Reading RecoveryReading Recovery

Lisa Kilanowski-PressLisa Kilanowski-PressM.S., CASM.S., CASSchool PsychologistSchool Psychologist

©© 20052005

What is Reading What is Reading Recovery?Recovery?

Reading Recovery developed by Marie Clay in Reading Recovery developed by Marie Clay in 19841984

Program originated and implemented country-Program originated and implemented country-wide in New Zealand, a nation that espouses a wide in New Zealand, a nation that espouses a whole language approach to reading whole language approach to reading instructioninstruction

Brought to the US by Clay in conjunction with Brought to the US by Clay in conjunction with Dr. Gay Su Pinnell and Dr. Charlotte Huck of Dr. Gay Su Pinnell and Dr. Charlotte Huck of Ohio State (the institution that oversees Ohio State (the institution that oversees program implementation in the US via the program implementation in the US via the National Reading Recovery Center, National Reading Recovery Center, www.readingrecovery.org)www.readingrecovery.org)

Reading Recovery FactsReading Recovery Facts

Since implementation in the US, 1,152,975 Since implementation in the US, 1,152,975 children have been served by Reading children have been served by Reading Recovery, with 842,744 students completing all Recovery, with 842,744 students completing all lessons, and 676,690 students “successfully” lessons, and 676,690 students “successfully” completing the program i.e. performing within completing the program i.e. performing within the average range of classmatesthe average range of classmates

((www.readingrecovery.org/sections/readingfactswww.readingrecovery.org/sections/readingfacts.asp.asp) )

Reading Recovery FactsReading Recovery Facts

Programs implemented in each state in the US, Programs implemented in each state in the US, typically with multiple programs state widetypically with multiple programs state wide

RR implemented during the course of the RR implemented during the course of the school day, in addition to typical instruction in school day, in addition to typical instruction in readingreading

Generally requires employment of a specific Generally requires employment of a specific reading recovery teacher on at least a half-time reading recovery teacher on at least a half-time basis; some schools train a Title 1 teacher to basis; some schools train a Title 1 teacher to perform dual rolesperform dual roles

The Reading Recovery The Reading Recovery ProgramProgram

Designed to assist low-achieving first grade readers Designed to assist low-achieving first grade readers (typically bottom 20% of class) following teacher (typically bottom 20% of class) following teacher nomination; must have completed one year of formal nomination; must have completed one year of formal reading instruction. Some schools initiate school-wide reading instruction. Some schools initiate school-wide screening using the Clay Diagnostic Survey for screening using the Clay Diagnostic Survey for nomination purposesnomination purposes

Program consists of daily, half-hour Program consists of daily, half-hour one to oneone to one instruction with a trained teacher lasting 12 to 20 instruction with a trained teacher lasting 12 to 20 weeks, with 20 weeks of instruction preferred; over the weeks, with 20 weeks of instruction preferred; over the course of the school year, approximately 8 to 10 course of the school year, approximately 8 to 10 students are served by one RR teacher (students are served by one RR teacher (www.readingrecovery.orgwww.readingrecovery.org))

What is Reading What is Reading RecoveryRecovery

Instruction relies on a largely whole Instruction relies on a largely whole language approach to understanding language approach to understanding text; reading deemed a “psycholinguistic text; reading deemed a “psycholinguistic process of constructing meaning”process of constructing meaning”

Guides students toward using semantic Guides students toward using semantic and syntactic cues to read for meaningand syntactic cues to read for meaning

Program ComponentsProgram Components

Main program components include: perceptual analysis (shapes Main program components include: perceptual analysis (shapes of words)of words)

Knowledge of print conventionsKnowledge of print conventions Decoding and oral languageDecoding and oral language Prior knowledgePrior knowledge Reading strategies and metacognitionReading strategies and metacognition Error detection/correction strategiesError detection/correction strategies Key aspects of strategy instruction involve using context clues, Key aspects of strategy instruction involve using context clues,

reading ahead, “guessing” unknown words by matching them to reading ahead, “guessing” unknown words by matching them to known words, predicting meaning based on pictures in text, and known words, predicting meaning based on pictures in text, and checking for meaning at the end of passages or books (Center et. checking for meaning at the end of passages or books (Center et. al, 1995; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; Grossen, Coulter, & Ruggles, al, 1995; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; Grossen, Coulter, & Ruggles, downloaded on 7/15/2005 from downloaded on 7/15/2005 from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/rr/htmhttp://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/rr/htm

What is Reading What is Reading Recovery?Recovery?

