Executive Summary

Resource Teachers of Literacy (RT:Lit) are specialist teachers who support and assist staff and students in Years 1 to 8 who are experiencing difficulties with literacy learning. This report presents data on the students who received support from RT:Lit during 2009.

The purpose of the Resource Teachers of Literacy 2009 Annual Report is to identify the nature of the support that RT:Lit provided to students during the year and to report on student outcomes and progress while receiving RT:Lit support.

RT:Lit were asked to complete a roll overview form and an individual form for each student on their roll for the 2009 Annual Report. The overview form provides a summary of the 2009 RT:Lit roll and the individual forms provide intervention details for each student. On their overview reports, RT:Lit reported 3,857 students were on the RT:Lit roll in 2009. Individual forms were received for 3,708 students on the RT:Lit roll who received support in 2009.

This report represents the first full year of reporting using a new reporting form introduced in Term 4 of 2008. The introduction of this form means that not all the results for 2009 are directly comparable with those presented in previous years.

Key findings for 2009

• A total of 3,857 students were on the RT:Lit roll for 2009. Of these, 656 came from incomplete interventions in 2008, 830 from the 2008 waiting list and 2,371 from formal referrals in 2009. Over 1,000 students who were referred in 2009 were still on a waiting list at the end of 2009.
• RT:Lit provided individual forms for 3,708 students experiencing difficulties with literacy achievement in 2009.
• Over half (58%) of the RT:Lit students received direct instruction (individual or small group tutoring by the RT:Lit) while the other 42% received in-direct support (where RT:Lit provide modelling advice and guidance to classroom teachers).
• Over one-third of students (35%) received direct instruction only; either individually (19%), in small groups (14%) or both individually and in small-groups (2%). Just under a quarter of students (23%) received both direct and indirect instruction.
• Consistent with previous years, more boys (67%) than girls (32%) received RT:Lit support in 2009. Also consistent with previous years, half (51%) of all students were New Zealand European, just over one-third (35%) were Māori, nine percent were Pasifika and less than two percent were Asian.
• RT:Lit predominantly assisted students with reading literacy (93%). Over 80% of students (85%) received reading processing support and 58% reading comprehension support. Forty percent of students (39%) received written literacy assistance and less than seven percent of students received support for oral language.
• Nearly one-third (29%) of RT:Lit students had previously received Reading Recovery assistance and one-third (30%) of these had been successfully discontinued from Reading Recovery.
• The majority of students (74%) began their RT:Lit support when they were aged between 7 and 10 years. When they finished receiving support, over 40% of students (44%) were aged between 8 and 9 years and one-third (34%) were aged 10 years or over.
• Students spent an average of five months and 29 days receiving RT:Lit support¹. Students received direct support for an average of 16 weeks and indirect support for an average of 14 weeks.
• Half of all students (51%) supported by RT:Lit in 2009 were discharged by the end of the year. One-third (34%) of students were due to continue receiving support in 2010. Less than 15% of students received incomplete programmes because they were referred to alternative support or services or they had moved out of the area.
• When their support ended or at the end of the year, one-quarter of students (24%) were considered to be 'at age', that is, their text readability level age band matched their chronological age and support was no longer required. Over half of students (55%) were still considered to be 'at risk', that is the lower end of the students reading age is more than a year below their chronological age.
• When their support ended or at the end of the year, around a quarter of both Māori (23%) and New Zealand European (26%) students were considered to be 'at age', that is, their text readability level age band matched their chronological age and support was no longer required. Pasifika students were less likely (15%) to be judged 'at age' at the end of their support or at the end of the year.
• Students who were discharged from the RT:Lit service were more likely to be considered 'at age' than the overall RT:Lit student population in 2009, 40% compared to 24%.
• Around 40% of Māori (41%) and New Zealand European (41%) students were 'at age' when they were discharged. Pasifika students were less likely to be 'at age' when they were discharged (25%), although the numbers of Pasifika students in this category are low (39) so these results should be interpreted with caution.
• The majority of students (91%) 'at age', that is, their text readability level matched their chronological age, were discharged from the RT:Lit service in 2009.
• Assessment data from when students entered and exited RT:Lit support showed changes in instructional text readability levels over time receiving support. Over three-quarters (77%) of students assessed at text readability Level 22 or below at entry and exit were reading below 6 years chronological age expectation on entry and two-thirds (68%) were reading between the chronological age expectation of 6 and 9 years on exit.
• Nearly 60% (57%) of students assessed above text readability Level 22 on entry and exit were reading below 9 years chronological age expectation on entry. On exit, 70% of students assessed above text readability Level 22 had text readability levels of between nine and 14 years.
• Nearly two-thirds (61%) of all 2009 RT:Lit students had made improvements in their text readability level of one year or more during their time in RT:Lit support. Three-quarters (75%) of the students who were discharged at the end of 2009 had made improvements in their text readability level of one year or more.

Footnote

1. Please note this figure does not account for any school holidays within that time.