|
includes/content/subnav.asp NOINDEX
|
"Reading Recovery has one clear
goal: to dramatically reduce the number of learners who have extreme
difficulty with literacy learning and the cost of these learners to
educational systems"
- Marie Clay (1998)Following are some frequently asked
questions about Reading Recovery since it began in the United States
in 1984. More comprehensive responses for many of the questions are
found in Changing Futures: The Influence of Reading Recovery in the
United States, available at our
online store.
What is the research base for Reading Recovery?
Reading Recovery is based on substantial research about how
children learn to read and write. Its roots are in
Marie Clay's
research in classrooms and clinics as well as intensive studies from
other disciplines. The
What Works Clearinghouse independent review of Reading
Recovery’s experimental research clearly establishes the
effectiveness of the intervention based on scientific evidence.
Additional research supports the development and
effectiveness of the Reading Recovery intervention.
Back to top
Do Reading Recovery students continue to make progress in
subsequent years?
Numerous research and evaluation studies using widely accepted
standardized measures and/or state assessment tests demonstrate that
Reading Recovery students make
continued progress after the
intervention has ended.
Back to top
Is Reading Recovery expensive?
One-to-one teaching may sound expensive, but Reading Recovery is
economical for several reasons.
Back to top
Is the Observation Survey valid and reliable?
Validity and reliability for all six tasks of the Observation
Survey have been documented, and the Observation Survey highly
correlates with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.
National norms have been developed to assist in interpreting
scores.
Back to top
Is Reading Recovery a classroom program?
No. Reading Recovery helps low-achieving children make
accelerated gains to reach average grade-level performance. To
achieve this rapid learning, children have lessons that are
individually designed and individually delivered.
Individual rather than group learning is essential so that children
waste no time with what they already know. Reading Recovery, in
combination with strong classroom instruction, gives children the
best chance for success.
Back to top
Is Reading Recovery aligned with any specific reading or
classroom approach?
Reading Recovery is not aligned with any specific classroom
approach. For decades, educators and parents have debated the best
approach for teaching children to read. Research demonstrates that
children have individual learning strengths and that no single
approach is best for all children.
As Marie Clay responded to this question in 1999…
Reading Recovery aims to bring a high proportion of the lowest
achievers to average band performance in their classrooms in
both reading and writing, getting them off to a good start in
literacy learning. Even critical reviewers of the program
acknowledge that such changes occur.
Children can enter Reading Recovery from any program and
return to any program. Reading Recovery does not require
classroom programs to change. However, some things make it
harder for Reading Recovery children to continue to improve
after discontinuing, and these things include a weak classroom
program or one with low achievement outcomes.
The Reading Recovery program cannot be compared with any
classroom program or any teaching method. It is designed to take
the children who become the lowest achievers in any classroom
program and were taught by any teaching method and provide them
with a series of lessons supplementary to that program.
Reading Recovery also functions as a prereferral program
offered prior to referral to special education.
Back to top
What is the role of phonics in Reading Recovery?
Within each lesson, Reading Recovery teachers attend to all of
the essential components of reading, including
phonemic awareness and
phonics.
They give specific and explicit attention to letters, sounds, and
words, both while reading and writing extended text and as direct
instruction. Reading Recovery teachers recognize that decoding must
be purposeful. They help children learn to use connections between
letters and sounds and to use their knowledge of how words work in
order to solve problems with difficult words while maintaining
comprehension.
Back to top
Does Reading Recovery raise the average achievement of the
class?
Reading Recovery does not necessarily increase mean (average)
scores of the class. Reading Recovery does, however, increase the
actual number of children who read within the average range of their
first-grade cohort and decrease the number of children who need
extra help. A child who successfully completes Reading Recovery
lessons must be reading at grade-level standards (documented in
national evaluation data that compares Reading Recovery students to
a national random sample of students in the U.S.).
Back to top
Does Reading Recovery change the school system?
Reading Recovery was not designed to take the place of a
comprehensive plan for literacy but to provide a safety net within a
comprehensive literacy plan. Reading Recovery builds the capacity of
the system to serve all children at the level needed for success.
Comprehensive literacy plans for schools and systems must include
high-quality classroom instruction, effective early safety nets such
as Reading Recovery, and
continued extra support for a few students.
All three components are necessary to help every student succeed.
Reading Recovery professionals have a long history of supporting
comprehensive approaches to serve all children. Reading Recovery
teachers also work with children in classrooms and groups at least
half of every teaching day, thus contributing broadly to the school
program.
Many U.S. educators have discovered that Reading Recovery becomes
a catalyst for identifying literacy needs and for making changes as
needed. For example, classroom teachers often report changes in
their own practices such as observing and assessing children,
choosing appropriate texts, focusing on strengths, teaching to
develop a network of strategic activity, and teaching with higher
expectations.
Back to top
Why does Reading Recovery serve the lowest-achieving children?
At least two rationales guide the decision to serve the
lowest-achieving children.
- Most children do not require the support of Reading
Recovery. Because it is difficult to predict literacy outcomes
prior to the intervention, the most extreme cases are selected
and Reading Recovery serves as a period of diagnostic teaching.
- If the lowest achievers are not selected, they may never
catch up to the class average, thus requiring expensive special
support programs in subsequent years.
Any school or system not taking the lowest children is out of
compliance with the
Standards and Guidelines of Reading Recovery
in the United States.
Back to top
Why is Reading Recovery for individuals rather than small
groups?
