Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26080856
label
File - Budget and Policy Priorities Reading Recovery [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26080856
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
File - Budget and Policy Priorities Reading Recovery [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Margaret “Maggie” Williams' Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26080856
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-2194630-20130359S-Seg2-040-006-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a4d79022a0b466eb
ocrText
file
CENTER ON BUDGET
AND POLICY PRIORITIES
April 1, 1997
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD IMPEDE DEFICIT
REDUCTION AND PROTECT SPECIAL INTEREST TAX BREAKS
On April 15, the House of Representatives will vote on a constitutional
amendment (H.J. Res. 62) to require a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate for any
bill that raises federal revenues. This amendment is ill-advised for a number of reasons.
The nation will face deficits of unprecedented magnitude in coming
decades if we maintain current entitlement and tax policies. In 1996, the
Congressional Budget Office forecast that due primarily to pressures
resulting from the retirement of the baby boom generation, the budget
deficit is expected to equal 12 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the
basic measure of the size of the U.S. economy) by 2030 if current policies
are not changed. The deficits facing us in those years are so massive that
many budget experts believe we ultimately will need to consider strong
deficit reduction measures that include both spending cuts and revenue
increases.
The proposed constitutional amendment, however, would effectively
preclude such action. It would be virtually impossible to amass the two-
thirds majority the amendment requires to pass large deficit reduction
packages that include both reductions in federal programs and measures
to raise revenue. As a result, the amendment would erect serious new
barriers to long-term deficit reduction.
Furthermore, the amendment would be likely to skew fiscal policy in
ways that benefit the wealthiest and most powerful at the expense of the
rest of the U.S. population. A two-thirds majority would be required to
curb special interest tax expenditures, which disproportionately benefit
those at high income levels. By contrast, a simple majority vote would be
required to cut federal programs, which tend primarily to benefit the
middle class and the poor. Decisions as to how to shrink the deficit and
apportion the sacrifice would not be made on a level playing field.
Finally, the amendment is inconsistent with the basic principles of
majority rule that are at the heart of American democracy.
820 First Street, NE, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20002
Tel: 202-408-1080 Fax: 202-408-1056 [email protected] http://www.cbpp.org HN0026
I.
The Constitutional Amendment and the Long-Term Fiscal Forecast
The federal deficit has now been reduced to about 1.5 percent of the Gross
Domestic Product, a level that the 1996 CBO report indicates would not cause
significant damage if deficits remained at that level over a substantial period of time.
But if no action is taken to raise revenue or restrain Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid,
and lesser entitlements - and other federal spending remains constant as a share of
GDP - the deficit will rise sharply when the baby boom generation retires. CBO has
forecast the deficit will rise to 12 percent of GDP by 2030 if no such action is taken.
Deficits of that magnitude would be unhealthy for the U.S. economy. To avoid
such a development, major deficit reduction that extends well beyond the steps
Congress and the Administration are currently considering will eventually be needed.
Testifying before the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform in
1994, Robert Reischauer, then the director of the Congressional Budget Office, observed
that the public would be unlikely to accept the steps that would be required either to
extract all of the needed deficit reduction in the decades ahead just from government
programs or to extract all of the needed deficit reduction just from revenues. In the
long run, Reischauer predicted, policymakers will agree on some mix of program cuts
and revenue increases to prevent deficits of a magnitude that would do substantial
damage to the economy.
Votes for Recent Legislation that Raised Taxes
Between 1982 and 1993, five pieces of legislation that raised significant revenue were
enacted. President Reagan signed three of these measures, while President Bush and
President Clinton each signed one. All five failed to secure a two-thirds vote on the House
floor.
In passing the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, a measure crafted in
substantial part by Senator Bob Dole, the House vote was 226-207. When the House
considered its version of the 1983 Social Security rescue plan the following year, the vote
was 282-148. The vote for the 1987 budget reconciliation bill, a product of bipartisan
negotiations that contained both spending cuts and revenue increases, was 237-181, while
the 1990 budget agreement passed by only 228 to 220. The 1993 budget agreement passed
by a slender 218-216 vote.
During this period only one measure that raised revenue secured a two-thirds vote,
the 1989 reconciliation bill. The 1989 bill was a minor measure. It did relatively little to
reduce the deficit and contained only very small revenue increases. The revenue increases in
all five of the pieces of legislation that failed to secure a two-thirds vote exceeded the level of
revenue increases in the 1989 bill.
2
The proposed constitutional amendment is designed to ensure that virtually
none of those future deficit reduction measures come from the revenue side and
virtually all come from cutting programs.¹ That the amendment would bar virtually all
revenue increases can be seen by examining House votes for the four principal deficit
reduction measures enacted between 1982 and 1993 that raised federal revenue.
Although three of these four measures were signed by Republican presidents and all
four enjoyed the support of Democratic Congressional leaders, none received two-thirds
support on the House floor. A fifth measure - the 1983 Social Security rescue plan,
which increased Social Security payroll tax collections - also failed to secure a two-
thirds vote despite strong support from President Reagan and Congressional leaders.
The constitutional amendment thus would likely lead to one of several outcomes:
1) larger deficits over time; 2) a greatly shrunken federal government that is unable to
do very much beyond running Social Security and Medicare, maintaining national
defense, making federal pension and veterans payments, and paying interest payments
on the national debt; and 3) overly steep reductions in Social Security and Medicare that
significantly reduce the living standards of millions of elderly people who are not well
off. Such stark outcomes are not necessary if a balance of spending cuts and revenue-
raisers ultimately can be considered over the next three decades. Such balance is what
the amendment is designed to prevent.
That the
statements in the
Current Trends Cannot be Sustained
previous paragraph
Outlays as a Percent of GDP
50%
are not hyperbole can
After 2010, program costs grow much
be seen by examining
faster than revenues; deficits become
the long-term fiscal
40%
large; and interest on the growing debt
compounds explosively.
forecast CBO issued
Interest
last year on the
30%
Revenues
Medicaid
magnitude of the
deficit through 2050
20%
Medicare
under current tax and
entitlement law.
10%
Social Security
When the baby boom
generation reaches
Everything else
retirement and an
0%
1960
1980
1995
2010
2025
2050
unprecedented
SOURCE: CBO May 1996. Data reflect accounting rules of the Bureau of Economic
proportion of the
Analysis, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. These rules show slightly higher levels of outlays and
revenues than official CBO. OMB, and Treasury data.
1
The constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds vote in each House to enact legislation that
increases "internal revenue." While that phrase is ambiguous, it should be noted that the Internal
Revenue Code covers individual and corporate income taxes; Social Security, Medicare, and other social
insurance taxes; most excise taxes such as those on gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco; and gift and estate
taxes.
3
population is elderly, some increases in revenues are likely to be needed, in addition to
actions to restrain expenditures across the government, including expenditures for
Social Security and Medicare.
II.
The Amendment Effectively Bars Measures to Close Tax Loopholes
The requirement for a two-thirds majority would apply not only to measures to
raise tax rates but also to measures to cut unproductive tax expenditures that grant
subsidies to powerful special interests. A recent Congressional Budget Office study
found that over half of the corporate subsidies the federal government provides are
delivered through the tax code. Curbing corporate welfare provided through the tax
code is one way to help reduce the deficit, but it would require a two-thirds vote under
the proposed amendment. This would essentially rule out closing unproductive
corporate tax breaks as a way to help shrink the deficit.
In fact, a substantial share of the federal budget would effectively be placed off-
limits for deficit reduction by the constitutional amendment. Provisions of the tax code
that the Joint Committee on Taxation classifies as "tax expenditures" - spending
programs that operate through the tax code by selectively reducing the tax liability of
particular individuals or businesses - now cost more than $400 billion a year. (The
corporate subsidy provisions that operate through the tax code are a part of this total.)
This is more than the government spends on Social Security or defense.
In testimony before the Entitlement Commission in 1994, Federal Reserve Board
chairman Alan Greenspan referred to these provisions of the tax code as "tax
entitlements" because they entitle those who qualify for them to government subsidies
provided in the form of a tax reduction. Greenspan testified that the tax entitlements
should be looked at, along with the spending entitlements, in developing measures to
address the nation's long-term deficit problem.
If anything, the proposed constitutional amendment would encourage the spread of more
tax expenditures over time, since such measures would take only a majority vote to enact but a
two-thirds vote to remove. In addition, if Congress passed a series of tax changes that
Most States Do Not Have Supermajority Requirements
Only seven states require the approval of at least two-thirds of their legislatures for any
tax increase. Six other states either require such approval for some taxes but not others,
require a three-fifths rather than a two-thirds vote, or both. Other states generally require
simple majority approval for revenue increases of all sorts.
Furthermore, a 1993 General Accounting Office study of state budget trends found that
a majority of states surveyed had used both spending cuts and revenue increases to balance
their budgets in recent years. Revenue increases accounted for about one-third of the deficit
reduction these states instituted to balance their budgets during the period studied.
4
were thought to be deficit-neutral, but clever, high-priced tax lawyers and accountants
then found ways to convert some of the measures into tax shelters at greater-than-
anticipated cost to the Treasury, it would take a two-thirds vote to scale the shelters
back so the original measure did not produce a net revenue loss.
Even measures that raised revenue by shutting down opportunities for tax fraud
would require a two-thirds vote. So would measures to prevent companies from
gaining tax advantages by moving plants and jobs overseas.
III.
Amendment Tilts Toward the Wealthy and the Powerful At the Expense of
Average Families and the Poor
Most government benefits that low- and middle-income Americans receive come
from government programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans
and grants, unemployment insurance, school lunches, and food stamps. By contrast,
most government subsidies that wealthy individuals and large corporations receive
come through tax subsidies. As a result, a constitutional amendment that makes it
extremely difficult to scale back tax subsidies when decades of deficit reduction lie
ahead tilts the playing field in favor of the wealthy and powerful over Americans of
average or lesser means.
In addition, such a constitutional amendment would place off-limits even
measures asking program beneficiaries who have high incomes to pay more for the
government benefits they receive. For example, measures to "means test" Medicare
premiums by raising the premium charges for those at high income levels must rely on
the tax code to collect the increased premiums, since Social Security offices (which
administer Medicare) have no information on beneficiaries' current incomes. Indeed,
when the Republican budget bill reached the House floor in the fall of 1995, the House
parliamentarian advised that its provision raising Medicare premiums for those at
higher income levels could constitute a tax increase. Under the constitutional
amendment, measures of this nature would require a two-thirds vote, rendering them
extremely difficult to pass. This makes it more likely that when steps are taken to
restrain Medicare costs, low-income and middle-income beneficiaries would have to
bear a heavier share of the load.
The amendment also would be likely to injure the middle class and the poor for
another reason. If the federal government is unable to raise revenue when needs for
public expenditures rise, one likely result will be to shift more of the burden of raising
revenue and meeting public needs to state and local governments. Most state tax codes
are regressive (i.e., the taxes they impose consume a larger percentage of the income of
lower-income households than of higher-income households). State and local
governments extract a larger proportion of the revenues they raise from the middle
class and the poor, and a smaller proportion from the affluent, than the federal
government does. If revenue-raising burdens are shifted from the federal to state and
5
local levels, the share of the overall tax burden borne by the middle class and the poor is
likely to rise.
Law School Dean Warns of Perverse Effects
In testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary
Committee on March 18, Samuel C. Thompson, Dean of the University of Miami Law
School, warned of potential perverse consequences from the proposed amendment.
Thompson wrote:
"Under either interpretation, H.J. Res. 62 will have the effect of making it much
harder for Congress to close tax loopholes, because any such legislation could be
blocked with a mere 34% vote in either house of Congress
"This amendment would also penalize the American public for mistakes made in
the tax legislative process. For example, assume that after an adoption of this
Constitutional amendment, Congress adopts a flat tax. Assume that before
enactment it is estimated that the flat tax will reduce revenues by $100 billion. It
turns out, however, that the revenue estimates are wrong and the actual revenue
loss is $200 billion, which will lead to a significant increase in the budget deficit.
The Treasury immediately proposes legislation to increase the revenues by $100
billion, thereby restoring fiscal responsibility. The legislation is, however, opposed
by powerful special interest groups who will prevail if they can convince just 34% of
the members of either the House or the Senate to vote against the amendment
"The core problem with this proposed constitutional amendment is that it would
give special interest groups the upper hand in the tax legislative process. Once a
group of taxpayers receives either a planned or unplanned tax benefit with a simple
majority vote of both houses of Congress, the group will then be able to preserve
that tax benefit with just a 34 percent vote in one house of Congress. Thus this
amendment would create an unlevel playing field in the tax legislative process.
Indeed, I believe that if enacted this amendment would become known as the 'Tax
Loophole Preservation Amendment to the Constitution."
IV.
Amendment Could Lead to Overly Large Cuts in Social Security and
Medicare Benefits
Social Security and Medicare benefits need to be restrained in the years ahead.
Both programs are out of long-term actuarial balance, and both contribute significantly
to the projected increase in the long-term deficit.
But the constitutional amendment would likely lead to larger reductions in Social
Security and Medicare benefits than otherwise would be needed, reductions that could
adversely affect the living standards of modest-income or poor retirees. This would be
the case for several reasons.
6
First, by effectively preventing revenues from contributing to deficit reduction
despite the need for large-scale deficit reduction in the decades ahead, the amendment
would place a greater deficit-reduction load on Medicare and Social Security. These
two programs are projected eventually to constitute half or more of the federal budget,
exclusive of interest payments on the debt. If there is no revenue contribution to deficit
reduction, there will have to be a greater contribution from Medicare and/or Social
Security than would otherwise be the case.
Second, the amendment would effectively rule out measures to raise Medicare
premiums for those at higher income levels. As noted above, the 1995 budget
reconciliation bill contained such a measure. When it was about to come to the House
floor, the House parliamentarian advised that it could constitute a tax increase. A
House rule that Congress adopted in January 1995 required a three-fifths majority for
measures raising tax rates, so the parliamentarian's advice meant the budget bill would
need a three-fifths vote unless this rule was waived. The House leadership promptly
arranged for a waiver of the rule. But once a supermajority requirement is in the
Constitution, no waivers are possible. If Medicare premiums cannot be raised on those
at high income levels, more of the burden of addressing Medicare's financing problems
is likely to be placed on elderly people at low- and moderate-income levels.
Third, the amendment would require a two-thirds vote for common-sense
measures to help address Social Security's long-term financing problems in ways that
involve raising more revenue for Social Security. For example, most Social Security
experts agree that all state and local employees should be brought into the Social
Security system. Some state and local government workers in a number of states
remain outside the system, comprising the last sizable group of workers not covered
under Social Security. Although the Advisory Council on Social Security recently split
three ways in its recommendations on how to address the program's long-term
financing problems, the Council was unanimous in recommending that all state and local
government workers not covered under Social Security be brought into the system; all
three of the rival Social Security plans the Advisory Council submitted contained this
recommendation. Expanding coverage in this manner would improve the balance in
the Social Security trust fund while benefitting many workers who spend only part of
their careers in the government sector. But expanding coverage entails a revenue
increase, since the newly covered employees and their state and local employers would
become subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Thus, this provision would require a
two-thirds vote and become more difficult to pass. Failure to pass proposals such as
this would likely mean that larger Social Security benefit cuts eventually would have to
be instituted instead. Such benefit reductions would require only a majority vote.
Finally, the constitutional amendment would effectively rule out small
adjustments in Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes as part of the effort to bring
these programs into long-term actuarial balance. Modest increases of a fraction of a
percentage point in the payroll tax would require a two-thirds vote under the
amendment, making them virtually impossible to achieve. Yet Medicare in particular is
7
so far out of actuarial balance that it is difficult to see how to restore long-term balance
to the program without some increase in payroll tax contributions along with other
significant changes, unless the health insurance that Medicare provides is scaled back
substantially.
In a symposium in 1995, Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution, who is a well-
known expert in this area, observed that the full $270 billion that Republican
Congressional leaders were seeking at that time in Medicare savings over seven years
could be achieved if one combined those aspects of the Republican Medicare proposals
that represented sound (and in Aaron's words, courageous) policy - and that yielded
about half of the $270 billion in savings - with an increase of one-quarter of one
percentage point in the employer and the employee shares of the Medicare payroll tax.
This would slightly reduce workers' wages. (Most economists believe that both the
employee and the employer shares of payroll taxes are effectively borne by employees
in the form of lower wages than the employees otherwise would receive. As a result,
claims that small increases in payroll taxes would heavily burden employers and cause
substantial job loss have little merit.) In return, employees would get a Medicare
system that had the resources to provide continually improving health care to their
parents and ultimately to themselves as it took advantage of emerging medical
technologies that improve health and prolong life.
Furthermore, one of several reasons that Medicare and Social Security face long-
term deficits is that over time, a steadily increasing share of employee compensation is
being provided in the form of fringe benefits not subject to the payroll tax, while a
steadily smaller share is provided in wages that are subject to the tax. Modest measures
to shore up Social Security and Medicare by slowing the erosion in the share of
employee compensation subject to the payroll tax would, however, require a two-thirds
majority under the proposed amendment.
V.
Weakening Our System of Democracy
The amendment would seriously weaken the principle of majority rule that has
been at the heart of our system of representative democracy for more than 200 years.
As Rep. James Moran has observed, it would partially restore the system we had in the
1780s under the Articles of Confederation, a system that functioned poorly and was
soon scrapped.
The Articles of Confederation required the vote of nine of the 13 states to raise
revenue. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Founding Fathers recognized
this was an insurmountable defect and fashioned a national government that can
impose and enforce laws and collect revenue through simple majority rule.
The proposed constitutional amendment would end the ability of a majority of
the American people, acting through their duly elected representatives, to decide
whether they would like to raise more revenues so the federal government can address
8
James Madison on Majority Rule
The Constitutional Convention rejected requiring supermajority approval for basic
functions such as raising taxes. Supermajority rules had applied in the Continental
Congress. The framers of the constitution had experience with these rules and understood
what they were rejecting.
In the Federalist Papers No. 58, James Madison, one of the key figures in drafting the
Constitution, explained why the Constitution rejected supermajority rule:
"It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a
quorum, and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for
a decision
[But
that
would
mean] [i]n all cases where justice or the general
good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the
fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no
longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the
minority. Were the defense privilege limited to particular cases, an interested
minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices
to the general weal, or in particular emergencies to extort unreasonable
indulgences."
Madison equated majority rule with "free government." In his view, freedom consisted
not just in protecting individuals from unreasonable intrusion by government, but also in
the right of citizens to have an equal voice in the affairs of government. According to
Madison, a person whose vote is diluted by supermajority rules is not an equal citizen and
so does not fully enjoy the fruits of freedom.
needs the majority finds legitimate. The amendment would deny the majority this right
both now and in future generations. As Representative Nancy Johnson (R-CT) pointed
out on the House floor during debate on a similar constitutional amendment in April
1996, future generations should be "free to establish that balance between taxing and
spending that they believe is in their interest."
At its core, the amendment is rooted in deep distrust of the ability of the majority
of the American people to make decisions that the authors of the amendment believe to
be ideologically correct. Hence, the amendment seeks permanently to deny the
majority that right. Powerful, well-connected minorities would gain great power at the
expense of the majority. As a result, the amendment must be regarded as anti-
democratic.
VI.
The Potential for Extensive Litigation
Finally, if placed in the Constitution, the proposed amendment would raise a
host of knotty issues that would probably need to be resolved by the Supreme Court.
For example:
9
Is a bill that increases revenues in some years but decreases them in others
(and decreases them over a multi-year period) unconstitutional if it does
not secure a two-thirds vote?
What if "supply side" arguments were considered correct in a certain
circumstance, and a particular tax cut was estimated to increase revenues?
Would that render the legislation containing this tax cut unconstitutional
unless the legislation secured a two-thirds vote?
####
10
CENTER ON BUDGET
AND POLICY PRIORITIES
March 30, 1997
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT
TO ADDRESS THE LONG-TERM SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE CRISES
The proposed constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds approval by the
House and Senate to pass any bill that increases federal revenues would make it more
difficult to address the long-term financing problems of Social Security and Medicare.
Those financing problems are serious:
The 1996 report of the Social Security trustees projects the Social Security
trust fund will start running deficits by 2012 and exhaust all of its reserves
- that is, become insolvent - by 2029.
The trustees also project that the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund
will become insolvent in just five years, in 2001.
The resulting trust fund imbalances will be so great that there is a strong
possibility they cannot be addressed by benefit cuts alone. To do so would likely
require Social Security and Medicare benefit reductions so severe that they would go
beyond what the American public would accept. In 1994, a panel of Social Security
experts - two Republicans and two Democrats - testified before the Kerrey-Danforth
Entitlement Commission. The experts unanimously agreed that both benefit restraint
and additional trust fund revenues would be needed.
Some Members of both parties believe that one way to help address the looming
shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security is to scale back benefits for those at high
income levels. For example, the budget reconciliation bill that Congress passed in
November 1995 (and that President Clinton subsequently vetoed) would have increased
the premium charged for Medicare Part B (physicians' services) to those at higher
income levels. But measures such as this entail raising revenues. Social Security offices,
which administer Social Security and Medicare, have no information on beneficiaries'
current incomes. The only practical and efficient way to scale back benefits for high-
income beneficiaries is to use the tax system to recover a portion of the benefits. To
attempt to do so without using the tax system would require hiring a legion of new
bureaucrats to staff Social Security offices and collect information on beneficiaries'
incomes.
Indeed, when the Republican budget bill reached the House floor in the fall of
1995, the House parliamentarian advised that its increase in Medicare premiums for
820 First Street, NE, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20002
Tel: 202-408-1080 Fax: 202-408-1056 [email protected] http://www.cbpp.org HN0026
those at higher income levels could constitute a tax increase. Since House rules adopted
in January 1995 required a three-fifths vote on the House floor for measures raising tax
rates, the parliamentarian's advice meant the budget bill needed a three-fifths majority,
unless the three-fifths rule was waived. The House Rules Committee provided a waiver
of the three-fifths rule; the bill passed by majority vote but did not receive a three-fifths
vote. If a supermajority requirement is enshrined in the Constitution, however, no such
waivers will be possible. Measures to means-test the Medicare premium to strengthen
Medicare's finances and simultaneously reduce the deficit will become far more difficult
to pass.
Still another example of the problems the constitutional amendment would cause
can be seen by examining a measure recommended unanimously by the recent
Advisory Council for Social Security. The Council called for covering all state and local
government employees under the Social Security system. State and local government
employees in certain states are the only substantial group of workers not now covered
by Social Security. Expanding coverage to this group would likely benefit many
workers who spend only part of their careers in the government sector and would
improve the balance in the Social Security trust fund. But expanding coverage is a
revenue increase because the newly covered employees and their state and local
employers would become subject to the Social Security payroll tax.
Requiring a two-thirds vote for measures such as these would make it far harder
to address long-term Social Security and Medicare financing problems without
imposing deep benefit cuts on low- and middle-income beneficiaries.
The experience of the Entitlement Commission is instructive in another way as
well. Mostly because of the trust fund imbalances and the growth of other federal
health care entitlements, the Commission projected that by 2030, the deficit would
exceed 15 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In a more recent projection,
the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the deficit will be about 12 percent of
GDP in 2030 and rise further to more than 20 percent of GDP by 2050. By contrast, the
current deficit is about 1.5 percent of GDP.
To erase deficits of this magnitude, extraordinary actions will be needed in
future decades. Achieving this goal entirely by cutting government programs is likely
to require draconian changes deemed unacceptable by the public. Indeed, although
Senators Kerrey and Danforth explicitly ruled out revenue increases at the first meeting
of the Entitlement Commission, by the last meeting their view had changed. Their
recommendations contained a number of proposals that would increase revenues to
help tame the long-term deficit, along with very tough reductions in entitlement
benefits. Their revenue proposals included: covering state and local employees in the
Social Security system; capping the tax deduction for employer-paid health insurance;
limiting the marginal tax rate against which itemized deductions may be taken to 28
percent; and adjusting the indexing of tax brackets, the standard deduction, and other
elements of the tax code for inflation based on an index other than the current CPI.
fiee
This copy does not include
TO:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
the bounlets that were too
FROM:
Pauline Abernathy
DATE:
March 7, 1997
long to. copy
RE:
Information on Reading Recovery
-Panline
Attached is the information I have gathered on Reading Recovery from the Department of
Education, Reading Recovery and the Corporation for National Service, including a new
evaluation I received today that is highly critical of the program (Grossen, Coulter, 2/97,
attached). I have not yet read and analyzed all of the attached materials, but because it took me
longer than expected to get these materials I am sending them to you now.
White House, OMB, and Education Department staff are meeting on Wednesday to discuss
Reading Recovery, evaluations of it, and its use in Title 1 and as part of America Reads -- too
late for your trip to Arkansas. Carol Rasco could not do it before then.
Jean Bussell, the Executive Director of Reading Recovery, told me RR has programs in every
state but Delaware. Between 1985, when the program started in Ohio, and 1996, more than
300,000 children went through Reading Recovery in the U.S. and Canada. Last year, 14,000
teachers in the U.S. were trained for Reading Recovery. As part of the volunteerism summit,
Reading Recovery has pledged to reach another 300,000 children and to train 30,000 volunteers
by the year 2000. Reading Recovery is one of the Education Department's 62 sponsors of
Read* Write* Now. AmeriCorps has also participated in Reading Recovery, and attached is
information on their involvement.
The new and highly critical program evaluation, which the Department has not yet assessed and
no one I spoke with knew the authors, concludes that the Reading Recovery data are flawed, far
fewer students than claimed actually benefit, children not expected to be successful are removed
and not counted, and that RR does not reduce the need for other compensatory reading services
and does not save on other costs.
The attached large green Education Department report, Urban and Suburban Special Strategies
for Educating Disadvantaged Children: Final Report. evaluates the evaluations of Reading
Recovery. It concludes that RR schools have made moderate gains in reading across the board,
although the number of students for whom three years of reading data are available are not large
enough to support any statement about RR's effectiveness. It found some research to suggest
that RR can be useful to disadvantaged students, but also found that schools were having
difficulty moving students through the program in the suggested 12-16 weeks, providing cause
for caution as to the program's true cost per student. RR's effectiveness is assessed beginning on
page 13-49 (blue tab). This report has not yet been released, but the Department now plans to
release it on Tuesday, the day of your Arkansas speech.
cc: Melanne Verveer
Attached are:
From Reading Recovery:
Reading Recovery Council of North America, Executive Summary, 1984-1996.
Tables on numbers of participants from Reading Recovery.
"Reading Recovery: A Review of Research," by Gay Su Pinnell for Reading Recovery,
1996.
Leadership for Literacy: A Guidebook for School-Based Planning. Reading Recovery.
"Demonstrating the Cost-Effectiveness of Reading Recovery," RR Network News,
Winter 1996.
"Reading Recovery: A Literacy Program for At-Risk Children," by Gay Su Pinnell, in
Language and literacy in Early Childhood Education, 1993.
From Other Sources:
One-page summary of RR from the Education Department.
"Reading Recovery: An Evaluation of Benefits and Costs," by Grossen and Coulter,
1997. This is the highly critical evaluation.
AmeriCorps for Math and Literacy, description of AmeriCorps participation in RR.
"Reading Recovery: A Cost-Effectiveness and Educational-Outcomes Analysis," ERS
Spectrum, by Phillip Dyer, Winter 1992. This analysis found RR to be cost-effective.
Reading Recovery section of Research and Education Reform, National Research
Council, 1992. It describes RR as highly effective.
Research Brief on Reading Recovery, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators,
1995.
"30 Years of NICHD Research: What We Know About How Children Learn to Read."
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, 1997.
"Effectiveness of Clinton Reading Plan Questioned," Education Week, 2/26/97.
School Reform for Youth at Risk: Analysis of Six Change Models, US Dept. of Education,
1994. The Department choose RR as one of six promising models.
The Arkansas materials you lent me and I copied.
Urban and Suburban Special Strategies for Educating Disadvantaged Children: Final
Report. This Education Department report has not yet been released but will be sent to
Congress next week. RR's effectiveness is assessed beginning on page 13-49 (blue tab).
FEB-25-97 TUE 15:00
READING RECOVERY NDEC
FAX NO. 6146883452
P.03
Table I
U.S. university trainers, teacher leaders, teachers, school districts,
and schools participating in Reading Recovery from 1984-1996
Year
University
Teacher
Teachers
School
Schools
Trainers
Leaders
Districts
1984-85
2
0
16
1
6
1985-86
2
3
58
23
35
1986-87
3
27
280
108
255
1987-88
3
45
531
143
227
1988-89
6
43
732
265
623
1989-90
11
54
1163
332
892
1990-91
13
80
1850
508
1486
1991-92
19
155
3164
798
2336
1992-93
24
259
5343
1246
3731
1993-94
33
388
8182
1905
5523
1994-95
39
510
12084
2543
7784
1995-96
39
625
14153
2939
9862
Reading Recovery National Data Evaluation Center
The Ohio State University
FEB-25-97 TUE 15:00
READING RECOVERY NDEC
FAX NO. 6146883452
P.02
Table 2
U.S. Reading Recovery children served, program children and
percentage of children discontinued from 1984-1996
Year
Served**
Program***
Discontinued**
%
1984-1985*
110
55
37
67%
1985-1986
230
136
99
73%
1986-1987
2048
1336
1059
79%
1987-1988
3649
2648
2269
86%
1988-1989
4772
3609
2994
83%
1989-1990
7778
5840
4888
84%
1990-1991
12605
9283
8126
88%
1991-1992
21821
16026
13499
84%
1992-1993
36443
26582
22189
83%
1993-1994
56077
40493
33243
82%
1994-1995
81228
57712
46637
81%
1995-1996
99617
71193
59266
83%
Totals
326,370
234,913
194,226
81%
Pilot year:
RR teachers were in training.
Served:
Children who entered RR but did not receive a minimum of 68 lessons because
they moved, were absent for extended periods of time, or the school year
ended prior to their completion of lessons.
Program:
BR children who received a minimum of 68 lessons or were discontinued prior to
receiving 68 lessons.
****
Discontinued: RR children who were released from the RR program reading within the
average reading level of their classmates.
Reading Recovery National Data Evaluation Center
The Ohio State University
KARP
EDUCATION
YEARBOOK
IN
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
VOLUME 4
uman
Development
liversity
Lynn
Kagan
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY
for Child Development
Policy
IN
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
D.
Pellegrini
ducation
Georgia
Peters
fuman Resources
Delaware
R.
Powell
of Child Development
Bernard Spodek
Olivia N. Saracho
versity
EDITORS
series of annual publi-
of major significance
contains chapters that
TEACHERS
ects of that topic, writ-
COLLEGE
concerns about edu-
PRESS
diverse populations of
of the field-are
Teachers College, Columbia University
New York
London
ISAX
Introd
Early (
O
CHAPTER 1 Langu:
Literac
C
CHAPTER 2 From F
Published by Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Avenue
Writter
New York, NY 10027
Symbol
Ar
Copyright © 1993 by Teachers College, Columbia University
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
CHAPTER 3 Literac
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
Approa
including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission from the publisher.
Ol
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
CHAPTER 4 Assessin
Language and literacy in early childhood education / Bernard Spodek,
Literact
Olivia N. Saracho, editors.
p. cm. (Yearbook in early childhood education V. 4)
Ce
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8077-3280-X. - ISBN 0-8077-3279-6 (pbk.)
CHAPTER 5 Bilitera
1. Early childhood education- United States. 2. Language arts
(Preschool) - United States. 3. Language experience approach in
Kr.
education- United States. 4. Child development - United States.
I. Spodek. Bernard. II. Saracho, Olivia N. III. Series.
LB1139.25.L36 1993
CHAPTER 6 Reading
372.6- dc20
93-5818
At-Risk
Ga
Printed on acid-free paper
Manufactured in the United States of America
CHAPTER 7 From th
Multicu
99 98 97 96 95 94 93 87654321
Vic
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-F
CHAPTER 6
problem-solving strategies W
velop what Clay has called
allows them to continue to le
Reading Recovery: A Literacy
Significant in the proce:
Program for At-Risk Children
giver) who interacts with the
within social contexts. The 1
such as early writing for diff
to "read" themselves- help
Gay Su Pinnell
receive feedback and observ
adults; conversations surro
Adults share the task; with
writing than they can alone
checking operations that wil
work in what has been call
Clay & Cazden, 1990; Wood
Reading Recovery teach
Reading Recovery was designed exclusively for at-risk children. This early
having difficulty. They see t]
intervention, based on a robust theory of literacy learning, has had docu-
events and providing the ki
mented success in helping struggling young readers. This chapter describes
having difficulty to bring t]
the program and presents a summary of research results.
event and to construct the ir
pendent readers.
The intensive one-to-on
A DEFINITION OF READING RECOVERY
are having difficulty in read
New Zealand, where childr
Reading Recovery is based on the premise that early, high-quality
poorest readers are identifie
help has the greatest potential for lasting impact and for reducing the need
Recovery is recommended fo:
for continued compensatory help. Originally developed by New Zealand
grade classroom. As to need a
psychologist Marie M. Clay, the program has been adapted and tested for
is required because of differe
eight years in the United States and Canada. It now exists in 42 U.S. states
Children are selected U
and 4 Canadian provinces.
judgment and individually E
The theoretical base for Reading Recovery was developed through
scribed later in this chapter.
Clay's observational studies of young children learning to read. In Reading
to reduce the instance of Γe
Recovery, reading is viewed as a complex process involving internal opera-
independent readers. The go:
tions such as using information from a range of sources (including world
knowledge, the syntactic structure of language, and visual information
1. Bringing children wh
contained in the print) to monitor, search, and check. As they encounter
age range in their cl.
written text, readers construct meaning by bringing their own knowledge
room instruction
to the process. Learning to read involves learning to use all sources of
2. Providing an instruct
information in an orchestrated way. Clay (1991) suggests that "out of
possible so that child
early reading and writing experiences the young learner creates a network
ress
of competencies which power subsequent independent literacy learning"
3. Helping each child de
(p. 1). Using meaning to control the process, children use in-the-head
continued progress W:
102
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY
103
R 6
problem-solving strategies while working on print; eventually, they de-
velop what Clay has called a self-extending system for reading, one that
ry: A Literacy
allows them to continue to learn.
Significant in the process is an adult (parent, teacher, or other care-
Risk Children
giver) who interacts with the child during literacy events. Children learn
within social contexts. The meaningful literacy events they experience-
such as early writing for different purposes, hearing stories read, or trying
to "read" themselves-help them build the knowledge they need. They
innell
receive feedback and observe demonstrations from more knowledgeable
adults; conversations surrounding reading events illustrate processes.
Adults share the task; with help, the children can do more reading and
writing than they can alone, and they can engage in the searching and
checking operations that will build the system. The adult helps the child
work in what has been called the "zone of proximal development" (see
Clay & Cazden, 1990; Wood, 1988).
Reading Recovery teachers work specifically with children who are
ely for at-risk children. This early
having difficulty. They see their role as engaging children in rich literacy
literacy learning, has had docu-
events and providing the kind of support necessary to help even those
readers. This chapter describes
having difficulty to bring their own knowledge to this problem-solving
research results.
event and to construct the internal operations they need to become inde-
pendent readers.
