Reading Recovery

Introduction

• Reading Recovery (RR) is the copyrighted name of a teaching method intended to promote rapid improvement in the reading skills of struggling first graders (Reading Recovery Council of North America [RRCNA], 2004). Students who are identified as reading significantly below grade level receive daily, one-on-one lessons from teachers who have received extensive special training, including at least one academic year spent studying with an RRCNA-registered “teacher leader” (RRCNA, 2004). Each RR teacher has no more than four students assigned to her/him at any given time (Collins, 1999). Lessons are half an hour long and typically continue for 12 to 20 weeks, after which a new student begins work with the RR teacher (RRCNA, 2004). Students who go through RR once generally do not go through it again (RRCNA, 2004). It is used most often with students who have learning disabilities and/or those who are “educationally disadvantaged” (Thomas, 1992). Though the program is widely used, its effectiveness and cost effectiveness are still being debated.

Background on Remedial Reading

• Historically, students in the U.S. who failed to learn to read in first grade repeated that grade and were “taught” to read again using the same techniques that had failed the first time. Such students are disproportionately from poor and minority families (Mullis, Campbell, and Farstrup, 1993), often read below grade level for their entire educational careers, and drop out before completing high school at rates much higher than students who experience early reading sucess (Lloyd, 1978).

• For these and related reasons, educators looked for alternatives to retention. Unfortunately, most of the remedial reading programs tried in the 1980s were unsuccessful (Slavin and Madden, 1989). According to Slavin (1991), the failure of these programs was due at least in part to the fact that children already had entrenched negative attitudes toward reading by the time they received help. Collins (1999) also cites poor coordination between remedial and regular classroom teachers, low expectations on the part of remedial teachers, and the heavy use of undertrained teacher-aides in remedial instruction as factors that were also relevant in failed attempts.

History and Theoretical Underpinnings of Reading Recovery

• Reading recovery was developed in the 1970s by New Zealand-based educator and psychologist Marie M. Clay (Thomas, 1992). Clay had conducted research in the 1960s that she felt enabled her to detect and address students’ difficulties with very specific aspects of the reading process. RR was first used in the United States in 1984 and has also spread to other countries (RRCNA, 2004). More than a million first graders in the U.S. alone have received RR instruction (RRCNA, 2004).

• As summarized by Collins (1999), RR is based on several fundamental beliefs: 1) children learn to read by reading, 2) skills and strategies used by readers to get through difficulties are “only as good as a student’s ability to apply them at the appropriate time,” 3) frequent reading, combined with greater understanding by students of their own reading process, leads to greater motivation, and particulary intrinsic motivation.

How are Students Placed into Reading Recovery?

• According to Collins (1999), RR begins when first grade teachers identify students whose reading ability is in the bottom twenty percent of their class. These students are given Clay’s (1979) “Concepts of Print” test, which has six parts assessing different aspects of students’ literacy skills. Students who score the lowest are the first to be seen by a RR teacher, and they undergo additional screening to determine where in the program they should start (Collins, 1999). Students enrolled in RR work with their RR teacher as described in the introduction, either on a pullout basis (i.e., they leave their general education classroom for half an hour each day) or as part of a team-teaching arrangement (i.e., the RR teacher works in the same classroom as a general education classroom, providing individual instruction during part of the day to each of four students).

The Debate Over Reading Recovery

• Reading recovery has been controversial since its inception, largely due to the high cost per pupil enrolled in the program. Critics have argued variously that: 1) RR doesn’t really work (i.e., it doesn’t reliably take low-performing children and enable them to read on par with their same-age classmates); 2) RR works less well or no better than other programs designed to serve the same purpose; 3) even if it works, RR is not cost-effective compared to other programs that work just as well; 4) RR works, but only on a short-term basis (i.e., the benefits of RR for students don’t persist for long after intensive RR instruction has been completed); and 5) RR is not based on scientifically sound research.