Reading Recovery program is structured Reading Recovery program is structured around sets of prescribed texts (short books) around sets of prescribed texts (short books) using highly predictable language, ranging in using highly predictable language, ranging in difficulty ratings from 1 (least complex) to 20 difficulty ratings from 1 (least complex) to 20 (most complex) (most complex)

Students slowly progress from easier to more Students slowly progress from easier to more difficult texts over timedifficult texts over time

Reading Recovery texts do not match authentic Reading Recovery texts do not match authentic texts used in “real” classroom situationstexts used in “real” classroom situations

A Typical LessonA Typical Lesson

Consist of 7 activities, Consist of 7 activities, typically presented in the typically presented in the same ordersame order

Reading of 1 or 2 familiar Reading of 1 or 2 familiar books with highly books with highly predictable textpredictable text

Independent reading of Independent reading of the previous day’s book, the previous day’s book, with the teacher taking a with the teacher taking a running recordrunning record

Letter identification (if Letter identification (if necessary) with necessary) with magnetic lettersmagnetic letters

Student story writing Student story writing (with “emphasis” on (with “emphasis” on hearing sounds in words)hearing sounds in words)

Reassembling a cut-up Reassembling a cut-up storystory

Introducing a new book Introducing a new book not previously readnot previously read

Reading the new bookReading the new book (Center et.al, 1995)(Center et.al, 1995)

LessonLesson

Reading Recovery programming Reading Recovery programming recommends no variation in the method recommends no variation in the method of assisting students, yet…of assisting students, yet…

Instructional materials suggest that Instructional materials suggest that teachers sessions to the unique needs of teachers sessions to the unique needs of the child (contradictory?)the child (contradictory?)

Baseline and Progress Baseline and Progress MonitoringMonitoring

Baseline data for each child is generated at the start of Baseline data for each child is generated at the start of the program including their performance on RR the program including their performance on RR measures relative to their classmatesmeasures relative to their classmates

Baseline data and progress is monitored through Baseline data and progress is monitored through running records and the Clay Diagnostic Survey, which running records and the Clay Diagnostic Survey, which rates children on their ability to apply specific Reading rates children on their ability to apply specific Reading Recovery strategies that are best applied to Reading Recovery strategies that are best applied to Reading Recovery texts. For ex, students rated on ability to Recovery texts. For ex, students rated on ability to make predictions when reading the highly predictable make predictions when reading the highly predictable RR texts; this does not generalize well to authentic RR texts; this does not generalize well to authentic texts which most students will encounter; process texts which most students will encounter; process oriented strategies instead of hallmarks of competency oriented strategies instead of hallmarks of competency or successor success

Clay Diagnostic Survey: Clay Diagnostic Survey: Specific ComponentsSpecific Components

Consists of multiple measures or approaches, Consists of multiple measures or approaches, including observation of readingincluding observation of reading

Letter identification taskLetter identification task Word recognition taskWord recognition task A concepts about print taskA concepts about print task A dictation task involving known wordsA dictation task involving known words A running record during readingA running record during reading (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993)(Iversen & Tunmer, 1993)

Discontinuation from RRDiscontinuation from RR

Students exited from RR followingStudents exited from RR following A. “attainment of a reading level appropriate to A. “attainment of a reading level appropriate to

that of the class to which they will returnthat of the class to which they will return B. reaching a reasonable degree of B. reaching a reasonable degree of

independence in readingindependence in reading C. spending a certain amount of time in the RR C. spending a certain amount of time in the RR

program” (usually 20 weeks)program” (usually 20 weeks) (Center et al., 1995, p. 240)(Center et al., 1995, p. 240)