The most effective and efficient way to bring children who are
struggling with literacy learning in first grade to grade-level
performance is
one-to-one teaching. It
enables the teacher to design each lesson to meet the unique needs
of each struggling reader without wasting time on what the child
already knows.
Back to top
Does Reading Recovery drop children who are likely to fail?
Children may not complete the Reading Recovery lesson series for
two reasons: they move before the intervention is completed or they
enter Reading Recovery too late in the school year to complete the
intervention.
The Reading Recovery design calls for up to 20 weeks of
instruction. Children who reach grade-level standards may not
require the full 20 weeks. Removing a child from Reading Recovery
before 20 weeks for any other reason is rare (e.g., child returns to
a kindergarten placement). Such decisions are made at the school
level and written documentation is provided. The child's data are
always retained and included in evaluation reports.
Any school or system arbitrarily removing children from Reading
Recovery is out of compliance with
Standards and Guidelines of
Reading Recovery in the United States.
Back to top
Is Reading Recovery a private business?
Reading Recovery is not an independent business venture: It is a
not-for-profit intervention that involves collaboration among
schools, districts, and universities. In the United States, the name
Reading Recovery has been a trademark of The Ohio State University
since December 1990, when action was taken to identify sites that
meet the Standards and Guidelines of Reading Recovery in the
United States.
The purpose of the trademark is to protect the quality and integrity
of Reading Recovery across multiple implementation sites. Use of the
royalty-free trademark is granted annually to sites that meet
quality standards.
Back to top
How does Reading Recovery fit into response to intervention (RTI)
models?
Reading Recovery is a compelling option
for schools that are designing
response to intervention (RTI) models
to meet the needs of struggling readers and writers. Collaborative
efforts among general educators, special educators, and Reading
Recovery professionals can lead to the development of a promising RTI model.
The 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEIA; IDEA) encourages early intervention to determine if a child
responds to the intervening instruction. The goal is to limit
referrals by distinguishing between children who are learning
disabled and children whose difficulties are related to experience
and instruction. This goal closely parallels Reading Recovery’s goal
“to dramatically reduce the number of learners who have extreme
difficulty with literacy learning and the cost of these learners to
educational systems” (Clay, 1994).
Back to top
Does Reading Recovery work with English language learners
(ELL)?
Reading Recovery
outcomes for
English language learners are
quite similar to those of native English speakers. Research studies
by Ashdown & Simic
and by Neal & Kelly
document the outcomes.
Back to top
Does Reading Recovery reduce achievement gaps?
Research and evaluation data reveal that Reading Recovery
reduces
achievement gaps in at least four areas:
Back to Top
References for All Questions
Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling
readers: Designing research-based programs. New York: Longman.
Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (2002). Schools that work:
Where all children read and write. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ashdown, J., & Simic, O. (2000). Is early literacy intervention
effective for English language learners: Evidence from Reading
Recovery. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International
Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 5(1), 27-42.
Askew, B. J., & Simpson, A. (2004). Does one-to-one teaching
really matter? Journal of Reading Recovery, 4(1), 36-42.
Batten, P. (2004, Winter). Investing equity funding in early
literacy. ERS Spectrum, 22(1), 40-45.
Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers
in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2002, 2006). An observation survey of early
literacy achievement. (2nd ed.) Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2005). Literacy lessons designed for individuals,
Part one and part two. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dorn, L., & Allen, A. (1995). Helping low-achieving first-grade
readers: A program combining Reading Recovery tutoring and
small-group instruction. ERS Spectrum: Journal of School Research
and Information, 13(3), 16-34.
Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., & Rodgers, E. M. (2006). Reading Recovery and
Descubriendo la Lectura national report 2004–2005 (NDEC Rep. No.
2006-04). Columbus: The Ohio State University, National Data
Evaluation Center.
Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., & Thompson, J. R. (2005). U.S. norms for
tasks of an observation survey of early literacy achievement.
Columbus, OH: The National Data Evaluation Center, Technical Report.
(www.ndec.us)
Kelly, P.R., Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., Chen, J. & Schulz, M. (In
Press). Learner outcomes for English language learner low readers in
an early intervention. TESOL Quarterly.
Neal, J., & Kelly, P. (1999). The success of Reading Recovery for
English language learners and Descubriendo la Lectura for bilingual
students in California. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An
International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 4(2),
81-108.
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer,
M. (1993). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education
of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29,
8-39.
Rodgers, E. M., Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., Wang, C., & Schulz, M.
(2005). Predicting the literacy achievement of struggling readers:
Does intervening early make a difference? Paper presented at
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC.
Schmitt, M. C., Askew, B. J., Fountas, I. C., Lyons, C. A., &
Pinnell, G. S. (2005). Changing futures: The influence of Reading
Recovery in the United States. Worthington, OH: Reading Recovery
Council of North America.
Shepherd, L. (1991). Negative policies for dealing with
diversity: When does assessment and diagnosis turn into sorting and
segregation? In E. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society:
Perspectives, practices, and policies (pp. 279-298). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing
reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Standards and guidelines of Reading Recovery in the United States
(4th ed. rev.). Columbus, OH: The Reading Recovery Council of North
America.
Sylva, K., & Hurry, J. (1996). Early intervention in children with
reading difficulties: An evaluation of Reading Recovery and a
phonological training. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An
International Journal of Early Literacy, 2(2), 49-68.
Wasik, B., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure
with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading
Research Quarterly, 28(2), 179–200.
Back to Top
|
