help

Search Reading Recovery

Search all of our online content from one place.

How Reading Recovery Works for Troy Schools

2022-06-08T07:27:19-05:00June 8th, 2022|General, Latest News|

submitted by Kris Piotrowski, Reading Recovery Teacher Leader, Troy Schools

For more than 30 years, the Troy School District in Troy, Michigan has used Reading Recovery to help struggling students learn to read and write. Over time, Reading Recovery has become embedded in the literacy curriculum of the entire district. “Reading Recovery has taught me how to truly embrace each child’s unique path to becoming literate,” says Literacy Specialist Veronica Recker.

Hear teachers, principals, parents, and students share how Reading Recovery has impacted them in this short video blog.

Opinion: Phonics is not a panacea for all struggling readers

2022-06-03T12:36:46-05:00June 3rd, 2022|Latest News, Reflections and Commentary|

by Maureen Downey

Originally published May 26, 2022. Republished with permission by Maureen Downey, author of the Get Schooled blog, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. https://www.ajc.com/education/get-schooled-blog/opinion-phonics-is-not-a-panacea-for-all-struggling-readers/4H52UELV4RANFP53YVILC46VTI/

 

Researchers: Dyslexia isn’t the only cause of reading challenges students face

In a guest column, three researchers delve into the reading wars that often pit whole language against phonics as the best approach for struggling readers.

David Reinking and David Yaden are former editors of the top reading journals, Reading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research.

A Distinguished Professor of Education at Clemson University for 14 years, Reinking has served as president of the National Reading Conference, now the Literacy Research Association. He was also a department head at the University of Georgia and is now an adjunct professor there in the Department of Language and Literacy Education.

An endowed Distinguished Professor of language, reading and culture at the University of Arizona College of Education, Yaden has also held appointments at Emory University and has been a principal investigator in the federally funded Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. He is now president of the Literacy Research Association.

A professor emeritus at the University of Georgia and frequent Get Schooled essayist, Peter Smagorinsky is a former editor of Research in the Teaching of English, which includes attention to reading.

By David Reinking, Peter Smagorinsky and David Yaden

 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reported that Georgia is awarding $1.5 million to train teachers to instruct students with dyslexia. This condition, according to some, affects as many as one in five students, suggesting a crisis that needs immediate attention in schools, and university schools of education.

Georgia is one of many states that have recently developed mandates to address the presumed dyslexia emergency. New York Mayor Eric Adams has recently revealed that he was born dyslexic and struggled to read until relatively late in life. New York, he believes, needs to invest $7.4 million to address the dyslexia epidemic that accounts for low reading scores. He says, “Dyslexia holds back too many of our children in school but most importantly in life. (It) haunts you forever until you can get the proper treatment that you deserve.”

 

Dyslexia is understood by Mayor Adams, and many others, to be a brain dysfunction that makes reading difficult. The New York and Georgia plans assume that dyslexia is an agreed-upon condition that can be overcome with intensive phonics instruction, an approach that emphasizes the connection between letters and words. Yet reading struggles follow from many causes.

 

For example, the health and nutrition consequences of living in poverty can interfere with learning to read. Narrowing all problems to a specific location in the brain is a lot simpler than making the water in the Flint River drinkable, or the schools in DeKalb County sanitary. Unsanitary environments affect school learning. By some estimates, one in six children in the U.S. is going hungry.

Kids can’t eat phonics. If there is a reading crisis because one in five kids is believed to be dyslexic, then surely there is a crisis when one kid in six is too hungry to focus on a reading lesson.

 

Understanding the range of challenges suggests the need for a large toolbox of strategies and approaches to teach all children, especially those experiencing difficulties, cognitive or otherwise. For instance, reading habits make a difference in reading development, and these habits often follow from motivation and engagement. It is well established that the gap between good and poor readers increases over time because poor readers read less. These are social factors with instructional implications that cannot be explained by a brain deficiency.

Meanwhile, the phonics emphasis has an uneven record in doing what its advocates claim that only phonics can do. Some of the most popular (and expensive) approaches have conspicuously failed to measure up.