However…However…

Important to note that 5-6% of students are withdrawn Important to note that 5-6% of students are withdrawn from RR because they are quickly identified as not from RR because they are quickly identified as not making progressmaking progress

27% do not achieve the average levels of performance 27% do not achieve the average levels of performance dictated by RR at the end of the program (hence, are dictated by RR at the end of the program (hence, are not “successes”) (Center et al., 2005).not “successes”) (Center et al., 2005).

Overall, great variability between the numbers of Overall, great variability between the numbers of students who start the program, who complete some students who start the program, who complete some lessons and are exited, who complete all lessons and lessons and are exited, who complete all lessons and are not successful, and who complete the program are not successful, and who complete the program truly reading “at grade level” truly reading “at grade level”

Reading Recovery Reading Recovery TrainingTraining

Reading Recovery teachers receive Reading Recovery teachers receive specialized training via year-long teacher specialized training via year-long teacher trainings at a training site, oftentimes a trainings at a training site, oftentimes a university; “teacher leaders” who supervise university; “teacher leaders” who supervise local teachers and train additional teachers local teachers and train additional teachers also receive 1 year of training at a university also receive 1 year of training at a university training center (23 centers across the US). training center (23 centers across the US). Both trainings include coursework and direct Both trainings include coursework and direct work with RR studentswork with RR students

Both require annual continuing education Both require annual continuing education courseworkcoursework

What the Research What the Research Says…RR ProponentsSays…RR Proponents

The RR program has a built-in data collection The RR program has a built-in data collection process whereby schools are encouraged to process whereby schools are encouraged to report data regarding program implementation report data regarding program implementation to the RR National Data Evaluation Center at to the RR National Data Evaluation Center at Ohio State (friends of RR; part of the Reading Ohio State (friends of RR; part of the Reading Recovery Council of North America)Recovery Council of North America)

Most schools do report data…but, independent Most schools do report data…but, independent reviews of the data collection process have reviews of the data collection process have found flaws in this process (Grossen, Coulter, found flaws in this process (Grossen, Coulter, & Ruggles, & Ruggles, http://darkwing.uroegon.edu/~bgrossen/rr.htm).http://darkwing.uroegon.edu/~bgrossen/rr.htm).

What the Research What the Research Says…RR ProponentsSays…RR Proponents

Of the RR students who were successfully Of the RR students who were successfully discontinued from the program…discontinued from the program…

19951995 81%81% 19961996 83%83% 19971997 83%83% Fast forward to 2001Fast forward to 2001 78%78% 20022002 78%78% *Competency on RR measures of success (criteria for *Competency on RR measures of success (criteria for

discontinuation from the program; i.e. Clay Diagnostic discontinuation from the program; i.e. Clay Diagnostic Survey, time in program, level of reader)Survey, time in program, level of reader)

(www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/facts.asp)(www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/facts.asp)

Proponents SayProponents Say

Most students who successfully complete Most students who successfully complete Reading Recovery sustain their gains over timeReading Recovery sustain their gains over time

Performance after Reading Recovery Performance after Reading Recovery intervention seems to become stronger over intervention seems to become stronger over timetime

Follow-up studies from seven states Follow-up studies from seven states demonstrate sustained gains over timedemonstrate sustained gains over time

(http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/readi(http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/measuring.asp)ng/measuring.asp)

Studies CitedStudies Cited ““Texas Woman's University, 1995Texas Woman's University, 1995 The Texas Follow-Up Study compared literacy performance of The Texas Follow-Up Study compared literacy performance of

discontinued Reading Recovery children with a random sample of their discontinued Reading Recovery children with a random sample of their peers in second, third, and fourth grades. Children from 48 schools peers in second, third, and fourth grades. Children from 48 schools participated, with sample sizes ranging from 88 to 103 students per group. participated, with sample sizes ranging from 88 to 103 students per group. Students were evaluated using standardized tests as well as tests of text Students were evaluated using standardized tests as well as tests of text reading, written retellings, and classroom teacher questionnaires.reading, written retellings, and classroom teacher questionnaires.The test foundThe test found

