help

‘Roaming Around the Known’ with an Adult Learner

2023-02-08T18:10:09-05:00October 27th, 2020|Classroom Teaching, General, General Education, Latest News, Reflections and Commentary, Teaching|

by Regie Routman

 

This past June I received an urgent phone request from an extended family member: Would I be willing to tutor him in reading and writing so he could improve as a reader and writer and also have a more interesting life? Ted, as I will call him here, is a 53-year old, single male, who had—due to the pandemic– recently lost his full-time job as a custodian. Home alone in his apartment all day, he sounded desperately sad and lonely. I was more than happy to help him any way I could. So began our twice-weekly, remote learning sessions with the barest technology. Ted had never touched a computer, used email, or texted. We had only our phones, paper and pencil, the U.S. Postal Service, and whatever interesting texts to listen to and read that we both thought—but especially Ted–might be engaging and easily obtainable. I was optimistic. From family gatherings over the years, I knew Ted to be “street smart” (his words), intelligent and endowed with an ironic sense of humor.

 

I knew nothing about Ted’s educational background other than that he has always had learning disabilities. Each year when I sent him a birthday card with a handwritten message, I kept it simple. I had no idea if he could read it or not. So where and how to begin with him. My many years as a reading specialist and Reading Recovery teacher prompted me to begin with an adapted version of ‘Roaming Around the known.’ I sought to build upon Ted’s strengths and interests and to develop a trusting and warm relationship. Through our conversations, I found out he loved music and that he had a CD player, so that’s where we began—at his comfort level. I also learned he was highly anxious and easily overwhelmed. We kept our sessions to 30 minutes, maximum.

 

As in working with a new student in Reading Recovery, we initially spent the bulk of our time reading and talking about what we’d read, although at first, that reading involved Ted listening to a book on tape while I was reading the same book in print. Our conversations went beyond basic comprehension to how parts of the text connected to our own lives. I learned how strong his oral language and vocabulary were; I found his insights about a text to be deep and thoughtful.

 

Reviewing what Marie Clay has taught us, I attempted to create an environment of “confidence, ease, flexibility, and with luck, discovery… The teaching should not start where the teacher is but where the child is!… Share the tasks of reading and writing by doing for the child what he cannot do for himself.” (Clay, 2016, Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals: Second Ed., Auckland, NZ: The Marie Clay Literacy Trust, p. 29.) Clay believed that by creating a firm foundation for the learner to build upon, the learner becomes willing and eager to begin instruction. This belief holds true for learners of all ages and is especially relevant and necessary for remote learning in a pandemic.

 

We began each session with a “check in” where I asked Ted how he was doing. As he was speaking, I wrote his words down on my computer—as a record but mainly to document and validate his life—for him. Gradually, as his reading began to improve, I sent these dated pieces to him via mail, and he told me how happy he was to see his words “written on paper,” – that seeing his spoken words written down made him “feel like a writer.” At first, we read those texts together, but he quickly took over reading them on his own. Those personal texts later became the core of our word work, using his language in a context that was meaningful to him to begin to teach onsets, rimes, and important irregular words, what we called “words-to-know-by-heart,” such as “though” and “there”.

 

Working with Ted reinforced how, first and foremost, we must find ways to establish close and caring relationships with our students.  As Ted saw some success, his determination, self-confidence, and stamina grew. In September he asked if we could increase the length of our sessions to one hour. As I am writing this blog mid-October 2020, Ted is determined to complete the reading of his first, full-length, adult book.

 

Mindsets and Actions That Support Up-and-Coming Readers of All Ages
Once we have signed on, contractually or otherwise, to teach students to read we are obligated to do everything we can to ensure the student(s) becomes an engaged, successful, and joyful reader. Even when technology is severely limited—as it is for Ted and many underserved students and their families—equity issues and the right to an excellent education demand we do all we can to ensure every child and adult becomes a reader.

  • It’s never too late to become a reader. (Krashen and McMillan, October 2007. “Late Intervention.” Educational Leadership, Vo. 65 (2).
  • Reading texts that are of high interest to the learner is more important than reading levels for engaging and sustaining the reader’s efforts.
  • Teaching must be responsive and respectful to the learner—in the moment, in the process, in the plans, in evaluation—and give the learner choice, dignity, and agency.
  • Include text offerings beyond books in print and online—such as short magazine articles, phone texts, editorials, news articles, comics, photo-journalism articles, lyrics to songs and raps, poems, audio texts.
  • Expand “reading a text” to also mean hearing texts read aloud while following along visually, listening to audiobooks and books on tape, and co-creating texts we then read together.

