Responses to Major Challenges to Reading Recovery
 

• regional cost variables that affect salaries, overhead, etc.
• level of need for the service and level of coverage provided
• quality of training of teacher leaders and teachers
• efficiency and effectiveness factors in program delivery
• acceptance of program as an integral part of the system

Most school districts expect that there will be personnel costs and costs for training and materials for every program implemented in the system, particularly programs targeted to the lowest achievers. As Levin⁷¹ has pointed out, decision makers may have to realize that some children will cost more to educate. Many districts consider inservice training of teachers to be an ongoing responsibility of a school district and do not consider Reading Recovery training an additional expense.

There are, then, many ways to calculate costs of Reading Recovery in a system or a school. Consider the following factors when determining the costs in a local educational system or when reading any analysis about the costs of a program.

• Initial training and start-up costs should be averaged across several years.
• Initial investment in non-consumable books and materials should be averaged across several years.
• Teacher salaries should be calculated only for the portion of the day when working with Reading Recovery children.
• Costs per child should count all children for whom valuable service is provided across the year and not be limited to discontinued children.
• Costs that the district would be spending to serve these children whether or not they implemented Reading Recovery should be considered. These children would likely be in some program.
• Costs of long-term services needed by children not served by Reading Recovery should be considered as long-term expenses (retention, special education, Title 1 or other reading specialist service, etc.)
• All program benefits, including those that are not easily calculated, should be reported.

Districts generally report costs per child that range between $2,300 and $3,500. The investment reduces the number of children who need ongoing, expensive services. Because a large number of initially low achievers respond quickly and require only a short-term intervention, the resources saved can be used to support the small percentage who need longer term help. Costs, then, must be considered against savings in the costs of retention and/or special provisions for children requiring long-term specialist help.

Several school districts have calculated the relative costs of Reading Recovery versus the costs of first-grade retention, Title I remedial instruction, and special education for children classified as "learning disabled." These analyses have used district teacher salary figures to calculate both the annual and the cumulative amounts of time that a single child would be likely to spend in each of the programs.

Dyer and Binkney,⁷² for example, compared Reading Recovery with three alternatives by comparing the instructional time and teacher salary costs on a per-pupil basis as reported in National Education Association Estimates of School Statistics 1990 - 91. The study revealed the following annual costs per pupil: retention = $5,208 per student; Title I placement = $943.00; special education placement = $1,651, and Reading Recovery = $2,063. When the average amount of time that one student spends in each intervention is calculated, Reading Recovery is less expensive than first-grade retention, typical Title I, or special education services. For example, because Title I reading instruction generally continues for an average of five years, the long-term cost of a teacher's salary is $4,715 per student served, compared with $2,063 per student served in Reading Recovery. Long-term teacher salary costs associated with serving one child classified as "learning disabled" in special education (participants averaging six years in the elementary school) will be $9,906, as compared to $2,063 for Reading Recovery for that child. These figures do not take into account the additional cost of psychological tests or assessment by a school psychologist.

A cost-comparison analysis for first-grade learning disability placement, Reading Recovery, and first-grade retention was conducted in Lancaster, Ohio.⁷³ The study revealed that the first-grade retention rate dropped from 4.3% (76 of 1772 students) in the three years prior to implementation to 2.9 % (63 of 2123 students) four years after system-wide implementation. Using annual teacher's salary and time in program, these figures represented a cost savings of $163,020.

In the three years prior to full implementation of Reading Recovery in Lancaster, Ohio, 32 students were placed in LD classrooms at the end of grade one or during the first few months of grade two. In the three years after Reading Recovery implementation, 10 children were classified as LD. The cost of educating one LD student at the time was conservatively calculated at $9,100 across four years of service compared with the per pupil cost of $1,708 for Reading Recovery service. Considerable savings were realized after the district established Reading Recovery as a prevention program.⁷⁴

A cost-effectiveness study of Reading Recovery was conducted in Fall River, Massachusetts.75 During a two-year period (1993-94; 1994-95), the Fall River Reading Recovery project served 186 students at an annual per pupil cost of $2,362. Added to this was the cost of additional interventions for several referred or retained children for a total implementation cost of $483,271. Using the data collected on retention, special education, and Title I placement in years prior to Reading Recovery implementation, district administrators estimated that without Reading Recovery, 50% of the Reading Recovery students who had a full program would have been referred for special education and 50% would have been referred for Title I services. Administrators also estimated that approximately 5.7% of the grade one students would have been retained. Using these figures, district administrators estimated a five-year cost of $1,746,145 if Reading Recovery had not been implemented in the district for a net savings of $1,262,874. However, the dollar amount does not directly translate in a reduction of school department spending. It is an estimate of the resources that will not be needed for teaching basic literacy skills in the long term, thereby allowing for funds to be shifted to meet other important needs.

