The Prerequisites for Successful Teaching and Learning of Literacy

The Prerequisites for Successful Teaching andLearning of Literacy

Greg Brooks

IntroductionThis article has grown out of a paper I wrote for the High Level Group stating myframework for generating ideas for policy recommendations and for working outwhere they fit into an overall strategy for the measures which will be necessary ifour vision for the future of literacy in our continent is to be realised. The firstsentence of our vision statement is:

All citizens of Europe shall be literate, so as to achieve their aspirations asindividuals, family members, workers and citizens.

(European Commission, 2012, p. 3)

For this vision to be achieved, a set of prerequisites must all be in place. In whatfollows, I take each prerequisite in turn and state what seems to me to be a few ofits principal implications. The categories cannot be neatly separated — forexample, preschool provision is both social and educational, — but, broadlyspeaking, they move from the psycho-motor, through the cognitive, to the affective.To avoid constant repetition of ‘European Commission (2012)’, where I refer toour report I simply give the page number.

Physiological PrerequisitesNormal brain functionAdequate intelligence

‘Literacy for all’ must include good provision for those who have learning diffi-culties and disabilities, including the use of assistive technologies.

Very few people have either such poor brain function or such low intelligence thatthey cannot acquire functional literacy (p. 30), so all should be considered teachableand taught. In the world’s first randomised controlled trial intended to improve theword recognition of children with Down’s syndrome (Burgoyne et al., 2012), theintervention group made significantly better progress than the control group.

A strong implication we point out (p. 30; Dehaene, 2009, p. 235ff.) is thatdyslexia is not an incurable condition and that virtually all struggling readers canbe helped.There need be no differentiation between interventions for dyslexics andthose for other poor readers — these categories are not clear-cut and overlap(Rose, 2009; Singleton, 2009), and programmes for either group can help theother. But adopting this principle will require a change of mindset, such thatdyslexia is not conceived as a distinct problem and/or one requiring medicalapproaches (pp. 45–46).

It would also seem logical for literacy interventions to be based on literacy andnot, for example, on medication (e.g. giving children travel sickness pills, asadvocated some years ago by one ‘researcher’ in the US) or on movementprogrammes. For some (admittedly limited) information on the failure of one

bs_bs_banner

European Journal of Education, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2013DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12049

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

movement programme see Brooks (2009, pp. 12–13 & p. 34), but for one suchprogramme that does seem to have benefited reading see McPhillips et al. (2000).

Normal or corrected-to-normal vision and hearing (or adaptations for the visually- orhearing-impaired)

Every child should be tested for hearing and eyesight at the right age(s) for diagnosisand treatment to be most effective (p.90) — unfortunately this is not the case every-where. Hearing loss bad enough to cause communication difficulties and speechdelay may affect only small numbers of children, but otitis media with effusion(commonly known as ‘glue ear’) affects many more and, if not treated early enough,causes reading and spelling difficulties because of imprecise hearing of phonemes.

Similarly, visual impairment bad enough to count as partial blindness mayaffect only small numbers of children, but undiagnosed short-sightedness (myopia)can leave more children floundering in the classroom. Some children and adultssuffer a condition now known as ‘visual stress’ (previously called ‘Meares-Irlensyndrome’ and earlier still, though erroneously, ‘scotopic sensitivity syndrome’).For this condition — but not for dyslexia or poor reading more generally, — tintedlenses or coloured overlays can help (Wilkins, 2002).

Social PrerequisitesA supportive family

‘Learning at mother’s knee’ (as it used to be called) has for centuries been the mosthumane introduction to reading (p. 57) and, until the introduction of formalcompulsory schooling, the most usual; Clanchy (1984) documents part of thehistory of this from medieval paintings of the Virgin and Child.

As Carpentieri et al.’s (2011) report for the European Commission shows,family literacy programmes provide substantial benefit for children’s emerging andearly literacy development. There is also some, though less, evidence that suchprogrammes boost parents’ ability to help their children’s language and earlyliteracy development (Brooks et al., 2008), and some telling evidence of benefitslasting beyond the end of the programmes, e.g. up to 21/2-3 years afterwards inBritain (Brooks et al., 1996, 1997); long-term research on the Turkish EarlyEnrichment Project (Kagıtçıbasi et al., 2005), which followed a group of youngpeople from age 4–6, when their mothers participated (or not), to age 26, found thatmore of those whose mothers had participated had graduated from university thanin the comparison group.The evidence on whether such programmes boost parents’own literacy skills is limited and inconclusive. However, where the same tests wereused and gains can therefore be directly compared, in both Britain and the US thegains made by parents in family literacy programmes are similar, overall, to thosemade by learners in general adult literacy programmes (Brooks & Hannon, 2013).

