Children’s Rights Alliance Roundtable 15 March 2010

1. Children’s Rights AllianceRoundtable 15 March 2010 Child Literacy and Social Inclusion: Implementation Issues: Overview

2. Background • This report was prepared by the NESF Secretariat, Dr Jeanne Moore and the Project Team on Child Literacy and Social Inclusion, chaired by Professor Áine Hyland. • It was published in November 2009 and is available for download from the NESF website, www.nesf.ie

3. Why Child Literacy and Social Inclusion? 1. Literacy brings with it social, economic and health benefits to the individual and across society as a whole. 2. There are economic and social costs in not dealing more effectively with this which we can ill-afford. 3. Despite some good practice and initiatives, in 25 years, there is little research evidence to show a shift in literacy levels among primary children living in disadvantaged areas.

4. Background to Project The National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016 set a high level goal to reduce the proportion of pupils with serious literacy difficulties in primary schools serving disadvantaged communities to less than 15% by 2016. Action Plan for Educational Inclusion - Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) was designed to provide a more coherent and targeted approach to this problem (DES, 2005).

5. Terms of Reference The aim of this NESF Project was to: • Identify best practice in the implementation of child literacy and social inclusion policies, as outlined in (the current policy) Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) and elsewhere; and • Pin-point barriers and supports to effective implementation in and outside of schools, including in the home and the local community.

6. Scope of the Project • 95 Public Submissions • 8 presentations to the Project Team • Case Study Research in 4 Schools and 1 Community Project • Interviews with stakeholders • Commissioned research: • Dr Eithne Kennedy- Approaches to literacy in a disadvantaged school; • Cynthia Deane- Mapping projects in the community outside of the schools.

7. Project Team Chairperson Professor Áine Hyland Strand One Michael McGrath, T.D. FiannaFáil Willie Penrose, T.D. Labour Terence Flanagan, T.D. Fine Gael Strand Two Anna Maria Dennison (ICA) Geraldine Anderson (IBEC) Ms Marie Sherlock (SIPTU) Catherine Byrne (ex INTO) Strand Three Marie ClarieMcAleer (NYCI) Sr Mary Reynolds (CORI) Niamh Gallagher (CRA) Inez Bailey (NALA) nominated by Community Platform Strand Four Marie Carroll, Southside Partnership Jim Mulkerrins, Department of Education and Science Dr Harold Hislop, Inspectorate of Education and Science Dr ÁineCregan, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick Michael Hallissy, Director of Learning, Digital Hub Gene Mehigan, Marino Institute of Education Secretariat Dr Jeanne Moore

8. Some Findings from Case Study Research Evidence of excellent practice in these DEIS schools. But there is variability, despite having similar levels of disadvantage. Why is this? Elements of this included: • Effective leadership, structured programmes bringing results, targeted interventions, committed and focused teachers, collaboration and teamwork,training, prioritising literacy, drawing up action plans and targets etc. • School culture plays a key role (distributed leadership, welcoming atmosphere etc).

9. DEIS Implementation Challenges • Some challenges in implementation included: • Schools perceive that there is a lack of understanding of the difficulties of disadvantage and its complexity • Staff turnover, particularly when trained in programmes • Lack of integration of different aspects of DEIS • Lack of awareness of good practice • Perception that DEIS does not reward success • Perception of poor guidance at start of DEIS • Lack of clarity over designation status • In the school- lack of leadership, no signs of innovative school culture, negative attitudes etc.

10. Policy for Success? and Targets DEIS is not perceived by some to be a policy that rewards success.   “You’re likely to work yourself out of the help” (Learning Support Teacher, School A). ‘And that one, the problem with that, that we have found is what do you focus on? And what areas do you target because I suppose my biggest concern, biggest problem is that children coming into a DEIS school are starting with a deficit. Educationally they are a couple of years behind their counterparts, and all of this DEIS and all the extra supports are to try and remediate that. So there is an assumption that you can do that, that’s number one’ (Principal, School C).

11. Community Initiatives • There is excellence and variability in community provision. • There are gaps in the provision of initiatives outside of school and in some cases, overlap. • .Despite the considerable work of the Home School Community Liaison Scheme, there is a gulf between school and community which needs to be bridged. • Greater leadership, quality assurance and support are needed.

12. Community (Cont.) • The role of local on-the-ground projects can complement what is happening in the formal education system. • Family literacy projects are strengthening but more are needed as part of the development of a national family literacy strategy. • Office of the Minister for Children’s Services Committees improving connections between agencies to achieve better outcomes for children and families.

13. Main Recommendation One central overarching recommendation, namely that a National Literacy Policy Framework be put in place that has a ‘life-cycle’ emphasis, with the involvement of the various education and community stakeholders. A Steering Committee should be established to develop this framework led by the Department of Education and Science. For this purpose, the Department should liaise with other relevant Departments, statutory and non-statutory agencies, and voluntary agencies. This would provide a shared vision for future action with greater policy coherence and integration. It should be underpinned with a strategic focus on child literacy.

14. Main Recommendations: Implementation Issues

15. Towards a National Literacy Policy Framework

16. Supports for Disadvantaged Pupils/Schools