CVA is a perverse incentive

23rd June 2006 at 01:00
I was delighted to see the positive article ("Full recovery, Teacher magazine, June 16) about the impact on key stage 1 and 2 results of having a trained Reading Recovery teacher in an infant school.

However, I have recently discovered that a couple of all-through primary schools, with new headteachers are considering dropping Reading Recovery in order to focus funding and effort on key stage 2. Every primary head in the land knows why: the use of contextual value-added (CVA) in the inspection system.

What is the point of making sure that every child can read (and read well) in key stage 1 when this means that the value that can subsequently be added in key stage 2 will diminish?

We know that intervening early, in Years 1 and 2, is the key to preventing lifelong literacy difficulties, and that the later you leave it, the harder it gets. Nationally, we need to find a better way of giving schools incentives to make that early investment in children's futures.

Jean Gross

Director, Every Child a Reader

KPMG Foundation

8 Salisbury Square, London EC4

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar,, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today