Everywhere, the great majority of the parents in family literacy programmes ismothers. However, research on the Raising Early Achievement in Literacy pro-gramme in Sheffield, England, has shown that there can be extensive involvementof fathers at home that is easily overlooked (Morgan et al., 2009). InTurkey, wheremixed classes would not be culturally acceptable, the Mother-Child EducationFoundation also runs classes for fathers. These are well-attended, but not nearlyas numerous as programmes for mothers. However, an evaluation involvingabout 400 participating fathers (Koçak, 2004) suggested they had become less

558 European Journal of Education, Part I


traditional and authoritarian in their attitudes and more open in communicatingwith their children.

Several researchers’ insights on how parents’ reading to children contributes tothe children’s greater progress in literacy learning were summed up by Purcell-Gates (Purcell-Gates & Waterman, 2000, p. 215) as follows:

Children who experience years of listening to written stories implicitly learnthe linguistic differences between oral discourse and written storybook dis-course, particularly the literate vocabulary, complex grammatical construc-tions and . . . decontextualised nature of written language. Children with theBig Picture of literacy functions (knowledge that print “means” linguisticallyand that it serves many purposes in people’s lives) take more intentionallyand successfully from instruction.

The evidence on benefits for children’s development and for parents’ ability toassist them implies that family literacy programmes need to be encouraged morewidely. However, some children, in some places many children, arrive at schoolwithout having had the benefit of parental preparation. I discuss the implicationsof this below, under educational prerequisites.

A supportive community

There are, of course, many levels and aspects to this, local, national and interna-tional. Perhaps the most important implications are that local initiatives need to getall relevant stakeholders on board and that ‘Literacy for all’ means not only nodiscrimination against linguistic and ethnic minorities (e.g. Roma), but positivediscrimination in their favour to help reverse the effects of the sorts of prejudicereported by the European Roma Rights Centre in Budapest (www.errc.org).

When local people are told that they can help with literacy needs and will besupported to do so, and that their efforts are recognised, the response can be superb.During 2011, the London Evening Standard newspaper and theVolunteer ReadingHelp charity (now known as ‘Beanstalk’) mounted a ‘Get London Reading’ cam-paign to recruit volunteer helpers and raise money to train them; the High LevelGroup’s chairperson, Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands, provided well-publicised endorsement (as she did of several initiatives across the continent). Over£1 million was raised, and, across England, in the school year 2011/12 over 2,100volunteers helped 6,400 children in over 1,100 schools (www.beanstalkcharity.org.uk/schools/our-impact). A sample of children on whom their schools reportedin November 2012 had been enabled to make normal progress in reading during theyear, whereas in the previous year they had on average made none.

Where communities are supportive, the support may be reciprocated. Forexample, parents who had participated in family literacy programmes in Britainwere later judged by their children’s teachers to be twice as likely as other parentsto be involved with the school (Brooks et al., 1997).

Linguistic PrerequisitesAdequate command of at least one spoken language (or Sign), in particular a broadvocabulary

Children who have speech, language and communication needs must be givenearly and effective support (pp. 60–61) from speech and language therapists where

Greg Brooks 559


necessary, since speech is the primary mode of communication — even the mostliterate and text-addicted people communicate more orally than in writing. Thus,oracy (speaking and listening) skills are important and valuable in their own right,as well as being, of course, the indispensable foundation of literacy.

