Northern Ireland Literacy Strategy
Evaluation 1998 - 2002
Key Findings
■ Time and resources were identified most often as specific
challenges in implementing the literacy strategy.
Effectiveness of Training and Support
■ INSET / training courses, training materials and
school visits were considered to be of a high standard
by most primary and post-primary teachers.
■ A particular strength of teachers was reported to be
their willingness and ability to embrace and implement
new teaching strategies.
■ The majority of teachers and literacy co-ordinators
in the primary and post-primary sectors reported
increasing to high levels of confidence in managing
and implementing the literacy strategy.
■ Where the literacy strategy was less effectively
implemented, a lack of confidence and lack of
enthusiasm among teachers were reported to be
contributory.
■ The literacy strategy was considered to be an ideal
opportunity for staff professional development.
■ Parental involvement in literacy development seems
to have been confined to supporting children in
completing homework and attending parents’
meetings / interviews.
■ Principals and literacy co-ordinators reported that
whole staff training at primary and post-primary
level was necessary to ensure continuity in the
implementation of the literacy strategy.
■ The need for planning in advance of training was
considered essential to the effectiveness and success
of literacy development.
■ Recommended teaching strategies were reported to
be less successful in meeting the needs of the lowest
achieving children or those children with special
educational needs.
■ Small schools reported that specific training for the
teaching of literacy in composite classes was required.
Leadership and Management of the
Literacy Strategy
■ The support and commitment of the principal and/or
senior management team are considered essential
in giving literacy greater impetus and a higher profile
within the school.
■ The leadership and management capacity of the
literacy co-ordinator are considered to be essential
to the effective management of literacy within a
school.
■ Across schools in Northern Ireland the extent and
effectiveness of action planning have been variable.
■ It would appear that the target setting process is not
consistent across primary and post-primary schools
with variable outcomes reported.
Changes in Teaching Practice
■ Schools embarked on the literacy strategy for the
following reasons:
■ An increase of 5% in the number of pupils achieving
level 5 at Key Stage 2 was observed from 98/99 to
02/03.
(a) The school had identified literacy as an area to be
addressed;
(b) Concern about certain aspects of literacy, e.g. writing
skills;
(c) The number of pupils with specific literacy needs;
■ Over the course of the literacy strategy, grammar
schools in cohorts 1 and 2 of the literacy strategy
have almost reached the Department of Education’s
target of 100% pupils achieving level 5 or above at
Key Stage 3.
(d) Low levels of literacy within the school.
■ Through the literacy strategy, schools expected to
raise literacy standards with a view to improving
reading, writing and talking and listening skills.
■ In the grammar school sector, the greatest
improvements were observed in the increasing
number of pupils achieving level 7 at Key Stage 3.
■ In primary schools, shared, modelled and guided
reading and writing were identified most often as
successful teaching strategies.
■ In 02/03 almost 60% of non-grammar school pupils
achieved level 5 or above at Key Stage 3.
■ The explicit teaching of modelled writing, writing
frames and subject specific vocabulary were among
the most frequently reported successful teaching
strategies in the post-primary sector.
■ In the non-grammar school sector the most notable
gains were made in terms of a reduction in the
percentage of pupils achieving less than level 5 at
Key Stage 3.
■ There was less evidence of the implementation of talking
and listening strategies in the teaching of language
compared with reading and writing strategies.
■ Primary schools which have over 40% of pupils
entitled to FSM have a greater number of pupils
achieving less than the target level at Key Stages 1
and 2.
■ Despite extensive training for teachers in the area of
ICT, reported use of this resource in the teaching of
language across primary and post-primary schools
would appear to be limited.
■ In schools with less than 40% FSM entitlement, a
greater number of pupils achieved levels 3 and 5 at
Key Stage 1 and 2 respectively.
■ The majority of responses cited Reading Recovery as
an effective intervention strategy for lower achieving
children.
Key Stage Results
■ Slow and steady progress towards DE and individual
Education and Library Board targets at all Key Stages
has been observed.
■ There have been small increases in the percentage
of pupils achieving level 2 or above at Key Stage 1
from 98/99 to 02/03.
■ The most notable improvements at Key Stage 1
have been the reduction in the percentage of pupils
achieving less than level 2 and an increase in the
percentage of pupils achieving level 3.
■ At Key Stage 2 there was a marked reduction in the
percentage of pupils achieving less than level 4.
■ There has been an increase of up to 8% in the number
of pupils achieving level 4 or above at Key Stage 2.
■ Entitlement to FSM did not appear to impact
significantly on achievement levels among grammar
school pupils.
■ In the non-grammar school sector achievement of level
5 at Key Stage 3 was similar across all FSM bands.
■ A greater percentage of pupils from non-grammar
schools in FSM bands 1 and 2 tended to achieve
levels 6 and 7 at Key Stage 3.
Progress and Development in Literacy
■ Literacy standards have been assessed primarily
using formal external testing methods (Key Stage
Assessment Units; Standardised Tests) and in-school
assessment (class tests and end of year exams).