The intensive one-to-one intervention is designed for children who
DING RECOVERY
are having difficulty in reading and writing after one year of school. In
New Zealand, where children enter school on their fifth birthday, the
premise that early, high-quality
poorest readers are identified at age 6. In the United States, Reading
impact and for reducing the need
Recovery is recommended for the lowest-achieving 15% to 20% of a first-
nally developed by New Zealand
grade classroom. As to need and timing of the intervention, local judgment
has been adapted and tested for
is required because of differences in policy and curriculum.
It now exists in 42 U.S. states
Children are selected using multiple indicators, including teacher
judgment and individually applied observational measures, that are de-
Recovery was developed through
scribed later in this chapter. The primary goals of Reading Recovery are
dren learning to read. In Reading
to reduce the instance of reading failure and to help children become
process involving internal opera-
independent readers. The goals are accomplished by
ange of sources (including world
anguage, and visual information
1. Bringing children who are considered at risk of failing up to aver-
and check. As they encounter
age range in their classes so that they profit from ongoing class-
bringing their own knowledge
room instruction
learning to use all sources of
2. Providing an instructional context that makes accelerated progress
lay (1991) suggests that "out of
possible so that children can catch up rather than just make prog-
young learner creates a network
ress
independent literacy learning"
3. Helping each child develop a self-extending system that allows for
rocess, children use in-the-head
continued progress without help beyond good classroom teaching.
104
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-R
In other words, Reading Recovery's purpose is not only to help or serve
in certain educational contex
at-risk children; it is to remove the conditions that place these students in
suggested that being at a dis
risky situations. It modifies the school environment and the school support
attaining human potential ai
system to provide the level and kind of help each child needs.
institutional failure.
Failure to learn to read
of reading in other learning
AT-RISK CHILDREN IN TODAY'S SCHOOLS
surmount during the followi
"there are consequences for
The term at risk can have several meanings, but the most general
11). School literacy instructi
educational definition refers to children not profiting from the schooling
to learning that children ha
they receive. The term usually refers to characteristics in the students
ences. Children entering sch
themselves, a misleading designation because it suggests that the fault or
and, according to Clay (199)
deficiency lies within the individuals or families rather than in the interac-
different home backgrounds
tion of home and school factors. At-risk characteristics are not necessarily
attended to their home and (
problematic. They become so only if circumstances in the school interact
For most children, a ri
with the characteristics to create risky situations.
in the first year, will provide
Any child, whatever the economic circumstances, could be considered
between home and school lit
to be in a risky situation if he or she is not making steady progress toward
ate marginally in classroom
the development of school-based literacy. For economic and social rea-
not fully participate in the (
sons, whole populations of children are considered to be more likely to be
accepting and benevolent, t
inadequately served by our educational system. Natriello, McDill, and
part of the culture that surro
Pallas (1990) have provided a thorough discussion of the term, which they
They may listen to anc
say implies a look to the future, a suggestion that such students may have
print; they may not initiate
certain characteristics that make them more vulnerable to difficulty. They
approximated versions of a $
cite poverty, family composition, mother's education, racial and ethnic
Or, as a response to instru-
identity, and language background as factors that have high correlation
words but treat them as iso
with poor performance in school. They estimate that approximately 40%
edge of language. If such C
of the population under 18 possesses at least one of these characteristics;
reading and reading instruc
and, while many children are resilient enough to succeed in spite of vul-
sense.
nerability, there is the potential for large proportions of children to have
Extra time and extra h
problems in school.
reading problems. Perhaps
The population of children with at-risk characteristics is increasing
build the appropriate found
dramatically. Over the next 40 years, the number and proportion of mi-
learning easy. Wouldn't it
nority-group children will increase; by 2020, the number of children in
extra year or two in school?
poverty is expected to rise to 16.5 million, an increase of 33%. Both the
support this view (Johnson,
number and the proportion of children with a primary language other
research (Arthur, 1936; Co
than English, with mothers who have not completed high school, or who
lad, 1954; Hall & Demares
are not living with both parents will also increase dramatically (see Hodg-
to students' advantage. Sp
kinson, 1985, 1988). Clearly, these social problems are relevant to educa-
retention by placing slower-
tional planning.
decreased class size, also a
Even children without obvious difficulties may be considered at risk
expectations.
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY:
105
is not only to help or serve
in certain educational contexts. In the 1960s Fantini and Weinstein (1968)
that place these students in
suggested that being at a disadvantage simply means being blocked from
and the school support
attaining human potential and that such failure is actually a reflection of
each child needs.
institutional failure.
Failure to learn to read in a timely enough manner to enable the use
of reading in other learning creates a gap that is increasingly difficult to
SCHOOLS
surmount during the following years. Furthermore, as Clay (1985) says,
"there are consequences for the child's personality and confidence" (p.
anings, but the most general
11). School literacy instruction must be based on the knowledge and ways
profiting from the schooling
to learning that children have acquired through their preschool experi-
haracteristics in the students
ences. Children entering school have had very different prior experiences;
it suggests that the fault or
and, according to Clay (1991), these differences may be traced not only to
rather than in the interac-
different home backgrounds but to the fact that children have selectively
racteristics are not necessarily
attended to their home and community learning experiences.
istances in the school interact
For most children, a rich literacy environment, with good teaching
in the first year, will provide the support necessary to make the transition
mstances, could be considered
between home and school literacy learning. Some, however, seem to oper-
haking steady progress toward
ate marginally in classroom situations. However hard they try, they can-
For economic and social rea-
not fully participate in the ongoing activities. Even if the environment is
sidered to be more likely to be
accepting and benevolent, they ultimately realize that they are not fully
Natriello, McDill, and
part of the culture that surrounds them daily.
of the term, which they
They may listen to and delight in stories but pay little attention to
that such students may have
print; they may not initiate the problem solving that moves a child from
vulnerable to difficulty. They
approximated versions of a story to actually reading for a precise message.
education, racial and ethnic
Or, as a response to instruction, they may look hard at the letters and
that have high correlation
words but treat them as isolated items unrelated to their existing knowl-
that approximately 40%
edge of language. If such circumstances exist, there is the potential that
one of these characteristics;
reading and reading instruction may be empty exercises that make little
to succeed in spite of vul-
sense.
roportions of children to have
Extra time and extra help are the two most common approaches to
reading problems. Perhaps children need more time either to mature or to
k characteristics is increasing
build the appropriate foundation of knowledge that would make literacy
umber and proportion of mi-
learning easy. Wouldn't it make sense just to allow children to spend an
0, the number of children in
extra year or two in school? The research on retention, however, does not
an increase of 33%. Both the
support this view (Johnson, 1984; Walker & Madhere, 1987). A history of
th a primary language other
research (Arthur, 1936; Coeffield & Bloomers, 1956; Farley, 1936; Good-
ompleted high school, or who
lad, 1954; Hall & Demarest, 1958) suggest that retention does not work
rease dramatically (see Hodg-
to students' advantage. Special "transition rooms" designed to disguise
blems are relevant to educa-
retention by placing slower-moving children in one room, sometimes with
decreased class size, also are problematic, leading to labeling and low
ies may be considered at risk
expectations.
106
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISM
A pragmatic approach would suggest that these children need some
READING RECOVERY
extra help. Classroom teachers can adjust their plans to provide some
individual assistance, but this minimal help may be inadequate for those
In terms of the system, R
having the most difficulty. Traditional solutions to providing extra help
selected for the program are th
have brought their own problems. Remedial programs, both pull-out (see
to identify young readers so tha
Johnston, Allington, & Afflerbach, 1985) and in-class (Slavin & Madden,
ily label and categorize them I
1987) models, do not fully meet children's needs. Such programs have the
engaged in intensive reading an
disadvantage of labeling children and entering them into a long-term
tion from a repertoire of intera
compensatory education situation. Typically, learning tends to be slowed
teacher provides an individual
down, with drill and piecemeal learning being the norm (see Astrein,
supplementary ,to the classroor
Fraser, & Steinberg, 1984). Meanwhile, usually on a long-term basis, stu-
exist "against the backdrop of
dents are missing classroom instruction, which puts them at a further
p. 48).
disadvantage (Allington, McGill-Franzen, 1989; Good, 1986). Further,
Implementers of Reading
there is no evidence of long-term gains from the typical compensatory
view of change. Clay (1987) I
programs provided for high-risk students (Carter, 1984; Savage, 1987;
into an educational system m
Slavin, 1987).
children" (p. 38). The innovat
Educators also have chosen to wait for maturity to solve the child's
the preexisting organization as
problems. However sensible the "wait and see" approach may appear on
model (see Sarason, 1991). R
the surface, the evidence suggests that the issues are more complex. Stu-
interlocking interventions that
dents who have not had the literacy experiences necessary to provide a
includes specified roles for adn
framework for the instruction they receive in school may find the class-
a special staff developer, calle
room literacy activities confusing no matter what kind of curriculum they
Canada and a tutor in New Ze
encounter (Heath, 1983; Mason, 1984; Teale & Sulzby, 1986; Wells, 1985).
innovation designs must have
For example, high-risk children in a systematic, structured phonics pro-
the problems that inevitably ai
gram may find such a curriculum bewildering. They are required simulta-
ing Recovery, the key persor
neously to learn to distinguish the visual features of print and to link this
leader. The leader receives sp
knowledge to the systems of oral language they have learned. They may
sive, university-based course 1
memorize items of knowledge but not know how to use these bits in orches-
well as how to work with adul
trated ways while problem solving on text. In more holistic curricula,
Implementing Reading F
children may focus on meaning but neglect detail and move along trying
tional programs:
to "remember" texts or construct them solely from pictures. Whatever the
situation, children cannot be expected to sort out confusions alone, and
1. The daily tutorial prog
they do not remain "on hold."
2. The year-long inservic
In fact, they are learming within their social world. They listen to
regional, or university
and notice what the teacher emphasizes; they watch others write and
3. The year-long course f
read. They construct new knowledge in the light of what they already
understand, and for some, the process goes wrong. In Clay's (1985) view,
Teachers, teacher leaders, an
there is a period, around the second year of schooling, when it is necessary
with different roles and respo
for some children to have individual time with a teacher who tries to see
teaching of children; leaders i
from their point of view and then engages them in ways that will help to
daily practitioners. They are
untangle confusions and recover the trajectory of progress toward effective,
development as long as they re
strategic reading. Reading Recovery is this kind of temporary extra help.
Surrounding these educat
IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY
107
that these children need some
READING RECOVERY AS A SYSTEM INTERVENTION
their plans to provide some
may be inadequate for those
In terms of the system, Reading Recovery is a "first net." Children
solutions to providing extra help
selected for the program are the lowest achievers in reading. The idea is
programs, both pull-out (see
to identify young readers so that they can be helped but not to unnecessar-
and in-class (Slavin & Madden,
ily label and categorize them for long-term services. Daily, children are
needs. Such programs have the
engaged in intensive reading and writing activities. Through careful selec-
entering them into a long-term
tion from a repertoire of interactional procedures, the Reading Recovery
learning tends to be slowed
teacher provides an individual program for each child. Designed to be
being the norm (see Astrein,
supplementary to the classroom reading instruction, the program should
usually on a long-term basis, stu-
exist "against the backdrop of a sound general programme" (Clay, 1985,
which puts them at a further
p. 48).
1989; Good, 1986). Further,
Implementers of Reading Recovery are required to take a systemic
from the typical compensatory
view of change. Clay (1987) has said that "an innovation cannot move
(Carter, 1984; Savage, 1987;
into an educational system merely on the merits of what it can do for
children" (p. 38). The innovation must be designed to take into account
for maturity to solve the child's
the preexisting organization as it interacts in complex ways with the new
see" approach may appear on
model (see Sarason, 1991). Reading Recovery is designed as a series of
the issues are more complex. Stu-
interlocking interventions that support one another. The program design
periences necessary to provide a
includes specified roles for administrators and the training and support of
in school may find the class-
a special staff developer, called a teacher leader in the United States and
what kind of curriculum they
Canada and a tutor in New Zealand, Australia, and England. To succeed,
& Sulzby, 1986; Wells, 1985).
innovation designs must have a redirecting system that continually solves
stematic, structured phonics pro-
the problems that inevitably arise during the process of change. For Read-
dering. They are required simulta-
ing Recovery, the key person in the redirecting system is the teacher
features of print and to link this
leader. The leader receives special preparation for one year in an inten-
they have learned. They may
sive, university-based course that includes learning to teach children as
how to use these bits in orches-
well as how to work with adults and teach the teacher course.
text. In more holistic curricula,
Implementing Reading Recovery depends on three tiers of educa-
detail and move along trying
tional programs:
from pictures. Whatever the
to sort out confusions alone, and
1. The daily tutorial program for children
2. The year-long inservice course for teachers, held at school district,
their social world. They listen to
regional, or university sites
they watch others write and
3. The year-long course for teacher leaders held at university sites
in the light of what they already
goes wrong. In Clay's (1985) view,
Teachers, teacher leaders, and university personnel work together, each
of schooling, when it is necessary
with different roles and responsibilities. They have in common their daily
with a teacher who tries to see
teaching of children; leaders in Reading Recovery are required to remain
them in ways that will help to
daily practitioners. They are also required to participate in ongoing staff
ectory of progress toward effective,
development as long as they remain associated with the program.
kind of temporary extra help.
Surrounding these educational programs is a network of communica-
108
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISH
tion and support that provides for continual renewal of the educational
behavior, noting evidence of S
programs. For example, a newsletter containing theoretical articles and
often the teacher complements
new research as well as notices of common events is circulated to all
conversation that makes process
Reading Recovery teachers. Conferences provide updates on research and
tion helps the young reader do
refinements or changes in instructional techniques. Teacher leaders attend
alone; it supports independent
annual institutes; people at all levels participate in collegial visits with
ers call this process teaching for
one another to refine their skills.
A final element is the rigorous data-collection procedures that provide
Strategies
a way of accounting for every child served in the program. Data are
collected at sites, sent to a central university location for analysis, and
Clay (1985) says that strate
then returned to sites so that teacher leaders can prepare a yearly research
be directly observed or taugh
report. Reading Recovery is a developer/demonstrator project of the Na-
range of effective strategies (se
tional Diffusion Network (NDN), a division of the U.S. Department of
1985; Clay, 1991). They are fl
Education that works to disseminate excellent programs. Aggregated data
language (the meaning system.
are reported each year to NDN.
tem) in concert with perceptua
to and use information efficie
hand, seem to operate in more
THE READING RECOVERY PROCESS
what they know but find the t
and resultantly become passiv
For each child, participation in Reading Recovery represents a tem-
struction (see Board, 1982) ir
porary adjustment in his or her educational process. Individual help is
actively work to fill in the gap
provided for a relatively short period of time, between 12 and 20 weeks.
than that provided by the teac
A specially trained teacher works with the child outside the classroom
beyond the emergent literacy
environment for 30 minutes each day. Accelerated learning is the goal.
predictions with visual inform
When the child shows behavioral evidence of an independent system of
tions of their teachers (such as
strategies that will result in further learning and can read and write within
not use this information in orc)
average range for the school or classroom, the extra help is withdrawn.
what Smith (1978) called "no
An independent assessor helps the teacher make the decision to discontinue
meaningful text.
extra help.
The children I have desci
for their literacy learning exp
Accelerated Progress
within meaningful reading ai
about "teaching for strategies
The theoretical concept of accelerated progress is basic to the process
rectly communicate the kind
described above. Acceleration is achieved not by pushing the young stu-
use. They can, however, watc
dent through levels of skills to "mastery." Instead, children are involved
gies and encourage the signifi
in successful reading and writing while a knowledgeable adult supports
and systematic observation }
the process. Through carefully selected teacher-child interactions, chil-
They decide, as a result of a)
dren are assisted in constructing the networks of understandings that they
attend to and point out to chi
need to develop effective reading strategies. They learn to use their knowl-
suggest actions that might be
edge of the world and of language as they check it against the visual
teachers, "can be likened to
information contained in print. The teacher carefully observes the child's
speaker carefully before you T
N EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY
109
al renewal of the educational
aining theoretical articles and
behavior, noting evidence of such strategies as search and.checking;
often the teacher complements the reader's moves or engages the child in
on events is circulated to all
ovide updates on research and
conversation that makes processes more explicit. This productive conversa-
niques. Teacher leaders attend
tion helps the young reader do much more than could be accomplished
icipate in collegial visits with
alone; it supports independent problem solving. Reading Recovery teach-
ers call this process teaching for strategies.
ection procedures that provide
ed in the program. Data are
Strategies
ity location for analysis, and
Clay (1985) says that strategies are in-the-head operations that cannot
can prepare a yearly research
be directly observed or taught. Good readers apparently orchestrate a
monstrator project of the Na-
1 of the U.S. Department of
range of effective strategies (see Bussis, Chittenden, Amarel, & Klausner,
1985; Clay, 1991). They are flexible, using information from any level of
nt programs. Aggregated data
language (the meaning system, the syntactic system, or the phonemic sys-
tem) in concert with perceptual information. They have learned to attend
to and use information efficiently as needed. Poor readers, on the other
Y PROCESS
hand, seem to operate in more rigid ways. Initially, they may try to use
what they know but find the task so complex that they have little success
g Recovery represents a tem-
and resultantly become passive. Such children may be vulnerable to in-
il process, Individual help is
struction (see Board, 1982) in that they follow instructions but do not
e, between 12 and 20 weeks.
actively work to fill in the gaps for themselves and use information other
child outside the classroom
than that provided by the teacher. They may continue to invent text long
elerated learning is the goal.
beyond the emergent literacy period, neglecting to check their language
of an independent system of
predictions with visual information. They may take on some of the direc-
nd can read and write within
tions of their teachers (such as "sounding out" by using the first letter) but
the extra help is withdrawn.
not use this information in orchestrated ways. They are content to produce
ke the decision to discontinue
what Smith (1978) called "nonsense" instead of constructed renditions of
meaningful text.
The children I have described above are highly dependent on school
for their literacy learning experiences. They need expert help embedded
within meaningful reading and writing. Reading Recovery teachers talk
about "teaching for strategies" because they realize that they cannot di-
rogress is basic to the process
t by pushing the young stu-
rectly communicate the kind of in-the-head operations that good readers
stead, children are involved
use. They can, however, watch carefully for evidence of productive strate-
owledgeable adult supports
gies and encourage the significant behaviors. The feedback from sensitive
her-child interactions, chil-
and systematic observation helps teachers shape their teaching moves.
of understandings that they
They decide, as a result of analyzing observational data, what they will
ney learn to use their knowl-
attend to and point out to children. They can provide demonstrations and
check it against the visual
suggest actions that might be productive. Teaching, for Reading Recovery
arefully observes the child's
teachers, "can be likened to a conversation in which you listen to the
speaker carefully before you reply" (Clay, 1985, p. 6).
110
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RIS
Observing and Analyzing Children's Behavior
material being read. The
the student only when nec
At the heart of Reading Recovery is observing children while they
student reads, the teacher
read, talk, and write. An observational survey, consisting of six individu-
example, words read accu
ally applied instruments, has been developed to provide an initial assess-
using a coding system. In
ment of children's literacy knowledge. These assessments, along with the
provides an estimate of th
judgment of the classroom teacher, are used as criteria for admitting chil-
with 90% or greater accu
dren to the program. The observational procedures are also helpful to
description of reading beh
classroom teachers and are extensively used in New Zealand to assess the
knowledge. Besides the be
progress of primary school children. They offer a useful, systematic way
running record is used eve
of inventorying students' strengths. On each measure, the student receives
program.
a score; however, Reading Recovery teachers interpret the results based
on all the evidence, including observation of behavior during the tasks.
Roaming Around the Know
The six measures are described below:
Data from all assessmen
1. Letter identification. Children are asked to identify, in any way they
ginning point for the teache
can, the 54 characters [upper- and lowercase letters, including two
required to conduct an ong
varieties of two letters, a/d and g/g) of the alphabet. Teachers notice
the children they teach. The
students' attempts and substitutions as signs of growing ability to distin-
volve reading, writing, and
guish features of letters.
the individual's knowledge b.
2. Word test. Children are asked to identify a list of words drawn from a
does not try to introduce nev
basic word list. The assessment provides important information about
ble with what they already
how children approach this most difficult task. Teachers note not only
not evident in responses to
words identified but also important attempts. Even children who Γe-
might be collaboratively writ
fuse to attempt some words are displaying knowledge; they know that
or letters they can write and
they do not know.
3. Concepts about print. Teachers read a short storybook and ask children
Reading Recovery Lessons
to interact with the print in various ways. This observational task mea-
sures children's knowledge of the print conventions; for example,
Reading Recovery proce
knowing which way to go, that print (rather than pictures) carries the
a combination of oral readir
primary message, or that space is used to designate words.
period. These components ai
4. Writing vocabulary. Children are asked to write all the words they
can within a 10-minute maximum limit. Accurately spelled words are
1. Rereading books tha
scored; teachers also note strengths and knowledge revealed by approx-
2. Reading a book that
imations.
takes a running reco
5. Dictation task. The teacher reads a sentence containing 37 phonemes
3. Composing and ther
and asks the child to try to write it. The objective is to determine how
4. Putting together a CI
many phonemes the child can represent with an appropriate letter.
5. Attempting, with su
6. Running record of text reading. The running record, a way of record-
by the teacher
ing reading behavior, is a powerful tool for guiding instruction. To
take a running record, the teacher sits beside the student, who is read-
What is read and writt
ing orally from a selected text. Both teacher and student can view the
that take place are not spec:
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY
111
material being read. The teacher acts as a neutral observer, helping
the student only when necessary to move the reading along. While the
observing children while they
student reads, the teacher records significant reading behavior (for
consisting of six individu-
example, words read accurately, substitutions, omissions, repetitions)
to provide an initial assess-
using a coding system. In the initial assessment, the running record
assessments, along with the
provides an estimate of the level of text difficulty a student can read
as criteria for admitting chil-
with 90% or greater accuracy. More important, it provides a precise
procedures are also helpful to
description of reading behavior that the teacher can use as evidence of
in New Zealand to assess the
knowledge. Besides the beginning assessment with reading level, the
offer a useful, systematic way
running record is used every day to analyze the child's progress in the
measure, the student receives
program.
interpret the results based
of behavior during the tasks.
Roaming Around the Known
Data from all assessments provide information that establishes a be-
to identify, in any way they
ginning point for the teacher and child. Reading Recovery teachers are
wercase letters, including two
required to conduct an ongoing quest for information about each of
the alphabet. Teachers notice
the children they teach. The first 10 days of the students' programs in-
of growing ability to distin-
volve reading, writing, and language activities that allow exploration of
the individual's knowledge base. During this period, in which the teacher
a list of words drawn from a
does not try to introduce new learning, children become fluent and flexi-
important information about
ble with what they already know. Teachers discover strengths that were
task. Teachers note not only
not evident in responses to the original assessments. A typical activity
tempts. Even children who re-
might be collaboratively writing books, with children providing the words
knowledge; they know that
or letters they can write and teachers writing the rest.
hort storybook and ask children
Reading Recovery Lessons
This observational task mea-
conventions; for example,
Reading Recovery procedures specify a lesson framework that assures
ather than pictures) carries the
a combination of oral reading and writing activities during the 30-minute
designate words.
period. These components are:
to write all the words they
t. Accurately spelled words are
1. Rereading books that the student has previously read
knowledge revealed by approx-
2. Reading a book that was new the previous day while the teacher
takes a running record
itence containing 37 phonemes
3. Composing and then writing a brief story or message
e objective is to determine how
4. Putting together a cut-up version of that same message
with an appropriate letter.
5. Attempting, with support, a new book that has been introduced
nning record, a way of record-
by the teacher
ol for guiding instruction. To
reside the student, who is read-
What is read and written and the types of teacher-child conversations
acher and student can view the
that take place are not specified. Those factors are shaped by the teacher's
112
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK
analysis of the individual child's strengths and his or her predictions con-
cerning where the young learner needs to go next. The teacher follows a
Page
Text and J:
recommended framework and sequence of activities but within that must
adjust to each child. Following the child means that the teacher makes
choices that are most productive for that learner and that allow the child
3
Ten little bel
to engage in problem-solving work while maintaining comprehension and
with nothingR
fluency. To illustrate this process, and also to display the lesson frame-
They wanted S(
work, a sample lesson, with typical examples drawn from our experiences
LR/SC
1
in Reading Recovery, is presented below.
4
One
little
be
boat
Jon's Reading Recovery Lesson
in
a
sailboat
When Jon entered the Reading Recovery program, he could recognize 39
there RSC
letters and could write his name and the words a and 1. He knew that print
5
Then nine lit
contained the message and that readers move left to right across the line
of print. He did not have control of word-by-word matching but could
6
One
little
be
distinguish words and letters. On the dictation task, he could represent k
therekse
with the appropriate letter. When faced with a reading task, he could
7
Then eight li
invent stories that were consistent with the pictures but did not attempt to
check with the visual information. By his thirty-fifth lesson, Jon had full
Key:
control of word-by-word matching and was reading most material without
accurate reading
using his finger to point. He could write 36 words and was reading books
chil.
substitution
on Reading Recovery level 11 (roughly equivalent to a third preprimer).
Jon's thirty-sixth lesson began with familiar reading. All reading in
appeal
A
Reading Recovery lessons is oral. He first read When Lana Was Absent
(1984), a book at about preprimer level that he could easily read without
Figure 6.1. Jon's reading of
using his finger. He read fluently, with phrasing, and then quickly read
another at about the same level of difficulty about what animals wear on a
cold day. In this book, he noticed that goats and coats looked alike. On
Jon operated independer
another page, the text said, "On a cold, cold day, kittens wear mittens."
to observe. She noticed that t
Jon noticed the word mitten, saying, "If that was a k it would be 'kittens
knowledge of language syntax
wear kittens." Finally, he read Oh No (Cairns, 1987), a book at about the
visual information. He read
same level that he had read twice before. His teacher helped him use
correction ratio of 1 : 2. More
magnetic letters to work out there and there's from the, a word he knew
toring his own reading. For ex
well. Throughout the reading, his teacher talked with him about the stories
then nine little bears left." Th
and praised his efforts. She especially commented on his fluency and
reading accurately to the end
noticed that he was discovering aspects of print and beginning to analyze
check on himself, pointing o
words. An ongoing conversation surrounded the reading.
"sound right."
Next, Jon read Ten Little Bears (Ruwe, 1976), a more difficult book
Jon decided to write a S
that had been introduced the day before, while his teacher took a running
book. His writing is shown in
record. A segment from the record illustrates the productive problem
turned sideways so that a "F
solving this child was doing (see Figure 6.1).
"story page" is below. The
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY
113
and his or her predictions con-
go next. The teacher follows a
Page
Text and Jason's Reading
activities but within that must
means that the teacher makes
earner and that allow the child
3
Ten little bears were sitting at home.
naintaining comprehension and
to display the lesson frame-
with nothingR
-
They wanted something to do.
drawn from our experiences
IR/SC
4
One little bear went for a ride
overy Lesson
boat
in
a
sailboat.
program, he could recognize 39
there RSC
ISC
RA
a and 1. He knew that print
5
Then
nine
little
bears
were
left
at
home.
nove left to right across the line
rd-by-word matching but could
6
One
little
bear
went
for
a
ride
in
a
jeep.
task, he could represent k
therekse
with a reading task, he could
7
Then eight little bears were left at home.
pictures but did not attempt to
thirty-fifth lesson, Jon had full
Key:
child ISC
reading most material without
accurate reading
self correction
text
words and was reading books
child
uivalent to a third preprimer).
substitution
repetition
RFR
text
familiar reading. All reading in
appeal
A
told
T
read When Lana Was Absent
hat he could easily read without
phrasing, and then quickly read
Figure 6.1. Jon's reading of Ten Little Bears (Ruwe, 1976).
about what animals wear on a
and coats looked alike. On
Jon operated independently during the reading, allowing his teacher
cold day, kittens wear mittens."
to observe. She noticed that he made predictions based on meaning and
that was a k it would be 'kittens
knowledge of language syntax and consistently checked his attempts with
1987), a book at about the
visual information. He read the book at 96% accuracy with a self-
His teacher helped him use
correction ratio of 1 : 2. More important, it was evident that he was moni-
from the, a word he knew
toring his own reading. For example, on line five, he read, "Then there
alked with him about the stories
then nine little bears left." Then, he returned to the beginning of the line,
ommented on his fluency and
reading accurately to the end. His teacher commented on Jon's ability to
f print and beginning to analyze
check on himself, pointing out places where he had worked to make it
ed the reading.
"sound right."
e, 1976), a more difficult book
Jon decided to write a story based on Oh No, currently his favorite
while his teacher took a running
book. His writing is shown in Figure 6.2. The writing book is a blank book
istrates the productive problem
turned sideways so that a "practice page" is available at the top and a
"story page" is below. The child and teacher collaboratively write the
114
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISI
There's
adding an exclamation point fo
the practice page. First, he wr
and S by linking sound to lette
there's on the story page.
Spot
A technique called hearing
J
to construct words by accessir
ships. The teacher draws a sei
asks the child to say the wor
oh
visual frame provided by the
J
ca r
work out words using this tec
boxes to write Spot and on. H
car and then saying, "Oh, that
Var Jap Bar
want to hurriedly write down 1
attempts to get him to work le
teacher's suggestion, he wrot
needed because the substitutic
Jon read the sentence sev
it was finished. Then, the teacl
was cut apart for him to reco
oh no!
example, car and there's-to b
was read again in its entirety
take home and remake.
His new book was Satu
Theresa spot
talked through the pictures O
for example, hosed the car. Sh
for Jon to do, though, becaus
more independent. On his firs
on My car.
pause or self-correct on errors
checked on his reading, repea
of text. He used cues from pi
his teacher kept up a support
row, he will read this book in
Figure 6.2. Jon's writing.
ning record. At the end of the
The lesson framework in
of difficulty. The idea is to m
child's story on the bottom page, providing both the opportunity to write
work" as independently as p
and a finished story that can be read. The top half, or practice page,
as helping the child to work a
provides a space to work out words and practice writing them. The child
nities for problem solving but
and teacher move back and forth between the story page and the practice
Studies of Reading Rec
space as indicated by problems and opportunities in the child's story. Jon
Bryk, and Seltzer, 1991) indi-
knew how to write "Oh no," which he wrote quickly on the story page,
engaged time; the student is
IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY
115
adding an exclamation point for emphasis. Then, he worked out there's on
the practice page. First, he wrote the known word the and then added r
and S by linking sound to letters. The teacher added the e, and Jon wrote
there's on the story page.
Spot
A technique called hearing sounds in words helps young writers learn
to construct words by accessing their knowledge of sound-letter relation-
ships. The teacher draws a series of boxes, one for every phoneme, and
asks the child to say the word slowly while pushing a marker into the
visual frame provided by the drawn boxes. The practice page is used to
work out words using this technique. With the teacher's help, Jon used
boxes to write Spot and on. He surprised his teacher by writing the C for
car and then saying, "Oh, that has ar." As Clay (1985) says, "The child will
/
Bar
want to hurriedly write down the clusters he knows, resisting a teacher's
attempts to get him to work letter by letter. And rightly so" (p. 78). At his
teacher's suggestion, he wrote jar and bar. No further practice will be
needed because the substitution principle is well established.
Jon read the sentence several times during its construction and when
it was finished. Then, the teacher quickly wrote it on a sentence strip that
was cut apart for him to reconstruct. He was ready for some words-for
example, car and there's-to be cut apart for reconstruction. The sentence
was read again in its entirety and then placed in an envelope for Jon to
take home and remake.
His new book was Saturday Morning (Moyes, 1983). The teacher
talked through the pictures of the book and used some of the language,
for example, hosed the car. She was careful to leave some problem solving
for Jon to do, though, because one of her goals was to help him become
pot
more independent. On his first attempt, Jon needed little help. He did not
pause or self-correct on errors that made no difference, but he consistently
checked on his reading, repeating lines when necessary to work out a line
of text. He used cues from pictures and print in a orchestrated way, and
his teacher kept up a supportive conversation during the reading. Tomor-
row, he will read this book independently, while the teacher takes a run-
ning record. At the end of the lesson, Jon chose Oh No to take home.
The lesson framework includes writing and reading at several levels
both the opportunity to write
of difficulty. The idea is to make it possible for the student to do "reading
top half, or practice page,
work" as independently as possible. We could describe the teacher's role
:tice writing them. The child
as helping the child to work at a level difficult enough to present opportu-
nities for problem solving but not so difficult that meaning is lost.
e story page and the practice
ities in the child's story. Jon
Studies of Reading Recovery lessons (see Pinnell, DeFord, Lyons,
Bryk, and Seltzer, 1991) indicate that almost every minute of the lesson is
quickly on the story page,
engaged time; the student is involved in reading and writing extended
116
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISH
text. The lesson framework is a powerful combination of activities, but
to local conditions or to make 1
teacher decision making on a moment-to-moment basis is the most power-
to implement. For this study,
ful component in the lesson.
characteristics, for example, t]
the long-term training. They e
components when used togethe
RESEARCH ON STUDENT OUTCOMES
From 33 schools serving
readers (n = 403) were selecte
Research supports the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery model.
programs or to a control grou
This research includes replications of the program in New Zealand, Aus-
The first intervention program
tralia, and the United States. It also includes a statewide experimental
fully trained teacher. The sec
study.
modeled on Reading Recovery
provided with a condensed VE
Studies and Replications
intervention, Direct Instruction
reading teachers who did not
Studies of Reading Recovery represent 16 years of research, beginning
fourth, called Reading Writing
with Clay's six projects between 1976 and 1981 (see Clay, 1985, 1990) and
led group sessions instead of pi
also including Australian studies (Wheeler, 1984) and the Ohio State stud-
represented typical group reme
ies beginning in 1984 (see DeFord, Lyons, & Pinnell, 1991; Pinnell, 1989).
Each of the four interven
In addition, Reading Recovery has been implemented at 137 sites. Each
group in one of the project sch
site represents replication of the process with different teachers, different
dents (N = 324) were randoml
leaders, and different children. In 1990-1991, an average of 87% of stu-
group; thus the study controll
dents were successfully discontinued at U.S. and Canadian sites. The
across schools and school distri
9,486 students who received Reading Recovery lessons for at least 60 days
each of the first four groups ar
were used as a basis for that figure.
control classes. At the end of 1
covering a range of literacy sl
A Statewide Study
different forms of instruction,
the end of their first-grade y
A statewide study¹ (see Pinnell, Deford, et al., 1991) addressed some
grade.
specific questions about Reading Recovery, for example:
Analysis of the data sho
formed significantly better th
1. Wouldn't any one-to-one program work just as well?
other special-treatment groups
2. Is the year-long training program really necessary or would a sum-
was better on all tests, show
mer workshop do as well?
Recovery children were readir
3. Can you do Reading Recovery in groups and achieve the same
and were independently and C
results?
the beginning of second grad
average, were lagging far beh
Reading Recovery seemed to work; practitioners were interested in finding
up to this research project was
out what it was that was effective and what could be changed to adapt it
Recovery services after the ex]
April). These children were t
had received regular remedia
'This research was conducted at The Ohio State University through a grant from the
tumn. So they, too, were reac
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
graders.
IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY
117
combination of activities, but
to local conditions or to make the program less costly or less troublesome
to-moment basis is the most power-
to implement. For this study, researchers looked at the various program
characteristics, for example, the individual nature of the program and
the long-term training. They examined the relative effectiveness of these
components when used together and separately.