 


Regie Routman is a longtime educator, author, and equity champion who promotes and demonstrates engaging, excellent, and joyful literacy practices. Contact her at www.regieroutman.org and follow her on Twitter: @regieroutman.

It Only Takes One

2023-02-08T18:10:09-05:00September 25th, 2020|Classroom Teaching, General, General Education, Latest News, Reflections and Commentary, Teaching|

by Todd Nesloney

 

I often reflect back on my own personal reading journey when talking to other educators about how to inspire kids (and even adults) to read more.

 

I hated reading anything until I was in the 5th grade. I still to this day remember perusing my school’s Scholastic Book Fair and coming across the very first book that ever truly captured my attention from the cover alone. As I picked it up, read the back cover, I was immediately hooked. That book was Animorphs by K.A. Applegate (who now goes by Katherine Applegate).

 

I devoured the book in one night and over the next few years read every single book (over 50) in that series. To this day I have a special bookshelf that houses the entire series and I still remember meeting Katherine Applegate in 2018 and crying as she signed my original #1 Animorphs.

 

I share this with you because I’m convinced that there’s no such thing as someone who doesn’t enjoy reading. There are only people who haven’t yet found the book that breaks their heart or speaks to them. The book they can’t put down. The book they have to immediately share with someone else because they were that moved.

 

But how do we get others to find THAT book for themselves? It all starts with what we’re reading in our lives that we can then book-talk to others. You see, we can’t help people fall in love with a book if we aren’t reading ourselves.

 

Now I know, we’re all incredibly busy. Maybe it’s 15 minutes before we go to bed each night. Maybe we listen to an audiobook while we work out or on our commute. Whatever it is we always have time for what we make time for.

 

Because when YOU are reading, you now have a wealth of first-hand experience with books that you can recommend to others. So as you get to know your students and learn their interests and passions, you can recommend books that already fall in line with who they are or what would hook them immediately.

 

When you connect them with that first book (the hardest part), they’ll crave more. And as they consume more and more books, you’ll find that you can grow and expand their literary diet beyond what they even imagined they were interested in.

 

It only takes one book. That one emotional experience that reaches deep into their hearts and begs them to read more. What was your one book?

 


Todd Nesloney is the Director of Culture and Strategic Leadership for the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association (TEPSA). He has also served as an award-winning principal of a Pre-K-5th Grade campus of over 775 students in a rural town in Texas. He has been recognized by the White House, John C. Maxwell, the Center for Digital Education, National School Board Association, the BAMMYS, and more for his work in education and with children. Todd has written four books, including Kids Deserve It, Stories From Webb, Sparks in the Dark, and his brand new book When Kids Lead. He also recently released his first children’s book, Spruce And Lucy. He hosts the podcast “Tell Your Story” and is very active on social media under the moniker Tech Ninja Todd.

Are You Ready for a Reset?

2023-02-08T18:10:09-05:00February 21st, 2020|Classroom Teaching, General Education, Reflections and Commentary|

by Connie Dierking

 

With the new year comes reflection. Many teachers spend their winter breaks reflecting on the days gone by and the days to come. A hot cup of coffee and a sunny patch of a well-loved couch provides the conditions for reset thinking. Resets in education allow teachers to return from the winter break with the intent to implement new routines, new ideas, and revised practices. Resets usually start off strong.

 

However, all the newness sometimes fades into February and the air becomes stale. It’s time to push the doldrums of winter out and bring the energy in to stay! Resets can and should remain alive!

 

The world out there is tough for kids. Poverty, health concerns, homelessness, and just plain meanness envelop the news and the environment of way too many children. Google search indicates that words like bravery, kindness, and gratitude have taken a 52% plunge. Teachers strive to counteract the negativity and create the conditions in which students feel safe and connected and open to learning.

 

Marie Clay’s work is steeped in the belief that a child’s contribution to his or her own learning is paramount. There are daily opportunities for building engagement, energy, and inspiration for every child every day. Reset reflection in the new year reminds us to use them!