■ Formal staff discussions and classroom observation
by the principal and/or literacy co-ordinator have also
been used to determine progress and development
in the learning and teaching of literacy.
■ Modelled, shared and guided strategies would appear
to have contributed to an improvement in children’s
use of oral and written language and increased their
range of vocabulary.
■ Strategies to promote writing for a wider audience
in a range of genres are reported to have improved
the quality of written work; use of language and range
of vocabulary across the curriculum in both primary
and post-primary schools.
■ An increased interest in reading and an improvement
in reading skills were reported by both primary and
post-primary teachers.
■ The literacy strategy is reported to have led to an
increase in pupil confidence and self-esteem, with
evidence of greater motivation and willingness to
learn across all Key Stages.
■ Modelled writing and writing frames have helped structure
the writing of lower achieving children and provided clearer
guidelines as to what was expected of them.
■ Literacy development would appear to be well
embedded in the majority of schools with an improved
understanding of the fundamental links between
literacy and learning.
■ The literacy strategy has made a difference to schools
in terms of professional development of staff and
changes in teaching practice.
■ Teachers have adopted and implemented a wider
range of teaching and learning strategies.
■ Principals and literacy co-ordinators reported
improved communication among staff, greater
sharing of good practice and evidence of staff working
together to resolve difficulties.
■ Where dissemination of good practice takes place it
is most evident within schools. There is little or no
dissemination of good practice among schools or
across Boards.
Best Practice in Literacy
■ Where schools have clear expectations about what
they hope to achieve, literacy development is focused
and purposeful.
■ Concentration on one aspect of literacy development
for at least one year can contribute to progress and
achievement in this particular area.
■ Modelled, shared and guided reading and writing
strategies are well established across primary and
post-primary schools.
■ Writing strategies have improved children’s use of
language and increased their range of vocabulary.
Children have also exhibited greater awareness of
audience and are writing in a wider range of genres.
■ Reading Recovery has been considered an effective
intervention strategy for lower achieving children.
■ Modelled strategies and writing frames have proved
effective among lower achieving children in postprimary schools.
■ INSET / training courses, training materials and
schools visits were among the best elements of
support provided by Board officers.
■ Consultation between literacy co-ordinators and
Board officers regarding the needs of the schools
resulted in more effective training and support.
■ Effective management of the literacy strategy was
demonstrated where the literacy co-ordinator has a
high level of expertise and displays enthusiasm and
interest in literacy development.
■ Organisation, communication and leadership skills of
the co-ordinator have been paramount in the effective
management and implementation of the strategy.
■ Practical support and the commitment of senior
management has given significant status to the
strategy and raised its profile among staff.
■ The programme of professional development has
enhanced the skills and expertise of teachers,
equipping them with the ability to implement
competently a wide range of teaching strategies.
■ The strategy has helped generate openness in schools,
whereby teachers are free to visit other classrooms,
sharing of good practice is becoming established and
there is staff collaboration to resolve difficulties.
Recommendations
A number of changes and adaptations to the literacy strategy has been made since its inception. Some of the
issues raised in this evaluation have already been addressed and are in place for schools currently involved in the
literacy strategy. In light of the evaluation, a number of recommendations has been identified.
■ A holistic approach to the teaching of reading, writing
and talking and listening should be implemented
across the curriculum, to ensure progress and
development in all aspects of literacy.
■ As a priority issue, the development of action plans
could be addressed through additional Board support
and the dissemination of good practice from schools
which have successfully embraced this process.
■ Board officers need to provide further training in
differentiation, so the teaching strategies promoted
by CASS can be adapted to meet the needs of the
lowest achieving children.
■ Boards and schools must work collaboratively to
actively involve parents, family members and the local
community in literacy development.
■ Planning prior to INSET and/or school visits should
be conducted between the literacy co-ordinator and
Board officer, to ensure training and support are
directed towards the needs of the school.
■ Board officers need to provide training and support
for implementing the literacy strategy in composite
classes.
■ There is a need for refresher training for schools
in cohorts 1 and 2, which completed the literacy
strategy 2-3 years ago.
■ More definitive guidelines are needed regarding
the development of a literacy policy to ensure
contextualised applications in all schools.
■ Review and clarification of the target setting process
are necessary for continued development and
improvement in literacy standards.
■ A review of the procedures for monitoring and
evaluating learning and teaching in literacy must
be implemented to ensure effective assessment of
progress and development in literacy.
■ Board officers should provide more advice and
recommendations on the purchase of appropriate
resources for primary and post-primary schools as
stipulated by teachers.
■ Dissemination of good practice could be achieved
through the establishment of a Northern Ireland
Management Information System or an on-line
resource for learning and teaching, whereby schools
can exhibit examples of good practice.
■ Consideration needs to be given to the pace at
which the literacy strategy and related initiatives are
delivered in view of teachers’ capacity to implement
change.
■ More specific, targeted in-school support needs to
be provided for schools which, for whatever reason,
appear to be under-performing.
Design and printing by BELB Multimedia