Spring is finally here, and with it comes another brilliant issue of the Journal of Reading Recovery (JRR)!

JRR is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Reading Recovery Council of North America as a service to both Council members and those interested in early intervention for beginning readers and writers. You must be a current RRCNA member to access JRR.

LOG IN TO ACCESS THE JRR ARCHIVE

In addition to the other outstanding content in this issue, we are fortunate to have not just one but two Distinguished Scholars articles by Catherine Compton-Lilly and Rachael Gabriel. Their messages for the Reading Recovery Community are central to Clay’s work — equity and assessment. I encourage readers to thoughtfully read and thoroughly consider these two important articles and connect them with Clay’s research which we implement every time we talk about Reading Recovery, watch a lesson, or teach a lesson.

Is Equality Better Than Equity?

In her keynote at LitCon 2025, Catherine Compton-Lily challenged the audience to beware of those arguing for equal treatment for all children. On the surface, it appears to be just, ensuring that all children are offered the same lessons, materials, and contexts to learn. Many of our legislators have fallen for the argument that teachers must be required to administer a single curriculum (particularly phonics) to foster achievement. The problem is that every child comes to school with unique differences that potentially support or restrict their learning relative to the teaching. Teachers who follow mandates rather than the child may become frustrated to find out that, in fact, the class does not respond equally to the same lessons day after day.

It may be convenient to assume that dosing each child with the same medication is the best way to teach but such ideas are overly simplified and ignore the individual nature of children. On page 14 of this issue, Compton-Lilly argues that, “Narrow policies, practices, and claims are dangerous because they deny the diversity of children.” The example I’ve often used is to think about being in a crowded waiting room at your doctor’s office. The doctor opens the door and proclaims, “Today is Thursday. You are all having your gall bladders taken out!” Of course, we would be appalled and head for the door. But, mandated curriculum does the same thing to children! Compton-Lilly provides examples of eight different children, each with their own strengths and needs, and challenges us to not only identify and celebrate those differences but adjust our teaching accordingly.She concludes that “human difference is an inconvenient truth, and our job is to teach the children, not the programs”. 

How Universal are Universal Screening Assessments?

Rachael Gabriel analyzed the most popular universal screening assessments.Her research questions were twofold: What makes a good screener? and What counts as reading? These questions identify critical differences between assessments.Gabriel challenges readers to not only carefully select a universal screener but also understand the limitations of the instrument.For example, a student in one district may qualify for an intervention, but if tested in another district, would not.She further points out that no assessment has yet to be designed to determine the risk of dyslexia and claims to the contrary are premature or overstated.

Reliability, the consistency of an instrument, may vary across multiple subtests which may be individually less reliable than the composite score.On page 37, Gabriel argues that, “the potential sources of variation across forms shifts depending on what is being measured as reading (e.g.nonsense words or passage reading).” She writes with concern about the unintended uses of universal screeners which go beyond their intent as well as any assumption that all screeners are the same (apples vs.oranges phenomenon).Another limitation occurs when test developers make changes to items or add or drop subtests potentially changing the validity and reliability of the instrument and limiting the potential to compare scores across years.

This article should be required reading for any educator involved in the selection, administration, or analysis of universal screeners. Gabriel’s reference list is a further gift to districts wanting to be fully informed about screeners.

Happy reading!

About the author

Dr. Patricia L. Scharer is Professor Emeritus of the College of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Reading Recovery.