 

Dr. Yvette Jackson in the forward of the book, Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain, by Zaretta Hammond, writes, “Neuroscience has substantiated a reality that we should relish: We are all wired for expansive learning, high intellectual performances, and self-determination.” Anyone who has watched a Reading Recovery lesson would not be surprised by that statement. Keeping the excitement and engagement alive so that these high intellectual performances can happen requires persistence and grit, by both the teacher and the child. Building lessons that provide the impetus for these stellar performances are within our reach. This is what I call keeping the reset alive!

 

Daily Opportunities for Building Engagement, Energy, and Inspiration

Start with a Hook
The hook happens in the first 15-30 seconds of a lesson. Offer up the key information from the start, just enough to generate interest. The hook is all about making a promise at the beginning of a lesson, enough to hook your students and fulfill that promise by the end.  A good hook should:

  • Connect to the emotions, what do your students care about?
  • Get personal, we are alike but we are all different in wonderful ways.

 

Design Your Lesson Like a Work of Art
The design of a lesson is an engineering work of art. Each part should be intentional and connected. The teacher has tools at his or her fingertips to engage, keep the energy going and inspire students to keep going!

  • Pacing – some parts of the lessons are fast and some are slow
  • Lean talk – teacher talk should be to the point. Clay cautions that teachers often “underestimate how complex children find…the things that teachers say.” Demonstrate in place of talk.
  • Use the voice of an actor – loud and soft, intonation varies, emphasis shifts
  • Bring on the tools – charts, post-its, notebook, pointers, colored pens
  • Use good technology – the internet, games, publishing
  • Use pop-culture/student interests – find out what they are…again
  • Use your own passions – when we bring our passions to our teaching we raise our energy which raises students
  • Remember to celebrate – nothing excites more than a celebration
  • Keep students active! MOVE IT!

 

Consider a Progression of Complexity
Any lesson should consider components that allow for students to ease into the learning. If we want students to persevere, we must allow students to engage in a progression of complexity. Lessons that are difficult and confusing will push students to abandon all attempt. Consider the following:

  • Begin with oral, talk it out first
  • Build interest in the topic with a photograph or a short text
  • Use a variety of text, i.e. video, photographs, songs, poems, picture books, chapter books, plays
  • Gradual release that includes time to practice with a partner and with and without the support of the teacher

 

Oral Language/Oral Rehearsal

  • Include a focus on the language structures students bring to the learning
  • Weave speaking and listening with reading and writing
  • Whatever you want students to write, require students to practice orally…many times
  • Ensure all students are heard
  • Think, talk, talk, talk, write, read

 

Movement

  • Add gestures or movement during all parts of the lesson
  • Allow students to meet with many students to talk and share together
  • Provide a common beat for students to emulate as they transition
  • Have students move as they engage with the content
  • Use music

 

Use the new year as a reminder to find opportunities to build engagement, energy, and inspiration. A famous quote of Marie Clay states, “If children are apparently unable to learn, we should assume that we have not as yet found the right way to teach them.” And that is the job of a reset!

 

Connie Dierking is a primary teacher, instructional staff developer, and curriculum writer for Pinellas County Schools in Largo, Florida.

She recently presented a session entitled “Teaching with Engagement, Energy, and Inspiration” at the 2020 National Reading Recovery & K-6 Literacy Conference.

Active Problem Solving in Reading is NOT a Guessing Game

2023-02-08T18:10:10-05:00December 16th, 2019|General Education|

by Jamie R. Lipp, Ph.D.

 

“They are not guessing. They are computing the likelihood of the features that they recognise belonging to the word they have predicted” (Clay, 2016, p.145).

 You may have heard the ongoing debate around teaching students to read. According to some critics, educators have much to learn about reading instruction, likely from those who have never closely watched or helped support beginning readers as they build their knowledge and expertise. These criticisms are often based on small, experimental studies that contrast older skilled and struggling readers. In these types of studies, critics are quick to determine what struggling readers can’t do. From Rudolf Flesh’s 1955 article Why Johnny Can’t Read to Emily Hanford’s recent articles and blogs, their solution is simple — teach phonics. Teach it more and teach it better.