Scores on standardized measures increased across grade levels. Scores on standardized measures increased across grade levels. In fourth grade, approximately 70% of Reading Recovery children had In fourth grade, approximately 70% of Reading Recovery children had

scores considered average or meeting passing criteria on the Gates scores considered average or meeting passing criteria on the Gates MacGinitie and the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TASS). MacGinitie and the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TASS).

On tests of text reading at third and fourth grades and on retelling On tests of text reading at third and fourth grades and on retelling measures at all levels, Reading Recovery students performed as well as measures at all levels, Reading Recovery students performed as well as students in the random sample group. students in the random sample group.

Classroom teachers perceived most former Reading Recovery children as Classroom teachers perceived most former Reading Recovery children as performing within average range on literacy tasks” (performing within average range on literacy tasks” (http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/sustained.asphttp://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/sustained.asp, , ¶ ¶ 1).1).

Studies…Studies… ““Ohio State: This study looked at performance of Reading Recovery Ohio State: This study looked at performance of Reading Recovery

students on the Ohio Fourth Grade Proficiency Test. The subjects were students on the Ohio Fourth Grade Proficiency Test. The subjects were children served by Reading Recovery in 1991 and 1992. A total of 2,714 children served by Reading Recovery in 1991 and 1992. A total of 2,714 children were tested on reading and 2,813 tested on writing in 1991; in children were tested on reading and 2,813 tested on writing in 1991; in 1992, 2,994 students were tested on reading and 3,002 were tested on 1992, 2,994 students were tested on reading and 3,002 were tested on writing. Of all eligible districts, 69% reported data.writing. Of all eligible districts, 69% reported data.For the 1991-1992 cohort,For the 1991-1992 cohort,

71% were at or above proficiency in reading 71% were at or above proficiency in reading 75% were above proficiency in writing 75% were above proficiency in writing For the 1992-1993 cohort,For the 1992-1993 cohort,

72% were at or above proficiency in reading 72% were at or above proficiency in reading 67% were at or above proficiency in writing67% were at or above proficiency in writing This study included all children served by Reading Recovery, not just This study included all children served by Reading Recovery, not just

those children who had successfully completed their series of lessons” ((those children who had successfully completed their series of lessons” ((http://http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/sustained.aspwww.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/sustained.asp, , ¶ ¶ 2).2).

Studies…Studies…

““Marietta, Georgia, 1999Marietta, Georgia, 1999 This Follow-Up Study from Cobb County Schools in Georgia This Follow-Up Study from Cobb County Schools in Georgia

tested text reading level for 294 Reading Recovery students who tested text reading level for 294 Reading Recovery students who had successfully completed their series of Reading Recovery had successfully completed their series of Reading Recovery lessons between 1993 and 1998. Using the text reading level task lessons between 1993 and 1998. Using the text reading level task on Marie Clay's Observation Survey, students were measured at on Marie Clay's Observation Survey, students were measured at the end of second, third, fourth, and fifth grade. Results the end of second, third, fourth, and fifth grade. Results demonstrate that most children continued to score at or above the demonstrate that most children continued to score at or above the average text level for their class as they progressed through the average text level for their class as they progressed through the grades”grades”

((((http://http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/sustained.awww.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/sustained.aspsp, , ¶ 3).¶ 3).