OUTCOMES
From 33 schools serving low-income populations, first-grade low
readers (n = 403) were selected and assigned to one of four intervention
of the Reading Recovery model.
programs or to a control group that represented traditional extra help.
the program in New Zealand, Aus.
The first intervention program was traditional Reading Recovery with a
includes a statewide experimental
fully trained teacher. The second method, called Reading Success, was
modeled on Reading Recovery; however, Reading Success teachers were
provided with a condensed version of the training. Another one-to-one
intervention, Direct Instruction Skills Plan, was provided by experienced
reading teachers who did not use Reading Recovery's procedures. In the
16 years of research, beginning
fourth, called Reading Writing Group, trained Reading Recovery teachers
and 1981 (see Clay, 1985, 1990) and
led group sessions instead of private lessons. The fifth, the control group,
1984) and the Ohio State stud-
represented typical group remediation classes in the state.
& Pinnell, 1991; Pinnell, 1989).
Each of the four interventions was compared with its own control
implemented at 137 sites. Each
group in one of the project schools. The lowest-achieving first-grade stu-
with different teachers, different
dents (N = 324) were randomly assigned either to a treatment or a control
00-1991, an average of 87% of stu-
group; thus the study controlled for the variation in students that exists
at U.S. and Canadian sites. The
across schools and school districts. Remedial instruction lasted 70 days for
Recovery lessons for at least 60 days
each of the first four groups and throughout the entire school year for the
control classes. At the end of their special classes, students took five tests
covering a range of literacy skills. To measure the lasting powers of the
different forms of instruction, the students repeated some of the tests at
the end of their first-grade year and again at the beginning of second
Deford, et al., 1991) addressed some
grade.
for example:
Analysis of the data showed that Reading Recovery children per-
formed significantly better than an equivalent control group and three
ram work just as well?
other special-treatment groups. Reading Recovery was the only group that
am really necessary or would a sum-
was better on all tests, showing long-term effects in reading. Reading
Recovery children were reading the equivalent of the primer in February
in groups and achieve the same
and were independently and comfortably reading the first-grade reader at
the beginning of second grade. Children receiving other treatments, on
average, were lagging far behind in reading level. An interesting follow-
actitioners were interested in finding
up to this research project was found in the children who received Reading
what could be changed to adapt it
Recovery services after the experiment was over (in February, March, or
April). These children were three reading levels ahead of children who
had received regular remedial reading after they were tested in the au-
to State University through a grant from the
tumn. So they, too, were reading within the average as beginning second
graders.
CY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY
117
ful combination of activities, but
to local conditions or to make the program less costly or less troublesome
0-moment basis is the most power.
to implement. For this study, researchers looked at the various program
characteristics, for example, the individual nature of the program and
the long-term training. They examined the relative effectiveness of these
OUTCOMES
components when used together and separately.
From 33 schools serving low-income populations, first-grade low
readers (n = 403) were selected and assigned to one of four intervention
of the Reading Recovery model.
programs or to a control group that represented traditional extra help.
program in New Zealand, Aus-
The first intervention program was traditional Reading Recovery with a
ncludes a statewide experimental
fully trained teacher. The second method, called Reading Success, was
modeled on Reading Recovery; however, Reading Success teachers were
provided with a condensed version of the training. Another one-to-one
intervention, Direct Instruction Skills Plan, was provided by experienced
reading teachers who did not use Reading Recovery's procedures. In the
16 years of research, beginning
fourth, called Reading Writing Group, trained Reading Recovery teachers
1981 (see Clay, 1985, 1990) and
led group sessions instead of private lessons. The fifth, the control group,
1984) and the Ohio State stud-
represented typical group remediation classes in the state.
& Pinnell, 1991; Pinnell, 1989).
Each of the four interventions was compared with its own control
implemented at 137 sites. Each
group in one of the project schools. The lowest-achieving first-grade stu-
with different teachers, different
dents (N = 324) were randomly assigned either to a treatment or a control
an average of 87% of stu-
group; thus the study controlled for the variation in students that exists
U.S. and Canadian sites. The
across schools and school districts. Remedial instruction lasted 70 days for
covery lessons for at least 60 days
each of the first four groups and throughout the entire school year for the
control classes. At the end of their special classes, students took five tests
covering a range of literacy skills. To measure the lasting powers of the
different forms of instruction, the students repeated some of the tests at
the end of their first-grade year and again at the beginning of second
et al., 1991) addressed some
for
grade.
example:
Analysis of the data showed that Reading Recovery children per-
work just as well?
formed significantly better than an equivalent control group and three
really necessary or would a sum-
other special-treatment groups. Reading Recovery was the only group that
was better on all tests, showing long-term effects in reading. Reading
Recovery children were reading the equivalent of the primer in February
groups and achieve the same
and were independently and comfortably reading the first-grade reader at
the beginning of second grade. Children receiving other treatments, on
tioners were interested in finding
average, were lagging far behind in reading level. An interesting follow-
could be changed to adapt it
up to this research project was found in the children who received Reading
Recovery services after the experiment was over (in February, March, or
April). These children were three reading levels ahead of children who
had received regular remedial reading after they were tested in the au-
University through a grant from the
tumn. So they, too, were reading within the average as beginning second
graders.
118
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR A
This study supported several program components that apparently
developing the ability to n
strengthen one another: (1) individual lessons, (2) the instructional ap-
quickly make inferences a
proach, and (3) long-term teacher development. The results suggest, how-
might signal. The observa
ever, that the success of Reading Recovery goes beyond the individual
in the class engage in an
factor and the instructional emphasis factor. The time allocations for
encouraged to think out lo
Reading Recovery and Reading Success were quite similar, and they used
ences and generalizations
the same framework for instruction; but as a group, the Reading Recovery
in the lesson and the inl
teachers had higher student outcomes. It is clear that another factor made
to assume the responsibil
the difference: the intensity and effectiveness of teaching within the Read-
the development of their
ing Recovery framework. This research suggests that the training program
what is going on in the le
has an impact.
the lesson proceeds. The
challenging group membe.
with evidence.
A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Afterwards, the group
PROGRAM FOR TEACHERS
demonstration lessons. The
vide cases for group discuss
The professional development course for teachers is one academic
of understandings out of wi
year in length (see Alverman, 1990; Clay & Watson, 1982; Pinnell, Fried,
it helps them learn more ab
& Estice, 1990; Pinnell, DeFord, & Lyons, 1988; Pinnell, Fried, Estice, &
At every level in Reading I
Powell, 1991). Teachers begin immediately to work with children. First,
glass sessions, working to t
they learn to use the observational survey to select children for the pro-
strengthening their observat
gram. Then, after writing an observational summary that synthesizes their
beginning observations, they begin seeing children for 30 minutes daily
and to meet weekly, usually in after-school sessions, for the Reading Re-
covery training class. In the United States, the course is nine quarter hours
(six semester hours) of graduate credit. Teachers must be able to teach
Reading Recovery goes
four Reading Recovery children daily at a school site. Typically, they
by providing a program des
work one half-day in Reading Recovery and the other half-day at another
ing and of system change. 1
assignment, such as teaching remedial reading or classroom teaching. The
learners in reading and writ
course is conducted by a teacher leader who has received a full-time train-
the level of their own knowle
ing course for one year at one of the national training sites.
and to follow the child's le:
After the assessment training, getting underway with the lesson
productive demonstrations (
framework, that is, with the activities, is the first task for teachers. They
oped through a staff develop
quickly learn to efficiently apply the framework of the 30-minute lesson.
of instructional decision ma
The real challenge for teachers is to reflect on and analyze their interac-
for instruction in a setting
tions with students so that they can select and attend to the kind of memo-
observation of ongoing lesso:
rable examples that will help children increase their power over the tasks
level, structures are in place
of reading. The teacher leader's job is to assist teachers in learning this
communication that both suj
complex teaching process.
Reading Recovery has prom
Each week, two members of the class teach their students in regular
nated set of innovations, Re
lessons behind a one-way glass. The rest of the group observe closely,
stration of new possibilities it
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY
119
components that apparently
developing the ability to notice minute shifts in children's behavior and to
(2) the instructional ap-
quickly make inferences about the internal processing that the behaviors
The results suggest, how.
might signal. The observation is not silent. While they observe, teachers
goes beyond the individual
in the class engage in an extended conversation during which they are
The time allocations for
encouraged to think out loud, describe behavior, and try out their infer-
quite similar, and they used
ences and generalizations about instruction. They intimately participate
a group, the Reading Recovery
in the lesson and the inherent instructional decisions without having
clear that another factor made
to assume the responsibility for acting; thus they can concentrate on
of teaching within the Read-
the development of their thinking as teachers. The idea is to describe
gests that the training program
what is going on in the lesson and to engage in ongoing analysis while
the lesson proceeds. The leader guides the process by questioning and
challenging group members to formulate hypotheses and back them up
with evidence.
ELOPMENT
Afterwards, the group meets with the teachers who provided the two
ACHERS
demonstration lessons. The purpose of this reflective discussion is to pro-
vide cases for group discussions. The model helps teachers build a system
for teachers is one academic
of understandings out of which they act. This system is generative in that
Watson, 1982; Pinnell, Fried,
it helps them learn more about teaching with each student they encounter.
1988; Pinnell, Fried, Estice, &
At every level in Reading Recovery, educators participate in behind-the-
to work with children. First,
glass sessions, working to build their theories of how children learn and
to select children for the pro-
strengthening their observational and decision-making power.
summary that synthesizes their
children for 30 minutes daily
sessions, for the Reading Re-
SUMMARY
he course is nine quarter hours
achers must be able to teach
Reading Recovery goes beyond the piecemeal approaches of the past
school site. Typically, they
by providing a program designed to meet the complexity of human learn-
the other half-day at another
ing and of system change. The program for children immerses individual
or classroom teaching. The
learners in reading and writing experiences and allows them to engage at
has received a full-time train-
the level of their own knowledge. Teachers must learn to analyze behavior
training sites.
and to follow the child's lead in order to help young learners attend to
underway with the lesson
productive demonstrations of processes. This powerful teaching is devel-
first task for teachers. They
oped through a staff development program that recognizes the complexity
vork of the 30-minute lesson.
of instructional decision making. Teachers develop the theoretical base
n and analyze their interac-
for instruction in a setting that is close to their daily work. From their
attend to the kind of memo-
observation of ongoing lessons, they develop analytic skills. At the system
se their power over the tasks
level, structures are in place to assure continuing quality and a network of
ist teachers in learning this
communication that both supports and challenges. Research indicates that
Reading Recovery has promise for reducing reading failure. As a coordi-
ich their students in regular
nated set of innovations, Reading Recovery provides a powerful demon-
r the group observe closely,
stration of new possibilities in meeting the needs of at-risk children.
120
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RI
REFERENCES
Fantini, M. D., & Weinstein, G.
tion. New York: Harper & I
Farley, E. S. (1936). Regarding
Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). Different programs, indifferent
Nation's Schools, 18, 37-39.
instruction. In D. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.) Beyond separate education
Good, T. L. (1986). What is lea
(pp. 3-32). New York: Brookes.
H. Walberg (Eds.), Academ
Alverman, D. E. (1990). Reading teacher education. In W. R. Houston, M. Ha-
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
berman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A
Goodlad, J. I. (1954). Some eff
project of the Association of Teacher Educators (pp. 687-704). New York:
social and personal adjustm
Macmillan.
tion, 22, 301-328.
Arthur, G. A. (1936). A study of the achievement of sixty grade-one repeaters as
Hall, W. F., & Demarest, R. (19
compared with that of nonrepeaters of the same mental age. Journal of
promotional policy. Elemen
Experimental Education, 5, 203-205.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with 1
Astrein, B., Fraser, J. W., & Steinberg, A. (1984). Our children at risk: The crisis
and classrooms. New York: (
in public education (Report of hearings conducted by the Massachussetts
Hodgkinson, H. (1985). All one sy
Advocacy Center, Boston).
through graduate school. W
Board, P. E. (1982). Toward a theory of instructional influence: Aspects of the
ership.
instructional environment and their influence on children's acquisition of
Hodgkinson, H. L. (1988). The ri;
reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
ership, 45, 10-14.
Bussis, A. M., Chittenden, E. A., Amarel, M., & Klausner, E. (1985). Inquiry
Johnson, J. R. (1984). Synthesis o
into meaning: An investigation of learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
tion. Educational Leadership
Cairns, S. (1987). Oh no! Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby Education.
Johnston, P., Allington, R., & Aff
Carter, L. F. (1984). The sustaining effects study of compensatory and elementary
and remedial reading instruc
education. Educational Researcher, 13, 4-13.
Lyons, C. A. (1991). A comparati
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, NH:
participating in a year-long c
Heinemann.
McCormick (Eds.), Learner
Clay, M. M. (1987). Implementing educational Reading Recovery: Systematic
search and instruction (Forti
adaptations to an educational innovation. New Zealand Journal of Educa-
ence, pp. 357-365). Chicago,
tional Studies, 22, 35-58.
Mason, J. M. (1984). Early reac
Clay, M. M. (1990). The Reading Recovery programme, 1984-1988: Coverage.
D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook
outcomes and education board district figures. New Zealand Journal of Edu-
Longman.
cational Studies, 25, 61-69.
Moyes, L. (1983). Saturday morn
Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Ports-
Education, School Publication
mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Natriello, G., McDill, E. L., & I
Clay, M. M., & Cazden, C. (1990). A Vygotskian interpretation of Reading Re-
children: Racing against cata:
covery. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications
Pinnell, C. S. (1989). Reading Re
and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 206-222). New York:
The Elementary School Journ
Cambridge University Press.
Pinnell, C. S., DeFord, D. E., &
Clay, M. M., & Watson, B. (1982). An inservice program for Reading Recovery
intervention for at-risk first
teachers. In M. M. Clay (Ed.), Observing young readers (pp. 192-200).
Service.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E., L
Coeffield, W. H., & Bloomers, P. (1956). Effects of non-promotion on educational
Studying the effectiveness of
achievement in the elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology.
children having difficulty in
32, 281-287.
versity, Martha L. King Lang
DeFord, D. E., Lyons, C.A., & Pinnell, G.S. (Eds.). (1991). Bridges to literacy:
Pinnell, G.S., Fried, M. D., & Es
Learning from Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
how to make a difference. Th
IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
LITERACY PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN: READING RECOVERY
121
Fantini, M. D., & Weinstein, C. (1968). The disadvantaged: Challenge to educa-
tion. New York: Harper & Row.
Farley, E. S. (1936). Regarding repeaters: Sad effect of failure upon the child.
Different programs, indifferent
Nation's Schools, 18, 37-39.
(Eds.) Beyond separate education
Good, T. L. (1986). What is learned in elementary schools. In T. Tomlinson &
H. Walberg (Eds.), Academic work and educational excellence (pp. 87-114).
In W. R. Houston, M. Ha-
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
research on teacher education: A
Goodlad, J. I. (1954). Some effects of promotion and nonpromotion upon the
ucators (pp. 687-704). New York:
social and personal adjustment of children. Journal of Experimental Educa-
tion, 22, 301-328.
of sixty grade-one repeaters as
Hall, W. F., & Demarest, R. (1958). Effect on achievement scores of a change in
the same mental age. Journal of
promotional policy. Elementary School Journal, 58, 204-207.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities
Our children at risk: The crisis
and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
conducted by the Massachussetts
Hodgkinson, H. (1985). All one system: Demographics of education, kindergarten
through graduate school. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Lead-
ructional influence: Aspects of the
ership.
on children's acquisition of
Hodgkinson, H. L. (1988). The right schools for the right kids. Educational Lead-
University of Toronto.
ership, 45, 10-14.
& Klausner, E. (1985). Inquiry
Johnson, J. R. (1984). Synthesis of research on grade retention and social promo-
to read. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
tion. Educational Leadership, 41, 66-68.
Education.
Johnston, P., Allington, R., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The congruence of classroom
of compensatory and elementary
and remedial reading instruction. Elementary School Journal, 85, 465-477.
Lyons, C. A. (1991). A comparative study of the teaching effectiveness of teachers
difficulties. Portsmouth, NH:
participating in a year-long or two-week inservice program. In J. Zutell & S.
McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy Te-
Reading Recovery: Systematic
search and instruction (Fortieth Yearbook of the National Reading Confer-
New Zealand Journal of Educa-
ence, pp. 357-365). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Mason, J. M. (1984): Early reading from a developmental perspective. In P.
rogramme, 1984-1988: Coverage,
D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 505-544). New York:
New Zealand Journal of Edu-
Longman.
Moyes, L. (1983). Saturday morning. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of
onstruction of inner control. Ports-
Education, School Publications Branch.
Natriello, G., McDill, E. L., & Pallas, A. M. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged
interpretation of Reading Re-
children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.
Instructional implications
Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read.
ology (pp. 206-222). New York:
The Elementary School Journal, 90, 161-183.
Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E., & Lyons, C. A. (1988). Reading Recovery: Early
ce program for Reading Recovery
intervention for at-risk first graders. Arlington, VA: Educational Research
young readers (pp. 192-200).
Service.
Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E., Lyons, C. A., Bryk, A., & Seltzer, M. (1991).
of non-promotion on educational
Studying the effectiveness of early intervention approaches for first grade
urnal of Educational Psychology,
children having difficulty in reading. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State Uni-
versity, Martha L. King Language and Literacy Center.
(Eds.). (1991). Bridges to literacy:
Pinnell, G. S., Fried, M. D., & Estice, R. M. (1990). Reading Recovery: Learning
outh, NH: Heinemann.
how to make a difference. The Reading Teacher, 43, 282-295.
122
LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
Pinnell, G. S., Fried, M. D., Estice, R. M., & Powell, D. (1991). Teaching for
problem solving in reading. Paper presented at the 1991 National Reading
Conference, Palm Springs, CA.
Ruwe, M. (1976). Ten little bears. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
From
Sarason, S. (1991). The predictable failure of educational reform. New York: Free
Press.
the Cen
Savage, D. G. (1987). Why Chapter 1 hasn't made much difference. Phi Delta
Kappan, 68, 581-584.
Multicultural
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Making Chapter 1 make a difference. Phi Delta Kappan, 69.
110-119.
V
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1987). Effective classroom programs for students
at risk. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elemen-
tary and Middle Schools.
Smith, F. (1978). Reading without nonsense. New York: Teachers College Press.
Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (Eds.). (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and read.
ing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Walker, E. M., & Madhere, S. (1987). Multiple retentions: Some consequences
for the cognitive and affective maturation of minority elementary students.
Many of us are familiar with
Urban Education, 22, 85-102.
poet Lucille Clifton. Her mos
Wells, G. (1985). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using
the child hero of six books, ]
language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
son, neighbor, or grandson.
Wheeler, H. G. (1984). Reading Recovery: Central Victorian field trials. Victoria.
likeable and loving child. We
Australia: Bendigo College of Advanced Education.
year older. We share his pain
When Lana was absent. (1984). Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby.
reminded of our feelings abc
Wood, D. (1988). How children think and learn. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Everett's new stepfather. We
captured some essential mom
Everett Anderson (1970), Eu
Anderson's Nine Month Long
listeners is the poetic text. Cl:
pentameter for those who do
English because some of her
(1975), include black vernac
likely, do not care whether iar
gives voice to Everett's feeling
is African American. Unfortun
matter to some.
Consider, for instance, the
ence of the National Council 0
ton spoke of her elation at bei
Walt Whitman. Some of that
porter asked her why she was
dently, the reporter could no
03/07/97
15:31
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
006
Reading Recovery
Overview: Reading Recovery is an intensive early intervention program for first grade children
having difficulty with beginning reading. It was based on years of research in New Zealand. The
program is designed to promote good reading by teaching reading strategies before a pattern of failure
develops. The program includes procedures for teaching reading, a staff development program
directed by a specifically prepared "teacher leader," and a set of administrative systems that work
together for quality control. Currently, Reading Recovery programs can be found in 47 states in the
U.S.
Reading Recovery is not a packaged program; it relies heavily on training teachers to deliver highly
focused lessons in which students learn to monitor and correct their own reading and to use many
kinds of information (background experience, knowledge of language, letter-sound correspondence) as
they read.
To fully implement Reading Recovery, the district or school must have a person designated as teacher
leader. The responsibilities of the teacher leader are to design and implement the teacher training at
each site. To become a teacher leader requires a teacher to spend a full year being trained at one of
the Reading Recovery Training sites-in the United States, Ohio State University is a designated
training site. The teacher leader then trains Reading Recovery Teachers.
Features of the Program: In most cases, Reading Recovery teachers select the lowest achieving
students in the first grade to provide intensive one-on-one tutoring for 30 minutes each day. This
tutoring is in addition to regular classroom reading instruction. It includes both reading and writing
activities as well as strategies to develop children's thinking and reasoning skills. When the Reading
Recovery teacher considers the child has become a proficient independent reader, the treatment is
discontinued. This normally takes around 16 weeks. The success of individual programs is often
measured by the discontinuing rate.
Evidence of Success: Ohio State University collects and analyzes data from Reading Recovery sites
nationwide. The program is successful with most of its students. In 1995-96, 83 percent of the
students (59,266) in the program were "discontinued" from the program after 60 days. Students are
"discontinued" when they are judged to bc independent readers. Eighty-six percent of the children
scored at or above average on reading tests at the end of the school year.
Costs: The primary costs are for the training required by the teacher leader (1 full academic year).
Additional costs include the periodic in-service that is required.
Contacts:
Gay Su Pinnell or Carol Lyons
Ohio State University
1929 Kenny Road
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-7875
(614) 292-7879
03/07/97
16:29
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
002
02/12/97
10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
1
READING RECOVERY:
AN EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS
Bonnie Grossen and Gail Coulter
University of Oregon
Barbara Ruggles
Beacon Hill Elementary, Park Forest, Illinois
Executive Summary
Reading Recovery is being widely adopted in North America:
"Reading Recovery sites operated in four Canadian provinces, 48 U.S. States,
and the District of Columbia. Approximately 60,000 North American children
were served by Reading Recovery educators during the 1993-94 school year. In
California alone, more than 500 school districts served approximately 5000
children. (Schwartz & Klein, 1996)
Many believe Reading Recovery to be the best available program for preventing
reading failure. Reading Recovery was developed in the 1970s by Dr. Marie Clay, a New
Zealand educator, to deal with the reading failure occurring there. It was introduced in
the United States through the Ohio State University in 1984 by Dr. Gay Su Pinnell and Dr.
Charlotte Huck. Gay Sue Pinnell, Diane Deford, and Carol A. Lyons are directors of the
National Reading Recovery Center at Ohio State in the U.S.
In Reading Recovery, program-trained teachers provide one-to-one tutoring in 30-
minute daily sessions to the lowest 10 to 20% of a first-grade class who have the
prerequisite skills for Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery advocates claim that the
program brings the lowest performing children up to the average level of their local class
by the end of first grade within 60 lessons, or 12 weeks. When students reach this goal
they are "discontinued" from the Reading Recovery program, at which time the Reading
Recovery teacher can take another student into the 30-minute slot. Each Reading
Recovery-trained teacher, working a half-day with Reading Recovery, is expected to be
able to tutor 8 students in one year, though actual figures from the national data set
indicate that the average number of students per teacher is much lower-5.5, or 11
students for a full-time equivalent teacher, according to Hiebert (1994).
Because of Reading Recovery's increasing popularity, and its expense, more
independent evaluators are raising questions and reviewing the research that is cited to
support claims regarding its effectiveness. Following is a summary of the findings of these
reviews and other studies evaluating the impact of Reading Recovery. These findings
should be considered in deciding whether to adopt, expand, or terminate Reading
Recovery programs.
003
03/07/97
16:30
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
02/12/97
10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
2
The Reading Recovery data reporting system is flawed.
The in-house Reading Recovery evaluation system results in considerable bias in
the data collected through that system. Persons responsible for success collect the data on
success. Without explanation, about half the data on children eligible for Reading
Recovery are omitted from final analyses (Shanahan & Barr, 1995). In addition, the
measures used to evaluate Reading Recovery (Clay Diagnostic Measures) emphasize
tasks that align with the specific strategies taught in Reading Recovery (Center, Wheldall,
& Freeman, 1992; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). For example, the children are taught to use
context to predict words rather than sounding them out. The reading measure uses
predictable text, rather than text that uses authentic, natural language patterns. Children
who have learned the prediction strategies of Reading Recovery will score better reading
predictable text than they will reading authentic text. Because of the close alignment of
the measures with the strategies taught in Reading Recovery, the results of an evaluation
using these measures are biased in favor of Reading Recovery.
The standard for successful completion of Reading Recovery is not equitable
Reading Recovery's goal to bring the lowest pupils to the average level of their
class, falls short of a more equitable standard level, such as the national average. The
average level of performance of a class of children from low income areas is about the 20th
percentile on national norm-referenced measures. ("Grade level" is the 50th percentile.) In
inner-city schools where so many students do not learn to read, only a few students can be
served with Reading Recovery. Some of the lowest children will be brought up to only
the 20th percentile and many children performing below the 20th percentile will not be
served. As a statewide intervention Reading Recovery would result in allocating the same
resources to the goal of raising a few children in a low income school to the 20th percentile
that it would allocate to a high income school raising children scoring below the 80th
percentile to the 80th percentile. This inequity raises constitutional issues because it
impacts minority children, who are overrepresented in low income schools. Average first-
grade children are more likely to be nonreaders in low income schools.
Reading Recovery does not raise overall school achievement levels.
If a school's goal is to raise the overall level of reading performance, Reading
Recovery is not the appropriate intervention to choose. Overall school achievement
scores are not improved with the use of Reading Recovery (Hiebert, 1994). Both Reading
Recovery advocates and critics agree on this point (Hiebert, 1994; Pinnell & Lyons, 1995)
Far fewer students than claimed actually benefit from Reading Recovery.
Analyses reporting that 75 to 85% of the children in Reading Recovery are
successful are misleading because (a) nearly half the data are systematically omitted from
the analyses (Shanahan & Barr, 1995), and (b) successful does not mean the children are
03/07/97
16:30
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
004
02/12/97 10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
3
readers. Successful is defined as being able to read text level measures at the average level
of the child's class. Various independent evaluations have accounted for the missing data
(Battelle, 1995; Shanahan & Barr, 1995). Figures 1 and 2 present these findings in graphic
form. In both figures the black areas represent the proportion of children who were
served in Reading Recovery and the grey areas represent an estimate of the children who
were eligible but were not served. Figure 1 shows the national Reading Recovery data
that were gathered through the in-house data collection system. Figure 2 shows the
Columbus, Ohio data that were gathered by an independent evaluator (Pollock, 1996) and
reported as percentages of children served (shown in black).
Figure 1. National Reading Recovery Data
Eligible but never
served 19%
Successfully match
classroom on book
level tests 51%
Served but did not
complete 21%
Complete RR but do
not match classroom
9%
Figure 2. Outcomes In Columbus, Ohio 1995-96
Eligible but never
Successfully match
served ?
classroom on book
level tests 26%
Complete RR but do
Served but did not
not match classroom
complete 58%
18%
Both evaluations omitted the number of children who are eligible but never
served-often because they lacked prerequisite skills or were already identified for special
education Battelle (1995) is the only source that has reported this number (19%) in an
evaluation of Ohio's Reading Recovery program. Battelle's figure is used in both figures
03/07/97
16:31
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
005
1
02/12/97 10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
4
(shown in grey). Children served but who do not complete Reading Recovery include
children who are removed because they do not make adequate progress. These children
are not counted in the calculation of Reading Recovery success rates. Excluding eligible
children who are never served and served children who do not complete the program for
various reasons inflates the success rate. In reality, the success rate describes how
accurately the Reading Recovery teacher was able to predict which students would be able
to match the classroom average on the Clay Diagnostic Measures upon completion of the
program. Those the teacher predicted would not succeed, s/he should have removed from
the program prior to completion.
Reading Recovery does not reduce the need for other compensatory reading services.
Reading Recovery does not eliminate the need for Title I. Pollack (1996) reports
that in Columbus, Ohio, in the 1995-6 school year, only 14.7% of the children who
completed the program reached national norms, and 81% of those completing the program
still remained eligible for Title I services. When all eligible children are included in the
calculation, only an estimated 6.5% reached national norms and 92% continued to be
eligible for Title I after Reading Recovery was implemented. (Those who are never served
or who do not complete Reading Recovery remain eligible for Title I services also.) Even
among the smaller portion of children counted as successful over an eight-year period by
Reading Recovery standards, 31% were still eligible for Title I services (Pollock, 1994).
Reading Recovery does not eliminate the need for special education. Six or 7% of
the children who are served are referred to special education (Shanahan & Barr, 1995).
Wake County Public School System (WCPPS) in North Carolina found that Reading
Recovery students, "compared to a control group, were just as likely to be retained,
placed in special education, or served in [Title] I a year later" (1995, P. ii). Reading
Recovery does not serve the lowest performing children. The average entry level
percentile score of children who complete Reading Recovery is 34.5 (Hiebert, 1994).
Children successful in Reading Recovery are often not successful later.
Other research has documented that children who complete Reading Recovery and
return to the class do not continue to learn at the same rate as average children in the
class, but seem to immediately begin falling behind again (DeFord, Pinnell, Lyons, and
Place, 1990; Glynn, Crooks, Bethune, Ballard, and Smith, 1989; Shanahan & Barr, 1995).
The learning rate of returned Reading Recovery children was slower than that of other
low-achieving children (Glynn, Crooks, Bethune, Ballard, & Smith, 1989).
Research-based alternative interventions are more effective than Reading Recovery.
Independent evaluations have compared Reading Recovery with other common
compensatory programs (Battelle, 1995; Fincher, 1991; WCPPS, 1995) and found no
advantage for Reading Recovery on measures using authentic text (the natural text used in
the reading comprehension passages of standardized measures). One frequently cited
03/07/97
16:32
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
006
02/12/97 10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
5
study found Reading Recovery superior to other interventions (Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord,
Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994). Pinnell et al. compared specific variations of Reading Recovery
and found approximately equal results regardless of whether the teachers had less training
or the instruction was delivered in groups of four. Rasinski (1995) found serious
methodological flaws in the Pinnell et al. study. He adjusted the scores to hold
instructional time equal and found that the effect of Reading Recovery was at best only
equivalent to the other treatments on measures of authentic text (Gates-McGinitie).
Fincher (1991) compared the performance of children in Reading Recovery with that of
children in other compensatory programs in Canton City Schools, Ohio, over a five-year
period and found that common Title I programs resulted in better performance on
measures using authentic text and other standardized measures.
"Teaching Assistants with almost no training and minimal teaching materials
with which to teach and working in less than desirable conditions, outperformed
the Reading Recovery teachers when their students' overall achievement was
compared Also, Reading Recovery teachers, when their Reading Recovery
students are compared with their Chapter I students, tend to get better results with
the regular Chapter I program than with Reading Recovery. This has been the
case every year since 1985-86, the year Reading Recovery was implemented in
Canton." (Fincher, 1991)
Research shows that explicit instruction in phonemic awareness beginning in
kindergarten followed by explicit systematic instruction in phonics combined with
extensive practice reading decodable text are emerging as important factors in the
effective treatment of reading disabilities. Iversen and Tunmer (1993) added a component
of systematic phonics to Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery with systematic phonics
was 37% more efficient. Wasik and Slavin (1993) compared the relative effect sizes
achieved by five treatments for reading problems. Reading Recovery was not nearly as
effective as two programs that provided explicit systematic phonics with extensive practice
reading decodable text (the Success for All and Wallach and Wallach programs).
Decodable text is quite different from the predictable text used for practice in Reading
Recovery.
03/07/97
16:32
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
007
02/12/97
10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
6
Figure 3. Relative Effect Size of Various Compensatory Programs
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
8
40
20
0
Reading
RR with
RR with
Isolated
Title I
RR with
Wallach
Success
Recovery
amail
less
skills (1)
Control
explicit
&
for All (3)
(RR)
groups
training
(1)
phonics
Wallach
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Rasinski, 1995
(2) Iversen & Tunmer, 1993
(3) Wasik & Slavin, 1993
Very recently the research program of the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, and Fletcher, in press) has
found that changing the regular classroom program from whole language to incorporate
explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and systematic phonics with decodable text is
more effective than tutorial programs in reducing the occurrence of reading disabilities.
Foorman et al. (in press) compared (a) whole language combined with an unlicensed
Reading Recovery model, (b) embedded phonics, a semi-systematic program, and (c)
explicit phonemic awareness with systematic explicit phonics and decodable text. All
these treatments were delivered in the regular classroom. The explicit systematic phonic
approach was more than 1 1/2 times as effective in preventing reading disabilities as whole
language combined with the unlicensed Reading Recovery program (see Figure 4).
03/07/97
16:33
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
008
02/12/97
10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
7
Figure 4. Relative Effect Size of Classwide
Interventions
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Whole Language
Embedded
Systematic
with RR .
Phonies
+
Explicit Phonics
Foorman, Francis, Becler, Winikates, and Fletcher, in press
Reading Recovery is extremely expensive and does not save other costs.
Thirty hours of instruction for one child in Reading Recovery costs more than a
full year of schooling for the child. Reading Recovery advocates argue that even when the
highest cost estimates are used, the expense is cheap because the multi-year educational
costs of special education and Title I are saved, as are the social costs of letting children
fail to learn to read. However, best estimates indicate that approximately 90% of the
children eligible for Reading Recovery services continue to need other compensatory
services. Other alternative models are more effective. Many of these models are
classwide and actually cost much less, affect more students, produce higher performance,
and, most importantly, change school and classroom practices so that the need for costly
after-the-fact interventions are minimized. For the cost of one year of Reading Recovery
in a school, class sizes could be reduced and the whole school's early literacy program
could be redesigned. By adopting.research-supported best practices and whole-school
change, schools could significantly increase the number of students who can read authentic
grade level text. Installing a more effective school-wide program is a one-time-only
investment while Reading Recovery requires the same level of investment year after year.
03/07/97
16:33
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
009
02/12/97 10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
8
READING RECOVERY:
AN EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS
Research Methodology
Does the Reading Recovery research design allow conclusions regarding program
effectiveness?
Reading Recovery includes not only an instructional program but also its own
evaluation system that aligns with the program. Most of the data cited regarding the
effectiveness of Reading Recovery are gathered through the Reading Recovery evaluation
system. This system uses a unique pre- posttest research design and the Clay Diagnostic
measures to assess student performance, both designed by Marie Clay, the Reading
Recovery program developer. Close alignment of the research design, the measures, and
the program, along with data collection procedures that are controlled within the Reading
Recovery implementation system creates an increased potential for bias in the results of an
evaluation. Because most of the data available regarding the success of Reading Recovery
come from its own evaluation system, the research design and the measures used in this
system are discussed first.
The Reading Recovery Research Design
The Reading Recovery research design is not adequate for concluding that
Reading Recovery is a superior intervention. The research design specifies that
comparison groups be selected at random from the Reading Recovery students' respective
classrooms. The measures are administered to these children who then represent the
average for that particular first grade class. Two types of data are used to compare the
performance of the Reading Recovery children with that of the comparison group. First,
the achievement of the comparison group is used to establish a band of achievement. The
"band" is a half standard deviation above and below the mean in each of the areas taught
to the Reading Recovery students and measured by the Clay Diagnostic measures. If a
Reading Recovery student's scores end up within this band, then the child is considered
successful and is "discontinued" (Fincher, 1991). Secondly, the data are analyzed to
compare the pre- post-gains made by the Reading Recovery children with the comparison
group to see if the children in Reading Recovery gained at a faster than normal rate while
in Reading Recovery.