The critical voices are loud and their misconceptions regarding what they claim we “do” in Reading Recovery and all forms of balanced literacy have become even louder.  One particularly misguided belief centers around the idea of “guessing”. In short, critics assert that teachers of Reading Recovery and/or balanced literacy teach students to guess when they arrive at an unknown word. This, for multiple reasons, is an extremely false assertion that calls for clarification.

 

What Does it Mean to Guess?
The Merriam- Webster dictionary defines the verb “guess” as: to form an opinion from little or no evidence. Based on this definition and the claims of critics, it would appear that we (the communities of Reading Recovery, balanced literacy, and anything short of direct, systematic phonics instruction) approve of students arriving at an unknown word and simply inserting any word of their choice. This is not the case, and I imagine the educators reading this right now who have ever taught a child to read are shaking their heads at the idea that teachers would simplify the process of learning to read to such a trivial notion.

 

How Did This Start?
The idea of guessing in the current debate goes back to Kenneth Goodman’s article, Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game (1967). Based on his analysis of student’s reading errors, Goodman describes a 10 step process of using different types of information that a reader’s brain may progress through when problem-solving an unknown word. This is far from a random guess, however, it seems the title of the article has been most misleading for understanding this process.

Because Marie Clay’s early literacy processing research was taking place at precisely the same time, with neither aware of the other’s research, it seems this idea of “guessing” at words was inadvertently over-applied to the work of Clay, Reading Recovery, and balanced literacy in general. But Goodman’s theory places far less emphasis on the change over time that occurs in the ways in which readers access and apply information sources during their progression from beginning to skilled readers.  Goodman applies his 10 step process to how skilled readers work on text, not just how novice readers solve unknown words.

Clay, on the other hand, takes a much deeper dive into the power of language structures and the ways in which beginning readers use oral language and meaning as support for word-solving, never implying that visual information should be neglected. Even at the earliest levels, when a child makes an attempt based on their oral language knowledge, Clay suggests that a teacher might prompt, “That makes sense, but check to see if it looks right?” This encourages novice readers to begin to use their developing phonics knowledge to monitor their attempts and self-correct errors based on oral language predictions. The use of meaning and language structure for word recognition is temporary and fades in priority as beginning readers build their knowledge of sight words and orthographic knowledge. Using visual information for word recognition becomes a least effort approach, over time, for skilled readers. However, this is not to say that the use of meaning and structure disappear throughout this progression.

 

Further Considerations
Clay’s literacy processing theory includes a “conscious search for solutions” and “fast brainwork” that children use to become active problem-solvers on text (p.128). Clay’s theory argues that children attend to multiple sources of information when reading. How children use these information sources, however, changes over time. Novice readers may initially use their oral language strengths to generate word recognition attempts, but as word recognition becomes more automatic, readers’ attention to meaning increasingly supports text comprehension rather than word recognition. It is for this reason that Clay’s support of children integrating multiple sources of information when reading is widely misunderstood by critics. If you haven’t read the recent blog posts aimed to support understanding in this area I encourage you to do so now:

“The Stories We Tell Ourselves” by Jeffery Williams

“The Three Cueing Systems in Beginning Reading Instruction: Good Idea or Hoax?” by Robert Schwartz

In addition, a recent blog post by Literacy Pages aims to sort out yet another misconception that the use of meaning is tied only to picture cues. Please take the time to read this valuable post, “M is not for Picture Cues”.

These misconceptions align themselves with the issue at hand, that students are being taught to “guess” when they arrive at an unknown word. Many of the prompts found in Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals (Clay, 2016) are being overly-simplified by critics to yield this sense of “guessing” rather than to support active problem-solving by students. Clay reminds teachers that the purpose of those prompts is to initiate problem-solving, direct students toward the use of something they know, and to do some careful checking.

For example, a teacher may prompt, “try something” or “what would make sense?”. These prompts are not used in the absence of visual information. Asking a child to “try something” does NOT mean that the teacher would accept a random guess at a word. Clay (2016) acknowledges that a prompt is a “call for action to do something within the child’s control” (36). So, the prompt “try something,” while simplistic in the nature of language, is used after a child has been taught to check one source of information with others.  The teacher’s goal is to support students in making a useful attempt, one that would monitor meaning, structure and visual information in support of oral language.  These attempts cannot be classified as simply making a guess at a word.  A guess is something very different.