Similar cost savings were reported in Medford, Massachusetts.⁷⁶ Data collected over a five-year period revealed that only five of the 175 first grade students who were successfully discontinued from Reading Recovery (fewer than 3%) have been referred to special education. Prior to implementing Reading Recovery, district administrators estimated that the majority of these students would have been referred to special education.

The Massachusetts State Legislature found that between 1990 and 1995, the total enrollment in special education increased by 8.3% statewide. An examination of the relative cost of the increased enrollment in regular and special education during this five-year period revealed that expenditures per full time equivalent (FTE) enrollments in special education increased by almost $4,000, while they increased by only $305 in regular education. These figures demonstrated that in 71% of the Massachusetts districts, the expenditures for special education increased at a greater rate than expenditures for regular education. Such a trend prompted the Massachusetts State Legislature to conduct an independent investigation of the impact of Reading Recovery on retention and special education referrals in the state. As a result of this seven-month investigation, Massachusetts legislators concluded that a high degree of success in teaching low-progress children how to read and write defers children from special education and reduces the number of children retained. It is, therefore, cost effective because for every $3 invested in Reading Recovery a school system saves $5.⁷⁷

An analysis of research on the impact of Reading Recovery on learning disability placements has prompted the International Reading Association⁷⁸ to support Reading Recovery because it is "a program that teaches children how to read and reduces the number of students who are labeled 'learning disabled' and the number of students who are placed in remedial reading programs."

There are some benefits that cannot be accurately projected in terms of dollars saved.

When you implement Reading Recovery, you get

• an understanding of the need for early assessment and intervention
• a powerful, research-based assessment system for identifying children with difficulties
• strong staff development for teachers of the lowest achieving children
• an organized approach to an intervention program
• increased capacity within each school to address and analyze problems related to reading difficulty
• a demonstration that low achieving children can learn, changing perceptions and expectations
• strong models of teaching low achieving children
• a way to make classroom teaching more manageable by enabling children on the low end of the achievement distribution to participate in reading and writing
• a program that increases the self-esteem and self-efficacy of initially low-achieving children, because they know they are learning to read and write for themselves
• a contribution to a cohesive school program by making it possible for lower achievers to profit from class-room instruction.

When educators talk about the "costs" of Reading Recovery, they are usually concerned about funding sources for the "start up" and for long-term support. The most stable Reading Recovery programs are funded through the combination of a variety of funding sources, including the following:

• Local General Funds
• Title I
• Migrant Education
• Dropout Prevention
• Early Childhood Support
• Drug Prevention
• Special Education
• Professional Development
• Flexible Staffing
• Bilingual/ESL
• Alternative Education
• Funding Sources Specific to Minority Groups
• Local Assessment Funds
• Special Early Intervention Initiatives
• Foundation or Other Private Support for Training

CHALLENGE #2
Does Reading Recovery raise the average level of the cohort performance?

Reading Recovery is an individual program designed to drastically reduce the number of children having difficulty in literacy learning. Reading Recovery is designed to work for a particular group of children -- those at the lowest end of the achievement distribution.

In calculating the value of Reading Recovery, one needs to look not at average school scores but at the number of children having difficulty in literacy learning. When all children receive excellent kindergarten and primary grade literacy instruction and the proportion of children who need extra help are provided with Reading Recovery tutoring, the numbers of children having difficulty in literacy learning will decrease.

Reading Recovery is not designed to raise the average level of cohort performance but it can contribute to raised expectations and achievement by this individual service. Implementation of the program, for example, in a given school does not necessarily mean an increase in the mean scores. Tutoring the lowest-achieving children seldom has that effect; but it does mean an increase in the actual numbers of children at average levels and a decrease in the numbers of children who need extra help.

CHALLENGE #3
Does Reading Recovery change the structure of schools?

Some educators may view the notion of 'systemic intervention' as a means for changing the system. However, Clay⁷⁹ views systemic intervention as the processes involved in opening the system to accommodate and support the innovation. It involves problem-solving the placement of the intervention into an existing education system.

Therefore, Reading Recovery was not designed to take the place of a comprehensive school or district plan for serving the literacy needs of all children. It was designed to provide a safety net within a comprehensive literacy plan. However, many educators in the United States have discovered that Reading Recovery can become a catalyst for identifying needs for change when it is placed into an existing system.

Those who are considering Reading Recovery can expect that involvement will provoke changes in the system. Every aspect of literacy teaching, commonly accepted practices, evaluation practices, and system of political decision making will undergo scrutiny. Teachers will start to look at children and at literacy in new ways; there will be a seemingly insatiable demand for more books for children to read, and not just from Reading Recovery teachers. There may be a feeling of disequilibrium among teachers, a demand for more information and for help in promoting more reading and writing in classrooms. Reading Recovery turns things upside down. That can be a problem. But we can also expect empowered and excited teachers who are aware of the importance of what they do and students who become readers and writers.⁸⁰

The influence of Reading Recovery training on the thinking and practices of teachers who are trained is well documented.⁸¹ There is at least anecdotal evidence that Reading Recovery implementation in a school also influences the practices of many classroom teachers, particularly in the areas of observation and assessment of early literacy behaviors. In many schools, there are new conversations about the reading and writing progress of young children.

