Common Questions About Reading Recovery
Reading Recovery has one clear goal: to dramatically reduce the number of learners who have extreme difficulty with literacy learning and the cost of these learners to educational systems – Marie Clay (1998)
Additional research supports the development and effectiveness of the Reading Recovery intervention.
- The Observation Survey used in Reading Recovery has a strong research base.
- Studies documenting the development of Reading Recovery are found in Boundless Horizons: Marie Clay’s search for the possible in children’s literacy (Watson & Askew, 2009).
- Reading Recovery is subjected to ongoing evaluation through the collection of data on every child. (Also see Measuring Outcomes and Effectiveness Research.)
- Numerous follow-up studies document the continued progress of Reading Recovery children.
Numerous research and evaluation studies using widely accepted standardized measures and/or state assessment tests demonstrate that Reading Recovery students make continued progress after the intervention has ended.
- It is effective in both the short-term and long-term.
- It is a way to reduce costs associated with retention and long-term placements in special education, Title I, and other compensatory programs. See also a Great Britain study of Reading Recovery’s impact on The Long Term Costs of Literacy Difficulties (PDF).
- It is a way to identify children who may need additional support through response to intervention (RTI).
- It is a way to build capacity in teacher expertise through professional development.
All three components are necessary to help every student succeed. Reading Recovery professionals have a long history of supporting comprehensive approaches to serve all children. Reading Recovery teachers also work with children in classrooms and groups at least part of every teaching day, thus contributing broadly to the school program.
Many U.S. educators have discovered that Reading Recovery becomes a catalyst for identifying literacy needs and for making changes as needed. For example, classroom teachers often report changes in their own practices such as observing and assessing children, choosing appropriate texts, focusing on strengths, teaching to develop a network of strategic activity, and teaching with higher expectations.
- Most children do not require the support of Reading Recovery. Because it is difficult to predict literacy outcomes prior to the intervention, the most extreme cases are selected and Reading Recovery serves as a period of diagnostic teaching.
- If the lowest achievers are not selected, they may never catch up to the class average, thus requiring expensive special support programs in subsequent years.
Any school or system not taking the lowest children is out of compliance with the Standards and Guidelines of Reading Recovery in the United States.
The Reading Recovery design calls for up to 20 weeks of instruction. Children who reach grade-level standards may not require the full 20 weeks. Removing a child from Reading Recovery before 20 weeks for any other reason is rare (e.g., child returns to a kindergarten placement). Such decisions are made at the school level and written documentation is provided. The child’s data are always retained and included in evaluation reports.
Any school or system arbitrarily removing children from Reading Recovery is out of compliance with Standards and Guidelines of Reading Recovery in the United States.
The 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; IDEA) encourages early intervention to determine if a child responds to the intervening instruction. The goal is to limit referrals by distinguishing between children who are learning disabled and children whose difficulties are related to experience and instruction. This goal closely parallels Reading Recovery’s goal “to dramatically reduce the number of learners who have extreme difficulty with literacy learning and the cost of these learners to educational systems” (Clay, 1994).
- The gap between low and average achievers
IDEC Annual Evaluation Reports - The gap between higher income and poverty status children
Batten and Rodgers, Gómez-Bellengé, Wang, & Schulz - The gap among minority-status children
Batten and Rodgers, Gómez-Bellengé, Wang, & Schulz - The gap between English language learners and native English speakers
Ashdown & Simic and Neal & Kelly