 

What Can YOU Do?
The bottom line is this: The idea that teachers are simply telling students to “guess” at a word is a blatant attempt to negatively simplify the careful work we do with students to support them in becoming strategic, active problem solvers. This oversimplification is an attack on our experience, expertise, and understanding of the reading process.  Guessing at words is not part of Clay’s research and work, Reading Recovery or reading instruction as we know it.  Teaching reading is NO guessing game.  Reading is, however, a “message-getting, problem-solving activity that increases in power and flexibility the more it is practiced” (Clay, 1991, p. 6). Skilled word identification is important, but some critics tend to ignore the change over time that occurs as beginning readers evolve into more skilled readers. However, at no point would guessing be an acceptable option to support students in learning to read.

In an educational time where complex processes are being replaced with simplistic views, it is important to consider the frequent misconception of guessing. If you have ever taught a child to read, you know first-hand the complexity of that endeavor. Literacy processing is about active problem solving and is not a simplistic act of guessing.  Therefore, if you find yourself reading an article or listening to a podcast that attempts to oversimplify the world of reading instruction, I hope you’ll remember that guessing is not part of the complex world we reading teachers inhabit, nor is it part of the skillset of a successful reader. And finally, if you have ever prompted a child to “guess” at an unknown word, please discontinue this practice immediately, as guessing is not the action you wish to observe, nor is it what your skillful teaching has taught them to do.

 

For more information regarding the idea of guessing, please see a recent response from Lucy Calkins (p. 2),  “No One Gets To Own The Term “The Science Of Reading”.

 

Special thanks to Dr. Robert Schwartz and Dr. Lisa Pinkerton for your ongoing communication and insight regarding this immensely important topic.  And, an extended thanks to all of those who have written about this topic before I attempted to do so- your voices are critical! 

 

References:
Clay, M. M. (2016). Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals (2nd ed.) Aukland, NZ: The Marie Clay Literacy Trust. Global Education Systems (GES) Ltd.

 

 

Dr. Jamie Lipp is a Reading Recovery trainer at The Ohio State University. Dr. Lipp has over 15 years of experience as a classroom teacher, Reading Recovery teacher, literacy specialist, ELA Curriculum Specialist, and graduate instructor. Dr. Lipp is a speaker at the upcoming 2020 National Reading Recovery & K-6 Literacy Conference, February 8-11 in Columbus, OH. Follow her on Twitter @Jamie_Lipp.

Responding to the Reading Wars: Everyone’s Job

2023-02-08T18:10:10-05:00December 5th, 2019|General, General Education, Latest News, Reflections and Commentary|

by Patricia L. Scharer, Ph.D.

The Reading Wars have a long, long history. Over the past 100 years, adversaries have argued for and against numerous approaches: whole word, literature-based reading, look-say method, sight words, Initial Teaching Alphabet, balanced literacy, decodable texts, whole language, and phonics first. The wars have recently taken a new twist: the “Science of Reading.” This notion appears to be new when, in fact, literacy acquisition has been the subject of scholarship by many researchers with varying perspectives for many, many years. Reading blogs, tweets, and articles promoting the “science of reading” argue that only one type of study (experimental on phonics and phonemic awareness) qualifies as science and this science has been ignored by educators and scholars conducting other types of research. This is simply wrong. No one approach can claim “science” as theirs and only theirs. A range of research is, in fact, scientific, and we need all of it to inform our practice. Some research questions can be answered through random assignment; others must be answered through close observation, interview, and documentation. It’s up to educators to read widely and make decisions based on the evidence available.

Reading Recovery and the Reading Wars

Reading Recovery has scientific data on every student taught in the past 35 years and clear evidence that investing in training teachers in Reading Recovery not only brings 70% of the lowest first-grade students to grade level in 12-20 weeks but also positively affects literacy instruction in the building. Reading Recovery teachers have become literacy leaders given the intensity of their yearlong training and expert as observing student reading and writing behaviors. The recent federally-funded i3 research documented that success with both random assignment studies and qualitative studies (May, Sirinides, Gray, & Goldsworthy, 2016).