Although professionals in the speech, language and communication fieldmostly have specialised training, they need access to up-to-date information.In 2013, the Communication Trust, based in London, established a proto-type database of interventions (www.thecommunicationtrust.org.uk/schools/what-works.aspx). Some of the interventions focus on encouraging parents to talkmore, and more helpfully, with their children. Children whose parents talk andread to them constantly develop their speech and vocabulary faster and morefluently (p. 58), especially if their parents not only expand their utterances into fullgrammatical form, but extend them by, for instance, pointing out something thechild has not referred to or by asking why something has happened or what mighthappen next. Detemple (1995) in the US visited 54 families when the child was31/2, 41/2 and 51/2 years old and studied both the quality of the mother’s talk whilereading to the children and the children’s literacy attainment in kindergarten (age5). She found that ‘non-immediate talk’ by the mothers, for example explanations,inferences, predictions, etc., was much rarer than ‘immediate talk’ such as label-ling, counting and paraphrasing; but that the mothers’ use of non-immediate talkwhen the children were 31/2 was associated with higher literacy scores in kinder-garten, and that the percentage of immediate talk at all three ages was negativelyassociated with literacy scores.

Sufficient access to printed material in a language(s) which they speak natively or havelearnt

The excellent principle that all children have the right to be educated in theirmother tongue is partly based on research evidence that children from linguisticminorities who learn to read first in their mother tongue make better progress inthe national language when they transfer to it than if they are taught in thenational language from the start (Benson, 2004). However, this principle maywell conflict with practicality: for example, over 300 languages other than Englishare spoken by schoolchildren in London (von Ahn et al., 2010), so that there isno prospect whatever of the education authorities in that city attempting toprovide mother-tongue education. And in some cases such provision might leadto racial segregation.

Implications in this area are therefore that mother-tongue education should beprovided where practicable, minority language communities should be encouragedand supported in maintaining their linguistic identity and developing their writtentraditions, and a wide and high-quality offer of attractive books in all languagesshould be encouraged. In Iceland, for example, every year in the run-up toChristmas dozens of new books are produced, discussed avidly in the media, andbought as presents.

More practical in many circumstances is the principle that every child shouldenter school speaking the language of the school (pp. 24–25), whether or not it istheir home or mother tongue. For this to happen, especially for those whose homeor mother tongue is not the language of the school, effective preschool provision isthe principal precondition. And much of the argument here about young childrenalso applies directly to newly arrived migrants, both older children and adults, who



need to acquire the language of their new country speedily, and need the supportto do so.

Educational PrerequisitesSufficient exposure to opportunities to learn to read and write, which should include beingread to copiously and will include access to good public and school libraries

There is strong evidence that attending good preschool provision prepares childrenwell for starting school. In Malta, the 1999 survey of the literacy attainment in bothMaltese and English of virtually all seven-year-old pupils in the country (N = 5,500)showed that, with other factors controlled, those who had attended two years ofkindergarten had higher average scores than those who had attended one year ornone (Mifsud et al., 2000). In England, the Effective Provision of PreschoolEducation project in London showed that the 250 children in the sample who hadnot attended any form of preschool had lower average attainment on school entry atage 5 than the 2,500 who had; and, further, that within the latter group, those whohad been in high-quality provision (nursery, kindergarten) had higher averageattainment than those who had been with childminders (p. 58). A review commis-sioned by the European Commission (Bennett et al., 2012, p. 7) concluded that‘high quality ECEC [Early Childhood Education and Care] programmes havelong-lasting effects on children’s cognitive development. These services enhanceholistic development and cognitive abilities that facilitate further acquisition ofdomain-specific skills related to language, general knowledge and mathematics.’

Thus, there is a strong case for universal preschool provision and for thatprovision to occur in the two years before school entry. In several countries acrossthe continent this provision is free, and in some cases compulsory in the yearbefore school entry. These features should be aspirations for all countries inEurope.

In the UK, in addition to quite widespread family literacy programmes, pre-school initiatives include Bookstart, which provides a book and associatedmaterials for every newborn in the UK, and Home Start and Sure Start, bothaimed at improving the life chances of children living in disadvantaged areas. All ofthese strongly encourage reading to and with children. A longitudinal study in thecity of Birmingham, England, of some of the first children whose parents receiveda Bookstart pack showed that they were ahead of comparisons groups in earlyliteracy and numeracy on entry to school at age 5, and again at age 7 (Wade &Moore, 1998, 2000). Bookstart has inspired similar book-gifting programmes inseveral other countries (pp. 40–42) and deserves to be imitated even more widely.

Public and school libraries are essential, but funding for them is currentlythreatened. It should be a key aim to reverse this.

