end up with positive progress scores and some with negative. It is all about showing how well your students progressed compared to everybody else.

One of the DfE’s aims is to be able to use 2022 results to explore the impact that Covid has had on educational standards. It is only through attainment measures that this can be established, not through progress scores. The progress scores will always, by nature of how they are produced, reveal a set of data across schools that forms a ‘Normal distribution’. There will be broadly the same number of schools with progress described as ‘average’, ‘above average’ and ‘below average’ as in any other year.  This image shows what the range of KS2 progress scores looked like in 2019:

 

 

Can we use prior attainment data to set targets for this summer?

Given that we a) do not know how prior attainment will be calculated, and b) have no idea at all how these prior attainment scores will correlate to key stage outcomes this summer, I would say it is impossible for schools to, in-house, attempt to work out targets for individual students (and futile to try).

There are, however, tools available which could give us pretty good indications of what learners might need to achieve if a school is to end up with positive value added. The Fischer Family Trust, for example, which has access to the national dataset and has many years of experience working with the statistical models employed by the DfE, are able to produce estimates of what outcomes might be expected of learners if they make progress in line with the national average, or at the 20th or 5th percentiles.  They can do this by accurately calculating each student’s position within the national rankings at the previous key stage, and then matching this to an assumed distribution of scores at the next key stage.

How robust these estimates will turn out to be this year remains to be seen, but over time as more national data is accumulated, one would expect the model to become more and more reliable.

In the meantime, it’s worth remembering this: from the learner’s point of view, attainment is all that matters. Whether it be a qualification, as is the case in Key Stages 4 and 5, or an indication of where you are at in your learning journey at a key point of transition, as is the case with KS2, attainment is key. Students never find out what their progress scores were. Those are only used for school accountability.

The main message, therefore, has to be to focus on securing the necessary learning between now and the statutory assessment window. If we can give learners the best possible chances of attaining well, despite whatever learning gaps may have opened up over the last 20 months, then the progress scores will take care of themselves.

 

​Analysis of the papers can take many angles and I don’t hope to cover them all in this series of blogs; instead, I intend to use analysis of the reading SATs to allow for insights into our current teaching practices in the hope of further developing and sharpening classroom pedagogy.

If I miss anything of particular interest, please do get in touch, and I will try to explore that avenue.

No change

The pass mark of 28 remained the same as in 2018. In real terms, this means that children need only have had a good stab at texts 1 and 2 to gain the marks necessary to meet the Expected Standard (EXS). Full marks on the questions relating to text 1, plus just over half marks on questions relating to text 2 would have reached the magic number.

With this in mind, securing high scores on these two texts becomes paramount for those pupils who you know are quite capable of reaching the EXS, if not quite ready to achieve GDS. It might be argued that encouraging these readers to focus more time and attention on the earlier texts – making sure that they give themselves enough time to read them well and answer questions with care – is preferable to challenging them to rush through the paper in order to get to the end. Lost marks due to rushed reading and careless mistakes on texts 1 and 2 may be a challenge to recoup through hard-won marks gained later on in the paper.

Does word count matter?

To answer this question, it is worth exploring how this year’s test compares with past papers.

According to Tim Roach’s (Twitter handle @MrTRoach) analysis of word count, we are right to feel that this year’s test was a weighty beast.

As his word count analysis shows, the 2019 test comprised of the most words ever presented in a KS2 reading test paper.

Can this increase in word count account for the drop in attainment at EXS at national level from 2018 to 2019 (a decrease of 3 percentage points)? And, does this national dip signify a real decline in reading standards?

In response to my first question: I would argue ‘yes’.

In response to my second question: I would argue ‘no’.

If we stick with the notion that pupils who we expect to reach the EXS need only make good ground on texts 1 & 2 in order to meet the necessary pass mark, in 2018, children had to do substantially less reading than in 2019.

To help exemplify this point, I have taken the liberty of amending Tim’s analysis grid, adding in the total word count for texts 1 & 2 only.

Now we see, with burning clarity, the reading demand made by the length of texts 1 & 2 in 2019 compared to 2018. In 2018, children had to read far fewer words (491 fewer to be precise) in order to be in with a chance of gaining enough marks to meet the EXS, than in 2019. In reality, this means that if you consider an average fluent reader – and we assume that they read a text at 150WPM (obviously this is a contentious figure and can fluctuate depending on task, context and child) – then, in 2018, a child would have had the luxury of over 3 minutes longer to spend on answering questions. This may not seem all that significant, however, any teacher will tell you that when it comes to the reading test, every second counts. Moreover, when we factor into the equation the visual impact that fewer words would have had on the confidence and enthusiasm of a reluctant or less test-savvy child, then we begin to see that the 2018 paper may have presented a more accessible challenge to most pupils. This in itself may go some way towards explaining the 3% point drop in national attainment at EXS from 2018 to 2019 – essentially, we are beginning to see that the children had to work much harder in 2019 to reach the EXS than in 2018.

So, if looking at data for EXS for the 2018 and 2019 tests doesn’t offer a fair comparison, where can we look to see if the children are getting better, or worse, at reading?

To support with this, we can turn our attention to the word count for the first two texts in the 2017 reading paper. We note from the grid above that in 2017, pupils aiming for EXS would have had to read a similar amount of words as in the 2019 test (with a difference of only 56 words). If we attribute challenge to word count alone (I am sure we wouldn’t but in fact, my analysis shows that the texts 1&2 from 2017 and 2019 were comparable in many other ways beyond word count – this will become apparent across this series of blogs), then we would anticipate a similar level of attainment at EXS for both these cohorts. Indeed, the national level data shows that 72% of pupils met the EXS in 2017 compared to 73% in 2019 – showing a small but notable 1% increase during this time.

We could therefore be bold and argue that, according to this data, children have actually improved their reading ability during this time period. If we take into account the fact that the pass mark has increased by 2 marks during this period, we may feel even bolder in our claim.

Pass mark madness!

Bearing in mind that the 2017 and 2019 tests presented a very similar level of challenge, you would expect the pass marks to have been the same. Unfortunately, they weren’t.

Imagine if the pass mark for 2019 had remained as it was in 2017 e.g. 26 rather than 28. If this had been the case, I believe we would be celebrating a rather healthy rise in standards, rather than lamenting a dip from 2018. With this in mind, a would urge schools to reflect on their data in the following  ways:

• Calculate the data for pupils reaching the EXS in 2019 if the pass mark had been set at 26 marks.
• Compare this figure with attainment at the EXS from 2017.

If this comparison looks favourable, I would argue that whatever you are doing to improve reading is working.

To clarify, I would argue that the 2017 test is more comparable to the 2019 test than it is to the 2018 test: in 2018, children had to read considerably less in order to have covered the information needed to answer the questions relating to texts 1 and 2, thus giving them a better chance of reaching the EXS. With this in mind, it might be fairer to look at the comparable data from 2017 to 2019 when making judgements about reading decline or improvement. When comparing these two tests, we note that there was an increase in national reading attainment at the EXS by 1%, despite children having to reach a higher pass mark. This means that despite the challenge of the test remaining high, and despite a higher pass mark, more pupils than ever met the grade this year.

Let me therefore be amongst the first to say Bravo to all the teachers out there. Let’s be sure that we are all armed with this information when we are told repeatedly – as no doubt we will be – that reading standards are declining.

I hope that this blog provides enough to get teachers thinking about some of the ways in which they might interpret the findings of this year’s reading SATs paper outcomes, and how their findings might be translated into effective classroom pedagogy.

In this short blog, Penny Slater points to some texts that may prove useful in the last few weeks leading up to this year’s SATS.

Let’s cut to the chase…It’s early summer term. You are a Y6 teacher. You have a couple of weeks left before the 2017 Reading SATs paper. What you are probably looking for are some great texts that will give your pupils a final push to prepare for the challenge ahead? Oh…and you probably need those texts to be free and easily accessible. If so, read on….

You may be aware of BBC2’s writing competition ‘500 Words’ as a great way of inspiring young writers, but have you ever considered it as a source of material to inspire young readers? Having been running now for several years, there are hundreds of fabulous short, engaging, brilliantly written texts just waiting to be read (or in this case, plundered for suitable material to prepare children for the KS2 reading test).

I worked with the fabulous Subject Leader and Y6 teacher, Nicola Potter – reading SL at Little Green Junior School, Croxley Green –  and together we searched through the best of the best of the texts available on the site. We finally hit upon 5 texts that we felt had scope to both interest the Y6 children, and provide them with a reading challenge that was comparable in nature to the KS2 reading paper that they are just about to sit.

In order to judge comparability with the texts used in the KS2 reading paper, we ran each text through the Lexile Analysing. We have provided the Lexile rating along with the title.

Cold as Ice by Annabel Burdess

670L: comparable to How to Hide a Lion (KS1 DFE exemplification ARE)

2052 by Ophelia Spracklen

760L: comparable to Space Tourism (KS2 sample reading paper – lowest challenge)

A Stellar Job by Elizabeth Quigley

910L: comparable to The Last Leopard (KS2 reading paper 2016 – middle challenge)

Crime Doesn’t Pay…but…by Tom Foreman

900L: comparable to The Last Leopard (KS2 reading paper 2016 – middle challenge)

Fake Book by Anna Harries

1030L: comparable with The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (KS2 DFE Exemplification ARE)

The Y6 teacher now intends to use these texts alongside the Question Stems alternating between the teacher asking some of these questions, and the children creating some of their own based on the texts read.

Either way, the hope is that these texts will provide a little last minute practice for your children, alongside some inspirational reading material (and all without costing you your time…or sanity)!

Finally, from all of us at HFL English team to all of you out there who will be supporting the Y6 children over the next few weeks to shine, we wish you the best of luck.

With 150 pupils across Hertfordshire now involved in HFL’s KS2 Reading Fluency Project, Penny Slater reflects on what has been learned from the project so far.

Last week, HFL officially launched the first round of the KS2 Reading Fluency Project, involving 20 Herts schools. Based on our work carried out in a number of schools throughout 2016/17, we have good reason to believe that this project will go a long way towards supporting many of their year 6 pupils, who are currently at risk of falling behind, to reach the Expected Standard in the 2018 reading test.

Armed now with a great amount of qualitative data, and a growing database of quantitative data, we are in a position to share some of our early findings from this work.

The project began on a very small scale, in one school, where the SL was keen to ensure that those pupils who entered KS2 at a 2b/2c reached the EXS by the end of year 6. At the time when I was working with the school, they were concerned that many of these pupils, who were then in year 5 and year 6, would not do so. Observations of a sample of these pupils reading a well-pitched ARE text, indicated that they were far from fluent: their reading sounded choppy; robotic and monotonous. In addition, they had a disregard for punctuation, and they lacked the ability to monitor comprehension as they read (indicated by the fact that they often mis-read words, or at times completely missed out words – or whole lines of text – without realising and self-correcting). Their reading comprehension was poor (as judged by their inability to attempt many of the oral comprehension questions asked after reading the text). The school sought a swift and effective teaching strategy that would – as the lowest indicator of success  – support these children to quickly gain ground in advance of the impending test, but would – at best – turn these switched-off readers onto the joys of this particular pastime.

We decided upon a strategy that we initially named ‘modelled fluent reading’ sessions, but now, as the project launches into full swing, this has evolved into a more sophisticated model. The current project supports teachers to embed the following strategies into regular reading sessions of engaging, well-pitched ARE texts: modelled fluent reading; text marking; echo reading; opportunities for repeated re-readings and performance. The schools are asked to work with six children over an 8-week period, offering a double-dose of guided reading: session 1 to focus on modelled fluent reading practice and echo reading, and session 2 to focus on comprehension development. Following trials over the summer term in a number of different schools, led by HfL advisors Sabrina Wright and Kathy Roe, we can now present our early findings:

It works (for most children):

Of the 29 children who took part in the summer trials, 23 children made gains in comprehension of between 4 months and 5 years. Out of the number of pupils who made 4 months-plus progress in reading comprehension over the 8-week period, 16 children made over one year’s progress (10 pupils in that group made over 2 years’ progress!).

Data was gained using the YARC reading comprehension test.

• https://www.gl-assessment.co.uk/products/york-assessment-of-reading-for-comprehension-yarc/

It did not work for a small number of children:

Our trials helped us to refine our understanding of whom this project really helped. Six children did not make more than 8 weeks progress in their comprehension following the project. Much of our discussion following these trials have focused on what it was about these particular children that meant that they did not benefit from the project. As is often the case, each child prompted a different theory, but factors we have considered are as follows:

• Dislike of the project method – one child was particularly shy and disliked the reading aloud element of the project
• Pupil selection – in some cases, pupils’ fluency didn’t seem to be the barrier to learning and those pupils therefore didn’t make as much progress with their comprehension. We refined pupil selection criteria as a result

All of these considerations have enabled us to better support schools in selecting pupils who are most likely to make gains as a result of the methods used in the project.

More than simply reading aloud:

Repeatedly, we discovered that simply reading aloud to the children (despite doing so in a perfectly fluent and engaging fashion) did not support their comprehension development as much as we had anticipated. Because we found this aspect of our study so interesting, we explored it repeatedly during our trials. Through doing so, we reaffirmed our observation that echo reading (where a child has the opportunity to hear the words on the page spoken by their own voice following modelling by an ‘expert’ reader) allowed for better comprehension, compared to when the text was simply read aloud to the children. We have not yet gained quantitative data to support this finding (partly because the YARC test does not allow for this analysis) but we witnessed it time and time again during our observations and trial sessions.

Watch your speed:

Most teachers lament the fact that many of their children simply do not read quickly enough to get through the reading paper in time to have a hope of reaching the expected standard. I have long wondered whether this is the case, or whether the problem is that they read it too quickly, and too passively, merely hoping that by passing their eyes over the words, the meaning hidden within them will leap into their panicked brains. If they do this, then they will probably end up having to read the text over and over again during the test simply because it did not go in the first time. It might be more time-efficient, to read it a bit slower, but better.

Our small-scale studies showed that out of the 23 children who made gains in comprehension, seven children actually reduced their reading rate – their reading got slower! Eight of the pupils increased their reading rate (although all marginally) and the remaining eight recorded the same reading rate as their pre-intervention score.

Our study also revealed that prior to the project, the selected pupils rarely self-corrected as they read, demonstrating a lack of understanding. One child replaced the word monk with monkey and continued on, unaware. The same child read again from a ‘cold’ piece at the end of the 8 week project and re-read sentences and words for sense as she went along, demonstrating that she was ‘taking in’ the text. This may have slowed her pace, but aided her comprehension and retrieval.

It is important to get the simple things right:

When summing up our work to teachers and other colleagues, we have been struck by how the techniques we propose could be neatly summed up in a few minutes – or a few sentences, as above. However, as we state on our whole day project launch, it takes time, effort and skill to get the simple things right. In order to effectively model fluent reading, teachers have to be acutely aware of what fluency is, and what it sounds like when reading an age-related text. Prosody being perhaps the most challenging aspect of fluency, we support teachers to apply their own prosodic knowledge to the analysis of a challenging text that would test even an expert reader’s prowess. This proves to be a real eye-opener for many teachers and helps them realise what a door-opener prosodic knowledge is to reading comprehension. Teachers also need to gain confidence in knowing what a good text choice looks like if it is both going to inspire a reluctant reader to read, and prepare them for success in the KS2 test. Finally, teachers need the time and space to reflect on their current practice and consider how this is contributing – or not – to the development of prosodic understanding. All of these things take time, practice and most importantly, headspace: something that we try to offer on our launch day.

Children enjoy it!

We knew from our early work – which relied predominantly on watching the transformation in children’s reading following a well-planned modelled fluency session – that children got so much more out of the sessions than simply better comprehension skills. When we observed children complete a cold read of an unknown text after 20 minutes or so of intensive reading work, the children had changed. Not only did they read better and certainly they understood a lot more, but there was more to be observed: they sat up a little straighter; they turned the pages with a little more gusto; they inhaled breath a little less dramatically between each sentence (in the baseline observation, one child gulped air between each sentence as if he were preparing for the next bout of a wrestling match). Most notably, fatigue did not hit quite so hard and so fast. The children kept going, or ‘performed’ (to mimic the language we use on the project), for longer, and appeared to enjoy doing so. The results of the pupil voice surveys from our summer trials confirmed that the techniques used in the project go further than simply preparing children for a reading test. Below are some of the quotes from children and teachers who took part in the summer trials.

Has it made you feel differently about reading?

– I didn’t think I noticed it helped, but I’m reading a lot more.

– I used to read David Walliams, but now I’m reading Alex Ryder because I liked the suspense stories we read.

– I’m reading more mysteries and suspense now.

– It’s made me step up the hours.  I’m reading more now.

– I’m reading with more expression.  It made me enjoy reading more and choose a different variety of books.

Teacher Comments:

-The children have really enjoyed the sessions and having a challenging text.

– The children seem a lot more confident.

– The children in this group seemed more resilient during an end of year assessment.  They are the children that may have previously given up.

– This project enabled me to know the Y6 text pitch really well.

– It meant they had exposure to texts like the end of year assessments.

– I have struggled to get ‘X’ to pick up a single narrative this year, and now he is reading Roald Dahl.

– The children have been taking the skills they’ve been learning and applying these outside of the sessions.

We acknowledge that we are in the early stages of our work, but with 20 schools (and 150+ pupils) launching whole-heartedly into the project last week, we look forward to developing our knowledge of how these techniques can help to raise reading standards, and to sharing these findings in the near future.

Read more about the HFL Reading Fluency Project or contact reading.fluency@hfleducation.org

With thanks to the following schools for their participation in the summer trials:

Beechfield Primary School, Watford

Woodhall Primary School, Watford

Summerswood Primary School, Borehamwood

De Havilland Primary School, Hatfield

With special thanks to Reedings Junior School, Sawbridgeworth for their early involvement in the project.

Reading that informed the project:

• Dowhower (1994) Repeated Reading Revisited: Research Into Practice, Reading and Writing Quarterly, 10
• EEF (2017) Improving Literacy in Key Stage Two, Guidance Report
• Heitin (2015) Literacy Expert: Weak Readers Lack Fluency, Not Critical Thinking
• Heitin (2015) Reading Fluency Viewed as Neglected Skill, Education Week, http://www.edweek.org
• Marcell Putting Fluency on a Fitness Plan, The Reading Teacher Vol 65 issue 4
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel; Teaching Children to Read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction, US government Printing Office
• Rasinski, Yildirim, & Nageldinger (2011) Building Fluency Through the Phrased Text Lesson, The Reading Teacher Vol 65 issue 4
• Rasinski (2012) Why Reading Fluency Should be Hot!, The Reading Teacher Vol 65 Issue 8
• Rasinski (2014) Delivering Supportive Fluency Instruction, Reading Today
• Rasinski & Nageldinger (2016) The Fluency Factor: Authentic Instruction and Assessment for Reading Success in the Common Core Classroom, Teachers College Press

Thoughts occur when you are inspired. On this occasion, my inspiration came from a session that I attended, delivered by my colleague, Martin Galway, entitled 'What do we mean when we talk about reading (and writing) fluency?' This session was delivered at Oxford Reading Spree in October 2019, and these are the thoughts that it provoked.

During the session, Martin referred to the difference between ‘in the moment’ or automatic processing in reading, and processing that takes place after the event of actually ‘reading’ the text. I am paraphrasing and extrapolating from Martin’s exact words, so you may wish to refer to Martin’s original blog linked to the session for where his talk went from here.

Sometimes, depending on how the reading act has been framed,  children read for a less-than-desirable purpose – usually because they have been told to read by a teacher and therefore they get on with it, without perhaps bringing much more than an attitude of ‘let’s get this business over and done with’ to the table. These children could also be classified as passive readers. These are the children, who when faced with the most hilarious/terrifying/interesting text, barely raise an eyebrow. They have figured out the real way to read (or at least they think they have) based upon the reading experiences that have been presented to them on numerous occasions. Having learnt the deal, they tackle a reading task as follows: they pseudo-read the text (the eyes may be on the page but the mind is probably somewhere else) before waiting for the inevitable questions that will follow the piece – these can be oral but are often written. At this point, they reluctantly drag their gaze back through the entire piece hunting for words or phrases that might match the question brief. To the passive reader, the text represents little more than a blob on the page. A first read may not begin to involve such processes as sematic inferencing, visualising, summarising, prediction etc, and as such the reader may lack a sure, or even partial, grasp of the text.  If asked to share something of their understanding, some resort to re-reading the whole text again, from top to bottom whilst others may well pluck information from the text in the hope that it hits the mark.

It is easy to see how this passive form of reading could become habitual for the child who has repeatedly encountered the ‘reading followed by questions’ formula. It is also easy to see why teachers might go down this route. The ‘text then question’ formula does after all mimic the SATs reading test that children will face at the end of KS1 and 2. But, as reflective practitioners, we must become persistent in asking ourselves difficult questions; in this case, just because reading is tested in this way, does it mean that it should be taught in this way?

To clarify, I am aware that very few teachers would simply present children with a cold text, expect them to read it, and then present them with questions relating to the piece to answer, without adequate discussion. However, I would argue that even when post-reading discussion based on key questions takes place, we may still be reinforcing the notion that children can get away with a passive first read. When following this approach, the teacher is directly modelling a distorted reading behaviour; that is, reinforcing to the children that good readers read a text and then they think about it. I do believe that post-reading questioning is important, however, if we want to shunt passive readers towards becoming active readers, then we need to place greater emphasis on modelling the ‘in the moment’ reading behaviours that accompany an engaged reading experience, rather than focusing exclusively on modelling the post-reading behaviours that allow us to reflect back upon a text at a deeper level.

If we want to create active readers, then we need to remind ourselves of what they look like. Active readers can be a joy to behold, especially in child-form. Hopefully you will have all seen one in action. When reading silently, their heads are abuzz with sound. Internally, they are engaged in a meaningful expressive read of the text at hand. When they get to a funny bit, they laugh. When they get to a scary bit, they shiver. When they are perplexed, the eyebrow raises. When the teacher arrives at a cliff-hanger in the class read-aloud, they provide the obligatory doof…doof…doof (Eastender style). In adult form, they can be even more amusing – although it can be unsettling when you sit next to one on a train! Ultimately, we want all of our children to become active readers. Our mission should be to create whole carriages of train chortlers!

Hopefully we are agreed that this is what we want to achieve, but how?

Below you will find a list of my top tips aimed at moving passive readers, to active ‘in the moment’ readers.

Prepare them for reading

If you know that there is a funny/scary/interesting/disgusting bit in the text that you are about to read with the class, prepare them for it. For example,

‘When I first read this text, children, I burst out laughing at one bit. I wonder if you will do the same?’

Following the read, praise the children who reacted so they know that this is the right and proper way to engage with a text.

Re-brand silent reading

I dislike the term ‘silent reading’. I worry that it may inadvertently imply to a child that silence occurs both outside and inside the brain whilst reading. Instead, I prefer to use the term ‘busy brain reading’. When this term is established, you can start talking to the children about the busy brain activities that may be taking place inside their heads at the point of reading.

Modelling busy brain reading

It is not enough to model post-reading thinking. If we want to nurture active readers, we must nurture ‘in the moment’ reading. This could be as simple as reading the text to the children, and then returning to the beginning and re-reading, but this time pausing to share reading reactions as they occur. There will be far too many links/reactions/thoughts/strategies taking place in your head at any one point to warrant modelling them all. The challenge of teaching is knowing what your children can do, and what they cannot yet do. It is the latter that will inform the aspects of busy brain reading that you choose to model.

Prompt and provoke

Instead of simply listening to children reading, why not take the opportunity to listen to children think whilst reading. This is easily done. When working with a child one on one, or in a small group, invite them to read, but let them know that you will be interested in their thoughts as they read. Invite them to pause when they come across anything of interest/concern/alarm etc and tell you about it. In my experience, this really is a game-changing. Instantly, the children know that you expect more from them that simply barking at the text: instead, you expect them to both read and think at the same time – this is the goal of the active reader.

With these simple approaches, we may go some way towards nurturing engaged readers; children who read like nobody is watching!

If you are interested in considering further strategies for promoting active reading in the primary classroom, please join us at one of our KS2 Reading Fluency Project Roadshows, which will be taking place in various locations around this country this year.

Please visit the HFL Reading Fluency Project page for full details of forthcoming events.

If you are keen to host one of our events, please do get in touch at reading.fluency@hfleducation.org