 

The phonics-heavy Orton-Gillingham approach, long favored by dyslexia advocates and aggressively marketed to concerned parents, does not meet the U.S. Department of Education’s standards for research-based teaching. It is not included in the department’s What Works Clearinghouse.

 

There’s another problem: Dyslexia diagnoses are not always dependable, leading to the mislabeling of children and the over-reliance on phonics in early reading instruction. Like Mayor Adams, the children assigned this label and treatment then become saddled with the assumption that they have an inborn, incurable condition. The American Psychiatric Association has, because of the uncertainty surrounding diagnoses, demoted dyslexia from a diagnosable condition to a sign of a more general learning difficulty.

Concerned readers might ask, Don’t these people know that brain science has proven that dyslexia exists, and has identified its causes and the best practices for treating it? Don’t they know that “settled science” from the Science of Reading has provided the answers?

 

Yes, we’re aware of their claims. But we also listen to researchers who argue that brain research is in its infancy. Its recognized methodological limitations have been described for lay readers in Scientific American. Scientific thinking is a quest that requires constant rethinking. It aims to reduce ignorance, not find a final truth. Notably as well, even some science of reading advocates admit that there is no reliable research connecting basic brain science with phonics instruction.

We are not rejecting phonics, except as a panacea. We — like the overwhelming majority of reading teacher educators — advocate for a key role for phonics. It has a significant role in learning to read for all students. Some will need more and some less. Finding claims about dyslexia to be questionable does not make us unfettered Whole Language enthusiasts, an approach whose assumptions we have also questioned.

 

Unfortunately, the Reading Wars have often forced teachers to choose between Science of Reading’s phonics emphasis, and Whole Language’s urgings to let readers develop naturally. The fact is, there is plenty in between and outside these binary positions to understand for teachers to address the range of issues that produce a struggling reader. In a national survey, most teacher educators and experienced teachers agreed that a balanced approach is advisable. Unfortunately, however, wars are fought to be won.

We share teachers’ concern for helping all children develop into successful readers. Teachers are not the dolts often presumed in political mandates to reduce all problems to one cause and one solution. They are mostly caring, thoughtful people who share parents’ hopes that their children will emerge from school equipped for life. Every day, they see the full complexity of children’s individual differences and circumstances and how they interact with their learning.

 

There is no single all-encompassing explanation for reading difficulties. There is no single teaching approach that works for all. Our kids, and their families, deserve more than a one-size-fits-all cure for a nebulous condition.

Intervention Essentials #3: Full Implementation Maximizes Effectiveness

2022-05-25T09:41:55-05:00May 25th, 2022|Latest News, Reading Recovery Teaching|

by Dr. Anne Simpson, Texas Woman’s University

Why does full implementation in Reading Recovery® matter?

The goal of Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura—Reading Recovery in Spanish—is to efficiently and effectively lift the literacy achievement of children who are experiencing difficulties learning to read and write. School systems that choose to implement the interventions do so with the understanding that reducing the number of first graders who have extreme difficulty learning to read and write not only sets students on the path for success in literacy learning but also benefits the total school as well. Full implementation is essential for maximizing the effectiveness.

 

What is Full Implementation?

Full implementation, sometimes referred to as full coverage, means that every child who needs Reading Recovery services has access to the intervention at their school during first grade. Children making low progress in learning to read need to make accelerated growth by increasing their rate of progress relative to the expected growth by the end of first grade in order to close the achievement gap. “A school or district has reached full coverage or full implementation when sufficient time and teacher support is available to serve all identified children (RRCNA, 2021, p. 31).

 

What are the Benefits of Full Implementation?

Students, teachers, and schools benefit from full implementation of the one-to-one intervention that significantly lifts the literacy achievement for each student who receives the intervention. Students develop systems for independent problem solving, often achieving several months of growth in just a few weeks of their daily, individually designed lesson series. Students who make this accelerated progress seldom need referral for long-term interventions, thus reducing costs associated with remedial instruction and referrals to special education. In addition, reducing unnecessary referrals to special education frees time for special education educators to focus their attention on those students who truly need those services. Reading Recovery teachers identify and work with each learner’s strengths and design lessons to support the student making accelerated progress. The focus on a strength-based intervention and teacher expertise lead to a positive and productive learning culture for the whole school. Working from a theory that emphasizes teaching for independence and thoughtful analysis of teaching decisions, schools create a culture of what Fullan & Quinn (2016) refer to as “coherence making.” Schools that operate with coherence build capacity for purposeful action and interaction, building precision in teaching and accountability. The added benefit of full implementation includes the highly trained teachers who share their early literacy expertise to grow collaborative cultures and deepen learning within the total school. While it may take 2–3 years to achieve full implementation, planning for full implementation is an important goal in lifting achievement to within the average band of all readers and writers and reducing the number of referrals to special education or retentions in first grade.

 

How to Plan for Full Implementation

Reading Recovery’s unique system for lifting individual students’ literacy achievement in first grade requires school leaders to think both about student needs on a campus (across a district) and staffing flexibility to achieve full implementation.

 

Student Need

To determine the appropriate level of support, teachers typically begin by identifying 20–25% of their first-graders making the lowest progress on their district early literacy performance indicators (Clay, 2005). Reading Recovery teachers then administer An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2019) to determine the children most in need of Reading Recovery instruction. Classroom teachers and the Reading Recovery teacher or a literacy team work together to determine the students most in need and begin by taking the lowest-performing students. By annually being attentive to changes in demographics, changes in performance standards, and changes due to growth, school teams can anticipate the number of teachers who are needed to provide Reading Recovery instruction for all students who need it.

 

Flexible Staffing

Reading Recovery teachers typically serve four students individually in daily lessons for 12–20 weeks (determined by the learner’s progress). The short intensive individual instruction allows teachers to serve between 8–10 students across the school year. Because Reading Recovery instruction is only part of the teacher’s day (typically a .4 FTE), this teacher may use their expertise in a variety of roles within a school during the other part of the day. Flexible staffing models include shared classroom models, English language [EL] services, small-group interventions across other grade levels, literacy coaches, or special education services (RRCNA, 2021).

These flexible staffing models enable schools to achieve full implementation. When a school is fully implemented and all first-grade children who qualify for the intervention have been served by the end of the year, teachers are able to work with kindergarten children or some second-grade students who may have moved in the district or need additional support.

 

An Example

In a school with four first-grade classrooms, each with 22 students, a school team could anticipate that 17–20 students would benefit from Reading Recovery. To achieve full implementation, the school would need two, possibly three, teachers depending on the makeup of the campus. These two teachers would be able to have 8–10 students in their first 12–20 weeks of instruction and potentially 8–10 students in their second 12–20 weeks of instruction. Teaching for acceleration and efficient entry and exit processes will contribute to the efficiency of the implementation. Close collaboration with the classroom teachers maximizes the successful transition into classroom instruction so that the child can learn with independence.

 

Full Implementation Achieved

Full implementation is part of a school and district’s comprehensive literacy plan. Striving to achieve full implementation in schools requires dynamic planning annually to anticipate change in student need and teacher availability. Campus leaders, teacher leaders, site coordinators, and teachers can establish systems for annually reviewing outcomes and anticipating future needs. A commitment to full implementation ensures that children most in need are able to make significant growth in their literacy learning. In addition, the commitment to full implementation reduces the long-term costs of intervening services to educational systems. Full implementation is both a process and a goal in maximizing students’ early literacy success.

 

 

“Intervention Essentials” is a three-part series featured in the Fall 2021 edition of The Journal of Reading Recovery. View and print a copy of Part 3: Full Implementation Maximizes Effectiveness and subscribe to the blog for future releases.

Interested in full access to  The Journal of Reading Recovery? Learn more about becoming a member of RRCNA.

 

 

 

References

Clay, M. M. (2005). Literacy lessons designed for individuals part one: Why? when? and how? Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (2019). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (4th ed.). Global Education Systems (GES) Ltd.

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin.

Reading Recovery Council of North America. (n.d.). Effective implementation. https://readingrecovery.org/ reading-recovery/implementation/ effective-implementation/

Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2021). A site coordinator’s guide to the effective implementation of Reading Recovery (2nd ed.)


About the Author

Dr. Anne Simpson is a professor emeritus at Texas Woman’s University, where she was director of Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura. She is a Reading Recovery trainer emeritus with the North American Trainers Group.

Intervention Essentials #2: Importance of Individual Instruction

2022-05-16T14:58:32-05:00May 16th, 2022|Latest News|

by Annie Opat, Emporia State University

 

Why are Reading Recovery® lessons taught one-to-one?

Reading Recovery teachers are responsible for instructing first-grade children who are the lowest achievers in beginning reading and writing, “[c]hildren who will learn to read and write only if they get individual attention” (Clay, 2016, p. 15). The achievement levels and instructional needs of these students are confirmed by observation and formal assessment in An Observation Survey of Early Achievement (Clay, 2019). The Reading Recovery teacher’s mandate is to provide instruction allowing these students to accelerate their learning and demonstrate the literacy proficiency expected of the average learners in their grade cohort within 12–20 weeks of the intervention.

Reading Recovery teachers are successful in this effort with significant numbers of students, and this success is verified annually by analyses of national data reported by the International Data Evaluation Center (see Mauck & Brymer-Bashore, 2021). Significant, positive treatment results have also been revealed by external evaluations (May et al., 2016) and in summaries of the research of multiple literacy programs as detailed by Allington (2013):

“Of the 153 different reading programs reviewed by the WWC (What Works Clearinghouse), only one had ‘strong evidence’ that it improved reading achievement! One! That program was Reading Recovery.” (p. 522)

Key to this success is Marie Clay’s design for Reading Recovery lessons to be taught one-to-one.

Why Individual Instruction?

Literacy acquisition is a complex, problem-solving process. Although approximately 80% of young children learn reading and writing through various methods of instruction in group settings (Clay, 2016), Reading Recovery children are those unable to make progress within the context of group instruction; the written code remains a mystery. This is because small-group instruction does not permit the classroom teacher to attend closely to each student’s performance and responses. Instructional compromises are made as the teacher selects materials, identifies learning objectives, and presents lessons for the group that may not meet the needs of individuals (Clay, 2016). For the confused student, this may result in the development of inappropriate, unhelpful ways of responding to reading and writing tasks and their achievement then wanes, resulting in widening the achievement gap. Young students who experience the most difficulty acquiring beginning literacy require and deserve individual, expert attention to positively change their literacy learning trajectories.

Additionally, while all Reading Recovery children are the lowest performing in their grade cohort, no two learners are the same. Reading Recovery selection is inclusive, and there are no exceptions to access to the intervention based on intelligence, oral language skills, first language, immaturity, learning disabilities, poor motor skills, economic factors, or prior experiences. None of these factors predict their literacy learning success if provided adequate instruction. Moreover, what is difficult in learning to read and write differs from child to child (Clay, 2016). The resulting diversity among Reading Recovery students is addressed effectively in one-to-one settings with expert, observant teachers. The one-to- one instructional setting allows the Reading Recovery teacher to design lessons tailored to the specific strengths and needs of each individual learner. As a result, Reading Recovery teachers are successful in lifting the literacy achievement of the diverse set of learners they serve (Clay, 2016).

What are the Benefits of Individual Instruction?

Two key goals of the Reading Recovery intervention are acceleration of each student’s literacy learning and identification of those students in need of ongoing specialist support. Individual instruction is essential to realizing these goals.

Time is critical to prevent further literacy confusion and to stop widening the achievement discrepancy between struggling learners and average literacy learners. Each daily lesson provides exactly what is needed for the learner to acquire reading and writing knowledge. Based on careful observation of the individual student’s reading and writing behaviors and patterns, the Reading Recovery teacher provides contingent, responsive instruction during each intensive lesson. “Observant teachers not only discover new behaviors and changes in behaviors but also think about children’s learning in new ways” (Clay, 2014, p. 100). The teacher “designs each part of every lesson and wastes no time teaching what the learner already knows. This is a critical variable for Reading Recovery’s success” (Clay, 2016, p. 18). Likewise, there is no set sequence of curricular goals that the teacher and child must follow; each learner is supported in creating a unique path to literacy.

Expert instruction allows the learner to take over the learning process, make new discoveries independently, and make progress in both reading and writing at an accelerated rate. This learner acceleration allows the student to achieve grade-level proficiencies in reading and writing within a short timeframe, e.g., 12 to 20 weeks.

Students who accelerate reach grade-level proficiencies that allow them to continue learning within the context of their classroom programs, often without ongoing ancillary help beyond the support of their classroom teachers. Thus, both referrals to special services, including special education, and the retention of children in first grade are reduced. The savings realized by the school in the reductions of referrals to special education, limited needs for remedial services, and fewer retentions are a substantial benefit making one-to-one instruction economically beneficial (Reading Recovery Council of North America, 2021).

While almost all Reading Recovery children make progress, a few students do not develop the independence and literacy processing systems required to ensure ongoing progress without additional support. These students are referred for ongoing specialist evaluation and instructional intervention. The early identification of students deserving of specialist help is another positive outcome of Reading Recovery. For these students, records of their one-to-one lessons provide rich diagnostic information beneficial for describing their literacy behaviors and determining appropriate instructional recommendations.

Summary

Reading Recovery teachers make a positive difference in the lives of children, one by one. As Marie Clay (2016) has so eloquently stated: “[I]nstruction that is individually designed and individually delivered provides the intensive care that results in the fastest recovery of a normal trajectory of progress for any child” (p. 19).

 

“Intervention Essentials” is a three-part series featured in the Fall 2021 edition of The Journal of Reading Recovery. View and print a copy of Part 2: Importance of Individual Instruction and subscribe to the blog for future releases.

Interested in full access to  The Journal of Reading Recovery? Learn more about becoming a member of RRCNA.

 

 

 

 

References

Allington, R. L. (2013). What really matters when working with struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 520– 530.

Clay, M. M. (2014). By different paths to common outcomes: Literacy learning and teaching. Global Educational Systems (GES) Ltd.

Clay, M. M. (2016). Literacy lessons designed for individuals (2nd ed.). Global Education Systems (GES) Ltd.

Clay, M. M. (2019). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (4th ed.). Global Education Systems (GES) Ltd.

Mauck, S. A.,& Brymer-Bashore, J. B. (2021). A report of national outcomes for Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura for the 2019–2020 school year. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 20(2), 61–71.

May, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A., & Goldsworthy, H. (2016). Reading Recovery: An evaluation of the four-year i3 scale-up. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. http://www. cpre.org/reading-recovery-evaluationfour- year-i3-scale

Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2021). A site coordinator’s guide to the effective implementation of Reading Recovery (2nd ed).


Dr. Annie Opat is a professor and trainer/director of Reading Recovery at Emporia State University in Kansas.

Leveraging the Teacher Leader’s Expertise as a Coach and Provider of Professional Development, Part 2

2022-05-09T11:09:58-05:00May 9th, 2022|Latest News|

by Adria Klein and Deb Rich, Trainers, Saint Mary’s College of California

 

As Trainers, we collaborate in planning our classes and support ongoing professional development with Teacher Leaders and Teachers. With a combined 33 years of experience training Teacher Leaders and even more working in schools, including both our experiences as former Reading Recovery Teachers, we have thought deeply about the power of Reading Recovery as a systemic approach. As we began drafting this blog, five factors influenced our thinking: Strength of the Professional Development Model, Collective Professional Knowledge, Dexterity and Deliberateness, Communication, and Complex Theory of Literacy Processing for Older Students. We researched these areas and found many references by Clay and others that expanded our understanding. In the first blog, we addressed Strength of the Professional Development Model and Collective Professional Knowledge. In this blog, we will address the other three points.

 

Dexterity and Deliberateness

Another area that the i3 report identified was the relationship between dexterity and deliberate decision-making. Teachers who exhibit these qualities were encouraged to be thought partners within professional development rather than rule followers.

 

We find that those Reading Recovery teachers whom practitioners regard as strongest, and those whose lessons stood out to our researchers as particularly effective, demonstrate both deliberateness and instructional dexterity. In our conceptualization of instructional strength in Reading Recovery, deliberateness is understood as an encompassing commitment to thoughtful practice; instructional dexterity is defined as the flexible application of deep skill.

May, et al., 2016, p. 91

… a highly behavioral perspective like that advanced in Lemov’s (2010) work on effective teaching practices focuses on dexterity…

May, et al., 2016, p. 105

 

Communication

An additional point that impacted our thinking was the i3 report regarding the key role of communication among all partners within the system. When colleagues communicate within the Reading Recovery community, within the school, and within the district, and across states, the outcomes are even more powerful.

 

Reading Recovery, we find, offers a concrete model for community-enhanced reflective practice—one that is rich and informative from any number of perspectives: For instance, drawing on recent research by Ball, Ben-Peretz, & Cohen (2014), Reading Recovery offers an illustration of the role of “records of practice” in the cultivation of “collective professional knowledge” (2006); indeed, a more perfect instantiation of this theory is difficult to imagine.

May, et al., 2016, p. 105

In integration schools, communication was frequent, understanding was high, and commitment was unquestionable.

May, et al., 2016, p. 139

While they clearly saw the benefits of Reading Recovery for students served, classroom teachers in endorsement schools did not have much sense of how they themselves, or their other classroom students, could benefit from the expertise of the Reading Recovery teacher.

May, et al., 2016, p. 139-141

 

Complex Theory of Literacy Processing for Older Students: Prevention vs. Intervention

Because Reading Recovery has pioneered implementation with older students through the innovation of Literacy Lessons (even changing the title of her key text) it is essential to understand what Clay wrote about working with students beyond first grade. She asked the following essential questions:

 

What are the implications of a complex theory of literacy processing for the study of older readers?
Watson & Askew, 2009, p. 308

 

What would have to change to have all children readers and writers with average for age competencies by age nine or ten years?

For the many RR children who have a satisfactory immediate result from their series of lessons, can we describe in detail what type and variety of later outcomes are likely to follow?

Clay, 2015, p. 238

 

Reading Recovery … was guided initially by descriptive research of competent readers and writers who had been taught in a first programme in which text processing was the focus of instruction.… I took records of reading and writing behaviors over very short periods of time (weekly intervals) in all their variety, and divided the children after one year of instruction into high, high average, low average, and low progress groups. From the averaged test outcomes for each quartile group it was concluded that children were significantly different in their literacy learning, and that how they dealt with the errors as they read text (a processing variable) varied from child to child (Clay 1982).

Clay, 2015, p. 233

 

In Closing

As Trainers and members of the Reading Recovery Professional Development community along with Teacher Leaders and Teachers, we have looked at these five factors across the two blogs specifically and shared key quotes in the blogs. Again, we reiterate that the Reading Recovery Professional Development model utilizes well-prepared Teacher Leaders as district or regional coaches, based on Clay’s design for learning. What we are suggesting is that the Teacher Leader is an effective agent for systemic change across an entire district or region. Clay’s literacy processing theory is the foundation of our collective understanding; however, we must expand our thinking about the Teacher Leader as an invaluable resource for K-12 educators, including principals and district administrators, and not limit, nor think narrowly about their responsibilities. Teacher Leaders are key contributors to district literacy planning, and curriculum development and review process among many other district efforts. Systemic change occurs when we are learning and growing together.

 

References

Clay, M. M. (2015). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Marie Clay Trust.

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.

Watson, B. & Askew, B. (2009). Boundless horizons. Heinemann.

© Copyright 2023 Reading Recovery | Reading Recovery ® and Literacy Lessons ® are Registered Trademarks.
Website by TriAd