Effective initial teaching, appropriate to the phonological and grammatical character andthe orthography of the language(s) of instruction, and guided and supported by arationally organised, hierarchical and progressive curriculum

Languages vary widely in phonological character, both in number of phonemesand in syllabic structure — some have only open syllables (consisting of a conso-nant phoneme followed by a vowel phoneme), while others have much morecomplexity. In English monosyllables (which number over 9,000), for example, theonly compulsory element is the (medial) vocalic phoneme, and they can have

Greg Brooks 561


between 0 and 3 initial consonant phonemes, and between 0 and 4 final consonantphonemes, and thus range from a to strengths/streŋkθs/. Research has shown thatchildren take on average slightly longer to learn to read in languages with morecomplex syllabic structures (e.g. English, Danish) than in those with simple syl-lables (e.g. Finnish).

However, much more variation in the time taken to learn to read is attributableto the level of consistency of languages’ orthographies.Where a language has a fullyor largely consistent or ‘phonemic’ orthography (based on the principle that eachphoneme has one spelling (grapheme) and each grapheme has one pronunciation— Finnish is a prime example) the obvious way to teach children to read and writeis phonics.

Notoriously, however, orthographies differ in the extent to which they respectthe phonemic principle, with French and especially English having many excep-tions to it, mainly for etymological reasons. Learning to write French accuratelyrequires detailed grammatical understanding, for example, that if the subject ofa clause is 3rd person plural, the verb must always be written to end in <nt>, eventhough the <t> is pronounced only in liaison before a word beginning witha vowel phoneme (and not necessarily even then), and the <n> is neverpronounced.

Learning to write English accurately is even more difficult, since there are atleast 280 graphemes for writing the 44 phonemes, forming a network of over 500correspondences (contrast Dutch, with only about 70 graphemes and 104 corre-spondences for writing 40 phonemes). Nevertheless, systematic research reviews inthe US (Ehri et al., 2001) and the UK (Torgerson et al., 2006) have shown thatsystematic phonics instruction within a rich and broad language and literacycurriculum definitely enables children to make better progress in recognisingEnglish words (in the sense of reading them aloud accurately), and probably also(this depends on the value placed on evidence from different research paradigms)better progress in reading comprehension and in spelling. Hence, phonics shouldform part of initial instruction in all European languages, including English,despite lingering opposition in some Anglophone countries (p. 66).

What would constitute ‘a rationally organised, hierarchical and progressivecurriculum’ for literacy? It would be one based on a thorough and balanced reviewand analysis of available research; the best current example of such a review, in myopinion, is that by Kennedy et al. (2012) which is to form the basis of a newcurriculum for literacy in English in early childhood and primary education (ages3–8) in Ireland. A few samples of the judicious conclusions reached (see pp. 320ff.of the review) are: ‘Literacy instruction in the early years should include code-based skills (e.g. phonics and spelling instruction) within broader authentic con-texts’, ‘A key goal of any reading programme is to develop and foster a wide rangeof comprehension strategies with all children. The development of reading com-prehension should be developed simultaneously with decoding skills’, and ‘Writingis a creative personal act. It should be taught as a process using a writing workshopapproach to instruction. Creativity needs time to flourish.Therefore, a predictabletime for a daily writing workshop should be established with choice and control oftopic given to the child.’

The aim of both a rationally organised, hierarchical and progressive literacycurriculum and the right sort of teaching to support it must be to ensure that asmany children as possible ‘get literacy’ the first time, not only the skill but also the



enjoyment of reading and writing. At present, too many children (even in countrieswith high overall achievement) don’t get it the first time, hence the next item.

Appropriate and effective intervention for children who do not learn despite all otherconditions being in place, beginning as early as possible and regardless of the diagnosis orlabelling of their difficulties; where necessary, such intervention should continue, even intoadulthood

How early is ‘as early as possible’? Preferably, as in Finland, no later than six monthsafter children start formal schooling — all the evidence shows that early interventionis much better than waiting for children to catch up (pp. 66, 91), and effectiveschemes enable children to make at least double standard progress (Brooks, 2007,2013). Some people, including teachers, appear to (or used to) subscribe to ‘themyth of the late developer’.This is the notion that (some) children who do not makea good start on literacy when they start school should not be pushed, or given anintervention immediately, because they will make a late start and then catch up oftheir own accord.This may be true of an occasional, exceptional child, but is mostlynonsense.The evidence that not intervening leaves most struggling children with nohope of catching up is assembled in Brooks (2007, pp. 23–24) and is based on datafrom many thousands of pupils.They constituted the control or comparison groupsin the ‘no intervention’ (=ordinary classroom teaching) conditions of several studiesof catch-up schemes in the UK; on average they made no more than standardprogress, and in some cases less, so that they were steadily falling relatively furtherbehind. Not helping struggling children is both wilful blindness in the face ofevidence and a dereliction of professional duty.