Studies…Studies…

““Lesley College, 1997: This study compared achievement of Reading Lesley College, 1997: This study compared achievement of Reading Recovery students with a randomly selected group of their peers in Recovery students with a randomly selected group of their peers in second and third grades. The number of subjects in groups ranged from second and third grades. The number of subjects in groups ranged from 74 to 220. Using six measures (the Test of Oral Reading, Story Retelling, 74 to 220. Using six measures (the Test of Oral Reading, Story Retelling, Slosson Test of Word Recognition, Dictation Task, Gates MacGinitie, and Slosson Test of Word Recognition, Dictation Task, Gates MacGinitie, and classroom teacher ratings) the research found:classroom teacher ratings) the research found:

Reading Recovery students scored as well as the random sample group Reading Recovery students scored as well as the random sample group on oral reading and retelling measures.on oral reading and retelling measures.On two measures (Slosson Test of Word Recognition and Dictation Task), On two measures (Slosson Test of Word Recognition and Dictation Task), Reading Recovery student performance was below that of the random Reading Recovery student performance was below that of the random sample group in second grade, but by third grade, Reading Recovery sample group in second grade, but by third grade, Reading Recovery students were within an average band.students were within an average band.

Classroom teachers perceived most Reading Recovery children to be Classroom teachers perceived most Reading Recovery children to be average on literacy behaviors” (average on literacy behaviors” (http://http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/sustained.aspwww.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/sustained.asp, , ¶ 4).¶ 4).

However…However… No independent evaluations of RR have found gains to be more No independent evaluations of RR have found gains to be more

than expected in a traditional 1:1 tutoring situation (Iversen & than expected in a traditional 1:1 tutoring situation (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993).Tunmer, 1993).

No independent evaluations have found “gains” achieved through No independent evaluations have found “gains” achieved through RR to last as long as or longer than available evidence-based RR to last as long as or longer than available evidence-based interventions interventions

No independent evaluations have found RR students to benefit No independent evaluations have found RR students to benefit more from RR than other approachesmore from RR than other approaches

RR studies have not demonstrated that at-risk RR students RR studies have not demonstrated that at-risk RR students achieve proficiency on standardized state measures of reading achieve proficiency on standardized state measures of reading ability; those that purport to have not been independently ability; those that purport to have not been independently evaluated or replicatedevaluated or replicated

Also, cannot increase school wide achievement as a result of RR Also, cannot increase school wide achievement as a result of RR participationparticipation

Last 4 points (Grossen, Coulter, & Ruggles, Last 4 points (Grossen, Coulter, & Ruggles, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/rr.htm)http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/rr.htm)

However…However…

None of the “frontline” studies cited on the RR None of the “frontline” studies cited on the RR Council used to support their program have Council used to support their program have appeared in scholarly journals, or at appeared in scholarly journals, or at conferences not directly linked to RRconferences not directly linked to RR

Those discussed in scholarly journals found to Those discussed in scholarly journals found to be flawed; reviews of many RR recovery be flawed; reviews of many RR recovery studies and evaluations deemed seriously studies and evaluations deemed seriously flawed by many in the research/program flawed by many in the research/program evaluation community (Iversen & Tunmer, evaluation community (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; Gossen, Coulter, & Ruggles)1993; Gossen, Coulter, & Ruggles)

What Independent What Independent Evaluation has found…Evaluation has found…Flawed Data ReportingFlawed Data Reporting

RR data reporting system is flawedRR data reporting system is flawed: data re: : data re: approximately ½ of children eligible and served is approximately ½ of children eligible and served is omitted from analysesomitted from analyses

Generally only report data from those students who Generally only report data from those students who complete the program (60% of initial 100%); biased as complete the program (60% of initial 100%); biased as those who are viewed as unlikely to succeed are exited those who are viewed as unlikely to succeed are exited early, and data for those who complete the program early, and data for those who complete the program but do not meet success criteria are excludedbut do not meet success criteria are excluded

Selection bias: students initially viewed as unlikely to Selection bias: students initially viewed as unlikely to benefit from RR are not often not offered the benefit from RR are not often not offered the opportunity to participate; disparity between number of opportunity to participate; disparity between number of eligible students versus students served eligible students versus students served (www.darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/rr.htm).(www.darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/rr.htm).

