BLOG
Intervention Essentials: Reading Recovery’s Unique Data Lens
The volume and quality of data collected, analyzed, and reported in Reading Recovery® is a rarity among educational or social programs. Every Reading Recovery teacher, teacher leader, and site coordinator is part of a large, ongoing, national research and evaluation effort. With extensive data on each of the hundreds of students served annually, Reading Recovery is in a distinctive position to make data-informed decisions at every level of implementation — student, school, district, state/regional, and national.
What is the purpose of Reading Recovery’s data collection and reporting efforts?
The collection and management of comprehensive, valid, reliable data provide Reading Recovery with a unique lens through which stakeholders can zoom in and out on implementation and outcomes. The impressive range of detail of Reading Recovery data collection, analysis, and reporting allows comparisons over time at the national, state, site, school, and student levels. Teachers can use data to assess student learning in real time, guide teaching, and know when help may be needed to ensure continued progress. Teacher leaders can use data to inform professional learning plans and goals for their site to support teachers as they work with students. Site coordinators, in collaboration with teacher leaders and others, can use data to advocate for resources and policies to increase effectiveness and improve implementation.
One of the unique features of Reading Recovery’s data collection is the inclusion of a randomly selected, national comparison group. This comparison group includes two randomly selected first graders from Reading Recovery schools. Their literacy performance, assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of the year, helps all stakeholders understand how the achievement and growth of Reading Recovery students compares to that of the average first grader.
What does it take to ensure return on investment from data collection?
Data-informed decision-making is often conceptualized as a journey from data to wisdom. But how are teachers, schools, and sites making that journey happen? The International Data Evaluation Center (IDEC) provides annual and on-demand reports to help Reading Recovery stakeholders along the way.
Annual reports provide a great starting point for inquiry. Interesting findings in data should serve as the beginning of inquiry, not the end. Cycles of learning from data should spiral and build over time. Research suggests that educators are more capable of interpreting and responding to data when they work collaboratively. It is more equitable, transparent, and valuable to include many perspectives when studying data to make decisions . Classroom teachers, interventionists, teacher leaders, and administrators bring different questions, skills, and values to data discussions.
What can meaningful data use look like at the school level?
The benefit of collaborative problem-solving work was seen recently at a school in New England with a new kindergarten literacy curriculum. The school’s K–2 literacy team (including Reading Recovery) examined the new curriculum’s effectiveness for all students. As a team, they developed targeted questions and developed a data collection strategy. The team wanted to understand the strengths and needs of the bottom 20% of students, instructed in the new curriculum, and exiting kindergarten. Reading Recovery’s fall assessments were used to compare cohorts and explore how they differed in the years before and after the change in curriculum.
Using this data, the team compared change over time in the bottom 20%. No single piece of data answered all the team’s questions, but by working collaboratively, the team identified patterns suggesting that adjustments to writing instruction appeared important. The Reading Recovery teachers were then able to share ideas with the kindergarten team to inform their planning.
This kind of work, while time consuming, can be generative, leading to ever-increasing reflection and improvement. It also builds an understanding of the benefits of all educators in the building collaborating to focus on their improving practice.
How are stakeholders using data at a systemwide level?
It takes a safe, supportive context to use data as a mechanism for making change, rather than just monitoring it. In Evesham, NJ, an environment of trust and collaboration is the foundation of systemwide communication and problem-solving. Site Coordinator Mindy Kauffer, Teacher Leader Cindy LaSalvia, and all the site’s teachers have worked closely in an ongoing effort to achieve strong outcomes. After close examination of both IDEC and local data, one of the site’s priorities was to ensure that more students receive a full series of lessons. By focusing on acceleration, the site has seen numbers of Incomplete status decline more than 10% below nationally reported numbers, and Accelerated Progress reach about 25% higher than nationally reported numbers.
This systemwide improvement had multiple components, including the teacher leader reviewing data early and often with teachers and bringing in supports as quickly as possible. The site also made an important shift in language, referring to Reading Recovery as 12- to 18-week intervention instead of 20 weeks. This shift had a profound effect on how Reading Recovery teachers and classroom teachers think about first-round students and how they work together to ensure a successful transition into the classroom as soon as possible.
What are some national and international uses of Reading Recovery data?
Each year, trainers review national data carefully, looking for patterns and trends pointing to successes and opportunities for improvement. A national analysis of data from Reading Recovery, Descubriendo la Lectura (DLL), and Literacy Lessons® is provided for all stakeholders. Trainers use their reports to inform professional learning. Additionally, trainers may use IDEC data to explore new or ongoing research projects. For example, several recent studies have disaggregated national data to understand Reading Recovery’s impact on closing achievement gaps for different groups of students (see Lipp & Elzy, 2022; or Zalud, 2017, for examples).
Why is gathering, analyzing, and reporting Reading Recovery data so important?
Every time we step back and take a moment to reflect on what our data are telling us, we have an opportunity to be more deliberate, targeted, and effective in the next steps forward. The future of our work depends on understanding, in full, the stories our data can tell us as educators and leaders.
References
Zalud, G ., & Baron, M . (2017) . The effectiveness of Reading Recovery with American Indian children. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 17(1), 10–17 .
Lipp, J . R ., & Elzy, J . (2022) . Challenging deficit thinking in special education: Acceleration possibilities in Literacy Lessons. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 21(2), 17–26
Dr . Wendy Vaulton is the Gay Su Pinnell Endowed Chair for Reading Recovery and Early Literacy at Lesley University . She serves as the center’s Reading Recovery trainer, supporting teacher leaders in five states
THE JOURNAL OF READING RECOVERY
Fall 2024
The Science of Language and Anti-Blackness: Accounting for Black Language in Reading Instruction, Interventions, and Assessment by Alice Y. Lee
Getting History Right: The Tale of Three-Cueing by Jeffery L. Williams
Unpacking the Science of Reading: A Collaborative Exploration of Research and Theories by Nancy Anderson, Katherine Mitchell, and Sheila Richburg
Transformations in Writing: Analyzing Structure and Vocabulary in Two Reading Recovery Students by Donita Shaw, Faith Winslow, Amy Dunn, Heather Cherry, Cheyenne Short, and Kris Piotrowski