However, even if good initial teaching and effective early intervention succeedin enabling almost all children to get literacy right the first time, and most of therest to catch up as early as possible, there will still be many who need furtherintervention, or have never received it while at school, or since. Another reason forearly intervention is that the older the people with difficulties, the more difficultthey find it to make progress. In the UK, there are very few successful reading orspelling interventions for teenagers (Brooks, 2013, chapters 3 and 6), and acrossthe English-speaking world even the best interventions for adults with poor literacyshow small average gains (Brooks et al., 2001; Brooks, 2011; Burton et al., 2008,2010). Indeed, a very important longitudinal study in the city of Portland, Oregon,in the US shows that better gains in literacy proficiency occur only some yearsafter attending classes, and mostly once the learners have increased their literacypractices (Reder, 2009). To date, not much is known about how to increaseadults’ or children’s use of literacy because most studies rely on measuring gainsin proficiency.

Indeed, more generally, rather few educational innovations are rigorously evalu-ated using strong research designs before being implemented at scale. Such asituation is no longer (officially) tolerated in agriculture or medicine, and shouldnot be tolerated any longer in education. Essential measures for this to happenwould be a requirement for all innovations to be entered on a central researchregister, and for all developers to be obliged not only to carry out rigorous trials,but also always to publish the findings, even if (especially if) they are null ornegative. An example is being set by the Educational Endowment Foundation inEngland, which, from 2012, has been commissioning strong research projects,most based on randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs (www.eefoundation

Greg Brooks 563


.org.uk).The RCTs include about a dozen focusing on boosting the literacy levelsof children making the transition from primary to secondary school, whendemands on pupils’ literacy across the curriculum typically increase sharply andneed specific attention (pp. 43, 73–74).

A group for whom effective interventions are particularly needed is youngpeople and adults who have been convicted of a criminal offence (pp. 78–82), sincepoor literacy is a strong predictor of re-offending (recidivism) — but again thereare at present few targeted and effective schemes (Brooks, 2013, chapter 6).

Effective initial and ongoing preparation of teachers of literacy

The Eurydice report (European Commission, 2011) shows that, across the con-tinent, qualifications for entering the profession, and the academic level to whichteachers are then trained, vary widely. But as the PISA (2009, p. 4) report puts it,‘The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of teachers andprincipals.’ There is therefore an urgent need to level these factors up; in duecourse, perhaps all countries will be able to move towards having all teachersqualified to Master’s level. In some professions, e.g. medicine, practitioners areobliged to have a licence to practise and to undertake fresh training every few yearsto retain that licence — this should also be an aspiration for teaching.

The McKinsey reports point out that, in the best performing, and the mostimproved, educational systems in the world, teaching attracts the most highlyqualified graduates (p. 44). Raising the entry qualifications in countries where theyare not already high, rather than deterring applicants, could well raise the status ofthe profession. For example, in the late 1990s, the Flemish community in Belgiumdecided to make adult basic skills an all-graduate profession (and increase salaries,an essential concomitant) — and it worked. Across Europe as a whole, the adultliteracy sector is underdeveloped and in particular need of strengthening.

It would also strengthen the case for raising entry requirements, and the status ofthe profession, if all teacher training were research-based. Essential parts of teach-ers’ preparation should be learning to critically analyse research reports and data,and taking part in rigorous evaluations of innovations.This would be the essentialcounterpart to the requirement on developers stated above. Besides equippingteachers with the best and most up-to-date knowledge of pedagogy, this requirementwould help teachers to identify children who are having difficulties, diagnose theirproblems, and provide appropriate intervention — which in the first place must beclassroom teachers’ responsibility, and not shuffled off as ’someone else’s problem’.