Flawed Data and MethodFlawed Data and Method Many students exited and directed to Special Ed; RR Many students exited and directed to Special Ed; RR

reports only 5%, but review of RR materials suggests reports only 5%, but review of RR materials suggests that this is 5% of those who complete the program, not that this is 5% of those who complete the program, not of all students referred to RR (Coulter, Grossen, & of all students referred to RR (Coulter, Grossen, & Ruggles)Ruggles)

In lit review, only 1 to 2 studies included control groups; In lit review, only 1 to 2 studies included control groups; these groups were not matched appropriately, and these groups were not matched appropriately, and included students who did not meet initial criteria for included students who did not meet initial criteria for inclusion in RR (some RR students found to be slightly inclusion in RR (some RR students found to be slightly higher performing than “’controls” upon program higher performing than “’controls” upon program initiation) (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993).initiation) (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993).

Students who are deemed “likely to benefit’ from RR are Students who are deemed “likely to benefit’ from RR are selected into the program…influencing outcomes selected into the program…influencing outcomes (www.readingrecovery.org; Grossen, Coulter & (www.readingrecovery.org; Grossen, Coulter & Ruggles). Ruggles).

Outcome Measure CriticismOutcome Measure Criticism The sole outcome measure for progress after completing The sole outcome measure for progress after completing

Reading Recovery curriculum is their reading level gleaned Reading Recovery curriculum is their reading level gleaned from recommended RR texts, and performance on Clay from recommended RR texts, and performance on Clay Diagnostic Survey (Diagnostic Survey (www.readingrecovery.orgwww.readingrecovery.org, Grossen, , Grossen, Coulter, & Ruggles).Coulter, & Ruggles).

No measures of comprehension, phonemic or phonological No measures of comprehension, phonemic or phonological awareness, decoding (awareness, decoding (www.readingrecovery.orgwww.readingrecovery.org, Iversen & , Iversen & Tunmer, 1993).Tunmer, 1993).

No measure of ability to identify foreign words in isolation No measure of ability to identify foreign words in isolation (out of context); children are asked to identify lists of (out of context); children are asked to identify lists of frequently occurring words via Clay Diagnostic Survey frequently occurring words via Clay Diagnostic Survey (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993).(Iversen & Tunmer, 1993).

Recovery Reading levels do not match teacher reported Recovery Reading levels do not match teacher reported reading levels; Recovery levels often half of classroom reading levels; Recovery levels often half of classroom reported levels reported levels

Program and outcome measure not matched to state or Program and outcome measure not matched to state or local standards ;does not adhere to the Big 5local standards ;does not adhere to the Big 5

Criticisms…Criticisms…DiscontinuationDiscontinuation

The standard for program “success” and discontinuation not The standard for program “success” and discontinuation not based on any solid benchmarking system, but on time spent based on any solid benchmarking system, but on time spent in the program, RR reading level (that doesn’t always relate to in the program, RR reading level (that doesn’t always relate to the classroom), and ability to implement specific RR the classroom), and ability to implement specific RR strategies; in Columbus, OH, only 14.7% of RR students met strategies; in Columbus, OH, only 14.7% of RR students met national levels of proficiency (Grossen, Coulter, & Ruggles)national levels of proficiency (Grossen, Coulter, & Ruggles)

Those who complete the program often still need other Those who complete the program often still need other reading services, including Title 1 and Special Education; in reading services, including Title 1 and Special Education; in Wake County, NC, RR students “just as likely to be retained, Wake County, NC, RR students “just as likely to be retained, served in special education, or receive Title I services as served in special education, or receive Title I services as control group students 1 year following RR services control group students 1 year following RR services (Grossen, Coulter, & Ruggles)(Grossen, Coulter, & Ruggles)

Clay Diagnostic Survey as sole outcome measure…doesn’t Clay Diagnostic Survey as sole outcome measure…doesn’t match up with standards or authentic reading tasks and match up with standards or authentic reading tasks and expectationsexpectations

