The truth about Reading Recovery
Response to Cook, Rodes, and Lipsitz (2017)
As the professional association representing Reading Recovery professionals in the U.S. and Canada, RRCNA has written this resource in response to “The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know” published in Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Volume 22, Issue 2, August 2017.
This article is an affront to researchers, scholars, educators, and others who know the facts, and a disservice to parents of children with reading difficulties. The authors make multiple misleading, misguided, and blatantly false claims about Reading Recovery. This resource examines several of the most damaging:
- Misrepresentations of decision-making evidence
- Attempt to reject The Observation Survey
- Misleading conclusions about sustained gains and the i3 report
- Confusions about the selection of students for Reading Recovery
- Failure to recognize distinctions of Reading Recovery, Literacy Lessons, the Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals text
- Erroneous challenges to the focus of instruction
Understanding dyslexia laws and how Reading Recovery meets policy demands
RRCNA is pleased to make available two articles that address trends in dyslexia policies. The first examines dyslexia legislation observed nationally, discusses the dyslexia agenda, and examines its implications for educators for students with reading difficulties. The second compares shared perspectives between Reading Recovery and dyslexia-specific programs, and important differences that demonstrate why the one-to-one intervention meets and exceeds the intent of an instructional approach deemed critical for dyslexic learners. Both articles appear in the spring 2018 issue of The Journal of Reading Recovery.
Understanding Dyslexia Laws and Policies Dr. Rachael Gabriel, University of Connecticut
Communicating the Power of Reading Recovery and Literacy Lessons Instruction for Dyslexic Learners: An Ethical Response Dr. Mary Anne Doyle, University of Connecticut
Dyslexia: An International Literacy Association Research Advisory and Addendum Response to the IDA
Highlights of this comprehensive 2016 synthesis of the current understandings of dyslexia, written by the ILA Literacy Research Panel:
- Assessment that gives us data on how to support instruction that is in response to individuals’ needs and comprehensive in scope is more useful in meeting students’ needs than a one-size-fits-all process to determine dyslexia.
- Research does not support the common belief that Orton-Gillingham-based approaches are necessary for students classified as dyslexic.
- Optimal instruction calls for teachers’ professional expertise and responsiveness, and for the freedom to act on the basis of that professionalism.