Despite solid, scientific research using a range of methodologies, Reading Recovery has been critiqued since its beginning in the U.S. 35 years ago with notions like “Reading Recovery is just whole language” or “Reading Recovery doesn’t teach phonics.” For many years, our leading organizations, the North American Trainer’s Group (NATG) and the Reading Recovery Council of North America (RRCNA) have tried to inform critics and counter their claims through white papers in response to every critic. The critiques and responses can be found on RRCNA’s Responding to Critics webpage. Historically, our leadership has taken the “high road” by trying to focus on the positive message we have about the success of our Reading Recovery students and teachers and have avoided direct confrontations. More recently, however, even with the strength of the i3 federal research, using an experimental design, critics are taking an even more aggressive approach to promote the “simple view of reading,” the “science of reading,” and systematic, intensive phonics while arguing against Reading Recovery.

In 2017, however, when a negative, uninformed article appeared as in Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, the Reading Recovery leadership took a more aggressive stance demanding that the journal editors take down the negative article which was the only one offered for free online and print our response, The Truth About Reading Recovery, both online and in the journal. The article in Learning Disabilities was full of misrepresentations, incorrect information, and concluded that “Reading Recovery teachers are not trained to provide explicit and systematic instruction in the essential and foundational components of reading” (Cook, Rodes & Lipsitz, 2017, p. 19). Based on these inaccurate assumptions, the authors “strongly recommend[ed] that schools not adopt the Reading Recovery program” (p. 19). This conclusion is simply wrong. In fact, Reading Recovery teachers are taught how to document students’ knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonics so they can explicitly teach an awareness of the sounds of English and the relationship to letters. Every lesson clearly attends to phonics instruction. I would argue that this instruction is both intensive and systematic.

Emily Hanford and the “Science of Reading”

Most recently, Emily Hanford, Senior producer and correspondent for APM Reports, has produced a series of blogs, tweets, and videos with two main messages: the education community has ignored the “science of reading” and teachers are not well-prepared to teach reading in colleges of education. Her arguments come from research done by psychologists using an experimental design to study pieces of the reading process and are void of studies of real children in real teaching settings.

In 2017, Ms. Hanford requested information about Reading Recovery and was invited to attend the 2018 National Conference as our guest. I was asked to design a schedule for her and accompanied her to many sessions over the 3-day conference where she was able to talk with teachers, teacher leaders, and trainers. I also arranged for her to see lessons behind-the-glass so that teacher leaders could help her understand our understanding of how to support children who struggle. She also interviewed and video-taped several Reading Recovery professionals during the conference. We expected her to write an unbiased report about Reading Recovery. We waited for the article to come out. It never did.

Instead, she has focused her attention on the “science of reading” with titles of web-casts such as “At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers” which posed many flawed ideas about Marie Clay and the cueing systems. Ms. Hanford had contacted RRCNA on a Friday that her article about the cueing systems was in preparation and asked for our response—by Monday. We sent a well-referenced, thorough reply by the Monday deadline along with a copy of an important article done by Marilyn Adams in 1998 which disproved a number of Hanford’s assumptions. Little of the information we prepared appeared in her final article.

Recognize and Respond: A Call to Action

I find it frustrating that the voices of educators who actually work with children who struggle are being silenced by a professor in a laboratory or a reporter. We need to recognize and respond to the messages described above which are prevalent in social media, podcasts, and webcasts. These critics do not understand how Reading Recovery supports children to develop a strong literacy processing system. Their “science of reading” and “simple” views are tightly held leaving them unable to grasp the complexity of what Reading Recovery teachers and students grapple with every day.

As a community of educators, we cannot leave advocacy to others, assuming that someone else is doing that job. It must be a part of every Reading Recovery professional’s job to be visible in social media, work with local news organizations, and get the message out that reading is not simple and our lessons ensure that the individual needs of every child are met.

How are you advocating for what you know is best for children who struggle?

 

References

Adams, M. J. (1998). The Three-Cueing System. In F. Lehr and J. Osborn (Eds.), Literacy for all issues in teaching and learning, pp. 73-99. New York Guilford Press.

Cook, P., Rodes, D. R., & Lipsitz, K. L. (2017). The reading wars and Reading Recovery: What educators, families, and taxpayers should know. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(2), 12–23.

May, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A., & Goldsworthy, H. (2016). Reading Recovery: An Evaluation of the Four-Year i3 Scale-Up. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.


Patricia L. Scharer, Ph.D. is a Professor Emeritus at The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH.