By Dr. Kate Nelson and Dr. Susie Mauck

The latest data show that Reading Recovery is a highly effective intervention for children who struggle to learn to read.  Here, we’ll take a closer look at data related to student growth.

In Reading Recovery, there are three main outcomes for full program students: Accelerated Progress, Progressed, and Recommended.

• Accelerated Progress means the child meets the intervention goal, achieving the class average, and can continue making progress without support beyond the classroom teacher.
• Progressed means the child made substantial progress but has not reached the class average and needs continued monitoring and support.
• Recommended means that while literacy progress was made, additional evaluation is needed, as well as ongoing support to help the child make progress.

This piece focuses on growth for students in these categories, with particular attention to children with outcomes of Accelerated Progress and Progressed.

Figure 1

In the figure above, we see that a child who exited Reading Recovery with an outcome status of Accelerated Progress averaged 13.6 months growth in their Observation Survey (OS) Total Score during the ninth-month school year. We also see that children with this outcome status started the school year with OS Total Scores that averaged 41 points lower than the average score of a typical first grader (375 compared to 416). Yet, these students ended the school year with an OS Total Score that averaged 18 points higher than the typical first grader (532 compared to 515).  Thus, Reading Recovery children in this category made large gains from fall to year-end.

We also see that children with an outcome status of Progressed averaged 12.8 months of growth in a typical nine-month school year. These students started the school year with a lower average OS Total Score than children with Accelerated Progress (350 compared to 375), and the typical first grader (350 compared to 416). While they did not quite reach the class average by year-end, they closed the gap (515 on average compared to 532). Children in this category made substantial gains, averaging nearly 13 months growth in just nine months.

Finally, we have the category of Recommended, represented by the third bar in the graph. These children started school in the fall with the lowest OS Total Scores, averaging 92 points lower than the typical first grader (324 compared to 416). They averaged 10.6 months of growth in nine months’ time.  Of note is that all three categories, Accelerated Progress, Progressed, and Recommended, made more than nine months’ growth.

Figure 2 shows the percentages for the different outcomes across five years. We see that from 2016 to 2019, approximately 70% of Reading Recovery children had an outcome of Discontinued (or what is now called Accelerated Progress) and approximately 30% of children had an outcome of Recommended. In 2020-21 and 2021-22, the category Discontinued was renamed Accelerated Progress, and the category of Progressed was introduced.  We see the percentage of Accelerated Progress decreased to approximately 50%, Recommended was just below 30% and then dropped to 26%, and the Progressed category was stable at 22%. When looking across the years, we can see that the combination of Progressed and Accelerated Progress nearly equaled the previous years’ percentage of Discontinued at roughly 70%.  The combined total of children with an outcome of Accelerated Progress or Progressed was 72% and 74% in 2020-21 and 2021-22, while in previous years children with an outcome status of Discontinued accounted for approximately 70% of Reading Recovery children. Consequently, we wonder whether most children in the Progressed category were previously included in the Discontinued category. The Progressed category may also be drawing some of the children away from the Recommended category as well. We are curious to see what happens with the category of Progressed as we continue to serve Reading Recovery children in the coming years.

We also were curious to see how many months of growth the students with the two positive outcomes (i.e., Accelerated Progress and Progressed) would have made if they were examined as one group. When combined, children in these categories averaged 13.5 months growth (Figure 3). This is important because in the 2021-22 school year, 74% of Reading Recovery children had an outcome of either Progressed or Accelerated Progress, indicating that almost three-fourths of Reading Recovery children had a positive outcome.

Figure 3

In conclusion, we see from the data that children in Reading Recovery made great strides in their literacy growth. Children with an outcome status of Accelerated Progress started the school year with significantly weaker literacy skills than the typical first grader, but surpassed their average score by year-end, averaging 13.6 months of growth in just nine months. Meanwhile, children with an outcome of Progressed averaged 12.8 months of growth.  When combined, these categories account for 74% of children in Reading Recovery and 13.5 months of growth on average in their literacy skills. The data indicate that Reading Recovery effectively builds strong literacy skills in young readers, helping children who struggle to learn to read make substantial gains.

Kate Nelson is the IDEC International Data Evaluation Center Manager at The Ohio State University. She has a background in literacy, research, and teaching, and earned her Ph.D. in literacy education from The Ohio State University. At OSU, she received training in Reading Recovery and supervised children with reading difficulties in the university reading clinic. She worked with Dr. Lea McGee and colleagues to investigate first graders’ strategic use of information over time, resulting in a Reading Research Quarterly publication, as well as the International Literacy Association’s Dina Feitelson Research Award. She has experience in data analysis and research, as well as working with teachers in professional development and students in K-12 and higher education.

Susie Mauck was a public elementary school teacher before completing her doctorate at OSU in the College of Education and Human Ecology (EHE), Quantitative Research, Evaluation, and Measurement program. She specializes in quantitative methodology and has been supporting the work of the faculty and students in EHE since 2015.

By Billy Molasso, PhD

It’s a curious thing that people often believe promises that can’t be true. Sometimes it’s due to laziness: they want the easy fix. Sometimes, it’s indifference: “I can’t do anything to change it anyway, so why worry?” Sometimes, as is the case with the latest wave of Science of Reading laws, it’s because hope is a powerful enough motivator that it trumps common sense.

These laws are vague, yet prescriptive; they hold a false promise of a silver bullet where none exists. Tragically, they may worsen the very problem they claim to solve.

The literacy pendulum has been swinging for decades, to the great dismay of veteran teachers.

We’ve been there, done that. We spent billions to achieve nothing with Reading First. We see in NAEP data that throughout history, no matter which was the prevailing theory of the day, the literacy rates largely stayed the same.

And yet people continue to hope that a new wave of SOR mandates will finally solve the “crisis,” despite history telling us otherwise, the knowledge that every child is different, decades of peer-reviewed research, and our own common sense. In Hanford’s latest podcast, she pats herself on the back for changing the trajectory of reading instruction in several states. “Outlawing cueing will fix the problem,” her acolytes state definitively, “because Science!” And they repeat it ad nauseam, without any evidence, precedent, or logic.

Spoiler alert: It won’t.

Whatever fad instruction is in place, at the end of the day, any good teacher knows that the highest law is, “Do right by the student in front of you.”

Fast forward to the day Teacher sits down with Student, and Student can’t grasp why bow doesn’t rhyme with bow, but it does rhyme with bough, which doesn’t rhyme with tough, and the rules they’ve been drilled in simply don’t apply. Should Teacher suggest – gasp – using context clues to figure it out, or should they follow laws that ban cueing?

Here we have a dilemma: does Teacher do what’s best for the child, or do what is required by law? In everyday, moment-to-moment teaching decisions, any teacher with integrity will choose to do right by the child — whether that be that may be phonics, or context clues, or guided reading, or group instruction, or one-to-one.

Even the National Reading Panel – frequently cited while justifying SOR laws – concluded that, “Phonics instruction should not become the dominant component in a reading program, neither in the amount of time devoted to it nor in the significance attached.” Yet here we are, forcing teachers to swim upstream amidst mandates that go against common sense tactics to help kids access the right tools at the right moment.

Let’s be clear: when you choose which tools teachers can use, you are choosing which children to help. Banning tools is tantamount to saying the children who need those tools don’t matter, and shame on the states that have legislated to leave some children behind. If you acknowledge that children deserve the right to read, your advocacy must reflect a commitment to ALL children.

As a one-to-one intervention that works with any classroom curriculum, Reading Recovery will always be needed to pick up the outliers that popular science leaves behind.

Luckily, that’s where Reading Recovery excels! The skillful Reading Recovery teacher knows that only about half of those literacy roadblocks can be solved by decoding – and they offer strategies, tactics, tools, and approaches for the other half as well. They observe the child’s strengths, build their confidence, and lend tailored support using not just phonics, but ALL the sciences of reading. Reading Recovery teachers close the gap day-by-day by keeping the child at the center of everything we do.

The unpopular truth about reading is that it’s complex. Every child learns differently. Every path is unique, with distinctive roadblocks that require the child to rely on the resources they built up. And no matter what the law says, no one classroom program yet exists that meets the needs of every student. For struggling readers, these roadblocks are particularly treacherous, and they need one-to-one intervention to help them navigate the path.

We reject the pipe dream that there’s an easy fix, and with the importance of childhood literacy, indifference would be a crime. But wise educators will never be content to rely on hope when they have the expertise to build a strategy. The best teachers will do right by all children and offer all the tools they need to succeed. How about you?

All donations this month will go toward RRCNA’s advocacy efforts to keep Reading Recovery available to struggling readers.

Dr. Billy Molasso is the Executive Director of the Reading Recovery Council of North America.

Citations:

National Reading Panel National Reading Panel – Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (nih.gov)

All donations in the month of May will go toward RRCNA’s advocacy efforts to keep Reading Recovery available to struggling readers.

By Kathleen A. Brown

Leadership and advocacy go hand in hand, just like reading and writing. Often educators, who are not administrators, do not see themselves as leaders. However, we are all leaders with different talents, gifts, strengths, and styles. Growing into a leader takes time and training, but it is well worth the effort when it pertains to educating our youth.

Leadership and the 4 Cs

What is leadership?

“Leadership is a process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others towards the achievement of a goal.” Forbes, April 9, 2013

Communication

We live in a world where communication is easier than ever. We have multiple ways to reach individuals and larger audiences. Ongoing and regular communication is the most effective way to get your message out and heard. Newsletters, websites, and social media platforms are productive ways to share your message and inform stakeholders. Lean on your professional networks for support and to share common ideas and resources.

Collaboration

The work of educating our youth is complex, and we can’t do it alone. We must intentionally build collaboration and establish trust; all voices need to be respected. You can ensure that all voices are heard by establishing a literacy and learning team, including classroom teachers, literacy specialists, special education teachers, parents, counselors, assistant principals, principals, and central office staff to examine positive trends and concerns and plan for continuous improvement. This collaboration enables individuals to work together to achieve a common goal, e.g., to ensure equity and access for all students.

Coordination

Communicating and collaborating with other stakeholders takes coordination. From email, phone calls, personal notes, weekly or monthly bulletins, websites, data reports, and classroom or school-wide observations to monthly meetings, there are many ways to help.

Without coordination of school-wide goals or instructional practices and assessments, the work will be splintered. Student services must be timely, effective, meaningful, relevant, and, most importantly, helpful to their growth as learners. The student study team is a prime example of when site administrators, the classroom teacher, the literacy specialist, special education teachers, and parents join to discuss a student’s strengths and areas of need to collectively create the next steps in the student’s learning journey. 

Coordination facilitates impactful and harmonious group efforts towards a shared set of goals.

Courage

It takes courage to speak up and make your voice heard. 

You cannot go wrong if you keep children in mind and at the center of your work. Consider the consequences to students’ learning and well-being if you remain silent and accept ineffective and non-research-based instructional practices. 

Start small as you gain confidence, such as connecting with a like-minded colleague to advocate for school change or educational reform.

Advocacy Begins with You

“Advocacy is defined as any action that speaks in favor of, recommends, or argues for a cause; or supports defends, or pleads on behalf of others.” Missouri Foundation of Health, 2016ˆ

Relationships

Establishing healthy, collaborative, and respectful relationships is critical to advocacy and leadership. Your cause will stagnate without positive relationships. It takes time to build trust, so be patient with the process.

Start with small steps, like being an intentional listener and team player. Build your human capital by revealing your vulnerability through honesty and transparency.

Invitations

Invitations open the door to communication and collaboration. Who does not like to be included, especially when it involves continuous improvement or refinement of students’ learning? Phone calls and personal notes are effective and impactful ways to reach stakeholders. Establish an open-door policy as you welcome others into your work, cause, and passion.

Community

We all crave and need a community to thrive in the world of education! Community unites us and strengthens our collective good. Utilizing an established network of like-minded educators is essential and invaluable. Together, we are better and can achieve measures beyond our expectations. To begin, brainstorm where and how you can serve to improve teaching and learning for all students; we all have a part to play with our unique gifts. For instance, you could organize a community literacy event providing the best services and opportunities for students to grow and thrive. 

Sphere of Influence

“Influence is to move or impel (a person) to some action.” Dictionary.com

Who do you feel comfortable with and include in your sphere of influence? How can you expand your sphere of influence to have an impact? Start by strengthening your inner circle, then branch out and explore other possibilities. Establish a wide base of support carrying your message or cause forward.  

 As educators, it is our moral imperative to help ensure that ALL students receive high-quality classroom instruction and research-based interventions.

Share your thoughts and plan of action with a trusted colleague who will encourage you to implement your ideas and keep you accountable.  

This is not easy work, but doable work, especially when you partner with like-minded colleagues who share the same passion. 

I challenge you to step outside of your comfort zone and advocate for the rights of ALL students who deserve the opportunity to become literate and have hope for their future. Please feel free to reach out to me to share your success stories by using the Reading Recovery Community Forum.

Act Now to get involved and promote literacy from the top down. Contact your local politicians and political groups to let them know what is important to you. 

Kathleen A. Brown has worked for 37 years as a classroom teacher, literacy specialist, staff developer, and Reading Recovery teacher.  She has served as the Reading Recovery teacher leader in a large urban district in California for the last 22 years. Kathleen has provided early literacy training and coaching for the district and has presented at local, state, and national conferences.

All donations in the month of May will go toward RRCNA’s advocacy efforts to keep Reading Recovery available to struggling readers.

By Paul L. Thomas

Originally published in the Spring 2023 Volume 2 issue of the Journal of Reading Recovery.

