The article, the piece, the comments are not only profound but very true. Developing Africa needs intervention in Literacy with Understanding. It is from the grass roots, both in community and foundation level of children that Literacy is taught well for it to be effective. as an NPO dedicated to extend this cause we need as much assistance as we can, need guidance to effectively and efficiently executing the role we have dedicated and committed to achieve. We need to partner with key stakeholders in Literacy. Please email us on info@youngreach.org / cynthia@youngreach.org

Thanks for your comment. You are right to say that as a literature review, the report responds to the assessments that are out there and therefore leaves gaps where there are gaps in the literature. The author does discuss what she understands to be the most significant gaps. The report also focuses on assessments rather than all aspects of literacy. It’s purpose is not to review different views of – or theories about – literacy development. However, our understanding of how literacy skills develop should shape the assessments we use and the way we analyse results.

I’m sure we also agree that the limited access to reading materials in many contexts is a factor in restricting practice and slowing progress. Interestingly, this relates to the previous comment in a somewhat contradictory way. If a lack of print materials is a significant impediment to learning then in order to teach literacy in a language, we need to establish a reasonable base of materials in that language – a significant task in many cases.

Is there evidence you could point me to about the importance of perceptual skills in later literacy development?

Thank you for your comment. You raise a very important point. The focus of the review (and this post) was on doing assessment well. The issue of language of instruction is clearly pressing and complex and fits within the contextual issues discussed a little more in the review.

I would be interested to hear what your solution would be, but I would contest the assertion that language of instruction policy needs to be ‘fixed’ before we worry about improving literacy assessments. The two are not mutually exclusive and improving literacy assessments is necessary to provide the information policy makers need to make good decisions on the language of instruction.

The perceptual learning aspects of reading are poorly known, so the otherwise excellent report excludes them. But this unfortunately means that interventions based on reading as language will fail. And DFID funds will again be wasted.