This design is similar to that used in curriculum-based measurement (CBM), which
is widely used for special education decision-making. However, there are two important
differences: (a) in CBM the measures sample the class's curriculum to determine when a
child is ready to be returned to the classroom; in Reading Recovery the measures sample
the pull-out curriculum, and (b) in CBM conclusions are made regarding individual
students so local norms are appropriate; in Reading Recovery local norms are used to
evaluate the effectiveness of Reading Recovery for a whole group of students. Local
norms are not appropriate for program evaluation without reference to national norms,
03/07/97
16:34
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
010
02/12/97
10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
9
because local norms are highly variable, and there is no way to know whether an
alternative program may have been more effective without an equivalent comparison
group.
The Measures
The Clay Diagnostic measures are used in the Reading Recovery evaluation
system. Results obtained with these measures are somewhat misleading for two reasons:
(a) content bias, and (b) unequal intervals between levels.
Content bias. As Wasik and Slavin (1993) and Center, Wheldall, and Freeman
(1992) point out, the Clay Diagnostic measures sample the specific skills taught in the
Reading Recovery program. "There is an articulation between the Reading Recovery
program and the measures used 10 evaluate the program, suggesting that what is taught
is what is measured" (Wasik & Slavin, 1993, p. 187). This is particularly true in the lower
levels of the program, where assessments emphasize less authentic reading tasks and skills
that are unique to Reading Recovery. The comparison children may have no experience
with the kinds of tasks evaluated by these measures, while Reading Recovery children
have extensive experience. Comparisons on these measures are likely to exaggerate the
amount of learning for Reading Recovery children.
The primary evaluation tool in the Clay Diagnostic measures is the book-level
measure, which is used to determine where a child places in the 20 levels of the
instructional program booklets. It is the only measure in the battery that requires the
children to read connected text. Though the text is connected, it is not authentic text. It
is "predictable" text, where pictures and repetitive sentence patterns prompt the reader.
Predictability is strongest at the lowest level and is gradually reduced as children progress
into the higher levels. At the final 20th level the text is least predictable, but it still has
predictable features limiting its authenticity. Children generally do not reach the 20th level
before they are discontinued, since they only need to reach the class average to be
returned to their classroom.
The national Reading Recovery data indicate that the average level at completion
of Reading Recovery is only level 10 (Shanahan & Barr, 1995). At level 10, the texts are
still very predictable so the children can read words without looking closely at them. The
children rely more on the contextual clues, the illustrations and the repeated sentence
patterns in the text. Children who use these contextual strategies to read are more likely to
be successful in predictable text than in authentic text. Consequently, children from
Reading Recovery may not read authentic text very well at all when they are returned to
the classroom as "successful."
Stanovich and Stanovich (1995) report that many studies have found that authentic
text is not very predictable:
03/07/97
16:34
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
011
02/12/97
10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
10
"It is often incorrectly assumed that predicting upcoming words in sentences is a
relatively easy and highly accurate activity. Actually, many different empirical
studies have indicated that naturalistic text is not that predictable. Alford (1980)
found that for a set of moderately long expository passages of text, subjects
needed an average of more than four guesses to correctly anticipate upcoming
words in the passage (the method of scoring actually makes this a considerable
underestimate). Across a variety of subject populations and texts. a reader's
probability of predicting the next word in a passage is usually between 20 and
.35 (Aborn, Rubenstein, & Sterling, 1959; Gough, 1983; Miller & Coleman,
1967; Perfetti, Goldman, & Hogaboam, 1979; Rubenstein & Aborn, 1958).
Indeed, as Gough (1983) has shown, the figure is highest for function words, and
is often quite low for the very words in the passage that carry the most
information content." (p. 90)
If authentic text is not very predictable, then children who read well in predictable
text may not necessarily read well in authentic text. The strategies they have learned for
reading may not generalize to real reading. These are important research questions that
will be discussed in the review of empirical findings below.
Unequal intervals. Center, Wheldall, and Freeman (1992) point out that not only
are the book-level measures biased to show positive results for the prediction strategies
taught in Reading Recovery, but they are also biased to show greater growth on pre-post
comparisons for lower performing children:
"Data reported by Glynn et al. (1989) indicated that the relationship between the
amount of instruction and reading performance was not linear with respect to text
level. Over a given time period, the average increase in text level was greater for
the lower level texts than for the higher level texts (Iversen & Tunmer, in press).
(Center, Wheldall, & Freeman, 1992, p. 271)
Because the intervals between levels are smaller at the lower levels, greater gains for
poorer readers in Reading Recovery may be spurious (Center, Wheldall, & Freeman,
1992). A lower-performing Reading Recovery child learns much less to move from level
1 to level 2 than an average performing child must learn to move from level 11 to 12.
Even though these intervals are not equal, a Reading Recovery evaluation would interpret
these as equal gains.
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection process is not objective or independent. Those who collect
and collate Reading Recovery success data have high stakes invested in the success of
Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery teachers collect and collate success data for the
children they teach. The supervisor uses the success data collected by the teacher to
evaluate the same teacher. The supervisors then collate the data from the teachers they
supervise to submit to their respective university training centers who use the data to
03/07/97
16:35
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
012
02/12/97
10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
11
evaluate the supervisors' performance. The national Reading Recovery directors at Ohio
State University have collated the data from all the university training centers in reports to
the National Diffusion Network, which has validated Reading Recovery as an effective
research-based program based on these data.
Two aspects of the data collection procedures result in misleading calculations of
success rates:
1. Children that the Reading Recovery teacher judges as not likely to be successful
are not taken into the program. This judgment is based on entry level assessment, on a
child's performance in the pre-program phase of "roaming around the known," or on other
unspecified indicators. These excluded children are not counted among the children
"served" by Reading Recovery, and, therefore, are not included in the calculation of the
success rate.
2. Among children served some do not complete all 60 lessons. These children
are also not counted in the success rate calculation. Sometimes these children are
removed from Reading Recovery on the grounds that the program is not appropriate for
them. Six to 7% are referred to special education (Shanahan & Barr, 1995). The others
are generally referred to the Title I program. Some children fail to complete the program
because the year ends before they are finished and Reading Recovery is only for first-time
first graders. (Retained first graders are not eligible.)
The needs of these children must either remain unserved or must be served by
other compensatory programs. By repeatedly reducing the number of children counted in
the total, the success rates reported for Reading Recovery are inflated.
Implications for This Review
Because of the high levels of publicity that have been given the in-house
evaluations of Reading Recovery and the built-in biases contained in the in-house
evaluation system, the following review emphasizes the findings of independent
evaluations. Two types of independent evaluations are available: (a) independent reviews
of the data gathered through the Reading Recovery evaluation system, and (b) the results
obtained on independent measures of children's ability to read authentic text. Even the
independent reviews rely heavily on the data collected through the Reading Recovery in-
house evaluation system simply because the other data are extremely limited. Hiebert
(1994) and Shanahan and Barr (1995), for example, did not collect their own data on
Reading Recovery but critiqued the analyses and conclusions made from data collected by
other researchers, for the most part, data from the Reading Recovery evaluation system.
Very little data have been gathered comparing Reading Recovery with alternative
programs or a control group. Most of these comparative studies have also been
conducted by the Reading Recovery leaders, Pinnell, Huck, Lyons, and others who direct
the Reading Recovery program nationally from Ohio State University. Independent
03/07/97
16:35
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
013
02/12/97 10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
12
evaluators include Battelle (1995) for the Ohio Department of Education, the Wake
County Public School System in North Carolina (1995), Pollock (1996) for the Columbus
Ohio Public Schools, and Fincher (1991) for the Canton Ohio Public Schools. These
evaluators may have no stake in Reading Recovery but often include the data collected by
the in-house system in their evaluations. The independence of the evaluators makes these
analyses important.
Recent Independent Evaluations of the Reading Recovery Research Design
The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL), a federally
supported educational laboratory responsible for interpreting educational research for the
midwestern states, hired two scholars to review all the existing empirical research
regarding the effectiveness of Reading Recovery. NCREL selected Rebecca Barr and
Timothy Shanahan because they had articulated two opposing viewpoints regarding
Reading Recovery. Barr is a noted advocate for Reading Recovery, having served on
various boards for the Reading Recovery effort and as sponsor for her university's Reading
Recovery training program. On the other hand, Shanahan is a noted critic of Reading
Recovery, having written the first published critique of Reading Recovery research (1987).
By considering the perspectives of both sides, Shanahan and Barr's 1995 review
Reading Recovery: An Independent Evaluation of the Effects of an Early Instructional
Intervention for At Risk Learners, provides perhaps the most thorough analysis available
of the data collected through the Reading Recovery evaluation system described above.
Their basic finding was:
"
that Reading Recovery leads to learning It is less effective and more costly
than has been claimed, and does not lead to systematic changes in classroom
instruction, making it difficult to maintain learning gains. This is
discouraging given program claims and its great expense" (p.1).
In addition to finding the reports of success misleading, Shanahan and Barr
(1995) found unorthodox research procedures. For example, most of the Reading
Recovery system data was located in unpublished technical reports produced by Reading
Recovery leaders, Pinnell, Huck and others, at Ohio State University and had not
undergone the peer review that is necessary to publish a study in scientific journals. A
recent example of an unpublished technical report is an evaluation of Reading Recovery in
Arkansas distributed by the Southern Regional Education Board (1996). This evaluation
presents conclusions formed from data collected through the in-house Reading Recovery
system and was not reviewed by an independent party.
All the studies Shanahan and Barr located suffered methodological problems: "We
found no studies of Reading Recovery that did not suffer from serious methodological or
reporting flaws-published or not.' (1995, p. 961) Shanahan and Barr identified three
types of problems in the Reading Recovery pre-post design, which would lead to
exaggerated success rates:
03/07/97
16:36
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
014
02/12/97 10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
13
[The reported learning gain] most certainly is an overestimate of typical amounts
of learning from Reading Recovery for several reasons: (a) test score
improvements not linked to learning are likely to occur when students with
extreme scores are selected for participation; (b) normal development and
learning gains typical of young children can be due to other sources of growth
and education; and (c) there is systematic omission of children who are not
having success in Reading Recovery. (p. 969)
The first two problems would be removed if equivalent groups of children were
used as experimental controls. The systematic omission of data is a more serious problem
because among those omitted are children the Reading Recovery teachers identify as ones
who are not progressing well. Children who are not successful are intentionally dropped
before completing the entire program. The reports then do not reflect how well Reading
Recovery serves the entire population it claims to serve, nor do they provide information
regarding overall class effects or school effects. Consequently, the success rates cannot be
used to evaluate the effectiveness of Reading Recovery.
Probably the most serious flaw in Reading Recovery research has to do with who
is included in the experimental sample. In some analyses, only discontinued
students were examined, making the program appear more effective than tt really
is. In most of the studies, students were omitted from analysis because of serious
learning problems, poor school attendance, or other similar difficulties. These
omissions were often made without mention. It is impossible to provide a valid
estimate of the effects of Reading Recovery unless all children who start the
program are included in the eventual analysis Unfortunately, even two of the
more sophisticated studies (Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, & McNaught,
1995; Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994) that we analysed have lost
as much as half of their data, without any empirical estimate or control of the
effects of these missing data. (p. 991-2)
"The Ohio State programs have routinely collected information on those who are
dropped for various reasons, but these data have not been taken account of in
their studies or technical reports, nor have they been available to the public,
Depending on the proportion of participants omitted in this fashion, this creates a
substantial bias in favor of Reading Recovery gains, and there is no sound way to
adjust the scores that are reported on this basis. (Shanahan & Barr, 1995, P.
966)
For these reasons, Shanahan and Barr (1995) found it impossible to use standard
research procedures:
"Overall, our consideration of the existing research and evaluation studies of
Reading Recovery is largely qualitative. It would be difficult or impossible to
conduct a thorough empirical examination of this work using procedures such as
03/07/97
16:37
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
015
02/12/97
10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
14
meta-analysis because there are so few studies, and those that exist usually
provide insufficient information to make such analysis appropriate. (1995, P.
961)
Equity
Is the standard for successful completion of Reading Recovery equitable?
The standard for successful completion is not equitable. Reading Recovery
systematically results in lower expectations for children in lower achieving schools by
bringing a child to only the average level of the other first-grade children in the child's
class or school and not to a uniform national standard. The average level of performance
of children in low income areas is approximately the 20th percentile, while the average
level of children in higher income areas may be around the 80th percentile. To bring each
child to the average level of the first-grade children in the child's local school leads to
inequity. Children reading at only the 20th percentile in first grade are generally
nonreaders and are likely to remain unsuccessful in school, while children reading at the
80ᵗʰ percentile in first grade are likely to be readers.
The relative notion of reading disability is problematic in America's poorest
schools. In these schools accomplishing an instructional setting [class or
school] average can mean returning children to the classroom with reading
levels in the bottom 15 to 25% of the national distribution-a level of
performance that, even if maintained, makes it likely that the child will not
complete school successfully. (Shanahan & Barr, 1995, p. 995)
As a statewide intervention, Reading Recovery would not be able to make readers
out of all the lowest performing children. First, Reading Recovery does not make children
readers. "Success" in Reading Recovery rarely means the children read. Second, low
income schools with heavy concentrations of nonreaders need a school-wide intervention,
not a tutorial that works with 10 to 20% of the children. Reading Recovery is least
effective in the lowest performing schools because of the high proportion of students who
are reading below the 25th percentile. In this case Reading Recovery can serve only a
small percentage of students who are significantly behind. A large number of children who
need services are left without assistance:
When there are such large proportions of low-achieving students, it can be more
difficult to be successful with Reading Recovery (Smith, 1994). (Shanahan &
Barr, 1995, P. 995)
Because a higher proportion of minority children live in low income areas and
minority children are legally protected from educational inequality by the equal protection
clause of the U.S. Constitution, Reading Recovery could potentially violate
constitutional law by holding lower expectations for minority children. At least one
site seems to have recognized this as a potential problem:
03/07/97
16:37
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
016
02/12/97 10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
15
In New York City Reading Recovery programs, children are not discontinued until
they reach national rather than local averages. (Shanahan & Barr, 1995, p. 995)
Results
Will Reading Recovery raise overall school achievement levels?
If a school's goal is to raise the overall level of reading performance, Reading
Recovery is not the appropriate intervention to choose. Both Reading Recovery
advocates and critics agree on this point. Hiebert (1994) found that Reading Recovery had
no positive effects on overall school achievement:
Despite the implementation of a program with 78,000 students from 1984-1993 in
the United States, data from the three primary Reading Recovery sites and from
the longitudinal study (DeFord et al., 1990) produce an unconvincing scenario of
the effects of Reading Recovery on an age cohort. (p. 23)
In a response to Hiebert, Reading Recovery promoters, Pinnell and Lyons (1995)
agreed that they do not expect Reading Recovery to have an effect on overall
achievement:
"Implementation of the program in a given school does not necessarily mean
an increase in mean scores but an increase of actual numbers of children at
average levels [Reading Recovery] will not have lifted the scores of the entire
age cohort! It never claimed to do this. Changes in mean scores for the total
group may or may not increase; the objective of [Reading Recovery] is to have a
larger group of children in the middle range." (p. 1)
Who actually benefits from Reading Recovery?
Reading Recovery advocates claim a very high success rate with problem children:
"Approximately 75-85 percent of the lowest 20 percent of children served by
Reading Recovery achieved reading and writing scores in the average range of
their class and received no additional supplemental instruction (Pinnell, Lyons, &
DeFord, 1988; DeFord, Estice, Fried, Lyons, & Pinnell, 1993; Swartz, Shook, &
Hoffman, 1993)." (Swartz & Klein, 1996).
The independent evaluations find these claims to be exaggerated. First of all,
Reading Recovery does not serve all of the lowest children. In a study of Ohio children,
the mean national percentile score of children entering Reading Recovery from 1986 to
1991 was not below the 20th percentile, but was 34.5 on the comprehension subscale of
the Metropolitan Achievement Test (Hiebert, 1994). Hiebert interpreted this to mean that
03/07/97
16:38
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
017
02/12/97
10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
16
the children selected for Reading Recovery come from the 4th quintile (20th to 40th
percentile) rather than the bottom quintile (0 to 20th percentile) as claimed. This
higher entry level can be explained in three possible ways: (a) Children are not accepted if
they do not meet entry criteria, (b) children who do not make progress are dropped from
the program, and (b) a uniform percentage of children in each school are served,
regardless of the overall level of performance of children in the school.
Children not meeting entry level requirements are not accepted Reading
Recovery requires that children meet certain criteria on the Clay Diagnostic Measures to
enter the Reading Recovery program. In addition, children who are already identified as
special education children are not accepted into the program.
Even with these tests and teachers' subjective observations, the potential of
children beginning first grade is very difficult to judge. Reading Recovery includes a
preprogram phase of "roaming the known" where the Reading Recovery teacher may
conduct further informal analyses of the potential of children. During this time the
Reading Recovery teacher may reject children who are judged unlikely to benefit from the
program. Some of these rejected children are referred to special education. These
children are not counted among "served children," because they are considered to have
never officially begun Reading Recovery.
Reading Recovery does not report the number of low-performing children who are
rejected before lesson 1 because they are not expected to benefit from the program.
However, Battelle (1995) included the number of eligible children who were never served
in an independent evaluation in Ohio. Eligible children who were never served included
the number of rejected children as well as the number of children who never got a turn in
Reading Recovery. Battelle's data indicate that together these children represent
19% of the children originally eligible for Reading Recovery.
Children not making progress are dropped The Reading Recovery policy is to
anticipate which children will not be successful in Reading Recovery and remove them
from the program before completing the full program of 60 lessons. A child who will not
benefit from Reading Recovery is to be replaced with a child whom the Reading Recovery
teacher believes will benefit, by lesson 12 if possible.
Many of the children who do not seem to benefit are referred to special education.
Shanahan and Barr (1995) noted that in Illinois, 7% of the children who began Reading
Recovery were referred to special education and, therefore, did not complete the program;
and in the Wake County Public School System, 6% were referred to special education.
This is in addition to the special education children who were already identified and
rejected prior to entry into Reading Recovery. Removing the lowest performing children
who make little or no progress in the first several lessons increases the average
performance of the remaining group of children. Those children who complete the
Reading Recovery program are those children that the Reading Recovery teacher
03/07/97
16:38
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
018
02/12/97 10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
17
predicted would be able to match the classroom average on the Clay Diagnostic Measures
upon completion of the program.
Reading Recovery can serve only a fraction of the children in first grade. The
claim to serve the "lowest 20 percent" refers to the local school population, not the
national population. When most of the children in a school are in the bottom quintile
nationally, Reading Recovery could only serve the lowest 20% of that bottom quintile,
leaving 80% of the bottom quintile unserved. On the other hand, when few children are in
the bottom quintile, Reading Recovery will serve children performing at higher levels.
Because of the greater availability of Title I funds in low income schools Reading
Recovery is more common in those schools.
How successful is Reading Recovery?
Children who achieve at the average level of their first-grade class on the book-
level measures developed for Reading Recovery are usually non-readers, so success in
Reading Recovery rarely means the child is a reader. The average book-level score of a
child successfully completing Reading Recovery is level 10 (Shanahan & Barr, 1995).
Children scoring at level 10 are not reading authentic text, yet these children would be
counted as Reading Recovery successes.
Moreover, the success rates with the children who complete Reading Recovery, as
determined by the book-level measures, are exaggerated. Shanahan and Barr (1995)
reviewed the national data collected through the Reading Recovery evaluation system
(22,193 children) and reported to the National Diffusion Network (DeFord, Estice, Fried,
Lyons, & Pinnell, 1993). The success rate was calculated as 84% in the report. However,
using the same data and including the 26% who began but did not complete Reading
Recovery in the calculation, Shanahan and Barr calculated the percentage of successful
children from among all the children served to be only 62%:
The percentage discontinued [successful] that was reported for the 1991-2
sample, for example, is 84%. Yet, if we were to consider the total number of
students served, including those with fewer than 60 lessons, only 62% of the total
would be found to complete the program successfully. (p. 965)
Sixty-two percent is a high estimate because no data were included in the report to the
National Diffusion Network regarding the size of the additional group of children who
were eligible, but were never served (Shanahan and Barr, 1995). As noted earlier,
Battelle's (1995) evaluation for the Ohio Department of Education found that this group
represented 19% of the children found eligible for Reading Recovery. If the 19% who
were never served are included, the success rate drops to 51%.
This figure for the national data (51%) seems a reasonable estimate because it is
very close to Battelle's figure for Ohio (1995). Battelle found that only 53% of the
children eligible for Reading Recovery scored at the classroom average on the book-
03/07/97
16:39
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
019
02/12/97
10:05 AM
Reading Recovery
18
level measures at the end of first grade. (19% were not served; 28% were served but
did not meet program objectives.):
Slightly more than 200 students in 36 Ohio school districts were determined to be
eligible to receive Reading Recovery services in 1990-91, but did not. Also about
300 of the nearly 875 students who received Reading Recovery services in 1990-
91 did not discontinue [were not successful]. (p. 68, Battelle, 1995)
Many reports of Reading Recovery success use the in-house evaluation system and
suffer the methodological problems pointed out by Shanahan and Barr (1995). For
example, the Southwest Regional Education Board (1996) recently published a report of
the Arkansas data gathered through the in-house evaluation system ("Getting Elementary
Schools Ready for Children: Reading First"). No independent measures were used to
evaluate children's reading performance. Only the Clay Diagnostic measures were used.
The report claims an 86% success rate; however, this rate is calculated based on the
smaller proportion of children who received a full program. Thirty-one percent of the
children served did not receive a full program but these children were not included in the
calculation of the success rate. The numbers of children who were eligible but not served
was not reported, nor were the numbers of children referred to special education or
otherwise dropped from Reading Recovery because of inadequate progress.
In contrast to the high success rates reported for Arkansas from the in-house
evaluation system, Pollock (1996), an independent evaluator, found that only 14.7% of the
children completing the program reached national norms on standardized measures in the
1995-6 evaluation of Columbus Ohio Public Schools. (This was a higher percentage than
Pollock found in the previous years.) This means that only 6.5% of the children originally
eligible for Reading Recovery read at grade level at the end of first grade in 1996. Eligible
children represent 20% of the first grade class. To put this in perspective, out of a group
of 100 children, only 1 child among the 20 eligible for Reading Recovery would read at
grade level due to the Reading Recovery program. Whether other pull-out programs
could do as well or better could only be determined with a comparison study.
Does Reading Recovery do away with the need for other compensatory services?
Reading Recovery advocates claim that Reading Recovery is so effective that Title
I and special education programs are no longer needed, thus creating a savings greater
than the expense of Reading Recovery (Dyer, 1992; Southern Regional Education Board,
1996). This argument assumes that by implementing Reading Recovery, children will not
need assistance from any other compensatory programs.
The data indicate this assumption is false. As noted earlier, special education
children are not accepted into the program and, furthermore, the program removes many
children and refers them to special education.
03/07/97
16:39
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
020
02/12/97 10:12 AM
Reading Recovery
19
"It should be noted that Reading Recovery does not do away with early referrals
for special education, as the program itself makes many such referrals"
(Shanahan & Barr, 1995, p.987).
Reading Recovery does not do away with the need for Title 1 services either.
Children who successfully complete Reading Recovery often need additional assistance.
Pollock (1996) reported that 81% of the children who completed Reading Recovery were
still eligible for Title I services in Columbus in the 1995-6 school year. This means that
among all children eligible for Title I before Reading Recovery, 92% were still eligible
after Reading Recovery. In Columbus over an eight-year period, 31% of the children
counted as successful by Reading Recovery standards were still eligible for Title I services
(Pollock, 1994).
Are the effects of Reading Recovery sustained over time?
Advocates also claim that Reading Recovery enables children to establish a self-
extending learning system that allows them to improve as readers after they are returned
to the classroom. To support this claim, advocates cite any evidence of growth in reading
among discontinued Reading Recovery children without comparing this growth with that
of a control group. Evaluations with a control group find that children who return to
the classroom as successfully "recovered" students immediately begin falling behind.
Their learning rate is slower than that of other low-achieving children. For example,
Glynn, Crooks, Bethune, Ballard, and Smith (1989) found that the learning rate of
Reading Recovery children immediately slowed when the children were returned to the
classroom and was much lower than that of other low-achieving children. Data from
DeFord, Pinnell, Lyons, and Place (1990) also indicate that Reading Recovery children did
not learn at a rate comparable to the average children in the class after being discontinued
from Reading Recovery (Shanahan & Barr, 1995). Part of the problem may be that the
children have difficulty transferring their strategies of prediction from the predictable text
they read in Reading Recovery to the authentic text they might read in the regular
classroom.
By third grade, even the effects found on the book-level measures have washed
out. "These results suggest that by third grade, the Reading Recovery instructed groups
may not be significantly different from the comparison groups as indicated by measures
of text reading" (Shanahan & Barr, 1995, p.980). Hiebert (1994) found the same pattern
of results at fourth grade:
Although Reading Recovery-tutored students perform better than Achievement
Comparison students on an oral reading task, this difference disappears when
the task is a standardized one, even one that has the limited passages of the
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (p. 23)
03/07/97
16:40
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
021
02/12/97 10:12 AM
Reading Recovery
20
Is Reading Recovery more effective than common Title I programs?
Reading Recovery advocates claim that Reading Recovery is more effective than
other reading programs:
"Studies have shown Reading Recovery to be more effective in achieving short-
term and sustained progress in reading and writing than other intervention
programs, both one-to-one tutorial and small group methods (Pinnell, Lyons,
DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994; Gregory, Earl, & ODonoghue, 1993)." (Swartz
& Klein, 1996).
The Reading Recovery evaluation system does not compare Reading Recovery
with alternative interventions. Separate studies have found that measures using authentic
text (standardized measures) generally show no advantage for Reading Recovery over
other programs, even at the end of first grade. The Clay Diagnostic measures are
generally the only measures that show positive effects for Reading Recovery. For
example, Shanahan and Barr (1995) report: "None of the [early intervention] programs,
including Reading Recovery, had any impact on standardized test performance at the end
of first grade" (p. 977). Fincher (1991) compared the performance of children in Reading
Recovery with that of children in other compensatory programs in Canton City Schools,
Ohio, over a five-year period and found that "teaching Assistants with almost no training
and minimal teaching materials with which to teach and working in less than desirable
conditions, outperformed the Reading Recovery teachers when their students' overall
achievement was compared." Fincher also found that when the same teachers teach
Reading Recovery and Title I, the teachers get better results with the Title I program.
Wake County Public School System found that Reading Recovery students,
"compared to a control group, were just as likely to be retained, placed in special
education, or served in [Title] I a year later" (WCPPS, 1995, p. ii).
Battelle (1995) also compared Reading Recovery with other compensatory
programs independent measures on independent measures. Battelle had a great deal of
difficulty getting Ohio schools to administer and submit the results of the independent
standardized measures. From the submitted data, Battelle found that at the end of the first
year, Reading Recovery students scored only 3.4 percentile points higher than children
receiving other common nonindividualized compensatory services in comparison schools.
(These services varied considerably from pull-out programs to occasional assistance in the
regular classroom.) Even though the small difference was statistically significant, it was
not educationally significant according to Battelle.
One frequently cited study (Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994) found
Reading Recovery more effective than four alternative methods: (a) group delivered
Reading Recovery, (b) Reading Recovery delivered by teachers with less training, (c)
skills-based instruction without the Reading Recovery framework, and (d) a control.
These were the four treatments compared:
03/07/97
16:41
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
022
02/12/97 10:12 AM
Reading Recovery
21
1. Reading and Writing was a small-group tutorial program taught by certified
teachers trained in Reading Recovery.
2. Reading Success was an individualized tutoring program modeled on
Reading Recovery. It was taught by substitute certified teachers who had only
some Reading Recovery training.
3. Isolated Skills was individualized tutoring focusing on letters, sounds,
words, and text-level strategies. Instruction was based on the classroom basal
system. Substitute certified teachers received a 3-day intensive training program
and were encouraged to use creativity to explore skills in different ways.
4. The control group was a Title I program using group instruction that
focused on practicing skills and learning core words. Teachers received no special
training.
Rasinski (1995) points out 3 important methodological flaws in the Pinnell et al. study
(1994):
1. Using substitute teachers to teach two of the treatments versus the more
experienced teachers who are currently working in the school for the other
treatments could have influenced the results.
2. The instructional time varied across treatment conditions, with Reading
Recovery children receiving significantly more instruction. Rasinski adjusted the
posttest scores by the instructional time factor and found that 5 out of 6 mean
scores for children in the comparison treatments were higher than the mean scores
of the Reading Recovery group. This means that when the scores were
adjusted to equalize instructional time, the other interventions obtained
better results than Reading Recovery. (See Figure 3 in the Executive
Summary.) Only the book-level measures showed consistently better results for
Reading Recovery after this adjustment.
3. The comparison of individualized Reading Recovery with small group
Reading Recovery did not equalize the teacher time. Two hours of instructional
time for teaching 4 students in the individualized format was compared with only
1/2 hour for teaching 4 students in the small group format. Though the mean
scores of both groups were essentially equal, the fact that small group
Reading Recovery was four times as efficient as individualized Reading
Recovery was overlooked in the report.
In light of Rasinski's criticisms, many conclusions that Pinnel et al. (1994) made cannot be
accepted without further replication. These replications have not occurred.
03/07/97
16:41
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
023
02/12/97 10:12 AM
Reading Recovery
22
How does Reading Recovery compare with other research-based interventions?
None of the interventions compared in the Pinnell et al. study incorporated features
of effective instruction to prevent reading disabilities that have recently been identified by
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development program (Center for the
Future of Teaching and Learning, 1996). Explicit phonemic awareness instruction in
kindergarten with systematic, explicit phonics and extensive practice reading decodable
text has had the greatest success in preventing the occurrence of reading problems.
Iversen and Tunmer (1993) found that when Reading Recovery was modified to be more
systematic, it was 37% more effective. Subsequently, Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, and
Alexander (in press) found that an explicit systematic approach combined with decodable
text was more effective than instruction similar to Iversen and Tunmer's modified Reading
Recovery treatment.
Wasik and Slavin (1993) compared the relative effect sizes achieved by five
treatments for reading problems in five separate meta-analyses. Two programs had much
larger effect sizes than Reading Recovery. Conclusions from such meta-analyses may not
be as dependable because of possible differences in the control groups. However, the
design of the two more effective programs is consistent with the findings of a significant
body of other research, lending support to a conclusion that the two treatments identified
as superior by Wasik and Slavin are indeed superior to Reading Recovery. Reading
Recovery was not nearly as effective as two programs that provided explicit systematic
phonics with extensive practice reading decodable text (the Success for All and Wallach
and Wallach programs).
Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, and Fletcher (in press) found explicit
phonemic awareness and phonics combined with decodable text much more effective with
Title I children than a whole language program with an unlicensed Reading Recovery
support program. The explicit systematic treatment was most effective when it was used
in the regular classroom.
"In order to avoid reading failure, the focus should be on prevention, not
intervention. It was the classroom curriculum effect, not the tutorial method
effect that was significant. The tutorial effect was not particularly strong, given
the weak association between growth in word reading and number of days in
tutorial. (Foorman, Francis, Beerly, Winikates, & Fletcher, in press, p. 16)
These findings support Nicholson's recommendation: If we teach letter-sound
correspondences [in the regular classroom], we 'll reduce the need for Reading Recovery.
(Nicholson cited in O'Hare, 1995, P. 22)
In fact, many of the instructional techniques used in Reading Recovery are
inconsistent with the techniques supported by evidence from scientific intervention
research. The findings of the NICHD research (Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning, 1996) emphasize the value of systematic instruction in phonological skills and
03/07/97
16:42
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
1
024
02/12/97 10:12 AM
Reading Recovery
23
the alphabetic principle. The key features of systematic instruction are the following: (a)
the lessons are logically organized and planned, and (b) the lessons allow for extensive
practice applying phonological skills in decodable text.
Reading Recovery does not provide systematic instruction in letter-sound
relationships (the alphabetic principle). Reading Recovery's own document, Reading
Recovery Executive Summary, 1984-1995 describes the unsystematic nature of the
instruction in letter-sound relationships:
"Our approach to phonics does not involve following some prescribed,
predefined logical sequence for every student. Many children learn all they need
about letter/sound relationships in the process of writing messages, other children
are engaged in activities designed to extend their meager knowledge of words"
(p. 8).
Reading Recovery does not use decodable text. Decodable text is composed of
words that use the letter-sound correspondences the children have learned to that
point and a limited number of sight words that have been systematically taught.
This allows the children opportunity to practice the letter-sound relationships they have
learned in the context of real reading. Reading Recovery uses predictable text which leads
the children to use context clues contained in the pictures and provided by the repetitive
sentence patterns instead of using sounds for the letters in the word. Predictable text does
not give children the opportunity to practice their letter-sound knowledge in the context of
real reading. Research shows that overuse of context to figure out unknown words, in
fact, "hampers" reading acquisition (Lyon & Chhabra, 1996).
Costs
Is Reading Recovery cost-effective?
Reading Recovery advocates argue that even when high cost estimates are used,
the expense is cheap compared to the multi-year educational costs of special education
and Title I and the social costs of letting the child fail to learn to read. Dyer (1992)
claimed that although the initial set-up of Reading Recovery is costly, the savings in
retentions, Title 1, and Special Education services for districts over the long term is
substantial. In fact, Dyer even argued that the short-term annual cost of Reading
Recovery is less expensive than first-grade retention.
Dyer's figures for savings (see Table I) assume that (a) Title I and special
education are completely ineffective (Hiebert, 1994) and (b) Reading Recovery is always
effective and children never make use of Title I or special education services. Both these
assumptions are false. Furthermore, Dyer (1992) calculated that the cost per child was
only $2063. Dyer's figures omit many costs and assume that one full-time-equivalent
teacher works with the recommended number of children and that the success rate is
perfect with these children.
03/07/97
16:42
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
025
02/12/97 10:12 AM
Reading Recovery
24
Hiebert (1994) and Shanahan & Barr (1995) critiqued Dyer for using hypothetical
information and not actual data from the Reading Recovery evaluation system regarding
cost and effectiveness. Based on actual effectiveness documented in the Reading
Recovery evaluation system, Hiebert and Shanahan and Barr concluded that the cost was
much higher per successful child ($4625-$8333). Dyer's figures and the revisions of those
cost estimates are summarized below (see Table 1). Niether Hiebert nor Shanahan and
Barr obtained figures for all the costs involved, though they noted that these costs include
more than teacher salaries. They include the staff development and support for the
teacher, the materials the teacher uses, and the set-up of the Reading Recovery teaching
area Shanahan and Barr obtained only some of these additional costs from Reading
Recovery sponsors.
A recent California audit (August 6, 1996) from the Joint Legislative Audit
Committee found much higher figures for some of the costs than Shanahan and Barr
reported from the Reading Recovery sponsors. "The training for teacher leaders costs
approximately $18,300 plus the costs of conferences, travel, and the teacher's salary for
the year that they are out of service from their district." (p. 3) The audit also reported
that San Bernardino Unified School District reported per pupil costs of $7000, which
included teacher salaries in the overall cost calculation but did "not include the $112,000
paid to the foundation at CSU San Bernardino for teacher training" (pp. 3-4).