No Explicit Phonemic Awareness or No Explicit Phonemic Awareness or Phonics InstructionPhonics Instruction

Clay stands in opposition to explicit phonological Clay stands in opposition to explicit phonological awareness instructionawareness instruction

Believes that “children can acquire knowledge of the Believes that “children can acquire knowledge of the alphabetic code largely through their experience of alphabetic code largely through their experience of attempting to spell words (achieved through the story attempting to spell words (achieved through the story writing component) (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993)writing component) (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993)

Believes comprehension of the spoken word is Believes comprehension of the spoken word is sufficient to understand letter-sound relationships; sufficient to understand letter-sound relationships; developing understanding of conventions of English developing understanding of conventions of English taught through reading and writing will lead to reading taught through reading and writing will lead to reading without phonics instruction; students taught to “behave without phonics instruction; students taught to “behave like readers” (like readers” (www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/phonics.aspwww.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/phonics.asp, , ¶ 7).¶ 7).

No Phonemic or No Phonemic or Phonological AwarenessPhonological Awareness

RR Council of North America “explicitly recognizes” the RR Council of North America “explicitly recognizes” the importance of phonological awareness and importance of phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge”, but contends that it is first orthographic knowledge”, but contends that it is first important to understand how letters and words work important to understand how letters and words work (through concepts about print) ((through concepts about print) (www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/phonics.aspwww.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/phonics.asp, , ¶ ¶ 4).4).

Regardless of what is purported in the schools or Regardless of what is purported in the schools or literature, there is no explicit phonics instruction literature, there is no explicit phonics instruction present in the Reading Recovery program (see RR present in the Reading Recovery program (see RR handout)handout)

Criticisms…Criticisms…Just Not as Effective as Other Evidence-Just Not as Effective as Other Evidence-Based Based ApproachesApproaches

RR found to be the lowest rated packaged program in RR found to be the lowest rated packaged program in terms of efficacy, with standard Title 1 programming terms of efficacy, with standard Title 1 programming (used as control group) leading to greater outcomes; (used as control group) leading to greater outcomes; found to be the most effective in this study was found to be the most effective in this study was Success for All (Rasinski, 1995, Iversen & Tunmer, Success for All (Rasinski, 1995, Iversen & Tunmer, 1993, Wasik & Slavin, 1993)1993, Wasik & Slavin, 1993)

RR combined with explicit phonics instruction led to RR combined with explicit phonics instruction led to significantly stronger reading ability compared to RR significantly stronger reading ability compared to RR alone; has found to be a strong approach in many alone; has found to be a strong approach in many studies; up to 37% more effective ...(Iversen & studies; up to 37% more effective ...(Iversen & Tunmore, 1993) ; however, Clay against explicit Tunmore, 1993) ; however, Clay against explicit phonics instructionphonics instruction

RR in small groups found to be as effective as RR RR in small groups found to be as effective as RR alone (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993).alone (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993).

Criticisms…Criticisms…

RR doesn’t increase school wide RR doesn’t increase school wide achievement levels… (both critics and achievement levels… (both critics and advocates agree on this). Could it be advocates agree on this). Could it be because it doesn’t increase achievement because it doesn’t increase achievement in terms of overall proficiency, national in terms of overall proficiency, national and state standards? Hmm…and state standards? Hmm…

CriticismsCriticisms Doesn’t Help the Lowest Performing Students… since they Doesn’t Help the Lowest Performing Students… since they

are often excluded from the program before it starts, during are often excluded from the program before it starts, during the program, and because they require intensive the program, and because they require intensive phonological awareness training (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; phonological awareness training (Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; Grossen, Coulter & Ruggles).Grossen, Coulter & Ruggles).

Doesn’t re-evaluate its’ approach following independent or Doesn’t re-evaluate its’ approach following independent or self-evaluation, despite a preponderance of data pointing to self-evaluation, despite a preponderance of data pointing to a need for improvement/adjustment (Grossen, Coulter & a need for improvement/adjustment (Grossen, Coulter & Ruggles; Ruggles; www.educationnews.org/ReadingRecoveryisnotsuccessful.hwww.educationnews.org/ReadingRecoveryisnotsuccessful.htm ).tm ).