• Few of these criticisms have been conclusively laid to rest. Sensenbaugh (1996) and the RRCNA (2004) do present compelling arguments in favor of RR, and it seems fairly clear that the program does produce some positive results for many of the students that go through it. As discussed by Grossen et al. (n.d.), however, it’s less clear that RR is the most cost-effective program to use, particularly in situations where the population of students in need of remedial reading instrucion is large. They raise other criticisms as well, including the fact that RR’s measure of “success” (i.e., being able to read at the average level of the child’s non-RR classmates) may shortchange students who attend schools that perform below the national average. Slavin and Madden (1989) present evidence that the effects of RR are detectable for at least two years after the initial intervention ends, but others (e.g., Carlson, n.d.) present results to the contrary.

• Though RR advocates have never claimed that RR works for older students, researchers have been curious to find out whether or not it does. Here, the evidence against RR seems fairly clear. This may be due to the fact that, after several years of schooling, students’ reading habits and attitudes about reading (whether good or bad) are too deeply engrained for them to be changed by even fairly intensive instruction (Slavin and Madden, 1989; Slavin 1991).

Personal Testimonies on Use of Reading Recovery

If you are a reading recovery teacher, have worked with reading recovery as a teacher, administrator, or student, or have done research on reading recovery yourself, please insert your own experiences here! The more detailed you can be in describing how reading recovery has been either a positive or negative experience for you or your students, the better. You might separate your entry from those of other people with horizontal lines…

My son was slow at connecting with reading. He is well spoken and has a great memory when things are read to him, so he was not identified as someone who could benefit from reading recovery until the end of his 1st grade year. He started reading recovery during the last few weeks of school then continued it through summer school. It helped his reading skills tremendously. We spent most of 2nd grade working on his confidence because he was still a little behind and definitely felt that other kids were better readers. His confidence started to build and he had a great 3rd grade year. He is now in 4th grade and is in a gifted class; more for his math but he is holding his own in reading also. E. Morrison ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

As a former Reading Recovery teacher in the Spanish-language program (Discubriendo la Lectura), I have several comments. Reading Recovery works…most of the time. Typically, of every five students I worked with (in a very low-income area), two would shoot forward to the top quarter of their class (reading above grade level and with superior comprehension and fluency), two would end up reading at grade level (the program goal), and one would make some progress but still read below grade level. The latter group would continue to need help, but would often show remarkable collateral progress in other areas (such as math). As for cost-effectiveness, four out of five of the students worked with could subsequently perform at grade level and would need no further special services. This saved the school district more money than it spent on Reading Recovery.

I am currently a special education teacher but will be doing training for Reading Recovery next year. I am so thrilled about getting the opportunity to train because of the vast amount of knowledge that Reading Recovery provides for the teaching of reading. It is exciting to know that RR has been extremely beneficial for struggling students, and who better than a special education teacher should be receiving that training. I wish that all special education teachers could receive this training because we are the ones who work with a huge population of struggling readers. G Cabutti

Last year I had a student whom I worried about each day because of her reading skills. She seemed to be such a struggling reader that I worried about getting her to level with the other students. She was tested into Reading Recovery. I have never seen such a miracle before. I told the RR teacher all the time that she must have some special medicine in her office. My student was in the program for 12 weeks and went from a struggling reader to an above average reader. This year again I have a struggling reader in RR. He has only been in the program for 6 weeks and already he has jumped 3 reading levels. He is now one level away from being at level! ~R.U.

I taught first grade my first year in the teaching profession and was met with the challenge of teaching twenty-one six year olds to read. I had a low group and the Reading Recovery program really helped my struggling readers. It was definitely a plus to be able to provide the individualized attention to those students. I still had struggling readers by the end of first grade but can only imagine how difficult it would have been for those children if they had not received the extra help every day. – Marcy Flessner

Our district uses Reading Recovery very successfully. However, not much is done to advertise that fact. As a result, every so often there is a push to discontinue the program due to the cost of hiring and training teachers. I happen to know a few RR teachers personally, as well as having had the chance to work with several on non-related projects. If the success of the program could be promoted to all faculty, I think we’d avoid these issues of trying to end the program. Over and over from the RR teachers I hear about how incredibly successful it has been, and how much students actually improve their reading. It is definitely a program worth keeping! –S.Sheahan

* Original Source:  http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Reading_Recovery