Table 1. Dyer's original case for cost effectiveness with Hiebert and Shanahan & Barr's response
Dyer, 1992
Hiebert, 1994
Shanahan
California audit,
& Barr, 1995
1996
COSTS
Teacher salary
$33,015
$33,015
$35,104
omitted
(1992-3 ave, AFT)
Benefits
omitted
omitted
$8425
omitted
(26% in1992, Bureau
of Labor Statistics)
Initial Training per
omitted
omitted
$325*
$2000*
teacher
Teacher Leader
omitted
omitted
$2042*
$4575*
Training room set-
omitted
omitted
omitted
omitted
up
Yearly conference
omitted
omitted
omitted
omitted
Travel
omitted
omitted
omitted
omitted
On-going support
omitted
omitted
omitted
omitted
Substitutes during
omitted
training
Instructional
$350*
$375*
materials
Cost per teacher
$33,015
$33,015
$46,246
No. of children
16 (the number
11 (actual
8 (number
served
recommended)
number served)
discontinued)
Cost per child
$2063
$3000
$4625
03/07/97
16:43
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
026
02/12/97
10:12 AM
Reading Recovery
25
Cost per successful
$3488
child at end of grade
(86% success)
1
Cost per successful
$8333
child at end of grade
(36% success)
4
SAVINGS per
teacher
Retentions
4@,$5208
Dyer's figures
Chapter 1 children
4 @ $4715
assume that all
these programs
Special education
2 @$9906
are completely
placements
ineffective.
* depreciated over 4 years
The Wake County Public School System (WCPSS, 1996) gathered their own data
and calculated a cost of $9,211 per successful child:
The average Reading Recovery teacher serves seven students during a year, and,
on average, three or four of those students read at a first-grade level by the end
of the year. Annually, the cost per student for all students served in Reading
Recovery in WCPSS during 1993-94 was approximately $2,947.50 beyond the
regular instructional program. Current evaluation data suggests that by the end
of third grade only about two of the students served by a Reading Recovery
teacher read at a third-grade level. Thus, the WCPSS has invested approximately
$9,211 for each student who is a long-term success.
Since the 1990-91 and 1991-92 comparison groups of students who did not
receive Reading Recovery achieved a comparable success rate on standardized
tests in third grade, and since Reading Recovery expenditures in WCPSS do not
seem to have been offset by significant savings from a reduction of need for
special education, retention, or Chapter I assistance, the program does not
appear to be cost effective at this time.
Taken together, the data indicate that the cost for Reading Recovery (30
hours of instruction for one child) exceeds the national average per pupil
expenditure for one full year of schooling.
"We found that Reading Recovery works, but not as well as its proponents claim;
that its effects largely dissipate over time; and, that it costs about the equivalent
of an additional year of schooling for the children who participate-even
accounting for savings in other expenditures" (Personal communication from T.
Shanahan to Assemblyman S. Baldwin, June 26, 1995).
The above cost estimates are in terms of cost per pupil. The cost per school is
more useful for discussing how funds can be better allocated to meet the goal of making
03/07/97
16:43
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
027
02/12/97 10:12 AM
Reading Recovery
26
every child a reader. Assuming a K-5 elementary school population of 600 and a first-
grade population of 100, a Reading Recovery program might work with 20 children a
year. This requires nearly 4 Reading Recovery teachers or 2 full-time-equivalent teachers.
(Each Reading Recovery teacher serves a national average of 5.5 children, Hiebert, 1994.)
Of these 20 children, only 1 would be reading at grade level in authentic text by the end of
the year (Pollock, 1996). The cost of Reading Recovery in this school would exceed
$125,000. (Two teachers cost approximately $100,000 in today's dollars and training and
implementation costs exceed $25,000).
These Reading Recovery funds could be reallocated to achieve much greater
effectiveness. Foorman et al. (in press) found that the expenditures of huge sums on
tutorial programs very similar to Reading Recovery is significantly less cost-effective than
implementing effective reading instruction in the classroom. Proper beginning reading
instruction in kindergarten and early first grade is not only more effective and less costly
but will substantially minimize the number of students needing individual attention.
To accomplish this using the same funds, one of the two FTE Reading Recovery
positions (2 of 4 half-time Reading Recovery teachers) would be to used to reduce class
size. For example, if there were 4 first-grade classes of 25, adding one more class would
reduce the size to 20. The teacher in the remaining Reading Recovery position would be
more effective using research-based instruction for children who have reading difficulty.
The remaining $25,000 could be invested in a school-wide training program to change
classroom instruction to the more effective practices evaluated in the Foorman, et al. study
(in press). Based on the data from Foorman et al., a school could expect overall
achievement levels to increase more than 1 1/2 times by this change alone. Retraining the
classroom teachers could be easily accomplished with a one-time investment of $25,000.
Retooling a school to use explicit instruction in phonological skills with systematic phonics
combined with decodable text is a much more cost-effective alternative. Not only would
the lower 20% benefit, but the whole school would benefit from more effective
instruction.
03/07/97
16:44
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
028
02/22/97
10:39 AM
Reading Recovery
27
Summary
The Reading Recovery data reporting system is flawed.
The standard for successful completion of Reading Recovery is not equitable.
Reading Recovery does not raise overall school achievement levels.
Far fewer students than claimed actually benefit from Reading Recovery.
Children who are not expected to be successful are removed from the program
and from the calculation of the success rate.
Reading Recovery does not reduce the need for other compensatory reading
services.
Research-based alternative interventions are more effective than Reading
Recovery.
Reading Recovery is extremely expensive and does not save other costs.
03/07/97
16:44
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
5
029
02/12/97 10:39 AM
Reading Recovery
28
REFERENCES
Battelle, Ohio Department of Education. (1995). Longitudinal Study of Reading
Recovery: 1990-91 Through 1993-94.
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (1996). A synthesis of research on
reading from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Http://www.ksagroup.org/centen
Center, Y., Wheldall, K., & Freeman, L. (1992). Evaluating the effectiveness of Reading
Recovery: A critique. Educational Psychology, 12, 263-273.
Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995). An
experimental evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 240-
263.
Clay, M (1993). Reading recovery, a guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. ( 1979; 1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland, NZ:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. M., & Cazden, C. B. (1990). A Vygotskian interpretation of Reading Recovery
tutoring. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and
applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 206-222). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
DeFord, D.E., Estice, R., Fried, M., Lyons, C.E. & Pinnell, G.S. (1993). The Reading
Recovery program: Executive summary 1984-92. Columbus: The Ohio State
University.
DeFord, D.E., Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., & Place, A.W. (1990). The Reading Recovery
follow-up study, Vol. 11, 1987-89. Columbus: Ohio State University.
Donley, J., Baenen, N., & Hundley, S. (1993). A study of the long-term effectiveness of
the Reading Recovery Program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA
Dyer, P. C. (1992). Reading Recovery: A cost-effectiveness and educational outcomes
analysis. Spectrum: Journal of Research in Education, 10(1), 110-119.
Fincher, G. E. (1991). Reading Recovery and Chapter I: A three-year comparative
study. Canton, OH: Canton City Schools.
Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. (in press). Early
Interventions for Children With Reading Problems: Study Designs and Preliminary
Findings. University of Houston
Glynn, T., Crooks, T., Bethune, N., Ballard, K., & Smith, J. (1989). Reading Recovery
in context: implementation and outcome. Educational Psychology. 12(3 & 4), 249-
261.
Gregory, D., Earl, L., & ODonoghue, M. (1993). A study of Reading Recovery in
Scarborough: 1990-1992. Annual Site Report of the Scarborough School District.
Ontario: Scarborough School District.
Groff, P. (1994). Reading Recovery: Educationally sound and cost-effective? Effective
School Practices, 13(1), 65-69.
Hiebert, Elfrieda. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: What Difference Does
it Make to an Age Cohort? Educational Researcher, 23(9), 15-25.
4.
030
03/07/97
16:44
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
02/12/97 10:39 AM
Reading Recovery
29
Iversen, S., & Tunmer, W. (1993). Phonological Processing Skills and the Reading
Recovery Program. Journal of Educational Psychology. 85(1), 112-126.
National Diffusion Network. (1993). 1992-93 discontinuation data (Research rep.).
Columbus: Reading Recovery National Data Evaluation Center.
Lyon, R., & Chhabra, V. (1996). The current state of science and the future of specific
reading disability. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research
Reviews, 1, 1-8.
Leu, D., DeGroff, L, & Simons, H. (1986). Predictable texts and interactive-
compensatory hypotheses: Evaluating individual differences in reading ability, context
use, and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 347-352.
Lyons, C.A., Pinnell, G.S., Short, K., & Young, P. (1986). The Ohio Reading Recovery
Project. Vol 4, Pilot Year 1985-86. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Nicholson, T. (1991). Do children read words better in context or in lists? A classic
study revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 444-450.
Nicholson, T., Lillas, C., & Rzoska, M. (1988). Have we been misled by miscues? The
Reading Teacher, 42, 6-10.
O'Hare, (1995).
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability, New York: Oxford University Press.
Pinnell, G.S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The
Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 159-181.
Pinnell, G.S., & Lyons, C. (1995). Response to Hiebert: What difference does Reading
Recovery make? Unpublished manuscript.
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C.A, & DeFord, D.E. (1988). Reading Recovery: Early
intervention for at-risk first graders. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., & Bryk, A.S. (1994). Response to Rasinski.
Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 272-275.
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing
instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading
Research Quarterly, 29(1), 9-38.
Pollock, J.S. (1994). Final evaluation report: Reading Recovery program 1995-96.
Columbus, OH: Department of Program Evaluation.
Pollock, J.S. (1996). Final evaluation report: Reading Recovery program 1993-94.
Columbus, OH: Department of Program Evaluation.
Rasinski, T. (1995). On the effects of Reading Recovery: A response to Pinnell, Lyons,
DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 264-270.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood cliffs, NH:
Prentice Hall.
Schwartz, R, Moore, P., Schmidt, M., Doyle, M. A., Gaffney, J., & Neal, J. (1996).
Executive Summary of Research on Reading Recovery.
Shanahan, T. (1987).
Shanahan, T., & Barr, R (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the
effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30(4), 958-996.
03/07/97
16:45
202 401 3036
OPP/PES
031
02/12/97 10:39 AM
Reading Recovery
30
Smith-Burke, M. T., Jaggar, A., & Ashdown, J. (1993). New York University Reading
Recovery project: 1992 follow-up study of second graders (Research rep.). New
York: New York University.
Southern Regional Education Board. (1996). Getting Elementary Schools Ready for
Children: Reading First.
Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual
differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16,
32-71.
Stanovich, K. (1984). The interactive-compensatory model of reading: A confluence of
developmental, experimental, and educational psychology. Remedial and Special
Education, 5, 11-19.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
Stanovich, K. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In R. Barr, M.L.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2,
pp. 133-180). San Diegor: Academic Press.
Stanovich, K. (1994). Romance versus reality. The Reading Teacher, 47(4), 280-291.
Stanovich, K., & Stanovich, P. (1995). How research might inform the debate about
early reading acquisition. Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 87-105.
Stanovich, E., West, R, & Feeman, D. (1981). A longitudinal study of sentence context
effects in second-grade children: Tests of an interactive-compensatory model. Journal
of Experimental child Psychology, 32, 185-199.
Swartz, S.L. (1992). Cost comparison of selected intervention programs in California
San Bernardino: California State University.
Swartz, S. L., Shook, R. E., & Hoffman, B.M. (1993). Reading Recovery in California.
1992-93 site report. San Bernardino: California State University.
Swartz, & Klein. (1996). Http:// www.sfusd.k12.ca.us / programs / IT / Rroverview.
Tummer, W. (1989). Does Reading Recovery Work? Massey University.
Wake County Public School System. (1995). Evaluation report: WCPSS Reading
Recovery, 1990-94. Raleigh, NC: author.
Wasik, B.A, & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one
tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179-200.
West, R, & Stanovich, K. (1978). Automatic contextual facilitation in readers of three
ages. Child Development, 49, 717-727.
02/27/97 THU 15:32 FAX 2025652781
CNS
002
6142927547
P.02
Feb-27-97 02:56P OSU-RR/ELLI/AmeriCorps
AMERICORPS
for
Math and Literacy
WANERICORPS PERVICE
Getting Things Done
A collaborative project
of
The Reading Recovery Program at The Ohio State University
The Charles Dana Center for Mathematics and Science at The University of Texas
The Reading Recovery Program at California State University-San Bernardino
and
The Public Schools of Columbus, Ohio
Austin, Texas
and
Colton, California
The purpose of this project is to prepare an AmeriCorps whose service substantially
contributes to enabling children to succeed in reading, writing. and math at an early age.
AmeriCorps for Math, Literacy and Science provides carefully conceived direct service to
children who need extra support in reading, writing and math The project also enhances
the future of local community vice providers by increasing their skills and providing a
living wage, along with the opportunity to earn resources for their own future education
02/27/97 THU 15:33 FAX 2025652781
CNS
003
Feb-27-97 02:56P OSU-RR/ELLI/AmeriCorps
6142927547
P.03
WHO is involved? The Ohio State University, The University of Texas, and for the
95-96 project year. California State University-San Bernardino. All are universities in the
Reading Recovery network, working in collaboration with selected school districts and
community agencies to implement the program.
READING RECOVERY, developed in New Zealand and implemented
in the United States by The Ohio State University. helps the lowest
achieving first grade children make accelerated progress by developing
effective reading strategies. They then become independent readers and
writers. Reading Recovery gives at-risk children a chance to succeed before
they enter a cycle of failure. The great majority of children served by
Reading Recovery become independent readers able to function at their
appropriate grade level. Over 150,000 children have benefited from Reading
Recovery
HOW do we build on success? To meet our goals, we draw upon the successful
national program, Reading Recovery, combined with research-based approaches in
mathematics education. A new model has been constructed to enable children, especially
those from the poorest communities, to experience success in reading and mathematics at
an early age. thereby positively influencing the course of their school lives and. thus, their
later lives.
WHO are AmeriCorps members? Corps members are selected volunteers who have
completed high school and wish to further their education. They represent a variety of
backgrounds, ages, and educational levels. These adults will be a future resource for the
communities they serve as productive citizens, civic contributors. and as parents. The
program is designed to enhance their skills in all areas.
WHAT do AmeriCorps members do? Members work part time in local elementary
schools providing direct service in literacy and math to kindergarten, first and second grade
children, individually and in small groups. Additionally, they provide assistance to the
teacher in the assessment of children's progress in reading and writing. Their schedules
include service during the school day along with some after-school and weekend
community service.
HOW are members trained? Corps members receive an intensive two-week training
to start cach program year. Training introduces them to their responsibilities and prepares
them to implement the integrated reading, writing and math activities they will perform.
Training is jointly provided by personnel from the Reading Recovery project and by
nationally recognized experts in mathematics. Following the initial training Corps members
receive regularly scheduled training sessions as well as on-site assistance and supervision
from university personnel.
02/27/97 THU 15:33 FAX 2025652781
CNS
004
6142927547
P.04
Feb-27-97 02:57P OSU-RR/ELLI/Amer1Corps
WHERE do they serve? The project serves in schools willing to enter into a
collaborative arrangement to use the services of AmeriCorps members. Corps members are
placed, in pairs, in kindergarten, first and second grade classrooms in the school. They
may not be in the classroom all day however; their schedule depends on the opportunity to
provide after-school and/or evening service.
WHAT are the benefits to participating schools?
specially trained free service to at-risk children (up to 50% of children could receive
extra help)
introduction to a new integrated literacy and math program based on research and tested
in real life settings
a donation of books and materials for each AmeriCorps classroom to provide children's
literature and facilitate guided reading
a KEEP BOOK program that provides inexpensive books for primary grade children to
take home
a technological station, including computer for desktop publishing and modem
communication, in each school
professional development for classroom teachers who work with AmeriCorps members
close collaboration with the Reading Recovery network
WHAT do the collaborating schools provide?
To be selected for participation, schools must agree that:
the school will provide Reading Recovery
five classroom teachers and one Reading Recovery teacher will volunteer to act as
collaborators for the AmeriCorps participants
administrator and staff will work together to develop parent programs.
space will be available for a technological station with a telephone line to facilitate
communication
AmeriCorps members will be provided storage and meeting space
the collaborating teachers will attend seminars to prepare them for the literacy and math
program and to work with AmeriCorps members.
collaborating teachers meet regularly with the project supervisor to monitor the program
school personnel will facilitate data collection to assess the effectiveness of the program
create a steering group made up of key staff members, the principal. and university
personnel to support the AmeriCorps program in the school and in the district.
"National service is nothing less than the American way to change America... the concept
of community and the idea of service are as old as our history.'
President Clinton
rev: 4/1/96j
prgovr.doc
02/27/97 THU 15:33 FAX 2025652781
CNS
005
6142927547
P.05
Feb-27-97 02:57P OSU-RR/ELLI/AmeriCorps
T.H.E
Department of Educational
200 Ramseyer Hall
OHIO
Theory and Practice
29 West Woodruff Avenue
Reading Recovery™ Program
Columbus, OH 43210-1177
National Diffusion Network
STATE
Phone 614-292-7807
FAX 614-292-4260
UNIVERSITY
Thank you for your inquiry about Reading Recovery, a developer/demonstrator
project funded by the National Diffusion Network. We hope that the enclosed
awareness materials will answer your questions about the program.
Reading Recovery was developed in New Zealand by Dr. Marie Clay. It is an
early intervention program that enables the lowest 20% of first graders "at risk" of
reading failure to develop effective strategies to read at average classroom levels.
Once children are released from the program, they need no further remediation in
reading.
Key Elements
Five key elements are essential to Reading Recovery, which operates within an
entire educational system.
1.
Program for Children
Children are selected through a battery of individually administered diagnostic
tests. They receive a daily 30 minute lesson that incorporates a variety of reading
and writing experiences designed to help them develop effective strategies for
reading and writing. Each day, children move through a lesson sequence that
involves the reading of familiar materials, the composing and writing of a story,
and the introduction and reading of a new book.
Although Reading Recovery lessons follow a framework, every lesson is unique
because the teacher closely monitors each student's progress and makes
ongoing teaching decisions based on that student's current use of reading and
writing strategies. Materials used in Reading Recovery lessons are many "little
books" which provide support for readers rusing familiar language patterns within
the framework of a predictable story. This pullout program lasts approximately 15-
20 weeks and supplements regular classroom reading instruction.
2.
Teacher Education Manual
Two levels of training are provided at The Ohio State University:
a) The year-long teacher leader academic course work (available at
universities listed at the end of the document) prepares qualified individuals
to teach Reading Recovery teachers at a district site.
1
02/27/97 THU 15:34 FAX 2025652781
CNS
006
Feb-27-97 02:58P OSU-RR/ELLI/AmeriCorps
6142927547
P.06
b) The instructor of teacher leaders year-long academic course (available at
OSU, the University of Illinois, or the University of Auckland, in Auckland,
New Zealand) prepares qualified individuals to teach Reading Recovery
teacher leaders. All teacher leaders and instructors of teacher leaders are
involved in a year-long training program for which they receive university
credit. Their coursework includes working with four students on a daily basis.
learning the Reading Recovery procedures, and learning how to provide
training, technical and clinical support for Reading Recovery teachers. In
addition instructors of teacher leaders are prepared to establish a state
university Reading Recovery instructional center.
Every week during the training year, two teachers individually work with their
students behind a one-way mirror with the remaining teachers-in-training
carrying on a discussion behind the glass. After the lessons, participants
come together for a critique session. In this way, teachers are led to be
careful observers of a student's reading and writing behaviors and they
learn to build a coherent rationale for the decisions they make. These
teaching decisions are the key to student's accelerative learning and
release from the program. An academic year is necessary in order to
understand the complexity of this process.
The coursework for teacher leaders and instructors of teacher leaders begins with
learning about the procedures for Reading Recovery, but rapidly shifts to
theoretical issues and research in language acquisition, cognition, literacy
learning, and instruction.
3.
Materials
All teachers and teacher leaders use a set of professional books and a set of
approximately 600 "little books" for children. The "little books" are selected from
many early reading series and from children's literature trade books. All
materials are nonconsumable and can be used by the same teacher in
subsequent years.
4.
Monitoring and Continuing Education
Two follow-up programs ensure the continued quality of the implementation of
the program.
Continuing Education After the completion of the training year, the teacher
leader maintains continuing contact with teachers and continues to monitor
student progress. Teachers meet several times each year for inservice sessions
in order to continue to develop critical knowledge and refine their skills. Teacher
leaders and instructors of teacher leaders attend two annual Ohio conferences:
a three-day winter conference and a four-day teacher leader summer institute.
2
02/27/97 THU 15:34 FAX 2025652781
CNS
007
Feb-27-97 02:58P OSU-RR/ELLI/AmeriCorps
6142927547
P.07
Monitoring Reading Recovery teachers are monitored and supported by teacher
leaders; teacher leaders are monitored and supported by the university
faculty/staff from which they received their course work.
Research and Evaluation A program of research and evaluation ensures the long
range effectiveness of Reading Recovery. Teachers and teacher leaders keep
accurate records of each student's progress and send this data for analysis to the
National Data Evaluation Center which is housed at The Ohio State University.
Each teacher leader uses the results of the OSU data analysis in writing a
research report that documents the results of Implementing Reading Recovery at
their site. The Ohio State University prepares national research results in an
Executive Summary published yearly.
Adoption Requirements
Effective implementation of the Reading Recovery Program requires school
systems and/or universities to release one or two experienced individuals to
attend a one-year academic course of study. Audio and video tapes, books of
professional readings and research, program evaluation assessments, and 600
"little books" which comprise the Reading Recovery booklist have been
developed to successfully transport the program to other sites.
Once instructors of teacher leaders and/or teacher leaders have completed
university course work, the Reading Recovery Program can be implemented at
another site or university. In order to establish a regional staff development
training center the school district and/or university must agree to:
1. Establish an area for one-to-one instruction that contains a one-way glass
designed to meet specifications so that observers can assess the
one-to-one instruction without disturbing the lesson.
2. Recruit and select 10-12 individuals to participate in a one-year Reading
Recovery teacher or teacher leader instructional program to be held at the
regional or university training center.
3. Arrange for the release of certified teacher leader(s) to teach and supervise
the Reading Recovery Program at the regional site.
4. Arrange for Reading Recovery teachers-in-training to receive either 6
semester hours or 9 quarter hours of graduate credit from the university with
whom a partnership has been established.
5. Arrange for a weekly two-and-one-half-hour class to be held after school
hours at the regional center.
3
02/27/97 THU 15:34 FAX 2025652781
CNS
008
Feb-27-97 02:59P OSU-RR/ELLI/AmeriCorps
6142927547
P.08
6. Make the necessary arrangements enabling Reading Recovery teachers to
spend a portion (minimum of 2 hours) of each day teaching Reading
Recovery children (services begin immediately during the training year).
Costs
Reading Recovery is a cost effective program because it is a one-time
intervention that enables the poorest readers to become independent readers
without need of further remediation. The major costs to the adopter occur in
acquiring initial training for the teacher leader or instructor of teacher leaders
During the first year of site implementation (when the teacher leader returns to the
home site) school districts will incur the following costs of implementation:
additional teaching staff when the classroom sharing model is adopted, support
services (duplicating; mailing; phones; mileage). additional salary/release time for
the teacher leader and tuition payments for the teacher enrolled in the Reading
Recovery class (6 semester hours, 9 quarter hours) at the local university that
formed a partnership with the Reading Recovery site.
Expenses during the second and subsequent years include providing teachers
and teacher leaders with release time for continuing contact and teaching four
students 30 minutes per day
Additional expenses involve the installation of a one-way glass and sound system
at each training site (approximately $3,000). Each teacher also requires a set of
books at an estimated cost of $1,000. This is a one time purchase. and can be
used by the same teacher in subsequent years. The site must also purchase
professional readings for teacher leaders, audio/visual tapes and scan sheets for
data collection and analysis.
Responsibilities of the Educational System
Effective implementation of Reading Recovery depends upon extensive support
from all educational agencies within the school district. It is an intensive,
demanding program that requires understanding and long term commitment from
teachers, school and district administrators, and area universities. Marie Clay,
developer of the Reading Recovery Program, cautions that "the intervention will
not work unless it is kept on track and not watered down by misunderstandings."
To any district or consortia of districts that is considering Reading Recovery, we
recommend that a team consisting of a prospective teacher leader, an
administrator, and a university representative make a fact-finding visit to either the
training center at The Ohio State University or another university training center
listed on the attached page. Following is a partial list of requirements for the
implementation of Reading Recovery.
4
02/27/97 THU 15:35 FAX 2025652781
CNS
1009
Feb-27-97 03:00P OSU-RR/ELLI/AmeriCorps
6142927547
P.09
a.
A prospective instructor of teacher leaders must hold a doctorate and obtain
commitment from the university. A prospective teacher leader must have at
least a masters degree and five years teaching experience, with at least
three years at the primary level. Enthusiasm, demonstrated leadership
ability, and professional commitment to the sponsoring school district are
essential. The teacher leader in training spends one academic year at one
of the national instructional centers (see attached page) while learning to
become a Reading Recovery teacher, teacher leader, and program
coordinator.
b.
Interested and innovative school and/or university administrators insure that
the Reading Recovery Program becomes incorporated into the total
educational program of the participating university and/or school districts.
They also plan for the expansion of the program within the site.
C.
In Ohio, Reading Recovery teachers in training receive graduate credit from
The Ohio State University. Since the teacher leader serves as an adjunct
staff member of the university which is giving credit, a faculty member should
accompany the team to determine how the course contents can be
integrated into the university's procedures for offering graduate credit.
This team should then make arrangements to visit the training center at The Ohio
State University to discuss the program and its implementation with Reading
Recovery personnel. Visits should also coincide with the teacher leader training
class in order to observe behind-the-glass lessons and talk with teacher leaders
in training. Separate arrangements should be made to visit one of the area
teacher instructional sites. Persons interested in scheduling an on-site visit may
request a visitor information packet by calling the Reading Recovery Office at
(614) 292-7807.
Thank you again for your inquiry. Should you wish additional information, please
do not hesitate to call us.
Sincerely,
Carol Lyons, Ph.D.
Andrea McCarrier; Ph.D.
Director
Coordinator
Reading Recovery/
Reading Recovery/
National Diffusion Network
National Diffusion Network
Gay Pinnell
614.292.7575
DianeDeford 614.292-7754 5
02/27/97 THU 15:35 FAX 2025652781
CNS
010
6142927547
P.10
Feb-27-97 03:00P OSU-RR/ELLI/AmeriCorps
R
EGIONAL TRAINING CENTERS
Arkansas
Georgia:
Canada
Arkansas Reading Recovery Program
Georgia State University
Ontario
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Reading Recovery Program
Canadian Institute of Reading Recevery
College of Education
Early Childhood Education
University of Toronto
2801 South University
University Plaza
Scarborough College
Little Rock, AR 72204-1099
Atlanta. GA 30303-3083
1265 Military Trail
(501) 569-3479
(404) 651-1216
Scarborough. Ontario MIC 1A4
(501) 569-8694 FAX
(404) 651-1217 or 651-1495 FAX
(416) 396-5322
(416) 396-6324 FAX
Anna Allen, Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Clifford Johnson. Trainer of Teacher
Linda Dorn. Teacher Leader
Leaders
Pam Janes. Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Dean Gene Campbell. Site Coordinator
Marths McLeod, Administrative Assistant
Dianne Stuart Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Fergus Reid. Site Coordinator
Calltornia
Minols
Linda Cameron, Academic Support
CSU Frasno
National-Louis University
Dept. of Literacy and Early Education
18 South Michigan Avenue
New Zealand
5005 N. Maple Avenue
Chango. IL 60607
Fresna. CA 93740-0202
(312) 821-9659
Auckland
(209) 278-0223
(312) 6214205 FAX
Auckland College of Education
(209) 278-0404 FAX
52 Epsam Avenue
Margaret Gallagher, Trainer of Teacher
Epsom
Judith Neal, Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Leaders
Auckland 3
Carolyn Doyel. Teacher Leader
Rebecca Barr, Program Coordinator
New Zealand
Diane Geary, Project Assistant
Donna Ogle. Site Coordinator
(09) 630-6736
(09) 530-6721 FAX
CSU San Bernadino
University 01 Illinois
School of Education
Reading Recovery
Barbara Watson. National Director, Trainer
5500 University Parkway
Center for the Study of Reading
of Tutors
San Bemardino, CA 92407-2397
190 Children's Research Center
Blair Kosfoed. Trainer of Tutors
(909) 880.5646
51 Gerty Drive
Sue Duncan, Trainer of Tutors
(909) 880-7010 FAX
Champaign K 81820
Christine Boocock, Trainer of Tutors
(217) 333 7213
Pat Kelly. Trainer of Teacher Leaders
(217) 244-4501 FAX
United Kingdom
Adria Klein, Trainer of Teacher Leaders
London
Stanley L. Swartz. Project Director
Jan Gaffney, Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Rebecca Shook Clinical Trainer
leanette Mathven, Clinical Traine
University of London
Beulah Lateel, Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Institute of Education
Saint Mary's College
Marilyn Frederiksen. Teacher Leader
20 Bedford Way
P.O. Box 4350
Russ Zwoyer. Site Coordinator
London WCIH OAL
Moraga. CA 94575
Ellie Tewksbury, Administrative Assistant
0932 564157
(510) 631-4700
0932 570249 FAX
(510) 376-8379 FAX
Indiana
Reading Recovery Centre
Purdue University
Barbara Schubert, Trainer of Teacher
The Runnymeada Staff Development
Reading Recovery
Leaders
Centre
1442 Liberal Arts/Education Bldg.
Beverly Holfman, Clinical Trainer
Chertsay Road
West Lafeyere, IN 47907-1442
Nadine Pedron, Site Coordinator
Addiestone, Surrey KT15 2EP
(317) 494-9750
(317) 496-1522 FAX
Connecticut
Jean Pranca. Trainer of Tutors
Julia Douetif, Trainer of Tutors
University of Connecticut
Maribeth Schmitt. Trainer of Teacher
Box U-33. School of Education
Leaders
249 Glenbrook Rd.
Tammy Younts, Teacher Leader
United States
Storrs, CT 06268-0233
Deborah R. Dillon, Site Coordinator
Arizona
(203) 486-4114
Deiversity of Arizona
(203) 486-0210 FAX
Education Building 525
Second and Vine Sheets
Joanne Daniels. Trainer of Teacher
Tucson, AZ
85721
Leaders
(602) 577-2883
Mary Anne Doyle, Trainer of Teacher
(602) 611-1853 FAX
Leaders
Withleen McDonough, Trainer of Teacher
Leaders
02/27/97 THU 15:36 FAX 2025652781
CNS
011
Feb-27-97 03:01P OSU-RR/ELLI/AmeriCorps
6142927547
P.11
INEGIONAL TRAINING CENTERS
Maine
New York
South Carolina
University of Maine
New York University
Clemson University
Reading Recovery Center
Press Annex Building
Reading Recovery Program
College of Education
Third Floor
Elementary and Secondary Education
576 Shibles Hall
26 Washington Place
Tillman Hall/Box 340709
Orono, ME 04469-5766
New York NY 10003-6542
Clemson, SC 29634-0709
(207) 581-2418
(212) 998-5408
(803) 656-5103
(207) 581-2423 FAX
(212) 995-4195 FAX
(803) 656-1322 FAX
Paula Moore, Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Angela Jaggar, Site Coordinator
Joe Yukish. Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Rosemary Salesi, Site Coordinator
Trika Smith-Burke, Trainer of Teacher
Kathy Neal Headley, Site Coordinator
Judith Pusey, Teacher Leader
Leaders
Susan Russell, Administrative Assistant
Jane Ashdown, Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Texas.
Phyllis Piaman, Project Manager
Texas Woman's University
Massachusetts
Stephen Sands, Research Assistant
Callege of Education & Human Ecology
Lasley College
MaryFran Skovera. Project Assistant
Reading & Bilingual Education
Phyllistine Travis, Administrative Secretary
P.O. Box 23029
309
Denton. TX 76204-1029
Cambridge, MA 02140
(817) 898-2443
(617) 349-8424
UNC Wilmington
(817) 898-2224 FAX
(617) 349-8490 FAX
Reading Recovery Program
School of Education
Billie Askew. Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Irene Fountas. Trainer of Teacher Leaders
501 South College Rd.
Dianne Frasier, Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Joanna Poole. Assistant Project Director
Wilmington, NC 28403-3297
Connie Compton. Trainer of Teacher
Jenniler Warner, Administrative Assistant
(910) 395-3382
Leaders
(910) 350-3988 FAX
Yvenne Rodriguez. Teacher Leader
Michigan
Carolyn Rablyer. Secretary
Oakland University
Noal Jones. Trainer of Teacher Leaders
School of Education & Human Services
Tina Ann Strickland, Secretary
West Virginia
Reading Recovery Program
West Virginia Graduate College
472 O'Dowd Hall
Ohio
Reading Recovery Project
Rachester. MI 48309-4401
The Ohio State University
821 Sullivan Hall. P.O. Box 1003
(810) 370-3057
Reading Recovery Program
(810) 370-4226 FAX
200 Ramseyer Hall
29 W. Woodrutt Ave.
(304) 766-1040 FAX
746-1942
Robert M. Schwartz, Trainer of Teacher
Columbus, OH 43210
Leaders
(614) 292-7807
Noel Bowling. Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Lee Skandalaris. Trainer of Teacher
(614) 292-4260 FAX
William Baker. Consultant
Leaders
Becky Sloan, Secretary
Joan Kaye, Secretary
Gay Su Pinnell. Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Diane DeFard, Trainer of Teacher Leaders
Western Michigan University
Carol Lyons, Trainer of Teachers Leaders
Michigan Reading Recovery Program
Mary Fried, Clinical Trainer
3417 Sangren Hall
Rose Mary Estice. Clinical Trainer
Kalamazoo. MI 49008-5197
Joe Groom. National Data Evaluation
(616) 387-3534
Coordinator
(616) 387-2882 FAX
Chip Nilges. Site Coordinator
Joanne Lonske, Secretary
Jim Burns. Trainer at Teacher Leaders
Joe Chapel. Site Coordinator
Pennsylvania
Lou Ann Grover, Administrative Assistant
Shippensburg University
Reading Recovery Program
Mississippi
College of Education and Human Services
1871 Old Main Drive
Jackson State University
Reading Recovery Program
Shippensburg. PA 17257
P.O. Box 17146
(717) 532-1487
Jackson. MS 39217-0416
(717) 530-4012 FAX
(601) 973-3400
Janet Bufalino, Trainer of Teacher Leaders
(601) 968.2213 FAX
Peggy Hockersmith. Site Coordinator
Ophelia R. Kelley. Trainer of Teacher
Donna Ackeisberg, Secretary
Leaders
Vanessa Wilson. Secretary
Vol. 10, No. 1
ERS Spectrum
Winter 1992
Reading Recovery: A Cost-Effectiveness and
Educational-Outcomes Analysis
Philip C. Dyer
Today, schools are facing escalating battles
of only 1 percent for retention or Special Edu-
to receive the financial resources necessary to
cation because of reading difficulties beyond
educate at-risk children. At the same time,
first grade (Clay 1990).
long-standing practices of retention and track-
In 1984, with the help of Dr. Clay and her
ing are being questioned as detrimental to the
New Zealand colleague Barbara Watson,
academic progress of these children and to the
Reading Recovery was introduced in the United
school mission. Pullout programs such as Chap-
States. The Ohio State University, the Ohio
ter 1 and Special Education are facing further
Department of Education, and the Columbus
scrutiny as well.