Not maximally effective compared to other interventions…Not maximally effective compared to other interventions…and not cost effective…costs of implementation per student and not cost effective…costs of implementation per student found to range between 8 and $11,000 plus materials; only 8 found to range between 8 and $11,000 plus materials; only 8 to 10 students served per year by 1 teacher to 10 students served per year by 1 teacher

ReferencesReferences Aldridge, J. (2004). Recent research on reading recovery. Aldridge, J. (2004). Recent research on reading recovery. Barnes, B.L. (1996). But teacher you went right on: A perspective on ReadingBarnes, B.L. (1996). But teacher you went right on: A perspective on Reading Recovery. Recovery. The Reading Teacher, 50The Reading Teacher, 50(4), 284-293.(4), 284-293. Bracey, G.W. (1995). Reading Recovery: Is it effective? Is it cost effective?Bracey, G.W. (1995). Reading Recovery: Is it effective? Is it cost effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 76Phi Delta Kappan, 76(6), 493-495.(6), 493-495. Book leveling. Retrieved 8/1/2005 from Book leveling. Retrieved 8/1/2005 from www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/book.aspwww.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/book.asp Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995).Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995). An evaluation of Reading Recovery. An evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2),(2), 240-263.240-263. Clay, M. (1993). Clay, M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training.Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.NH: Heinemann. Evidence-based research on Reading Recovery. Retrieved 8/8/2005 fromEvidence-based research on Reading Recovery. Retrieved 8/8/2005 from

www.educationnews.org/Readingwww.educationnews.org/Reading Recoveryisnotsuccessful.htmRecoveryisnotsuccessful.htm

Iversen, S. & Tunmer, W.E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Iversen, S. & Tunmer, W.E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program.Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 112-126.(1), 112-126. Grossen, B., Coulter, G., & Ruggles, B. (publication date unknown). Reading Recovery: Grossen, B., Coulter, G., & Ruggles, B. (publication date unknown). Reading Recovery: An evaluation of benefits and costs. Retrieved 8/1/2005 fromAn evaluation of benefits and costs. Retrieved 8/1/2005 from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/rr/htm http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/rr/htm Phonological awareness and Reading Recovery. Retrieved 8/1/2005 fromPhonological awareness and Reading Recovery. Retrieved 8/1/2005 from www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/phonics.aspwww.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/phonics.asp

ReferencesReferences Pinnell, G.S., Fried, M.D., & Estice, R.M. (1990). Reading recovery: Learning how Pinnell, G.S., Fried, M.D., & Estice, R.M. (1990). Reading recovery: Learning how

toto make a difference. make a difference. The Reading Teacher, 43The Reading Teacher, 43(4), 282-296.(4), 282-296. Pinnell, G.S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The Pinnell, G.S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The Elementary School Journal, 90Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 160-124.(2), 160-124. Rasinski, T.V. (1995). Commentary: On the effects of Reading Recovery: A Rasinski, T.V. (1995). Commentary: On the effects of Reading Recovery: A

response to response to Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer. Reading Research Quarterly, Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer. Reading Research Quarterly,

30(2), 30(2), 264-270.264-270. Reading Recovery Council of North America: Results 2001-2002. RetrievedReading Recovery Council of North America: Results 2001-2002. Retrieved 7/15/2005 from www.readingrecovery.org7/15/2005 from www.readingrecovery.org Sustained gains over time. Retrieved 8/01/2005 Sustained gains over time. Retrieved 8/01/2005 from www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/sustained.aspfrom www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/sustained.asp Reading Recovery facts and figures. Retrieved 8/1/2005 fromReading Recovery facts and figures. Retrieved 8/1/2005 from www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/facts/aspwww.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/facts/asp Reading Recovery lessons. Reading Recovery lessons.

www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/lessons.aspwww.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/lessons.asp