In a study of the changes in a school district following the implementation of Reading Recovery,⁸² Chapter I (now called Title I) and classroom teachers reported changes in their own practices -- teaching for strategies, choosing books appropriately, assessing children, focusing on strengths, and teaching with higher expectations. Teachers and administrators reported that the district's Chapter I program had changed in the areas of program design, materials, and philosophy; student performance; staff development and communication among teachers; evaluation and assessment; teachers' and students' expectations of success; and instructional practices.

Much of the evidence of Reading Recovery's influence on systems, schools, classrooms, and teachers is anecdotal at present. A growing number of studies are exploring these factors. Perhaps the most significant influence that Reading Recovery should have on schools is related to the stated goal of the program -- to reduce the number of children unable to work at average levels in their classrooms and to do so for a high percentage of children.⁸³ When this goal is accomplished, the influence on the school can be tremendous and should create new and exciting conversations about literacy learning.

CHALLENGE #4
Is Reading Recovery teacher training too intense?

The Reading Teacher published a teacher's commentary on her experience in Reading Recovery teacher training,⁸⁴ which she described as being a transmission model wherein her background knowledge was not valued and there was little opportunity for shared dialogue and reflection. Five Reading Recovery teachers from three different states responded to the commentary in the same issue of the journal with their perspectives on their own training experiences.⁸⁵ They agreed the training was intensive and rigorous, but acknowledged that, as their previous assumptions about teaching and learning were being challenged, they did not discard their old views. Rather they considered their background knowledge with new eyes. They found the demonstration lessons behind the one-way glass to be a powerful setting for learning in which there was a rich shared dialogue with the teacher leader acting as facilitator. They suggested that the change process involved in refining the teaching of the lowest achieving children is complex and challenging, but for them was a shared experience in which they drew insights from their colleagues in the training classes.

One teacher's perspective should not be discounted since it is how she perceived her training experience. There will always be varied responses to an educational experience. The Reading Recovery training model is based in sociocultural theory. Rogoff and colleagues⁸⁶ describe an instructional model that views learning as a community process of transformation of participation in which learning is a collaborative and social process wherein new understandings are jointly constructed. In Reading Recovery teacher training, then, the teacher leader/instructor

is best characterized as a guide who fosters joint collaboration, challenges ideas, supports novice attempts, and provides greatest expertise as needed, particularly around rationales (for example, why five Reading Recovery lessons a week are key to acceleration). Students in a community-centered model take responsibility for their own learning for the joint construction of knowledge in the group (for example, during Reading Recovery teaching sessions everyone takes an active role in debating the match between teaching and the child).⁸⁷

CHALLENGE #5
Does Reading Recovery preserve the status quo by protecting the structures of schooling?

The expenditure of funds for Reading Recovery has been questioned in the light of educational priorities. This dialogue among educators and policy decision makers centers on making hard choices in a time when resources are scarce. Here we will outline two points of view.

View #1. Education is an instrument of the social culture in the United States. As such, the educational process may perpetuate the sorting of people into groups of richer and poorer Americans or it may become a vehicle for social change, opening opportunities for groups of people who are traditionally impoverished. The current system, instead of adjusting to the individuals, their culture and language, tends to make everyone fit the same mold and thus perpetuates the status quo. Placing young children into the intensive instruction provided by Reading Recovery enables them to "fit" the system, but shouldn't we really be working to change the system so that they have the time to adjust to school and to develop literacy learning more naturally? In a time of scarce resources, we should be investing in changing the system so that excellent, ongoing classroom instruction is provided to children instead of investing in "catch up" for a few.⁸⁸

View #2. Education's role is to open opportunities for all people. Our job is to teach all children, not just some of them. Every child deserves the right to become competently literate at an early age. Because of the nature of our society and the expectations for children's progress in learning, early reading and writing skills literally mean survival for the children of poverty. They are in a world where many of the children richer than they are have had thousands of literacy experiences long before school entry. For children who depend on school for much of their literacy learning, the school must deliver.

Young children who are inexperienced and confused about reading and writing cannot profit very much from the large and small group instruction going on in classrooms. It seems reasonable to expect that someone will sit down with such a child and "untangle the confusions" by offering skilled demonstration and support necessary for that child to become a reader and writer.

From the point of view of one child, Reading Recovery is a change in the system. The level of support is adjusted so that every child has a chance; individual tutoring works for children having extreme difficulty in the early stages of learning to read and it is the only thing that does work.

We must have excellent classroom teaching and individual help for children who need it. Choosing one over the other is like choosing between food and water. If literacy is a priority, then resources must be found for both.

It is obvious that Reading Recovery advocates would take View #2, but we recognize that the dialogue is well-intentioned. Making these decisions will depend on district priorities and understandings of the need for both good classrooms and a good safety net.