Public Schools joined forces to implement
Since most school systems are fighting just
Reading Recovery in Ohio. Results from the
to maintain the current operational budget, it
pilot study were very positive (Huck and
may seem impractical to consider any instruc-
Pinnell 1985).
tional intervention that requires substantial
The basic tenets of the Reading Recovery
initial expenditures, even if that intervention
program are that reading is a strategic process
is instructionally effective. However, when
that takes place in the reader's mind; that
considering whether they can afford to imple-
reading and writing are interconnected, recipro-
ment new programs, school districts should re-
cal processes; that accelerated progress is pos-
alistically weigh the short-term costs against
sible; and that it is most productive to inter-
the potential long-term cost savings.
vene early, before children become trapped in a
This article examines an early instructional
cycle of reading failure (Clay 1985).
intervention called Reading Recovery, which
The program is directed at the bottom 20
provides one-to-one individualized instruction
percent of first graders: the lowest achieving
for first-grade students who need extra help in
children in reading and writing, without regard
beginning reading. Although this intervention
to intelligence, ethnic group, language achieve-
requires an initial and ongoing financial invest-
ments, school history, physical handicaps, or
ment, the analysis described here finds that
learning disabilities. It is a one-time interven-
from a long-term perspective, Reading Recov-
tion that comes at the earliest stage of the
ery offers an educationally sound and cost-
child's schooling. Its goal is to accelerate stu-
effective alternative to more commonly used
dents and to help them develop into indepen-
approaches.
dent readers, reading with the average in their
class, without further help. Reading Recovery
Description of Reading Recovery
requires one-to-one individualized instruction,
but only for an average of 12 to 16 weeks. It is a
Reading Recovery, developed by child psy-
supplemental pull-out program that does not
chologist Dr. Marie Clay, has been imple-
replace the regular classroom reading and writ-
mented for 20 years in New Zealand, and serves
ing instruction.
19 percent of that country's first-grade children
The Reading Recovery teacher, who has
(those having difficulty learning to read).
been specifically trained in Reading Recovery
Nationwide, New Zealand has a referral rate
techniques, typically works with four students
Philip C. Dyer is Principal of the Rose L. MacDonald Elementary School in West Bridgewater Public School
District, Massachusetts (district enrollment 1,150). He was formerly Principal of Ethel E. Hammond School in
Wareham Public School District, Massachusetts (district enrollment 3,000), and used his experiences with Read-
ing Recovery in both schools and school districts, plus his extensive contacts with Reading Recovery educators and
programs, as the basis for this analysis.
10
60 'd
9817612202 'ON XHH
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Wd INJ 16-82-874
Vol. 10, No. 1
ERS Spectrum
Winter 1992
individually per day for one-half hour each.
(that is, they were reading at the average
In each lesson, the teacher directs the reread-
level for their class and had demonstrated the
ing of familiar "little" books, takes a "running
independent reading strategies to continue to
record" of independent reading, works with the
make progress at this level without further
student on reading strategies as needed, sup-
intervention.) This rose to 82 percent in 1986-87
ports the child in writing a message or a story,
and 86 percent in 1987-88. After a slight drop in
and reads a new "little" book with the child.
1988-89 to 83 percent, Reading Recovery re-
In Reading Recovery instruction, there are no
gained its upward momentum with an 87 per-
computers, no textbooks, no workbooks, and no
cent discontinuing rate in 1989-90, and an 88 per-
drill sheets. Reading Recovery involves a spe-
cent discontinuing rate in 1990-91 (Ohio Read-
cially trained teacher, pencils and paper, and a
ing Recovery Project 1991).
lot of interesting, short books at different read-
As shown in Figure 1, a longitudinal study
ing levels.
conducted in the Columbus Public Schools found
A detailed description of Reading Recovery
that a high proportion of children served by
lessons and implementation of the program at
Reading Recovery demonstrated sustained
the school and school district levels may by
progress through third grade without further
found in the monograph Reading Recovery:
intervention (Pinnell, DeFord, and Lyons 1988).
Early Intervention for At-Risk First Graders, by
In 1989, the MacArthur Foundation awarded
Gay Su Pinnell, Carol Lyons, and Diane Deford
the Reading Recovery faculty at the Ohio
(1988).
State University a grant to compare Reading
Recovery to four other reading interventions,
Reading Recovery Program Results
each of which contained some elements similar
to those used in Reading Recovery. This study,
After five years of intense scrutiny by many
known as the Early Literacy Research Project,
researchers, Reading Recovery in the state of
found that Reading Recovery was significantly
Ohio continues to show positive results. In
more effective than the four other approaches,
1985-86, 73.5 percent of the Reading Recovery
and that the program's effectiveness required
children were discontinued from the program
not only the one-to-one individualized instruc-
Figure 1-Sustained Effects of Reading Recovery:
Mean Text Reading Level of 1985-86 First Graders Who Were Successfully Discontinued from Reading
Recovery and Comparison Group, Through End of Grade Three
Intervention Period - Mean = 13.4 Weeks
Random Sample Mean - Average Band
(±5 Standard Deviation)
30
Successfully Disconsinued Reading
Recovery Children
25
Comparison Children
20
15
Primer 10
5
0
September 1985
May 1986
May 1987
May 1983
Source: Pinnell, Deford, and Lyons. 1988. Reading Recovery: Early Intervention for At-Risk First Graders.
11
ni
9917612702 'ON VHJ
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
WH the TAI 16-82-974
Vol. 10, No. 1
ERS Spectrum
Winter 1992
tion it provided but also use of its diagnostic
Students receiving Chapter 1 services experi-
and instructional strategies and in-depth
ence larger increases in their standardized
teacher training (Pinnell et al. 1991).
achievement test scores than comparable stu-
In regard to its educational effectiveness, it
dents who do not. However, their gains do not
move them substantially toward the achieve-
is important to note that in 1987 Reading Re-
ment levels of more advantaged students
covery was evaluated and validated as an edu-
(Kennedy, Birman, and Demaline 1986, 17).
cationally effective early intervention program
by the National Diffusion Network (NDN) of
A more recent evaluation of Chapter 1 pro-
the U.S. Department of Education (Pinnell,
grams (Allington and McGill-Franzen 1990)
DeFord, and Lyons 1988, 69).
found that most programs tend to be limited,
skill-and-drill-type remedial reading pro-
Costs and Educational Outcomes of
grams, and that their current structure results in
Reading Recovery and
actual loss of total reading instruction time for
the participating students. This is often cou-
Alternative Interventions
pled with low expectations for these students
(Rowen at al. 1990). As a consequence, children
Grade Retention -
typically remain in the Chapter 1 remedial
The common practice of student in-grade
reading program for an average of five years or
retention used in most school systems is coming
until it is no longer available at their grade
under scrutiny. Over 2.4 million students are
level. There is only a 2 percentage point differ-
retained in grade annually in the United
ence between the proportion of Chapter 1 chil-
States, with a national cost of almost $10 bil-
dren in the first grade (12 percent) and those in
lion (Sheppard and Smith 1990). Given that
the sixth grade (10 percent) (Kennedy, Birman,
research indicates that this practice has little
and Demaline 1986, 19).
or no long-term positive effect and that it may
All children in a low-income-area school
actually have a serious negative effect on whe
that is designated to receive Chapter 1 funding
ther or not a student graduates from high
are eligible for the Chapter 1 program if they
school, it seems incredible that we are willing
fall below certain cut-off criteria, such as the
to spend so much money on failure!
30th or 35th percentile on a standardized read-
In Massachusetts alone, over $120 million is
ing achievement test that has been established
spent annually on retention. In this state, it is
by the school district (Birman et al. 1987).
also clear that if the student is either male or a
Children eligible for Reading Recovery usually
minority, the likelihood of being retained
fall within Chapter 1 guidelines; therefore,
increases dramatically (French and Nellhaus
schools can use federal Chapter 1 funds to im-
1990).
plement Reading Recovery programs.
Chapter 1 Programs -
Special Education Programs -
The U.S. Department of Education reports
Because of the difficulties they experience
that Chapter 1 serves one out of every nine
learning to read and write, some children may
children enrolled in U. S. elementary and sec-
be classified as "learning disabled" and receive
ondary schools (Birman et al. 1987, 1). Federal
Special Education services. Recent reports by
contributions to the program account for 21
the U. S. Department of Education state that
percent of the Department of Education's 1992
the number of children classified as "learning
budget, or almost $6.1 billion (Education Week
disabled" more than doubled during the last
1991). According to the Department of Educa-
dozen years. In 1988-89, the number of children
tion report, children in typical Chapter 1 pro-
classified as "learning disabled" had climbed
grams receive remedial reading instruction in
to almost 2,000,000, which was about 49 percent
pull-out groups of five children for an average
of all children receiving Special Education ser-
of 35 minutes each day, five days a week
vices (U.S. Department of Education 1990).
(Birman et al. 1987, 68).
In Massachusetts, between 1974 and 1990,
An evaluation study by the U.S. Depart-
the total public school enrollment decreased by
ment of Education, The Effectiveness of Chap-
30 percent while students in Special Education
ter 1 Services, found that
12
II
9917612702 'ON XH-1
ACHIEVEMENT
STUDENT
Wd 97:90 THI 16-82-974
Vol. 10, No. 1
ERS Spectrum
Winter 1992
increased by 77 percent (Massachusetts State
when a school district provides effective early
Department of Education 1991, 10).
intervention such as Reading Recovery, thereby
Like Chapter 1 instructional programs, the
decreasing the numbers of students classified as
Special Education programs provided for chil-
"learning disabled," the local district stands to
dren who are classified as "learning disabled"
forfeit a certain amount of outside funding.
have come under increasing scrutiny. Clay
It is clear, however, that avoiding incorrect
(1987) described the difficulty of trying to sep-
Special Education placement and unnecessary
arate children who have true organic learning
special treatment not only benefits the child
disabilities from those whose reading difficul-
educationally but also saves money, whether at
ties stem from "external influences" such as
the national, state, or local level.
emotional problems or disadvantaged early en-
vironments. Although educators have no reli-
Cost Factors: Reading Recovery
able way to distinguish between these chil-
Compared with Other Approaches
dren, the federal and state funding require-
ments for Special Education programs make it
necessary for schools to expend extensive re-
Although information about the typical
sources attempting to identify and label chil-
educational experiences and learning outcomes
dren as "learning disabled" before they can be
of students in alternative instructional pro-
given special assistance in reading.
grams can be a valuable resource to school dis-
A recent study by Lyons (1989, 6) found that
trict officials who are considering implement-
many children classified as "learming dis-
ing new approaches, cost is also an obvious
abled" really were not disabled at all, but were
concern. This concern is often raised in regard to
only having initial difficulty learning to read.
Reading Recovery.
The study found that when placed in Reading
Recovery programs, a high proportion of these
Costs of Reading Recovery-
children (73.3 percent) developed balanced
In spite of the impressive educational
reading strategies and were reading at the av-
results of Reading Recovery programs, some
erage level of their classmates in an average of
school districts hesitate to initiate the pro-
less than 13 weeks of Reading Recovery in-
gram because of its obvious financial costs. Im-
struction.
plementation does require time, money, and
Lyons and other researchers have found
commitment.
that children classified as "learning disabled"
A major startup cost of initiating a Reading
are often placed in Special Education reading
Recovery program in a school district is initial
programs that use a limited set of reading stra-
staff training. The training requires that at
tegies and a slower pace. For example, Alling-
least one teacher leader, selected by the school
ton and McGill-Franzen concluded from their
district (or a group of neighboring districts),
research that "too often these interventions
attend a Reading Recovery training center at
provide no educational advantage to the chil-
one of more than a dozen universities across the
dren who participate in them, even though the
country for one academic year. During this
added costs are often substantial" (1990, 8).
year, the teacher studies extensively and at-
Thus, when Reading Recovery programs
tends professional classes in the basic concepts,
serve to reduce the number of children who are
learning theory, and professional practice of
incorrectly and unnecessarily diagnosed as
Reading Recovery instruction, as well as serv-
"learning disabled" and who are then placed in
ing a rigorous internship to gain hands-on
costly and ineffective programs, substantial
teaching experience as both a Reading Recov-
savings in educational dollars and improve-
ery teacher and a teacher leader.
ments in student learning are achieved.
The teacher leader then returns to the dis-
The current categorical method used to fund
trict to conduct training for teachers in the dis-
Special Education programs complicates the is-
trict or group of districts, and to assist teachers-
sue. Classifying a child as "learning disabled"
in-training throughout the initial school year
or otherwise in need of Special Education ser-
and future years. A teacher leader can train up
vices enables the district to receive additional
to 16 teachers per year, so smaller districts can
funds from federal and often state sources. But
share the cost of the initial training of one
teacher leader.
13
CC17612207 'ON VHJ
HONIEVENENT
STUDENT
IIJ INJ 16-07-974
Vol. 10, No. 1
ERS Spectrum
Winter 1992
Another possibility is for one school dis-
the total cost of this intervention in Instruc-
trict with a trained Reading Recovery teacher
tional time is about 525 hours. Chapter 1
leader to contract with neighboring school dis-
teachers typically teach remedial reading to
tricts to train their teachers in Reading Recov-
groups of about five students, serving a total of
ery. For example, in 1990-91, two teacher lead-
about 35 students for the school year (Birman et
ers in the Wareham School District trained six
al. 1987). The major financial cost of this
of the district's own teachers in Reading Recov-
intervention is the salaries of the Chapter 1
ery as well as 22 teachers from neighboring
teachers who provide that instruction.
school districts. This year Wareham is train-
A child who is placed in a Special Educa-
ing 26 Reading Recovery teachers from 16
tion resource pull-out program for learning dis-
neighboring school districts.
abled students spends an average of 1.4 hours
It is important to note that during their
per day, or 252 hours each year, in this program
Reading Recovery training period, which ex-
(Moore et al. 1988). The child typically re-
tends for an entire school year, teachers are
ceives services in the program for six years in
actually teaching Reading Recovery children.
the elementary grades - a total of 1,512 hours
The largest ongoing cost of Reading Recov-
- with some students continuing in the pro-
ery is the one-to-one instruction provided for
gram throughout their school careers (Moore et
the children served in the program. Children
al. 1988; Ribadeneira 1990). The major finan-
in Reading Recovery receive daily 30-minute
cial cost of this intervention can be estimated as
lessons, so that each teacher spending half a
the salaries of the teachers who provide Spe-
day in Reading Recovery can work with about
cial Education instruction for that child.
four first-grade children per day. However,
Reading Recovery has the smallest time
since most children are successfully discon-
commitment, involving only 40 hours if the
tinued from the program in 12 to 16 weeks, the
child spends 30 minutes per day in the program
one-to-one Reading Recovery instruction is
for 16 weeks. After the initial teacher training
short term, allowing the teacher to work with
costs of the program have been met, the basic
eight to 10 first-grade children over the course
financial cost of the program is the salary of
of the year. The other half of a Reading Re-
the Reading Recovery teacher who provides
covery teacher's day is determined by the
this relatively short-term individual instruc-
instructional program needs of the school.
tion.
Costs Related to Alternative Approaches-
Cost Savings of Reading Recovery
An analysis of the relative costs of Reading
Recovery versus the costs of first-grade reten-
Experiences of School Districts -
tion, typical Chapter 1 remedial instruction, or
The experiences of school districts that
Special Education for children classified as
have implemented Reading Recovery have
"learning disabled" should consider both the
shown that such districts can expect to reduce
annual and the cumulative amounts of time
the need for the other three instructional inter-
that a single child would be likely to spend in
ventions substantially, not only benefitting the
each of the programs. Examination of the time
Reading Recovery children academically, but
commitments on a per-child basis for each of
also producing long-term cost savings. A few
these interventions shows dramatic variation.
examples illustrate the typical results of Read-
Retaining a student in first grade means
ing Recovery implementation.
adding another full year of schooling in first
Prior to the introduction of Reading Re-
grade for that child, a total of 1,080 hours (six
covery, the Upper Arlington School District in
hours a day x 180 days), at the annual per-
Ohio retained in first grade an average of 10
pupil expenditure in the school district.
students each year. In the five years since
If a child is assigned to Chapter 1, then the
Reading Recovery began, the district has re-
special reading instruction pull-out time typi-
tained a total of 17 students, a reduction of 33
cally allocated for this intervention is 105
retentions during the five-year period (Lyons
hours per year (35 minutes per day X 180 days).
and Beaver in press).
A child who is placed in Chapter 1 receives
Other school districts have experienced
help over an average of five years. Therefore,
similar reductions in first-grade retention rates
after implementing Reading Recovery. For
14
CT
GC17612202 'ON VHJ
HONSEVENENT
INTONES
III 96:90 INJ 16-07-974
Vol. 10, No. 1
ERS Spectrum
Winter 1992
example, in the first year of Reading Recovery,
Recovery children and paid at the 1990-91
Wareham School District in Massachusetts
national average salary of $33,015, would be
reduced its retentions from 14 children to zero.
$148,568 (National Education Association 1991,
During the previous five years, grade-one
19). Thus, a net savings of $75,376 would be
retentions had averaged 12 children per year
achieved in first-grade retentions alone.
(Zimmaro 1991).
W
Western Reserve School District in Wake-
man, Ohio, initiated Reading Recovery in five
Savings from avoiding 43
first grades in two schools in 1986-87, using
retentions X $5,208 per
three Reading Recovery teachers half-time. In
student
$223,944
the year prior to implementing the Reading
Recovery Program, the district retained 24
Cost of 3 Reading Recovery
students in first grade. In the Reading Recovery
teachers (working half the
staff training year, 19 students were retained.
day in Reading Recovery)
During the first program year, nine students
for 3 years
($148,568)
were retained. In the second program, year, the
NET SAVINGS
$75,376
retentions dropped to one student, a remarkable
change in three years (Yukish 1989).
School districts implementing Reading Re-
covery can also expect to reduce the number of
Western Reserve School District
children placed in Chapter 1 remedial reading
First-Grade Retentions
programs or Special Education pull-out pro-
grams. For example, the Wareham School Dis-
Year
Year
Year
trict's Hammond East and West Schools re-
24
one
two
three
25
duced the number of Special Education place-
ments in grades K-1 from 31 in 1989-90 to 16 in
Prior a
19
20
1990-91, the first year the Reading Recovery
Reading
Recovery
program was implemented. This is a drop of 15
Reading
15
Recovery
placements, or 48 percent.
introduced
9
Estimated Cost Savings -
10
Taking into account the potential reductions
in student retentions and special placements
5
that would result from the implementation of
1
Reading Recovery in a typical school district,
0
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
comparative program cost-benefit analyses can
be made using national averages. Figure 2 on
Source: Yukish. Site Reports 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89.
page 17 compares Reading Recovery with three
alternative interventions by comparing the
Using current national averages and dis-
instructional time and teacher salary costs on a
regarding inflation, we can estimate the pos-
per-pupil basis using national averages.
sible cost savings implied in the Western Re-
Viewed from the short-term perspective of
serve School District's experience. The district
annual costs, Reading Recovery is less expen-
avoided 43 potential student retentions in the
sive than first-grade retention, but more expen-
program's first three years of operation. Using
sive than typical Chapter 1 services or Special
the 1990-91 national average per pupil expen-
Education services. However, the short-term
diture of $5,208 (National Education Associa-
investment in Reading Recovery has significant
tion Estimates of School Statistics 1991, 25), we
long-term payoffs.
can estimate that such a program could achieve
For example, since Chapter 1 remedial
a cost savings through first-grade retention
reading instruction continues for an average of
reduction of $223,944. The cost of the three
five years, the long-term cost of the teachers'
Reading Recovery teachers for the three years,
salaries is $4,715 per student served, compared
each spending half of their day with Reading
with $2,063 per student served for Reading
15
DI
9817612202 'ON XH-I
INTERNATION IN7001S Wd 97:90 INJ 16-82-974
Vol. 10, No. 1
ERS Spectrum
Winter 1992
Recovery teachers' salaries. Long-term teacher
These cost benefits could be expected to
salary costs associated with serving a child
occur over time as students who would other-
classified as "learning disabled" in Special
wise be retained in first grade or placed in
Education (participation averaging six years in
remedial pull-out programs remain in regular
the elementary school) will be in excess of
classrooms with their classmates.
$9,906, as compared to the one-time cost of
$2,063 for Reading Recovery for that child.
Indirect Benefits
A Cost-Benefit Model -
Other benefits to schools implementing
A helpful way to look at the cost benefits of
Reading Recovery are harder to quantify but
Reading recovery in comparison with the other
are just as important. One aspect is time sav-
three interventions is to construct a model of the
ings. When a child is placed in a Special Edu-
cost and the long-term benefits that, based on
cation program, tests and meetings are required
current experience and data, could reasonably
to establish the child's eligibility for special
be expected from one Reading Recovery teacher.
treatment and to develop and monitor individu-
Based on the actual experiences of school
alized education plans. Beyond the meeting
districts and accumulated research evidence,
time in which a variety of school staff and the
we can conservatively expect that the year's
child's parents are involved, specialists must
activities of one teacher, working half of each
test the child to assess progress, spending their
day in Reading Recovery and serving a total of
staff time and the child's instructional time.
eight first-grade children, would enable the
Since Reading Recovery provides early inter-
school district to at least:
vention for the 20 percent of first-grade students
avoid two children being retained in first
having the most difficulty learning to read, no
grade.
such elaborate testing and diagnostic proce-
dures are needed.
avoid the need to serve two children in the
Moreover, each time a child leaves the
Chapter 1 program, who would probably
classroom for extra help, some school staff time
have remained in the program for five
and effort are spent in getting the child there
years.
and back, thereby taking away from class time.
avoid the misclassification of one child as
Further, the child loses time preparing for the
"learning disabled," who would probably
transition, walking to the new location, and
have remained in Special Education during
settling in after he or she returns from the
six years of elementary school.
alternate learning setting. One of the most fre-
Figure 3 (page 18) shows the costs and ben-
quent concerns of primary grade teachers is that
efits related to this model when current nation-
they have so little time to work with the
al teacher salary averages and other related
whole class. Although Reading Recovery is a
data are applied. This simple, straightfor-
pull-out program, its short-term nature (aver-
ward analysis makes no attempt to consider the
aging 12 to 16 weeks) prevents repeated, disrup-
effects of future inflation or other related fac-
tive pull-outs over the long term.
tors. Its only purpose is to compare, in a very
Perhaps the most important benefit is pre-
general way, the magnitude of the long-term
venting the psychological trauma of retaining a
savings that are possible through investment in
child in grade or labeling the child as "learn-
early intervention programs such as Reading
ing disabled" and then placing him or her in
Recovery that have been proven by research to
Special Education. Both alternatives involve
be educationally effective.
labeling and stigmatizing children, which can
In Figure 3, the salary cost of one teacher
damage their self-concepts, reduce learning ex-
devoting one-half day to Reading Recovery
pectancy, and retard learning.
instruction for a year equals $16,508, which is
one-half the national average of classroom
Conclusions
teacher salaries in 1990-91. The long-term cost
benefits that could be derived from this
Schools today face difficult decisions about
investment in early intervention would be
the most effective way to use scarce resources
$29,752, for a net savings of $13,244.
for the good of children. Research indicates
16
91 'd
FAX NO. 2022192135
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
FEB-28-97 FRI 05:47 PM
Vol. 10, No. 1
ERS Spectrum
Winter 1992
Figure 2-Reading Recovery Savings: Comparison of Teacher Time and Salary Costs per Pupil,
with Grade Retention, Chapter 1, and Special Education in the Elementary Grades
(in 1990-91 dollars)
Annual
Average Years
Total
Total Cost
Intervention
Cost
in Program
Program Time
Per Student
Retention (Ist grade)¹
$5,208 (all costs)
1 year
1,080 hours
$5,208 (all costs)
Chapter One2
$943
5 years
525 hours
$4,715*
Special Education³
("Learning Disabled")
$1,651
6 years
1,512 hours
$9,906*
Reading Recovery⁴
$2,063
1/2 year
40 hours
$2,063
"Cost in 1990-91 dollars; inflation and salary increases are not included.
1Cost for one child retained in first grade who received all school services (food, transportation, etc.) for one
additional year, assumed to be the annual per pupil expenditure nationwide for current operations of $5,208,
in 1990-91, as reported in Estimates of School Statistics: 1990-91, National Education Association 1991. The
time for this intervention was estimated assuming a 6-hour school day X a 180-day school year.
2 Annual teacher salary cost of instruction for one student in Chapter 1 pull-out program. Calculated by divid-
ing the national average of teacher salaries for 1990-91 ($33,015) reported in NEA Estimates of School Statis
tics, 1990 -91 by the average number of Chapter 1 students taught by each Chapter 1 teacher per year. The
average number of students taught per teacher was calculated from data in the U.S. Department of Educa-
tion report The Current Operation of the Chapter 1 Program (1987), and assuming a 6-hour teacher day with 7
classes of 5 students each, equaling a teaching load of 35 students. The study also was the source of data used
to calculate the time for this intervention: an average Chapter 1 pull-out resource session of 35 minutes per
day X 180 days per year, X 5 years, which is the average length of time students receive Chapter 1 services in
elementary school.
3 Annual teacher salary cost of instruction for one student classified as "learning disabled" taught in pull-out
resource room program for one year. Calculated by dividing the national average of teacher salaries for 1990-
91 ($33,015) by the average total number of students classified "learning disabled" taught by each teacher in a
resource room pull-out program (a teaching load of 20 students per day), as reported in the U.S. Department
of Education study Patterns in Special Education Seroice Delivery and Cost (Moore et al. 1988). The time for
this intervention was also calculated from data in the study, which reports the typical student classified as
Tearning disabled" spends 7 hours per week in resource pull-out programs. Given a 36-week school year, this
is 252 hours per year, or 1,512 hours over the course of 6 years of elementary school.
NOTE: These costs only include teacher salaries. Costs do not include items such as the annual cost of
assessment of students, which was reported in the study Patterns of Special Education Services Delivery and
Cost to be $1,273 per Special Education student in 1985-86. Estimates also do not include time and salary
costs for Special Education students beyond sixth grade.
4Annual teacher salary cost of Reading Recovery instruction for one student calculated by taking half the
national average of salaries for teachers for 1990-91 ($33,015 divided by 2 = $16,508) and dividing this number
by the average number of students (8) taught by one Reading Recovery teacher teaching Reading Recovery
half of each day for one year. The time for this intervention was calculated using a tutoring session of 30 min-
utes each day, for a 16-week period.
17
91 'd
FAX NO. 2022192135
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
FEB-28-97 FRI 05:47 PM
Vol. 10, No. 1
ERS Spectrum
Winter 1992
Figure 3.-Potential Long-Term Reading Recovery Cost-Benefit for One Reading Recovery Teacher
Working with Eight Students During One Year
(in 1990-91 Dollars)
Expected benefits from one Reading Recovery teacher working one year:
Avoid two grade-one retentions, @ $5,208 each
$10,416
Avoid need to serve two students in Chapter 1 programs (each child
served for five years) @ $4,715 each
9,430
Avoid misclassification of one Special Education student in "learning
disabled" resource program (child served for six years during elementary
school)
9,906
Total cost savings
$29,752
Less cost of one Reading Recovery teacher (half year's full-time salary)
(16,508)
Net savings per Reading Recovery teacher
$13,244
that Reading Recovery is an educationally
sound and cost-effective early intervention
Clay, M. M. 1985. The Early Detection of Reading
Difficulties (Third Edition). Auckland, New Zea-
program for helping children who are at risk of
land: Heineman Educational Books.
early reading failure. Reading Recovery can
not only help schools save money, but can also
Clay, M. M. 1987. "Implementing Reading Recovery:
significantly reduce a school district's reliance
Systemic Adaptations to an Educational Inter-
on the use of such questionable educational
vention." New Zealand Journal of Educational
Studies Vol. 22, No. 1: 35-58.
practices as categorizing, labeling, and retain-
ing children in grade.
Clay, M. M. April 1990. "Reading Recovery in the
In industry, if a company could produce a
United States: Its Successes and Challenges,"
better product for less money in less time, that
Address to the American Educational Research
change would be initiated immediately. Amer-
Association, Boston, Massachusetts.
ican students, teachers, parents, and taxpayers
Collins, T. C. August 1990. 1988-89 Per Pupil Expen-
deserve no less. With the research evidence
diture. Boston: Massachusetts Department of
that Reading Recovery is not only education-
Education.
ally effective, but also cost-effective, this
Dyer, P. March 1991. "Reading Recovery: A Cost
early intervention deserves careful considera-
Benefit Analysis." Address to the New England
tion by all those responsible for the education
Reading Recovery Conference, Nashua, New
of children.
Hampshire.
Education Week. December 11, 1991. Final Edu-
References
cation Department Budget for Fiscal 1992." Vol.
XI, No. 15: 24-25.
Allington, R. L and A. McGill-Franzen. Fall 1990.
French, D. and J. Nellhaus. April 1990. Structuring
"Children with Reading Problems: How We
Schools for Success: A Focus On Grade Reten-
Wrongfully Classify Them and Fail to Teach
tion. Report of the Massachusetts Board of
Many to Read." ERS Spectrum Vol 8, No. 4: 3-9.
Education.
Birman, B. F. et al. 1987. The Current Operation of
Huck, D. and G. S. Pinnell. 1985. The Reading Re-
the Chapter 1 Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
covery Program in Columbus, Ohio: Pilot Year,
Department of Education, Office of Educational
Technical Report. The Ohio State University.
Research and Improvement.
18
LI 'd
FAX NO. 2022192135
FEB-28-97 FRI 05:48 PM STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Vol. 10, No. 1
ERS Spectrum
Winter 1992
Kennedy, M. M., B. F. Birman, and R. E. Demaline.
Potter, D. and M. Wall. February 1990. "An Analysis
1986. The Effectiveness of Chapter 1 Services.
of Five Years of Educational Research of State
Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Re-
Remedial/Compensatory Program Evaluation
search and Improvement, U.S. Department of
Data." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
Education.
of the South Carolina Educators for Practical
Use of Research, Columbia, South Carolina.
Lyons, C. A. Fall 1989. "Reading Recovery: An
Effective Early Intervention Program that Can
Progrow, W. 1990. "Challenging At-Risk Students:
Prevent Mislabeling Children as Learning Dis-
Findings from the HOTS Program." Phi Delta
abled." ERS Spectrum Vol. 7, No. 4: 3-9.
Kappan Vol. 71: 389-397.
Lyons, C. A. and J. Beaver. In press. "Reading Re-
Ribadeneira, D. July 3, 1990. Teachers Say U.S. Ed-
covery: An Instructional Support System with
ucation Investment Falls Short." Boston Globe.
Documented Success."
Rowan, B, L. F: Guthrie, G. V. Lee, and G. P. Guthric.
Massachusetts State Department of Education.
1990. The Design and Implementation of Chap-
1991. Education Today Vol. 6, No. 9: 10.
ter 1 Instructional Services: A Study of 24
Schools. San Francisco, CA: Far West Labora-
Moore, M. T. et al. (Decision Resources Corpora-
tory of Educational Research and Development.
tion). 1988. Patterns in Special Education Ser-
vice Delivery and Cost. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Sheppard, L. A. and M. L. Smith. May 1990. "Syn-
Office of Education, Office of Special Education
thesis of Research on Grade Retention." Edu-
and Rehabilitative Services. ERIC Doc. No. ED
cational Leadership Vol. 47, No. 8: 84-88.
303 027.
U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Office of Special
National Education Association. 1991. Estimates of
Education and Rehabilitative Services. 1990.
School Statistics: 1990-91. Washington, D.C.
Twelfth Annual Report to Congress on the Im-
plementation of Education of the Handicapped
Ohio Reading Recovery Project. 1991. Year 5 Tech-
nical Report, Vol. 14, 1990-91. Columbus, OH:
Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
Columbus Reading Recovery Project.
Viadero, D. November 7, 1990. "New Zealand Im-
Pinnell, G. S., D. E. DeFord, and C. A. Lyons. 1988.
port: A Costly But Effective Way to Teach
Reading Recovery: Early Intervention for At-
Reading." Education Week Vol. X, No. 10: 1.
Risk First Graders. Arlington, VA: Educational
/ Research Service.
Yukish, J. Site Reports 1936-87, 1987-88, 1988-39.
Wakeman, Ohio: Western Reserve School Dis-
Pinnell, G. S., C. A. Lyons, D. E. DeFord, A. S. Bryk,
trict.
and M. Seltzer. 1991. Studying the Effectiveness
of Early Intervention Approaches for First Grade
Zimmaro, L. March 1991. "Reading Recovery." Ad-
Children Having Difficulty in Reading. Colum-
dress to the Massachusetts Chapter 1 Program
bus, Ohio: Early Literacy Research Project, Ohio
Interventions Conference, Hyannis, MA.
State University.
19
81 'd
FAX NO. 2022192135
FEB-28-97 FRI U5:48 PM STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Research and Education Reform
Roles for the Office of Educational
IN7001S I.I.I 76.00 THE 16-07-974
Research and Improvement
Richard C. Atkinson and Gregg B. Jackson, Editors
Committee on the Federal Role in Education Research
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
National Research Council
9817612202 'ON VHJ
P.U5 P. U5
National Academy Press
Washington, D.C. 1992
28
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION REFORM
RESEARCH AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION
29
initiated program began in 1979 with remedial students in grades 6-9; it has
Results obtained in a later study by the same investigator showed that
since been expanded to include all grades from kindergarten through high
83 students in seventh grade classes taught with IMPACT significantly im-
school. The premise of the program is that all students with intellectual
proved their reading comprehension between the pretest and the postlest (as
potential at or ncar the normal range will benefit from instruction in higher
measured by the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills): the mean perfor-
level thinking skills.
mance of these students increased from the 40th percentile 10 the 51st per-
The IMPACT program provides curriculum materials and training. The
centile of the nom group, which included a nationally representative stu-
first section of the materials is designed to assist curriculum planners in
dent (Winocur, 1987).
analyzing existing courses for embedded instruction on thinking skills: classifying,
Project IMPACT offers an approach that can be embedded into most
sceing cause-and-cffect relationships, making generalizations, forming pre-
curricula and used as part of most teaching methods. As a result, the
dictions, and making assumptions. The second section of the program ma-
program appears to have widespread utility. Since 1983 the National Diffu-
terials is designed to help teachers (ill in identified gaps in thinking skills
sion Network has helped disseminate this program. According to IMPACT
instruction. These materials contain lesson plans for classifying and cate-
staff, there have been approximately 6,500 adoptions across all grades.
gorizing information, ordering and setting priorities for information, formu-
lating effective questions, and various reasoning exercises (Winocur, 1987).
Training is available at two levels. At the first level, teachers partici-
Reading Recovery
INTERNATION INJURYS IIJ 7h.00 INJ 16-07-931.
pate in a 3-day in-service workshop in which they are provided with strate-
gies for introducing and guiding the process of critical thinking within the
Program Description
context of various subject areas. Special instruction is provided in effective
Reading Recovery is an early intervention program designed to assist
use of Project IMPACT curriculum materials. The second level of training
the lowest 20 percent of readers in the first grade, as determined by a
is designed 10 prepare graduates of the first level of training 10 act as
special battery of diagnostic tests developed by Marie Clay (1985). The
trainers and disseminators in their local school districts.
goal of this field-initiated program is 10 leach these children reading skills
that are comparable 10 those of the average students in their class. Current
data show that 86 percent of the children in Reading Recovery have suc.