If you are paying attention to traditional or social media, you are aware of the following stories being told about U.S. public school teachers in 2023:

• Elementary teachers are failing to teach reading effectively to U.S. students.
• That failure is “because many deans and faculty in colleges of education either don’t know the science or dismiss it,” according to Hanford (2018).
• Elementary, literature/ELA teachers, and history teachers are brainwashing students with Critical Race Theory (Pollock & Rogers et al., 2022).
• Elementary and literature/ ELA teachers are grooming children to be gay or transgender by allowing them to read diverse books and stories.

Except for teachers themselves and some education scholars, these new bad teacher myths are both extremely compelling and almost entirely false.

Although the “science of reading” (SOR) movement has been continually and uncritically perpetuated by mainstream media since 2018, beneath the call for “science” is both the myth of the bad teacher and the missionary zeal that has driven education reform throughout the 2000s and 2010s. Below, I unpack the bad teacher myth and the flaws in missionary zeal fueling education reform in order to build to a critical examination of the SOR movement, which falls apart when the central claims of SOR advocates are weighed against the full research base currently available on teaching reading.

Finally, we must face the lessons we have failed to learn from decades of education reform that targets exclusively in-school policy and practices while ignoring the more substantial impact of out-of-school factors on both teacher effectiveness and student achievement.

Download the journal article here.

Join us this year in a five-part series while we follow the journey of Courtney Smith at Clemson University as she trains to be a Teacher Leader.

By Courtney Smith

Have you ever bought a new fancy water bottle or a cute new coffee cup only to pull the price tag or barcode label off and have but a scrap of the label come off in your hand? It’s frustrating, and it makes you question and wonder who are the people who put these labels right in the toughest place to get rid of them.

Labels stick. They’re sticky, and messy, and mar the surface of a perfectly cute water bottle. Sure, sometimes they come off easily — but sometimes they stick, and it takes a lot of work to get the label and its’ residue off. You have to scrub, soak it and even run it through the dishwasher several times.

As a kindergarten student, I was labeled as a struggling reader because I couldn’t rhyme or hear sounds as easily as the other students. I was blessed to have parents who provided me with additional support outside of school to get the help I needed to remove that label. So many of the students we serve, without Reading Recovery, would be unable to remove the struggling reader label.

At the end of the year in kindergarten, we had a class play in which each student held a letter and named a word that began with that letter. My letter was O, and my line was, “O is for obstinate.” (My mom swears it’s not because of my behavior but because I was the only one who could pronounce the word.) Maybe everything I need to know I really did learn in kindergarten.

Obstinance has served me well this year. I’ve had to be stubborn and stay the course on the days when it was hard, when the reading seemed like I’d never get through it or understand it, when the coursework felt overwhelming, and when I just couldn’t hike up the hill again to Tillman Hall for class. I’ve stood firm with my students and my belief that they could and would learn to read.

I’ve given my all every day to be the best teacher I could be to forever remove that label of a struggling reader.

I’ve been obstinate this year that I can and will get through the Teacher Leader training year and the coursework. My fellow Teacher Leaders in training have helped with this on days when I’ve felt like throwing up my hands and walking away because it felt too hard, and the weight of the world was on my shoulders. Our job as Teacher Leaders and Reading Recovery teachers is big.

It’s important because it matters for the children we serve and the children we impact in our work with their teachers. It matters for the kids who hate to read, the kids learning English as a second language, and the kids sitting in classrooms confused and acting out because they are frustrated.

They are the reason we teach, reflect, and grow as Reading Recovery teachers and Teacher Leaders in training. They are the reason we worked our tails off this year to impact more and more students through our work with teachers in our districts. And what a year it has been. While the journey has been long and stressful, it has been one of the best years of my life. I’ve practiced leading the glass, shared knowledge, learned from the training class, and won Dr. Scharer’s “Jeopardy” quiz game. I’ve grown in my understanding of teaching reading, scribbled down the wisdom imparted by Dr. Bates, and shared meals, stories, and numerous texts with my fellow trainees. I’ve laughed and cried with my new friends, taught hard as Maryann McBride has asked of us, read until my eyes were blurry, and learned more than I ever thought I could about early literacy. I’ve done it all with a smile (and maybe a handful of complaints and tears) because it matters to the kid sitting in the chair next to me.

Courtney graduated and become a Teacher Leader on April 28, 2023. Thank you for following her journey! 

Introducing Follow My Journey: An Exclusive New Blog Series

Follow My Journey: Training Begins

Follow My Journey: Oral Exams

Follow My Journey: My Reading Recovery Community

If you are preparing to train to become a teacher leader or teacher next year, don’t miss your chance to apply for a financial award to help offset the cost of training! Applications are open for the Teacher Leader Training Award and Teacher of Color Training Award.