Governmental PrerequisitesAdequate funding for all relevant parts of the above

If the High Level Group’s call ‘Act Now!’ is to be heeded, governments must takethe lead, since only they have both the authority and the finances. The four ‘gaps’in literacy achievement identified in the report — socio-economic (between richand poor), migrant (between native and non-native speakers, gender (bothbetween men and women, and the widening disparity in attainment between boysand girls), and digital (between the computer-literate and others) — all require thelevel of central and coordinated approach that only governments can provide. It isnot satisfactory, even in the current economic climate, to say ‘There’s not enoughmoney.’ Ignorance is much more expensive than knowledge.



Two factors in successful educational innovation are ownership and endorse-ment: ownership means that the teachers and others who have to implement theinnovation have some say in devising it and in how the implementation is done, andendorsement is approval by a relevant authority — in this case, governments.Without endorsement those on the ground may well wonder why they are beingasked to innovate, and therefore why they should bother; without ownership theymay well feel that they are being treated solely as functionaries, rather than asprofessionals, especially if no extra (or at least re-directed) resources are providedand/or there is no evidence base justifying the change. Too many innovations areimposed in this way, and therefore work directly against the need to upgrade theprofession.

Motivational PrerequisitesInvolve the profession

As implied in the previous paragraph, one obvious, but too often neglected, way ofmotivating the profession and raising its status is to involve teachers centrally inplanning how to implement an innovation, and make it clear that there is researchto justify what is planned.

Mount campaigns and award schemes

It would be excellent if innovations were accompanied by more campaigns like‘Get London Reading’ which had both endorsement by Laurentien and others andcommitment (ownership) from many volunteers. National and local campaignscould be galvanised by a Europe-wide campaign.

Set targets, and monitor levels and progress

Both national and international targets will be needed, plus methods of monitoringprogress (pp.36, 43). For schoolchildren, PIRLS at age 9 and PISA at age 15provide these. In the adult literacy sector, only a few countries (France, Germany,Netherlands, UK) have national monitoring systems; others need to implementthem with EU assistance (p. 93). Internationally, there has not been a sufficientlywidespread adult literacy survey since IALS in 1994–98; the PIAAC survey of2011, which first reported in October 2013, will begin to fill this gap, and targetsshould be based on the results.

An essential factor in this sphere is sustaining both programmes and thepolitical will behind them over years and political timetables (p. 32).

Raise employment levels and reduce inequality

Unemployment and poverty are the ghosts at the feast. If people feel that they havelittle prospect of making a living, and/or that the rewards of any efforts they makewill be inadequate compared to those at the top of the tree, their motivation will below. It is clear from analyses of international survey data that average literacy levelsare higher, and proportions of both 15-year-olds and adults with poor literacy arelower, in countries with higher economic levels and less inequality. It is also clearfrom analyses of international data that people in more equal countries arehealthier and happier than those in less equal countries, and that these benefitsapply across the socio-economic scale and are not confined to those at the top. Canour politicians be motivated to tackle these problems?

Greg Brooks 565


How far do the Council of Ministers’ Conclusions Match up?These conclusions were adopted in November 2012 (Council of the EuropeanUnion, 2012; text available at www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/133790.pdf). There is a resounding silence at theirheart: there is no acknowledgement of any need to address unemployment orpoverty. The only mentions of the socio-economic gap are in the context ofimproving the life chances of disadvantaged children. While necessary, this willnot be sufficient.

There is also no explicit commitment to raising the entry requirements, quali-fications, salaries or status of teachers. They are mentioned only as one of thegroups of stakeholders to be involved. Thus the principal and essential cadre forimproving matters is effectively ignored.

Otherwise, the Conclusions embody good principles and a sufficiently accuratesummary of the report and the overall situation. Member States’ governments andother stakeholders are urged to take note of the analysis and principles stated. Aswas inevitable, however, most of the responsibility for taking action is devolved tothe European Commission.

The two most specific actions specified are ‘developing a European network oforganisations working in this field in the Member States, with a view to promotingtransnational cooperation and supporting the development of national literacypolicies’ — the first steps towards this have just been taken — and ‘organis[ing],together with interested Member States, a Europe Loves Reading week aimed atraising public awareness of literacy issues across the EU’ — a potentially veryworthwhile initiative in line with no.14 above.

Beyond these, there are low-cost requirements to gather information, presentreports, and ensure cooperation, which should also bear modest fruit, if imple-mented.There is no sense of the concerted, unremitting — and unavoidably costly— efforts that will be needed to make a real difference. We who labour in thisvineyard will of course continue ours.

The overall judgement on the Council of Ministers’ conclusions was ‘Good,but could have been better’.

Greg Brooks, School of Education, University of Sheffield, 388 Glossop Road, SheffieldS10 2JA, UK, [email protected], www.shef.ac.uk/education/staff/academic/brooksg

REFERENCES

BENNETT, J., GORDON, J., EDELMANN, J., LAZZARI, A., MOSS, P. & TANKERSLEY,D. (2012) ECEC for Children from Disadvantaged Backgrounds: findings from aEuropean literature review and two case studies (Brussels, European CommissionDirectorate-General for Education and Culture).

BENSON, C. (2004) The Importance of Mother tongue-based Schooling for EducationalQuality (Commissioned study for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005)(Stockholm, Stockholm University Centre for Research on Bilingualism).

BROOKS, G. (2007) WhatWorks for Pupils with Literacy Difficulties? The Effectivenessof Intervention Schemes. 3rd edition (London, Department for Children,Schools and Families). www.nieku.com/~spld/assets/documents/Greg-Brooks.pdf



BROOKS, G. (2009) The Effectiveness of Intervention Schemes (Leicester, NIACE).http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/whatworksforpupils/?skip=1&lang=en

BROOKS, G. (2011) Chapter 9: Adult literacy (Age 18 and beyond), in: M. L.KAMIL, P. D. PEARSON, E. B. MOJE & P. P. AFFLERBACH (Eds) Handbook ofReading Research, vol.IV (London and New York, Routledge).

BROOKS, G. (2013) WhatWorks for Children andYoung People with Literacy Difficul-ties? The Effectiveness of Intervention Schemes. 4th edition (Bracknell, Dyslexia-SpLD Trust). www.interventionsforliteracy.org.uk/widgets_GregBrooks/What_works_for_children_fourth_ed.pdf

BROOKS, G., GILES, K., HARMAN, J., KENDALL, S., REES, F. & WHITTAKER, S.(2001) Assembling the Fragments: a Review of Research on Adult Basic Skills(London, Department for Education and Employment ResearchReport no.220). www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR220.pdf

BROOKS, G., GORMAN, T. P., HARMAN, J., HUTCHISON, D., KINDER, K., MOOR,H. & WILKIN, A. (1997) Family Literacy Lasts: the NFER Follow-up Study of theBasic Skills Agency’s Demonstration Programmes (London, Basic Skills Agency).

BROOKS, G., GORMAN, T. P., HARMAN, J., HUTCHISON, D. & WILKIN, A. (1996)Family LiteracyWorks: the NFER Evaluation of the Basic Skills Agency’s FamilyLiteracy Demonstration Programmes (London, Basic Skills Agency).

BROOKS, G. & HANNON, P. (2013) Research issues in family literacy, in: J.LARSON & J. MARSH (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy,2nd edition (London, SAGE).

BROOKS, G., PAHL, K., POLLARD, A. & REES, F. (2008) Effective and InclusivePractices in Family Literacy,Language and Numeracy: a review of programmes andpractice in the UK and internationally (Reading, CfBT Education Trust).www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/our_research/evidence_for_youth/family_learning.aspx

BURGOYNE, K., DUFF, F. J., CLARKE, P. J., BUCKLEY, S., SNOWLING, M. J. &HULME, C. (2012) Efficacy of a reading and language intervention for chil-dren with Down Syndrome: a randomized controlled trial, Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 53, pp. 1044–1053.

BURTON, M., DAVEY, J., LEWIS, M., RITCHIE, L. & BROOKS, G. (2008) ImprovingReading: phonics and fluency.Practitioner guide (London, National Research andDevelopment Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy). www.nrdc.org.uk/publications_details.asp?ID=156#

BURTON, M., DAVEY, J., LEWIS, M., RITCHIE, L. & BROOKS, G. (2010) Progress forAdult Literacy Learners (London, National Research and Development Centrefor Adult Literacy and Numeracy). www.nrdc.org.uk/publications_details.asp?ID=175#

CARPENTIERI, J., FAIRFAX-CHOLMELEY, K., LITSTER, J., VORHAUS, J. (2011)Family literacy in Europe: using parental support initiatives to enhance early literacydevelopment (London, National Research and Development Centre for AdultLiteracy and Numeracy).

CLANCHY, M. (1984) Learning to read in the Middle Ages and the role ofmothers, in: G. BROOKS & A. K. PUGH (Eds) Studies in the History of Reading(Reading, Centre for theTeaching of Reading, University of Reading, and UKReading Association).

Greg Brooks 567


COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2012) Council Conclusions on Literacy(3201st Education,Youth, Culture and Sport Council meeting, Brussels, 26 and 27November 2012) (Brussels, European Commission). www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/133790.pdf

DEHAENE, S. (2009) Reading in the Brain (London, Viking Penguin).DETEMPLE, J. (1995) Book reading styles of low-income mothers with preschool-

ers and children’s later literacy skills, Dissertation Abstracts International,SectionA: Humanities and Social Sciences, 55 (7-A), p. 1817.

EHRI, L. C., NUNES, S. R., STAHL, S. A. & WILLOWS, D. M. (2001) Systematicphonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the NationalReading Panel’s meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research, 71, pp. 393–447.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2011) Teaching Reading in Europe: Contexts, Policies andPractices (Brussels, Eurydice).

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2012) EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy. FinalReport (Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union). http://ec.europa.eu/education/literacy/what-eu/high-level-group/documents/literacy-final-report_en.pdf

KAGITÇIBASI, Ç., SUNAR, D., BEKMAN, S. & CEMALCILAR, Z. (2005) ContinuingEffects of Early Intervention in Adult Life: preliminary findings of Turkish earlyenrichment project second follow up study (Istanbul, Mother Child EducationFoundation Publications).

KENNEDY, E., DUNPHY, E., DWYER, B., HAYES, G., MCPHILLIPS. T., MARSH,J., O’CONNOR, M. & SHIEL, G. (2012) Literacy in Early Childhood andPrimary Education (3–8 years) (Dublin, National Council for Curriculum andAssessment).

KOÇAK, A. A. (2004) Evaluation Report of the Father Support Program (Istanbul,Mother Child Education Foundation Publications).

MCPHILLIPS, M., HEPPER, P. G. & MULHERN, G. (2000) Effects of replicatingprimary-reflex movements on specific reading difficulties in children, Lancet,355, issue no. 9203, pp. 537–541.

MIFSUD, C., MILTON, J., BROOKS, G. & HUTCHISON, D. (2000) Literacy in Malta:The 1999 National Survey of the Attainment ofYear 2 Pupils (Slough, NationalFoundation for Educational Research for the University of Malta).

MORGAN, A., NUTBROWN, C. & HANNON, P. (2009) Fathers’ involvement inyoung children’s literacy development: implications for family literacy pro-grammes, British Educational Research Journal, 35, pp. 167–185.

PISA (2009) PISA 2009 Results: what makes a school successful? (Paris, OECD).PURCELL-GATES, V. & WATERMAN, R. A. (2000) NowWe Read,We See,We Speak

(Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).REDER, S. (2009) The development of literacy and numeracy in adult life, in: S.

REDER & J. BYNNER (Eds) Tracking Adult Literacy and Numeracy: findings fromlongitudinal research (New York and London, Routledge).

ROSE, J. (2009) Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexiaand Literacy Difficulties (London, Department for Children, Schools andFamilies).

SINGLETON, C. (2009) Intervention for Dyslexia (Bracknell, Dyslexia-SpLDTrust).TORGERSON, C. J., BROOKS, G. & HALL, J. (2006) A Systematic Review of the

Research Literature on the Use of Phonics in the Teaching of Reading and Spelling



(London, Department for Education and Skills Research Report 711).www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR711_.pdf

VON AHN, M., LUPTON, R., GREENWOOD, C. & WIGGINS, D. (2010) Languages,Ethnicity, and Education in London (London, Institute of Education, Universityof London).

WADE, B. & MOORE, M. (1998) An early start with books: literacy and math-ematical evidence from a longitudinal study, Educational Review, 50, pp.135–145.

WADE, B. & MOORE, M. (2000) A sure start with books, EarlyYears, 20, pp. 39–46.WILKINS, A. (2002) Coloured overlays and their effects on reading speed: a review,

Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 22, pp. 448–454.

Greg Brooks 569


Documents

The Prerequisites for Successful Teaching and Learning of Literacy