Testing and Evaluation
cessfully mes that goal within 12 to 20 weeks.
The original evaluation study was conducted in 1983 and involved four
The Reading Recovery program is designed 10 be supplementary to
school districts. All student subjects were in the seventh, eighth, or ninth
regular reading instruction in the classroom. A child in the program leaves
grades and were enrolled in remedial reading or mathematics classes. The
the classroom to work one-to-one with a specially trained teacher for 30
students selected to participate in both the experimental and control groups
minutes every day. Within a lesson, reading and writing activities are inte-
were those who failed to pass their district proficiency test and scored at or
grated, based on the idea that development in one skill area supports ad-
below the 37th percentile in reading comprehension on the Comprehensive
vancement in the other. Program materials include several hundred small
Test of Basic Skills. The 426 students in a remedial IMPACT classes were
books graded at 20 levels of difficulty. The easier levels of these books
0017617702 'ON VHJ
taught by IMPACT-trained teachers; the 352 students in remedial control
contain illustrations on every page and are written in predictable language
classes were taught by regular teachers. Standardized tests of basic skills
patterns compatible with children's ability 10 understand.
and the Cornell Critical Thinking Test were used as measures of students'
The approach is to encourage children to read by building on the knowledge
gains. Pretests were administered in September and postlests in February:
and skills they already have. In the early stages of the program, a teacher
all testing was conducted by classroom teachers. The results show that
works very closely with a child, examining each word and each sentence in
students in the Project IMPACT classes significantly outperformed students
a small story for recognition, pronunciation, and meaning. Throughout the
in control classes in thinking skills, mathematics, and reading at all three
story reading, the child and the teacher discuss what the characters might do
grade levels. According to the analysis, the magnitude of the gains for
next. As the child progresses through the lessons, he or she is supported by
IMPACT students was I standard deviation on both the Comprehensive
the teacher in the development of strategies that good readers appear to
Test of Basic Skills and the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, compared with
acquire naturally, such as summarizing, clarifying, and predicting. Teachers
an average gain of 0.1 standard deviations for students in control classes
stress meaning cues and comprehension in both reading and writing activi-
on
(Winocur, 1983).
tics. Children are considered ready to leave the program when they have
30
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION REFORM
RESEARCH AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION
31
demonstrated the ability 10 use these strategies on their own and when they
working with theories of the world and theories about written language,
have reached the average reading level of their class.
testing them and changing them as they engage in reading and writing
A critical component of the Reading Recovery program is teacher prep-
activities.
aration. Teacher leaders go through a year-long program al a university
The first field studies of the Reading Recovery program were initiated in
training site and then return to their local regions 10 provide a full year of
1978; they were designed to answer questions about the program's impact
training for other teachers. During training the leachers learn how 10 pre-
on students as well as the influence of various school characteristics on the
pare lesson plans and administer the program, how 10 create diagnostic
effectiveness of the program. Early successes in New Zealand led to inter-
Wd TRI 16-97-974
summary reports, and how to assess student progress. They also practice
est from researchers in the United States. In 1983 Pinnell and Huck trans-
working with a child behind a one-way glass while being observed by the
ferred the program 10 Ohio State, where several additional field tests were
other teachers in the program. As a teacher works with a child, the observ.
conducted. Between 1984 and 1986, $1.5 million was invested in the pro-
ers comment and discuss the process. Teachers also keep records on every
gram's development by state and local funding sources in Ohio.
aspect of the process. Throughout the training year, teachers work with
students in their schools using the Reading Recovery methods.
Testing and Evaluation
Research and Development
In the first full year of implementation in Ohio (1985-1986), urban
school students in the lowest 20 percent of their first grade classes, as
Maria Clay, who developed Reading Recovery in New Zealand in the
determined by Clay's diagnostic test battery, were randomly assigned either
1970s. spent several years reviewing theories of reading and studying the
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
10 Reading Recovery (133 students) or 10 a control group that received a
reading behaviors of young children. As a result of her field-initiated work,
commonly used remedial reading curriculum (51 students). After 15.7 weeks
she found that children use phonological awareness, syntax cucs, and their
the results appeared Impressive: Reading Recovery students performed sig-
knowledge of subject matter when extracting meaning from text. Her ap-
nificantly better than control students, and 73 percent of the children reached
proach 10 teaching reading immerses learners in high-interest, authentic
literary tasks instead of drills and exercises; and teachers coach students in
average levels of achievement in reading for their respective first grade
using all three strategies for extracting meaning.
classes. In addition, the developers found that Reading Recovery students
Reading Recovery also incorporates a number of principles from Vy.
made an average normal curve equivalent gain on the Comprehensive Test
gotsky's work on learning through social interaction and from Piaget's work
of Basic Skills of 8.6 for the school year, compared with -0.2 for students
in the genetic or historical reconstructive method. Essentially, these devel-
in the control group. At the end of the first grade, Reading Recovery
opmental theories suggest that instruction be provided as guided reinven-
students (the 73 percent who had successfully completed the program) were
reading and writing at or above the average level of their classmates; when
lion-a process that offers a structure for a teacher to share activity with a
child in a way that the growth of the child is maximized. As the child gains
entering the third grade, they were reading at a 3.1 grade level.
competence, new levels of knowledge are jointly explored. Reading Recov-
Because Reading Recovery is labor intensive and thus very expensive,
developers have been exploring ways to reduce the amount of time a teach-
FAX NO. 2022192135
cry adopts these principles in its interactive lessons and in the adjustments
cr spends with cach child. In a recent study supported by the MacArthur
made from lesson to lesson on the basis of the progress of the child. When
Foundation, Pinnell el al. (1991) compared four reading instruction methods
a child successfully completes the program, he or she has internalized the
with one another and with a control group. The four methods included (1)
skills necessary to continue to learn to read alone. According to Clay and
regular Reading Recovery, (2) Reading Recovery with teachers who re-
Cazden (1990:207):
ceived a shortened training course, (3) a onc-to-one practice model (Direct
The end point of carly instruction has been reached when children have a
Instruction Skills Plan), and (4) group lessons by a Reading Recovery Teacher.
self improving system: they learn more about reading every time they
The sample included 324 students in 10 school districts. According to
read, independent of instruction. When they read lexis of appropriate
Pinnell et al. (1991:1):
difficulty for their present skills, they use a set of mental operations, stral-
egies in their heads, that are just adequate for more difficult bits of the
Regular Reading Recovery was the only group for which the mean treat-
text. In this process they engage in reading work, deliberate efforts to
ment effect was significant on all four measures (of reading ability) at the
07
solve new problems with familiar information and procedures. They are
conclusion of the field experiment and was also the only treatment indicat.
32
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION REFORM
RESEARCH AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION
33
ing lasting effects. Results of this study indicate that one-to-one instruc-
crating summaries. Initially the teacher models the activities, and the stu-
tion is a necessary but not sufficient factor in Reading Recovery's success.
dents are encouraged to work at whatever level they can; the teacher then
Quantitative results and the qualitative analysis of videntapes indicate that
provides guidance at the appropriate level for each student. In the begin-
Reading Recovery training is a powerful influence on teachers and makes a
ning, students have a great deal of difficulty with the process of becoming a
difference in student success.
leader. However, as the Reciprocal Teaching progresses, with the teacher
Over the past decade Reading Recovery has spread to 33 states and two
providing directed feedback and guidance, the students become much more
sites in Canada. In 1991 there were 84 teacher leaders, 1,906 teachers, and
competent and comfortable.
12,902 children involved in the program. According to the developers,
approximately 86 percent of those students completed the program success-
Testing and Evaluation
fully in 12-20 weeks, demonstrating reading skills at the average level for
their class.
The first two experiments of reciprocal reading were conducted with
A critical element in the success of this program is the central quality
seventh grade students who could read but were at least 2 years behind on
control over the program provided by the staff at Ohio State University.
standardized scores of reading comprehension (Palincsar and Brown, 1984).
Not only is the staff responsible for ensuring effective training, they also
In the first study, some students received the Reciprocal Teaching approach
analyze the results for every student enrolled in Reading Recovery. Based
from the program developers. and other students were assigned to one of
FEB-28-97 FRI 05:43 PM STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
on the results to date, the program continues to be effective from entry 10
three comparison groups. Program developers worked with students in
the third grade. OERI's National Diffusion Network certified Reading Re-
pairs in the Reciprocal Teaching group, giving them an overview of the
covery as an effective program in 1987 (see Chapter 3) and has helped
lesson, having them read a passage silently, asking one to take the role of
disseminate it since that time. A key goal for the future is to develop
teacher, and as the lesson progressed, providing corrective and supportive
Reading Recovery as a group instructional program to reduce operating
feedback. Students were told that the strategies they were learning were
costs.
general and would help them understand as they read. Each day students
took three unassisted assessments (before, during, and after training) in
which they read a passage and answered ten questions.
Reciprocal Teaching
The results provide impressive support for the efficacy of Reciprocal
Teaching. Average performance in the comparison groups did not improve
Program Description
and remained at around 40 percent comprehension.
In the Reciprocal
Reciprocal Teaching is a 10-ycar, field-initiated program of basic re-
Teaching treatment, students became more like the adult model: they began
search funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel-
to use their own words, and main idea summaries became more and more
opment 10 test the theory that the skills that define "comprehension moni-
frequent. All six students in the program reached a stable level within 12
toring" are central in strategic reading. The comprehension monitoring
days of instruction, and five of the six were operating at a level of 70-80
activities selected for study include summarizing (self-review), questioning,
percent comprehension. Moreover, five of the six students improved their
FAX NO. 2022192135
clarifying, and predicting. The approach is to instruct students in the use of
classroom comprehension on other tasks. These improvements were still in
these skills. by encouraging them to participate in guided activity before
place 8 weeks after the Reciprocal Teaching program.
they are asked to perform independently (see Brown and Palincsar, 1989;
In the second study, regular classroom teachers provided Reciprocal
Palincsar and Brown, 1984). "In these teaching situations the novice car-
Teaching 10 three seventh grade and one eighth grade reading class (ranging
ries out simple aspects of the task while observing and tearning from an
in size from four to seven students). The student selection criteria and the
expert, who serves as a model for higher level involvement" (Palincsar and
materials and procedures for Reciprocal Teaching were the same as those
Brown, 1984:123). Initially, research on Reciprocal Teaching focused on
used in the first experiment. After 15 days of Reciprocal Teaching, students
reading and listening: more recently. it has been extended to include mathe-
were demonstrating comprehension of 75-80 percent on daily assessments-
matics (Campione, ct al., 1988).
up from 40-50 percent at the beginning of the intervention. By the 25th
In Reciprocal Teaching of comprehension, a teacher and a student take
day, many were at 100 percent of comprehension and these levels were
P.08
turns leading a discussion concerning sections of the text: the task includes
maintained on the 8-week postiest. As with the first experiment, there was
clarifying complex sections, asking questions, making predictions, and gen-
also evidence that the comprehension skills transferred 10 other subjects
KARP
Instruction/Intervention
Page 1
Reading Recovery
National
Center to
Improve
the Tools of
Educators
INCITE Research Brief
Topic: Reading Recovery
Source
Shanahan, T., and Barr, R. (1995). Reading recovery: An independent
evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk
learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30 (4), 958-996.
Focus on Reading Recovery (RR) within U.S. schools.
Reviewed various versions of Clay's manual on RR (1979, 1985,
1993a, 1993b); all technical reports on RR published by team at
Ohio State University; ERIC; reference lists included in each
document; "in press" materials (Reading Research Quarterly).
Data combined across studies or effect sizes calculated to estimate
magnitude of impact when possible to analyze data directly;
qualitative analysis conducted when nature of original source
materials required.
Included all published evaluations of RR and unpublished studies
that included sufficient basic information (means, standard
deviations for pre- and posttests); did not automatically reject
unpublished sources.
Few empirical evaluations of RR-insufficient in number and scope
to permit analysis needed by policymakers (p. 961).
Found no studies of RR that did not suffer from serious
methodological or reporting flaws, published or not.
Overall, consideration of existing research and evaluation studies of
RR largely qualitative (p. 961).
What is Reading Recovery?
Developed by Marie Clay for New Zealand schools in 1976.
Introduced to U.S. in 1979 publication of Clay's book,
The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties.
Two new volumes, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy
Achievement (1993) and Reading Recovery, A Guidebook
for Teachers in Training (1993) replaced 1979 book.
Instruction/Intervention
Page 2
Reading Recovery
"Reading Recovery is an instructional intervention for teaching
reading to young children" (p. 961) and an "intensive one-to-one
intervention program" (Pinnell, DeFord, & Lyons, 1988, p. 2).
"A basic premise of RR is that children are failing with literacy
because they are not learning to read and write, and not because
something else is wrong with them" (p. 962).
Clay (1979) states: "The difficulties of the young child might be more
easily overcome if he had practised error behaviours less often,
had less to unlearn an relearn, and still had reasonable
confidence in his own ability" (p. 5).
Later reading problems can be avoided by intervening early;
therefore, "RR is initiated after the children start to fail, but not
long after" (p. 962).
At time RR developed, reading remediation was routinely delayed
until child had completed 3 years of reading instruction.
RR focuses on the learning of at-risk children, defined in most U.S.
programs as "children in the lowest 20% reading achievement
groups in their first-grade classrooms" (p.962).
Because of relative performance standard, implementation of RR
varies significantly (Ohio-few children with extreme difficulty
learning to read; Illinois-districts with high concentrations of
poor children).
Extent of Adoption
Ohio State University initially established Reading Recovery in six
public schools in Columbus, Ohio.
Expanded to more than a thousand schools involving tens of
thousands of children.
By 1992, 38 states and the District of Columbia had at least one center
for training Reading Recovery teachers.
Instructional Procedures
Children receive individual diagnosis of their reading needs
Instruction provided on a one-teacher-to-one-student basis
Lessons are daily for 30 minutes per student
Not a stand-alone program but supplements regular classroom
reading instruction
No prescribed, step-by-step kits or sets of consumable materials
Children taken through a collection of short books from levels 1 to
20 in U.S. and read within 30-minute lesson plan.
Lesson includes child rereading previously read books; writing and
reading their own sentences; reading a new book
Emphasis on teaching children to be independent
Usually implemented for 12-14 weeks of accelerated instruction
Individual instruction emphasized because "crucial to observe
precisely what children have been able to learn (not what they
Instruction/Intervention
Page 3
Reading Recovery
have been unable to do), to discover what reading behaviors
they should now be taught from an analysis of performance in
reading texts, to shift the child's reading behaviour from less
adequate to more adequate responding" (Clay, 1979, p. 8).
Teacher Training
3 years of teaching experience, including primary grades
Staff development is spread over a year of part-time study.
Training is delivered during two hour inservice sessions at one or
two weekly intervals over period of a year.
Typically, a RR teacher tutors in program for half a day and teaches
in the regular classroom the rest of the time.
The most common approach is to hire two teachers to teach a single
first-grade class, one teaching RR in the morning and the regular
classroom in the afternoon, and the other with the opposite
schedule. This allows eight children to enter the RR program at
one time. As children discontinue, others take their place, so
that in a year, more than eight students may actually receive RR.
Instruction/Intervention
Page 4
Reading Recovery
Is Reading Recovery Effective?
*
Does RR result in more learning than would be expected if the
intervention did not take place at all?
Pre- and Posttest Comparisons. Based on results of five different
studies and technical reports (Huck & Pinnell, 1986; Iversen & Tunmer,
1993; Lyons, Pinnell, Short, & Young, 1986; Pinnell, Huck, & DeFord,
1986; Pinnell, Lyons, Young, & DeFord, 1987), with results pooled across
studies to determine average gains on various measures of diagnostic
battery of informal tests Clay developed, it appears:
1. The average RR child who successfully completes the
program makes dramatic progress during first grade.
2. The average child who completed the RR program learned
15.71 letter names, improved performance on word reading tests
by 13.25 preprimer words, improved on concepts of print test by
8.73 print awareness features, wrote 31.44 more words;
represented 24.86 more phonemes accurately in dictations;
and moved through 9.0 levels of text material.
Limitations of Results:
1. Test score improvements likely to occur when students with
extreme scores are selected for participation (regression to the mean).
2. Normal development and learning gains typical of young children
can be due to other sources of growth and education.
3. The studies systematically omitted children who were not having
success in RR. Specifically, the selection procedures used by RR "most
certainly bias the results" (p. 968). Students who were served by RR for
fewer than a specified number of lessons (30 for Ohio pilot study and 60
for others) were not included in the evaluation reports. Therefore, the
results do not include all students receiving RR. It is estimated that
between 25 to 30% of students were not included in the results because
of poor attendance or who did not progress successfully in RR.
4. "Depending on the proportion of participants omitted in this
fashion, this creates a substantial bias in favor of Reading Recovery
gains, and there is no sound way to adjust scores " (p. 966).
Of 22,193 children described in National Diffusion Network report
who were served by RR in 1991-92, 5,880 failed for one reason or
another, and 2,583 received 60 or more lessons but were not judged to
be "successfully discontinued." Therefore, 38% were "not
discontinued" from program; 62% successfully completed the program
and "discontinued." (DeFord, Estice, Fried, Lyons, & Pinnell, 1993)
Instruction/Intervention
Page 5
Reading Recovery
A substantial number of the 5,880 incompletions reported for 1991-92
probably entered the program in the spring and did not complete 60
lessons. This group comprised 22% of total sample in Illinois report
and 29% of Wake County Public School System.
*
Does Reading Recovery lead to more learning than other programs?
Pre- and Posttest Comparisons. Based on results of two studies that
provide comparable pre- and posttest scores for children in the regular
classroom (Huck & Pinnell, 1986; Lyons, Pinnell, Short, & Young, 1986),
it appears that:
1. Reading Recovery children made greater gains during first
grade than did their classmates.
2. RR children learned to identify 11.01 more letters, 2.42 more
primer words, and 2.63 more print concepts, increased the
number of words they wrote by 2.75 more words, learned to
represent 8.43 more phonemes accurately in dictations, and
moved through slightly fewer levels of text material (.25) than
did other first graders at their schools.
Limitations of Results: Again, these results appear to be "an
overestimation of these students' gains, given the regression to the
mean problem and the omission of unspecified numbers of low-
success Reading Recovery students from the original samples" (p. 969).
(see same limitations as noted above). Nonetheless, "it seems safe to
conclude that Reading Recovery students approximate, and sometimes
exceed, the gains made by average students. Reading Recovery
seeming helped potentially low-achieving students to learn as much as
or more than students in the regular school program, helping them to
close the gap that was originally identified" (p. 969-970).
*
How do students in Reading Recovery compare to other low-
achieving students?
Pre- and Posttest Comparisons. Based on results of three studies that
provided comparable pre- and posttest scores for children in RR or an
"alternative compensatory" program (Huck & Pinnell, 1986; Iversen &
Tunmer, 1993; Pinnell, Huck, & DeFord, 1986), it appears that:
1. "Comparison of gains made by the initially low-achieving
groups suggest that the impact of RR is substantially slighter
than was found in the classroom comparisons" (p. 971).
Instruction/Intervention
Page 6
Reading Recovery
2. RR children learned to identify 4.6 more letters and 5.89
more primer words, increased the number of individual
words they wrote by 11.33, learned to represent 9.62 more
phonemes accurately in their dictations, and moved through
3.88 more levels of text materials than did the other low-
achieving first graders at their schools.
3. "It seems significant that RR children did relatively better
(when compared with their performance differences with the
average group) than the other low achievers on word and text
reading and phoneme representation. It is clear that RR leads to
somewhat greater learning than might be expected without it"
(p. 972).
Limitations of Results. "It is important to remember that even these
modest gains were probably inflated to some extent by regression to the
mean and the dropping of Reading Recovery children from the
program" (p. 973).
Summary of Results of Studies Involving Pre- and Posttest
Comparisons
"From all of this it seems reasonable to conclude that children who
receive Reading Recovery instructional make sizable gains in reading
achievement during the first-grade year. These gains compare
favorably with those of higher achieving first graders who receive only
regular classroom instruction, or such instruction along with
compensatory support. The relative gains that Reading Recovery
children make during first grade appear to be significant and
meaningful; however, they are inflated to a great extent by an
evaluation policy that allows students to be dropped from Reading
Recovery analysis for reasons of low success, and by regression to the
mean effects that influence the results of most of the studies" (p. 973).
*
Is Reading Recovery as effective as other tutorial programs, such as
Programmed Tutorial Reading, Wallach Tutorial Program, Prevention
of LD--New York, and Success for All?
Based on the results from four first-grade tutorial studies, including
RR, and a fifth program, Success for All, involving classroom
intervention as well as tutorial support, RR and Success for All were
particularly successful in enhancing reading comprehension.
Instruction/Intervention
Page 7
Reading Recovery
*
Is Reading Recovery as effective when compared directly program
interventions such as Reading Success, Direct Instruction Skills Plan
(DISP), and Reading-Writing Group?
1. In these comparisons, Reading Success used RR format and
materials but teachers received only a 2-week training program; DISP
teachers were encouraged to develop their own direct tutorial
instruction in specific reading skills; the Reading-Writing Group used
previously trained RR teachers and adapted the RR model to small-
group instruction.
2. Based on the study by Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer
(1994), RR showed "particularly strong effects in February, followed by
Reading Success, on dictation and text reading tasks" (p. 976).
3. "The results for the Reading-Writing Group were moderately strong
only on the text reading task, while the results for the DISP program
were not different than those of the control group" (p. 976).
4. "The results in May on the standardized test were insignificant for
RR as well as the three comparison programs. By October, the effects
that had been obtained had diminished for all groups except for the RR
students, whose gains remained statistically significant on text reading"
(p. 976).
Limitations of Results: RR teachers were experienced and often
exemplary teachers with at least one year's practice in RR; the
comparison group teachers were hired from pools of substitute
teachers; RR students received more instructional time than
comparison groups.
*
Do modifications of the components of Reading Recovery enhance
its effectiveness? (Iversen and Tunmer, 1993)
Iversen and Tunmer (1993) compared the standard RR program with a
modified version that included explicit code instruction which focus
on letter-phoneme patterns, including letters in isolation, and word
spelling patterns sharing common pronunciations. In RR, phonemic
awareness and letter-sound correspondences are developed in the
context of each child's writing. They also compared the standard and
modified RR programs with a group-based reading support program as
a control condition and two comparison groups composed of average-
achieving first graders. Iversen and Tunmer (1993) found:
Instruction/Intervention
Page 8
Reading Recovery
1. The two RR samples differed significantly from the group-
based intervention on the Diagnostic Survey and metacognitive
measure, but did not differ from each other.
2. Both RR groups also performed as well as or better than the
average-achieving comparison groups. The main difference
between the two RR groups was the number of lessons to
discontinuation. The standard RR group exceeded that of the
modified RR group by 37% (57 versus 42 lessons).
Summary of Results of Studies Involving Comparing RR with Other
High-Quality Intervention Programs
1. In general, RR compares well to other high-quality intervention
programs. Some interventions, particularly Success for All that
combines classroom and tutorial approaches in a comprehensive
fashion, are equally effective. However, Success for All has not yet
demonstrated an ability to maintain such gains under conditions of
wide implementation (p. 978).
2. It is important to understand that RR requires the (a) careful
selection of highly skilled and motivated teachers, and (b) an approach
to professional development that significantly enhances the outcomes
of the program, including its tutorial format.
3. There is evidence to suggest that the program may be made more
efficient by including more explicit and systematic focus on
phonological recoding.
*
Do Reading Recovery Students Maintain Their Learning Gains?
1. RR appears to differ from other remedial programs in its
expectations concerning the stability of gains. A major assumptions of
RR is that a low-achieving child will "become an average progress
child" (Clay, 1985, p. 52).
2. The relative advantage of RR groups seems to be maintained over
that of comparison groups, as indicated by raw mean differences.
However, when the increasing variation of the samples are considered,
the differences are no longer significant. "After the period of
intervention, both RR and comparison groups seem to progress at
about the same rate, as indicated by group mean gains. These results
indicate that once children are brought up to the average range, their
progress is somewhat less than the average of their class" (p. 982).
Instruction/Intervention
Page 9
Reading Recovery
increase per-pupil educational costs for that child by about 80% during
the year of enrollment. Of course, these students might receive other
types of special services, too, in addition to RR..." (p. 986).
5. "Our analysis suggests that after the savings from lower retention
rates and special education costs are considered, the per student annual
expenditure for RR is in the region of $3,200, with great variation
evident in district expenditures due to difference in teacher salaries and
benefits; however, we suspect that the emphasis on experienced
teachers probably raises the actual per-student costs to about $4,000"
(p. 990).
6. "Modification of the RR approach to include more direct instruction
in the area of phoneme awareness and spelling knowledge (Iversen &
Tunmer, 1993) may reduce the time needed" (p. 990).
Prepared by: Edward J. Kameenui, Ph. D.
Professor and Associate Director
National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators
December 4, 1995
Instruction/Intervention
Page 10
Reading Recovery
Does Reading Recovery Have A Systemic Effect on School Programs?
Does the impact of RR reach beyond the effects on individual
children and teachers to influence other aspects of schooling?
1. "The evidence reviewed is limited in scope. It does not, however,
support the conclusion that having the RR program in a school leads
in any direct way to improvements of classroom instruction and school
restructuring. The complexity of the process is revealed in descriptive
studies" (p. 984).
2. "More generally, a program such as RR that focuses mainly on the
learning of individual children, although effective as a tutorial
program, has serious shortcomings conceptually and practically when
viewed as a professional development or school restructuring
program Accordingly, the RR program in its current form cannot take
the place of a comprehensive school or district plan for serving the
needs of all its students or as a program for professional development"
(p. 984).
*
What is the Cost of Reading Recovery?
1. Like other tutorial programs, RR is necessarily expensive. RR
requires the assignment of at least one full-time teacher (actually, two
half-time teachers who share the full-time duties) who is likely to work
with about 16 students per year.
2. Calculating the actual direct costs of RR proved difficult, because
precise costs differed by locale because teacher salaries differ, and this is
the major program expenditure.
3. "In sum, a conservative estimate of the total average expenditure
per full-time RR teacher would be $46,246. Assuming that, on average,
about 10 students per year will be worked with, the per-pupil
expenditure is $4,625 ($2,890 if the number of students is 16; however, if
this is done, then the achievement figures that have been used earlier
are substantial overestimates of the actual success of the program).
These estimates are on the low side, and do not include various
expenses such as yearly conference participation of Teacher Leaders,
most travel expenditures, or ongoing support costs charged by the
regional centers for working with teachers each year (additional
expenditures per child).
4. The average per-pupil cost in the U.S. in 1993 was $5,938, which
means that the cost of having a child in RR should be expected to
References
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Alegria, J., Pignot, E., & Morais, J. (1982). Phonetic analysis of speech and memory
codes in beginning readers. Memory and Cognition, 10, 451-456.
Ball, E.W., & Blachman, B.A. (1991). Does phoneme segmentation training in
kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental
spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.
Blachman, B.A. (1991). Getting ready to read. In J.F. Kavanagh (Ed.), The language
continuum: From infancy to literacy. Timonium, MD: York Press.
Blachman, B.A., Ball, E.W., Black, R.S., & Tangel, D.M. (1994). Kindergarten teachers
develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms: Does it make
a difference? Reading and Writing, 6, 1-18.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read-a causal
connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic
awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451-455.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic
awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 104-111.
Byrne, B. & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic
awareness to young children: 2- and 3-year follow-up and a new preschool trial.
Journal of Educational Psychololgy. 87, 488-503.
Byrne, B., & Ledez, J. (1983). Phonological awareness in reading disabled adults.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 35, 185-197.
Calfee, R.C., Lindamood, P.E., & Lindamood, C.H. (1973). Acoustic-phonetic skills and
reading-kindergarten through 12th grade. Journal of Educational Psychology,
64, 293-298.
Cardoso-Martins, C. (1995). Sensitivity to rhymes, syllables, and phonemes in literacy
acquisition in Portuguese. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 808-828.
Castle, J.M., Riach, J., & Nicholson, T. (1994). Getting off to a better start in reading and
spelling: The effects of phonemic awareness instruction within a whole-language
program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 350-359.
Cossu, G., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I.Y., Tola, G., & Katz, L. (1988). Awareness of
phonological segments and reading ability in Italian children. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 9, 1-16..
Cunningham, A.E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429-444.
deManrique, A.M.B., & Gramigna, S. (1984). La segmentacion fonologica y silabica en
ninos de preescolar y primer grado. Lectura y Vida, 5, 4-13.
Elkonin, D.B. (1973). U.S.S.R. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading. New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (in press).
The case for early reading intervention. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of
reading acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., & Lynn, A. (in press). Relation of
phonological and orthographic processing to early reading: Comparing two
approaches to regression-based, reading-level-match designs. Journal of
Educational Psychology.
Gough, P.B. & Hillinger, M.L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the
Orton Society, 30, 179-196.
Hatcher, P.J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A.W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by
integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological
linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41-57.
Hoien, T., Lundberg, I., Stanovich, K.E., & Bjaalid, I. (1995). Components of
phonological awareness. Reading and Writing, 7, 171-188.
Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, vol. 2, (pp. 759-788). New York,
NY: Longman.
Liberman, I.Y., Rubin, H., Duques, S., & Carlisle, J. (1985). Linguistic abilities and
spelling proficiency in kindergartners and adult poor spellers. In D.B. Gray &
J.F. Kavanagh (Eds.), Biobehavioral measures of dyslexia, (pp. 163-176).
Parkton, MD: York Press.
Lundberg, I., Adams, M.J., Foorman, B.R., & Beeler, T. (in press). Program for
developing phonelogical awareness among preschool, kindergarten, first grade,
and special education students. Baltimore, MD: Paul R. Brookes.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O.P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for
stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23, 264-284.
Lundberg, I., Olofsson, A., Wall, S. (1980). Reading and spelling skills in the first school
years predicted from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 21, 159-173.
Marcel, A. (1980). Phonological awareness and phonological representation:
Investigation of a specific spelling problem. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes
in spelling, (pp. 373-403). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a
sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323-331.
Rayner, K., Sereno, S.C., Lesch, M.F., & Pollatsek, A. (1995). Phonological codes are
automatically activated during reading: Evidence from an eye movement priming
paradigm. Psychological Science, 6, 26-32.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-
406.
Tunmer, W.E., & Nesdale, A.R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning
reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 417-427.
Wagner, R., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of reading-related
phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a
latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.
Wallach, M.A., & Wallach, L. (1979). Helping disadvantaged children learn to read by
teaching them phoneme identification skills. In L.A. Resnick & P.A. Weaver
(Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading, vol. 3 (pp. 227-259). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Williams, J.P. (1980). Teaching decoding with a special emphasis on phoneme analysis
and phoneme blending. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 1-15.
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
1
30 Years of NICHD Research:
What We Now Know About How Children Learn to Read
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning
http://www.ksagroup.com/thecenter/
A Note About the NICHD Research Program
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
educational research program, initiated 1965, began to focus more on reading difficulties as
it became clear how extensive the reading problem was in the general population. The
1985 Health Research Extension Act resulted in a new charge to the NICHD to improve
the quality of reading research by conducting long-term, prospective, longitudinal, and
multidisciplinary research. Reid Lyon led the new charge by closely coordinating the work
of over 100 researchers in medicine, psychology, and education in approximately 14
different research centers. (Numbers vary from year to year.)
A major problem with reading research in the past was that findings often did not
replicate. One researcher would get one result, another researcher would get the opposite
result. Lyon and colleagues identified that the key problem in obtaining replicability was
that researchers were studying different samples of children. Lyon established detailed
sampling requirements for the research and increased scientific rigor in other areas.
Consequently, the NICHD research program has produced a growing body of highly
replicable findings in the area of early reading acquisition and reading difficulties that have
been reported in over 2,000 refereed journal articles since 1965.
How the NICHD Research Program is Different
To appreciate fully the significance of the NICHD findings it helps to understand
the level of scientific rigor used to guide the formation of conclusions from the research.
Reid Lyon coordinates the parallel investigation of similar questions across several centers.
Under Lyon's leadership, the researchers determine that the questions have been answered
only when the findings replicate across researchers and settings. Findings with a high
degree of replicability are finally considered incontrovertible findings and then form the
basis for additional research questions. Funding is awarded the research centers through a
competitive peer review process. A panel of researchers who are not competing for the
research funds award the funds after evaluating competing proposals according to specific
criteria. Each research study within the NICHD network must follow the most rigorous
scientific procedures.
True scientific model. The NICHD studies do not embrace any a priori theory,
but test all theories against one another at different points in time. In a true scientific
paradigm, theories are tested by doing everything to try to prove the theory incorrect. This
contrasts with the usual nature of research in education, where untested hypotheses are
often presented as proved theories before any testing has occurred.
Long-term duration. The average length of a study has been 8 years, ranging in
length from 3 years to 31 years. In these longitudinal studies, the growth of children from
P. 32
FAX NO. 4015943
MAR-07-97 FRI 10:45 AM RICKY TAKAI
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
2
preschool through adulthood has been evaluated. Currently, several large-scale, 5-year
longitudinal treatment intervention studies are underway. This longer-term design allows
evaluation of the effects of different instructional variables on later reading performance.
Sampling procedures. The sampling procedures ensure that all subgroups in the
population (all ethnic groups, a full range of IQ levels, and SO on) are included in sufficient
numbers to provide a window to the population as a whole and provide information
regarding the relationship of reading disabilities to other variability in individuals such as
IQ. To evaluate the relationship between IQ and reading disabilities, for example, the
research subjects must proportionately sample different IQ bands. Most studies involve
around 200 subjects representing variation within specified dimensions. Children who do
not speak English have been excluded from the NICHD research samples to this point.
After basic reading instruction issues have been resolved for teaching children with some
knowledge of English, including bilingual children, the research questions will turn to
treatment for children who do not know English and are beginning to learn it as a second
language.
Researcher bias. Researcher bias is reduced by the sheer number of people
involved in the NICHD program. For example, at only one NICHD-funded research
center, the one at Yale University, the following researchers are involved: Jack Fletcher,
David Francis, Rafael Kloorman, John Gore, John Halahan, Robert Constable, Leonard
Katz, Barbara Foorman, Bonita Blachman, Dorothy Aram, Alvin Liberman, Ken Pugh,
Michael Studdert-Kennedy, Donald Shankweiler, Karla Stuebing, Keith Stanovich, Linda
Siegel, and Louisa Moats. In addition, researchers at the different NICHD centers
communicate frequently regarding their findings, checking each other's data and testing
alternative explanations with additional studies.
Contrast with other educational research. The NICHD research program differs
from much of the earlier research in its scientific rigor. Table 1 helps illustrate the contrast
by summarizing several studies that reported conclusions that conflict with those of the
NICHD. The studies in Table 1 are laudable for attempting to evaluate competing theories
and were sometimes even two years in duration, quite long as educational studies go. Yet
the studies are still too short in duration to evaluate the effects of the different treatments
on the children's actual ability to read with joy and understanding. In nearly all of the
studies in Table 1 the children never progressed far enough in their reading to use a
measure of independent reading comprehension to evaluate their learning. The important
question of how different approaches to beginning reading instruction ultimately impact
authentic reading remains unanswered in these studies.
Many of the measures used to evaluate the children's learning had no established
validity as predictors of reading comprehension. For example, children who used multiple
cueing systems or who said they valued understanding more than getting the words right,
were given higher scores in many of the studies in Table 1. Whether or not this
performance would correlate with later reading performance was not established at the time
of the research.
With the NICHD research we now know that the values given the responses on these
measures should have been reversed. What was considered desirable performance on
miscue analyses actually indicates a poor comprehender, rather than a good comprehender.
Children who are poor readers make greater use of two of the three cueing systems, syntax
and semantics (context), than good readers. Good readers make greater use of the
graphophonic cueing system, as indicated by the fact that they read fluently and accurately
EE 'd
FAX NO. 4015943
MAR-07-97 FRI 10:46 AM RICKY TAKAI
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
3
without rereading. Readers who get words right are better comprehenders than readers
who guess using context to figure out words. Most likely the children who scored highest
on these measures would become the poorest readers, based on NICHD studies of good
and poor readers.
Even when the skills measured do predict better reading later, such as knowing the
names of the letters, teaching children these skills does not necessarily guarantee that these
children will be better readers later on. Though many of the studies in Table 1 were over
two years duration, the time frame was still too short to see the nature of the impact of the
instruction on reading comprehension.
Table 1. Research supporting conclusions that conflict with the NICHD research findings.
Date
Researchers
Population
N in whole
N in skills-
Duration
Reading
sampled
language
based group
comprehension
group
measure included?
1985
Ribowsky
2 K classes in
26
27
1 yr
No
parochial school
1989
Kasten,
2 Preschool & 2
54
66
1 yr
No
Clark, &
K classes
Nations
1990
Stice &
At-risk 1st &
25 (5 from
25 (5 from
2 yrs
The SAT was
Bertrand
2nd graders in
each class)
each class)
administered, but
10 classes
no significant
difference found.
1991
Freppon
4 1st grade
12
12
4 mths
No
classes, wealthy,
white
1993
McIntyre
1st grade, varied
1 (also 1 in
1
2 yrs
No
Reading
Recovery)
1994
McIntyre &
low SES groups
3
3
2 yrs
No
Freppon
1995
Dahl &
4 classes
12 focal Ss
7 focal Ss
8 mths
No
Freppon
21 on some
12 on some
measures
measures
*N= number of subjects (Ss) in each treatment group.
In contrast, the NICHD longitudinal treatment studies now in progress are five
years in duration and have already used reading comprehension measures to evalute
instructional variables in the second year of the studies. In addition, the sample sizes are
much larger in the NICHD research studies. For example, the kindergarten study by
Foorman and her colleagues (in press) involved 260 kindergarten children. Their first- and
second-grade study in eight Title I schools involved 375 subjects. Their special education
study of children in the lower 25% involved 113 children with reading disabilities. The
study of children in the lower 10% at the Florida Treatment Center involved 180 children
(Torgesen et al., in press). The larger samples in the NICHD research included a full range
of IQ levels, ethnic groups, and included lower income children. As Table 1 shows, the
largest study reporting contradictory conclusions included only 100 subjects. Most of the
studies involved much smaller samples.
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
4
Developing a New Understanding of Reading Difficulties
The use of the general term "learning disabilities" in research practice seems to have
hindered our ultimate understanding of the causes, developmental courses, and outcomes
of the specific types of difficulties subsumed within the LD category. Lyon (1995a) and
Stanovich (1993) argue that the term learning disability is too broad to be of any scientific
or clinical value. Instead, the general term learning disability, for research purposes, should
be replaced with a specific definition of each type of learning disability (e.g., a learning
disability in basic reading skills, a learning disability in mathematics calculation, a learning
disability in written expression, and so on).
Much of the recent NICHD research has focused on identifying the nature of
reading disabilities and the causes. Using modern neuroimaging technology, medical
researchers have identified a unique signature on the brain scans of persons with reading
problems. These unique brain scans seem to reflect an inability to work with phonemes in
the language. This lack of phonemic awareness seems to be a major obstacle to reading
acquisition. Children who are not phonemically aware are not able to segment words and
syllables into phonemes. Consequently, they do not develop the ability to decode single
words accurately and fluently, an inability that is the distinguishing characteristic of persons
with reading difficulties.
About 40% of the population have reading problems severe enough to hinder their
enjoyment of reading. These problems are generally not developmental and do not diminish
over time, but persist into adulthood without appropriate intervention. Because the
percentage is so large, an arbitrary cutoff point of 20% was selected for the purpose of
labelling children as disabled in basic reading skills. The difference between a child who
has a learning disability in reading and a child who is simply a poor reader is only a
difference in the severity of the problem.
The most reliable indicator of a reading problem is an inability to decode single
words. Lyon (1994, 1995a) suggests that the best way to determine if this inability is
"unexpected" is to compare the performance of a child with that of other children his or her
age and / or compare reading ability to academic performance in other domains (e.g.,
listening comprehension, verbal expression, mathematics, written expression). The
definition suggests that traditional methods for identifying a reading disability, such as
looking for an IQ-achievement discrepancy, are not as reliable (Lyon, 1994; Lyon, 1995a).
Phonological processing is the primary ability area where children with reading
difficulties differ from other children. It does not seem to matter whether the children have
an IQ-achievement discrepancy in reading or not. Phonological processing encompasses at
least three different components. Each component and a sample assessment are described
in Table 2.
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
5
Table 2. Three important components of phonological processing and sample assessments.
Component Skill
Assessment
Phonological awareness
E.g., say cat without the /t/ sound.
Phonological recoding in lexical access
Name objects, letters, colors quickly.
(Rapid naming)
Phonological recoding in working memory
Repeat sentences, words, or digits
accurately.
Of these three major phonological processing skills, phonological awareness appears to be
the most prevalent linguistic deficit in disabled readers.
Research on Treatment for Reading Difficulties
What is Developmentally Appropriate?
Treatment intervention research has shown that appropriate early direct instruction
seems to be the best medicine for reading problems. Reading is not developmental or
natural, but is learned. Reading disabilities reflect a persistent deficit, rather than a
developmental lag in linguistic (phonological) skills and basic reading skills. Children who
fall behind at an early age (K and grade 1) fall further and further behind over time.
Longitudinal studies show that of the children who are diagnosed as reading disabled in
third grade, 74% remain disabled in ninth grade (Fletcher, et al., 1994; Shaywitz, Escobar,
Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Makuch, 1992; Stanovich, 1986; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Adults
with reading problems exhibit the same characteristics that are exhibited by children with
reading problems.
These findings contradict the prevalent notion that children will begin to learn to
read when they are "ready." The concept "developmentally appropriate" should not
suggest delaying intervention, but using appropriate instructional strategies at an early
age-especially in kindergarten. Although we now have the ability to identify children
who are at-risk for reading failure, and we now understand some of the instructional
conditions that must be considered for teaching, the majority of reading disabilities are not
identified until the third grade.
Early Identification and Treatment
The best predictor in K or 1st grade of a future reading disability in grade 3 is a
combination of performance on measures of phonemic awareness, rapid naming of letters,
numbers, and objects, and print awareness. Phonemic awareness is the ability to segment
words and syllables into constituent sound units, or phonemes. Converging evidence from
all the research centers show that deficits in phonemic awareness reflect the core deficit in
reading disabilities. These deficits are characterized by difficulties in segmenting syllables
and words into constituent sound units called phonemes-in short, there is a difficulty in
turning spelling into sounds.
Lack of phonemic awareness seems to be a major obstacle for learning to read
(Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987a; Wagner & Torgeson, 1987). This is true for any language,
even Chinese. About 2 in 5 children have some level of difficulty with phonemic
awareness. For about 1 in 5 children phonemic awareness does not develop or improve
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
6
over time. These children never catch up but fall further and further behind in reading and
in all academic subjects (Fletcher, et al., 1994; Shaywitz, Escobar, Shaywitz, Fletcher, &
Makuch, 1992; Stanovich, 1986; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994).
Instruction using the following types of phonemic awareness tasks has had a
positive effect on reading acquisition and spelling for nonreaders: rhyming, auditorily
discriminating sounds that are different, blending spoken sounds into words, word-to-word
matching, isolating sounds in words, counting phonemes, segmenting spoken words into
sounds, deleting sounds from words (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley,
1990; Cunningham, 1990; Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, in press; Lie,
1991; Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987b; Yopp, 1988).
Explicit instruction in how segmentation and blending are involved in the reading
process was superior to instruction that did not explicitly teach the children to apply
phonemic awareness to reading (Cunningham, 1990). Kindergarten children with explicit
instruction in phonemic awareness did better than a group of first graders who had no
instruction, indicating that this crucial preskill for reading can be taught at least by age 5
and is not developmental (Cunningham, 1990).
In a study by Ball and Blachman (1991), 7 weeks of explicit instruction in phonemic
awareness combined with explicit instruction in sound-spelling correspondences for
kindergarten children was more powerful than instruction in sound-spelling
correspondences alone and more powerful than language activities in improving reading
skills.
In a study by Foorman, Francis, Beerly, Winikates, & Fletcher (in press), 260
children were randomly assigned to a revised kindergarten curriculum (n=80) and a
standard curriculum (n=160) consisting of developmentally appropriate practices described
by the state of Texas' essential elements for kindergarten. The revised curriculum sought to
prevent reading disabilities by teaching phonemic awareness for 15 minutes a day using the
Lundberg, Frost, and Petersen (1988) curriculum from Sweden and Denmark. Children in
the revised curriculum made significant gains in phonemic awareness over the year.
Foorman et al. found that the greatest gains occurred when the explicit instruction moved
into teaching the sound-spelling relationships concurrently with the instruction in phonemic
awareness.
Explicit, Systematic Instruction in Sound-spelling Correspondences
Phonemic awareness alone is not sufficient. Explicit, systematic instruction in
common sound-spelling correspondences is also necessary for many children (Adams,
1988; Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1990; Foorman et al., in press;
Mann, 1993; Rack, Snowling, & Olson, 1992; Snowling, 1991; Spector, 1995; Stanovich,
1986; Torgesen et al., in press; Vellutino, 1991; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987a). Foorman,
Francis, Novy, & Liberman (1991) found that more intensive instruction in sound-spelling
relationships during reading (45 minutes per day) was more effective than less daily
instruction in sound-spelling relationships (sound-spelling instruction occurring only during
spelling and not during reading).
Instruction in specific sound-spelling relationships was more effective than a
strategy for using analogous word parts on transfer to new words and on standardized
reading measures (Lovett, Borden, DeLuca, Lacerenza, Benson, & Brackstone, 1994).
Torgesen et al. (in press) also found that explicitly teaching the sound-spelling relationships
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
7
was superior to teaching explicitly using word families and word analogies and superior to
an implicit approach
Foorman, Francis, Beerly, Winikates, and Fletcher (in press) found that explicit,
systematic instruction in sound-spelling relationships in the classroom was more effective in
reducing reading disabilities than a print-rich environment characterized by interesting
stories, even with children who had benefited from phonemic awareness instruction in
kindergarten.
"[Explicit, systematic instruction in sound-spelling relationships] brought
economically disadvantaged, low-achieving first and second graders close to the
national average in reading on the Woodcock-Johnson-R, whereas whole language
instruction placed these [Title] 1 students near the 25th percentile. Children scoring
below the 25th percentile are often identified as reading disabled under traditional
diagnostic criteria. These results suggest that [explicit, systematic instruction] in
sound-spelling patterns in first and second grade classrooms can prevent reading
difficulties in a population of children at-risk of reading failure." (Foorman et al., in
press)
Figure 1 graphically displays the effects on reading comprehension for the three
treatments Foorman et al. compared. The whole language treatment offered children a
print-rich environment with interesting stories. The embedded phonics treatment included
a more structured approach to phonics in a print-rich environment. The systematic, explicit
phonic approach included phonemic awareness instruction, explicit instruction in sound-
spelling relationships, and extensive practice in decodable text. Details of the explicit,
systematic approach are described in the next section.
Figure 1. Percentile scores on Woodcock-
Johnson Broad measure of Reading
Comprehension
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Whole Language
Embedded
Systematic
Phonics
Explicit Phonics
Foorman, Francis, Boeler, Winikates, and Fletcher, in press
Foorman et al. (in press) also found that changing instruction from whole language
to explicit, systematic phonics at the classroom level was more effective in reducing the
occurrence of reading problems than any of three types of one-on-one tutorial programs
that were evaluated. Foorman and her colleagues concluded that in order to avoid reading
failure, the focus should be on prevention, not intervention.
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
8
"It was the classroom curriculum effect, not the tutorial method effect that was
significant. The tutorial effect was not particularly strong, given the weak
association between growth in word reading and number of days in tutorial. But at
least the tutorial may have kept children from falling further behind in reading.
These curriculum effects have important implications for urban school districts with
large numbers of students at risk for reading failure. The morbidity of reading
failure and subsequent placement in special education can possibly be reduced with
explicit, systematic phonics in the alphabetic code during first grade." (p. 16)
Prediction From Context is not a Useful Strategy for Word Recognition
Research quite clearly shows that overemphasizing prediction from context for
word recognition can be counterproductive, possibly delaying reading acquisition.
Stanovich and Stanovich (1995) recently summarized the research findings regarding the
predictability of authentic text:
"An emphasis on the role of contextual guessing actually represents a classic case
of mistaken analogy in science and has been recognized as such for over a
decade It is often incorrectly assumed that predicting upcoming words in
sentences is a relatively easy and highly accurate activity. Actually, many
different empirical studies have indicated that naturalistic text is not that
predictable. Alford (1980) found that for a set of moderately long expository
passages of text, subjects needed an average of more than four guesses to correctly
anticipate upcoming words in the passage (the method of scoring actually makes
this a considerable underestimate). Across a variety of subject populations and
texts, a reader's probability of predicting the next word in a passage is usually
between .20 and .35 (Aborn, Rubenstein, & Sterling, 1959; Gough, 1983; Miller &
Coleman, 1967; Perfetti, Goldman, & Hogaboam, 1979; Rubenstein & Aborn,
1958). Indeed, as Gough (1983) has shown, the figure is highest for function
words, and is often quite low for the very words in the passage that carry the most
information content." (p. 90)
Stanovich and Stanovich (1995) also summarize the findings regarding the role of
context in reading acquisition. Of the three cucing systems frequently mentioned in reading
(semantic, syntactic, and graphophonemic cues), the semantic and syntactic cueing systems
seem to play a minor role. Recent eye movement research indicates that good readers do
not sample the text and predict to recognize words efficiently, but rather see every single
letter on the page.
"The key error of the whole language movement is the assumption that contextual
dependency is always associated with good reading. In fact, the word recognition
skills of the good reader are so rapid, automatic, and efficient that the skilled reader
need not rely on contextual information. In fact, it is poor readers who guess from
context-out of necessity because their decoding skills are so weak." (p. 92)
In the NICHD intervention studies (Foorman et al., in press; Torgesen et al., in
press) teaching children to use context and prediction as strategies for word recognition
resulted in greater numbers of reading disabilities than instruction that taught children to
use their sound-spelling knowledge as the primary strategy for word recognition.
UU
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
9
Major Implications for Early Reading Instruction
Below are the key principles of effective reading instruction identified in the
research along with concrete examples of what these principles mean. These examples are
taken directly from the research studies. The research findings indicate that to prevent
reading problems classroom teachers should do the following:
1. Begin teaching phonemic awareness directly at an early age (kindergarten).
Children who are able to recognize individual sounds in words are phonemically
aware. Phonemic awareness can be taught with listening and oral reproduction tasks
similar to those listed below. When concurrent instruction in sound-spelling relationships
occurs, growth in the development of phonemic awareness seems to accelerate. Teachers
should initiate instruction in phonemic awareness before beginning instruction in sound-
spelling relationships and continue phonemic awareness activities while teaching the sound-
spelling relationships.
Examples of phonemic awareness tasks
Phoneme deletion: What word would be left if the /k/ sound were taken away from cat?
Word to word matching: Do pen and pipe begin with the same sound?
Blending: What word would we have if you put these sounds together: /s/, /a/, /t/?
Sound isolation: What is the first sound in rose?
Phoneme segmentation: What sounds do you hear in the word hot?
Phoneme counting: How many sounds do you hear in the word cake?
Deleting phonemes: What sound do you hear in meat that is missing in eat?
Odd word out: What word starts with a different sound: bag, nine, beach, bike?
Sound to word matching: Is there a /k/ in bike?
Stanovich, 1994
There is little correlation between developmental stages and phonemic awareness.
Every school child is ready for some phonemic instruction. In fact, if the children who fall
behind do not begin receiving explicit teacher-initiated instruction, they are very likely to
continue falling further and further behind. Phonemic awareness and other important
reading skills are learned and do not develop naturally. The earliest direct interventions
have been initiated in kindergarten with very positive results. How preschoolers respond to
instruction is a question currently under investigation.
2. Teach each sound-spelling correspondence explicitly.
Not all phonic instructional methods are equally effective. Telling the children
explicitly what single sound a given letter or letter combination makes is more effective in
preventing reading problems than encouraging the child to figure out the sounds for the
letters by giving clues. Many children have difficulty figuring out the individual sound-
spelling correspondences if they hear them only in the context of words and word parts.
Phonemes must be separated from words for instruction.
Explicit instruction means that a phoneme is isolated for the children. For example,
the teacher shows the children the letter m and says, "This letter says /mmm/." In this way
a new phoneme is introduced. A new phoneme and other phonemes the children have
learned should be briefly practiced each day, not in the context of words, but in isolation.
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
10
These practice sessions need only be about 5 minutes long. The rest of the lesson involves
using these same phonemes in the context of words and stories that are composed of only
the letter-phoneme relationships the children know at that point.
3. Teach frequent, highly regular sound-spelling relationships systematically.
Only a few sound-spelling relationships are necessary to read. The most effective
instructional programs teach children to read successfully with only 40 to 50 sound-spelling
relationships. (Writing can require a few more, about 70 sound-spelling relationships.)
The chart below is not taken from any particular program but represents the 48 most
regular letter-phoneme relationships. (The given sounds for each of the letters and letter
groups are either the most frequent sound or occur at least 75% of the time.)
The 48 most regular sound-letter relationships
a
as in fat
g
as in goat
V
m
1
e
t
h
u-e
as in use
S
u
P
i
as in sit
C
as in cat
W
"woo" as in well
f
b
j
a-e as in cake
n
i-e
as in pipe
d
k
y
"yee" as in yuk
r
o-e
as in pole
Z
ch
as in chip
ou
as in cloud
kn
as in know
ea beat
oy
toy
oa
boat
ee need
ph
phone
oi
boil
er
fern
qu
quick
ai
maid
ay
hay
sh
shop
ar
car
igh high
th
thank
au
haul
ew shrewd
ir.
first
aw
lawn
To teach systematically means to coordinate the introduction of the sound-spellings
with the material the children are asked to read. The words and stories the children read are
composed of only the sound-spelling relationships the children have learned, so all the
children must be taught using the same sequence. The order of the introduction of sound-
spelling relationships should be planned to allow reading material composed of meaningful
words and stories as soon as possible. For example, if the first three sound-spelling
relationships the children learn are a, b, c, the only real word the children could read would
be cab. However, if the first three sound-spelling relationships were m,a,s, the children
could read am, Sam, mass, ma'am.
4. Show children exactly how to sound out words.
After children have learned two or three sound-spelling correspondences, begin
teaching them how to blend the sounds into words. Show them how to move sequentially
from left to right through spellings as they "sound out," or say the sound for each spelling.
Practice blending words composed of only the sound-spelling relationships the children
have learned every day.
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
11
5. Use connected, decodable text for children to practice the sound-spelling
relationships they learn.
The findings of the NICHD research emphasize that children need extensive practice
applying their knowledge of sound-spelling relationships to the task of reading as they are
learning them. This integration of phonics and reading can only occur with the use of
decodable text. Decodable text is composed of words that use the sound-spelling
correspondences the children have learned to that point and a limited number of
sight words that have been systematically taught. As the children learn more sound-
spelling correspondences, the texts become more sophisticated in meaning, but initially they
are very limited. Only decodable text provides children the opportunity to practice their
new knowledge of sound-letter relationships in the context of connected reading.
Texts that are less decodable do not allow the integration of the phonological
knowledge the children gain with actual reading. For example, the first sentence children
read in a meaning-based program that added an unintegrated phonic component was: "The
dog is up." The sound-letter relationships the children had learned up to this point were: d,
m, S, r, and t. This is how much of the sentence the children could read by applying what
they had learned in the phonic component: In this case, it is impossible for
the children to use their phonics knowledge to read.
Here is a different example: "Sam sees a big fist." The sounds the children have
learned to this point are: a, S, m, b, t, ee, f, g, and i. This is how much of the sentence the
children can read using the sound-spelling relationships they have learned:
"Sam sees a big fist." This sentence is 100% decodable. Here the children can apply the
sound-spelling relationships they have learned to their reading of this sentence, so the
phonics component is integrated into the child's real reading. Only decodable text provides
children a context for using their new knowledge of sound-spelling relationships in the
context of real reading.
Text that is less decodable requires the children to use prediction or context to
figure out words. Much research has evaluated the effectiveness of prediction as a strategy
for word recognition. Though prediction is valuable in comprehension for predicting the
next event or predicting an outcome, the research indicates that it is not useful in word
recognition. The following passage is a sample of authentic text (from Jack London). The
parts of the text that are omitted are the parts that a child was unable to decode accurately.
The child was able to decode approximately 80% of the text. If prediction is a useful
strategy, a good reader should be able to read this easily with understanding:
He had never seen dogs fight as these W ish C f t, and his first ex
t
t him an unf
able 1
n. It is true, it was a vi
ex
, else he
would not have lived to pr
it by it. Curly was the V
. They were camped
near the log store, where she, in her friend way, made ad
to a husky dog the
size of a full-
wolf, th
not half SO large as he.
ere was no W
ing,
only a leap in like a flash, a met
clip of teeth, a leap out equal swift, and
Curly's face was ripped open from eye to jaw.
It was the wolf manner of fight , to st and leap away; but there was more to
it than this. Th or forty huskies ran O the spot and not com
d that $
t
circle. But did not com
d that S
t in
, not the e way with
which they were licking their chops. Curly rushed her ant
, who struck again
and leaped aside. He met her next rush with his chest, in a P
fash
that
1111
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
12
tum ed her off her feet. She never re
ed them. This was at the
on
ing huskies had W
for.
The use of predictable text, rather than this authentic text, might allow children to
use prediction to figure out a passage. However, this strategy would not transfer to real
reading, as the above passage demonstrates. Predictable text gives children false success.
While this false success may be motivating for many children, ultimately they will not be
successful readers if they rely on text predictability to read.
6. Use interesting stories to develop language comprehension.
The use of interesting, authentic stories to develop language comprehension is not
ruled out by this research. Only the use of these stories as reading material for nonreaders
is ruled out. Any controlled connected text, whether it is controlled for decodability or for
vocabulary, will not be able to provide entire coherent stories in the early stages of reading
acquisition. During this early stage of reading acquisition, the children can still benefit from
stories that the teacher reads to them. These teacher-read stories can play an important
role in building the children's oral language comprehension, which ultimately affects their
reading comprehension. These story-based activities should be structured to build
comprehension skills, not decoding skills.
Balance, but don't mix. The sixth feature, using real stories to develop
comprehension, should be balanced with the decoding instruction described in the first five
features. The comprehension instruction and the decoding instruction are separate from
each other while children are learning to decode, but both types of instructional activities
should occur. In other words, comprehension and decoding instruction should be balanced.
A common misconception regarding the balance that is called for by the research is
that the teacher should teach sound-spelling relationships in the context of real stories.
This mixture of decoding and comprehension instruction in the same instructional activity is
clearly less effective, even when the decoding instruction is fairly structured. The
inferiority of single instructional activities with mixed goals (embedded phonics) has been
demonstrated in several studies (Foorman et al., in press; Foorman, Francis, Novy, &
Liberman, 1991; Torgesen et al., in press).
During the early stages of reading acquisition, children's oral language
comprehension level is much higher than their reading comprehension level. The text
material used to build children's comprehension should be geared to their oral language
comprehension level. The material used to build their decoding should be geared to their
decoding skills, with attention to meaning. Though decodable text can be meaningful and
engaging, it will not build children's comprehension skills nor teach them new vocabulary
to the extent that might be needed. Comprehension strategies and new vocabulary should
be taught using orally presented stories and texts that are more sophisticated than the early
decodable text the children read. The teacher should read this text to the children and
discuss the meaning with them. After the children become fluent decoders, they can apply
these comprehension strategies to their own reading.
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
13
Other Important Research Questions and Findings
The scope of the NICHD research program is much broader than identifying
effective methods for treating reading difficulties. Some of these research questions and
the findings are briefly described below.
Research Question: What individual variables affect reading acquisition?
Finding: Bilingualism does not interact with reading acquisition. If children know some
English, they learn to read in the same way that other children learn. There is no
evidence that some children with reading difficulties need a different approach. The
greater the severity of the problem, the more explicit, systematic, and carefully planned
the instruction needs to be along the parameters defined above. So far the only
variable found that interacts with reading acquisition is ethnic group. Significantly
more African-American children have lower levels of phonemic awareness and
respond significantly better to direct instruction in phonemic awareness than other
ethnic groups. Researchers are still testing the replicability of this findng.
Research Question: Are there medical reasons to explain why 20 to 40% of the population
do not naturally develop phonemic awareness?
Finding: Yes, sophisticated modern brain research using neuroimaging and other
technologies show a unique brain signature for many, but not all, children without
phonemic awareness. This neuroimaging research is being conducted at several
NICHD sites, thus providing the opportunity for replication.
Research Question: Are reading disabilities inherited?
Finding: Twin studies have found strong evidence for genetic etiology of reading
disabilities, with deficits in phonemic awareness reflecting the greatest degree of
heritability. There is also behavioral genetic evidence for degrees of heritability for
letter processing.
Research Question: How does ADD relate to learning disabilities?
Finding: Disorders of attention and reading disabilities often coexist, but the two disorders
appear distinct and separable with respect to the effects of attention-deficit disorder
(ADD) on cognitive tasks. For example, it has been found that ADD children perform
poorly on rote verbal learning and memory tasks, but relatively well on naming and
phonemic awareness tasks. The converse appears to be the case for children with
reading disabilities.
Research Question: Are more boys than girls reading disabled?
Finding: Despite the widely held belief that boys are more likely to have reading disabilities
than girls, research has shown that as many girls as boys have difficulties learning to
read. More boys are identified by teachers in school because of their tendency to be
more rowdy and active than girls.
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
14
Future Directions
The NICHD research program has made a great deal of progress in the
investigation of reading difficulties. These findings are potentially of great benefit to most
children. However, the work is not done and not all the issues are resolved. There are still
children with reading disabilities in the most successful interventions described above.
Future research will investigate effective treatments for teaching children who have no
knowledge of English to read English. The on-going longitudinal intervention studies
sponsored by the NICHD will be bringing important new knowledge to the field in the
continuing effort to make every child a reader at an early age.
no
IMJ
10
NUM
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
15
References
A New Definition of Dyslexia
Scientists from NICHD and other scientists as well as leaders from the National
Center for Learning Disabilities and the Orton Dyslexia Society Research Committee
collaborated to develop an improved definition of disabilities in basic reading skills based
on the most recent research in the field. Characterizing the definition as a "working"
definition reflects the need to alter the definition in light of continuing advances in research
and clinical knowledge. The working definition is as follows:
Dyslexia is one of several distinct learning disabilities. It is a specific language-based disorder of
constitutional origin characterized by difficulties in single word decoding, usually reflecting
insufficient phonological processing. These difficulties in single word decoding are often unexpected
in relation to age and other cognitive and academic abilities; they are not the result of generalized
developmental disability or sensory impairment. Dyslexia is manifest by variable difficulty with
different forms of language, often including, in addition to problems with reading, a conspicuous
problem with acquiring proficiency in writing and spelling (The Orton Dyslexia Society Research
Committee, April, 1994).
UNITED
1111
INI
vun
NICHD LD Research Network
learning Disability Research Center
University of
Dystexia Program Project
Washington LDRC
MICHD Treatment/Intervention Project
Besuluger
Collaborating Research Site
Children's Hospital/
TUNUT IVOIV UU OC.01 INJ 16-10-WHIJ
Harvard LDRC
Waber
Tults Rx
Both Isruel Dystexia
Syracuse u
Galaburda
Wolf
Blackman
184
Yale LORC
SUN
Vellutino
Shaywitz
Vale Dyslexis Haskins Labs
Shaywitz
Fowler
Johns Hopkins LDRC
Denokla
"All VIII
UC Irvine
Filipck
Bowntion Gray Dysfexia
Wood
Georgia State Rx
Colorado LDRC
R.Morris
Defries
Yule Methodolog
Flotcher
1. Florida Rx
Morris
Florida State Ex
U. Miami Dyslexia
Torgesen
Lubs
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
16
The NICHD Research Sites
Location
Director(s)
Affiliates
University of Colorado
John DeFreis
University of Denver,
University of California, Irvine,
Harvard University,
Bowman-Gray School of Medicine,
Frank Wood
North Carolina
Haskins Laboratories
Carol Fowler
Yale University
Bennett and Sally Shaywitz
Keith Stanovich's team at the
Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education
University of Miami
Herbert Lubs
Beth Israel Hospital / Harvard
Albert Galburda
University.
University of Houston
Jack Fletcher
University of Washington, Seattle
Virginia Berninger
Harvard University / The Children's
Deborah Waber
Hospital-Boston,
Johns Hopkins University
Martha Denckla
Vellutino and Scanlon's team at the
State University of New York
Florida State University
Joseph Torgeson
University of Houston
Barbara Foorman
Georgia State University
Robin Morris
Maureen Lovett's team at the
University of Toronto; Maryanne
Wolfe's at Tufts University in
Boston
1111
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
17
Bibliography
Alford, J. (1980, May). Predicting predictability: Identification of sources of contextual constraint on
words in text. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, St. Louis.
Aborn, M., Rubenstein, H., & Sterling, F. (1959). Sources of contextual constraint upon words in
sentences. Journal of Experimental Pscyhology, 57, 171-180.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a
difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1),
49-66.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R (1990). Acquiring the alphabetic principle: A case for teaching
recognition of phoneme identity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451-455.
Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonological awareness. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429-444.
Dahl, K.L., & Freppon, P. (1995). A comparison of inner-city children's interpretations of reading and
writing instruction in the early grades in skill-based and whole language classrooms. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30, 50-74.
Fletcher, J., Shaywitz, S., Shankweiler, D., Katz, L., Liberman, I., Stuebing, K., Francis, D., Fowler, A., &
Shaywitz, B. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low
achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 6-23.
Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D, & Fletcher, J. (in prcss). Early interventions for
children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A
Multi-disciplinary Journal.
Foorman, B., Francis, D., Novy, D. & Liberman, D. (1991). How letter-sound instruction mediates
progress in first-grade reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 456-469.
Francis, D., Shaywitz, S., Stuebing, K, Shaywitz, B., & Fletcher, J. (1996). Developmental lag versus
deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88(1), 3-17.
Freppon, P.A. (1991). Children's concepts of the nature and purpose of reading in different instructional
settings. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(2), 139-163.
Gough, P. (1983). Context, form, and interaction. In K. rayner (Ed.), Eye mevements in reading pp. 331-
358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hiebert, E. H., Colt, J.M., Catto, S.L., & Gary, E.C. (1992). Reading and writing of first-grade students in
a restructured Chapter 1 program. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 545-572.
Iversen, S., & Tunmer, W. (1993). Phonological Processing Skills and the Reading Recovery Program.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 112-126.
Kasten, W.C., & Clarke, B.K. (1989). Reading / writing readiness for preschool and kindergarten
childrne: A whole language approach. Sansibel: Florida Educational Research and Development
Council (ED 312 041).
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1985). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Lie, A. (1991). Effects of a training program for stimulating skills in word analysis in first-grade children.
Reading Research Quarterly, 26(3), 234-250.
Lover, M., Borden, S., DeLuca, T., Lacerenza, L., Benson, N., & Brackstone, D. (1994). Treating core
deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically- and strategy-
based reading training programs. Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 805-822.
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
18
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating
phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263-284.
Lyon, R, & Alexander, D. (1996). NICHD research program in learning disabilities. In S. Horowitz
(Ed.), Their World, P 13-15. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Lyon, G.R., & Chhabra, V. (1996). The current state of the science and the future of specific reading
disability. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2. 2-9.
Lyon, G.R. (1993). Treatment effectiveness for the learning disabled Request for Applications (93-009).
Bethesda, MD: The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Lyon, G.R. (1994). Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on
measurement issues. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Lyon, G.R. (1995a). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27.
Lyon, G.R. (1995b). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported
by the National Institite of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10,
120-126.
Lyon, G.R., Gray, D., Kavanagh, J., Krasnegor, N. (Eds.) (1993). Better understanding learning
disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Mann, V.A. (1993). Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
26(4), 259-269.
McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P. (1994). A comparison of children's development of alphabetic knowledge in
a skill-based and a whole language classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 391-417.
Miller, G., & Coleman, E. (1967). A set of thirty-six prose passages calibrated for complexity. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, , 851-854.
Perfetti, C.A., Goldman, S., & Hogaboam, T. (1979). Reading skill and the identification of words in
discourse context. Memory and Cognition, 7, 273-282.
Rack, J. P., Snowling, M. J., & Olson, R. K. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental
dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 29-53.
Ribowsky, H. (1985). The effects of a code emphasis approach and a whole language approach upon
emergent literacy of kindergarten children. Alexandria, VA: Educational Document Reproduction
Service (ED 269 720).
Rubenstein, H., & Aborn, M. (1958). Learning, prediction, and readability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 42, 28-32.
Shaywitz, S., Escobar, M., Shaywitz, B., Fletcher, J., & Makuch, R. (1992). Evidence that dyslexia may
represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading disability. New England Journal of
Medicine, 326(3), 145-150.
Snowling, M. (1991. Dyslexia: A cognitive developmental perspective. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Spector, J. E. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Application of principles of direct instruction.
Reading & Writing Quarterly. II, 37-51.
Stanovich, K., & Siegel, L. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities:
A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 86(1), 24-53.
Stanovich, K. (1993). The construct validity of discrepancy definitions of reading disability. In G.R.
Lyon, D. Gray, J. Kavanagh,, N. Krasnegor (Eds.) (1993). Better understanding learning disabilities:
New views from research and their implications for education and public policies. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.
Stanovich, K. (1994). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47(4), 280-291.
2/11/97 9:15 AM
NICHD Research on Reading
19
Stanovich, K., & Stanovich, P. (1995). How research might inform the debate about early reading
acquisition. Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 87-105.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some conscquences of individual differences in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
Stice, C.F., & Bertrand, N.P. (1990). Whole language and the emergent literacy of at-risk children: A
two-year study. Nashville: Center of Excellence, Basic Skills, Tennessee State University (ED 324
636).
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R., Rashoue, C.A., Alexander, A.W., & Conway, T. (in press). Preventive and
remedial interventions for children with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A
Multidisciplinary Journal.
Vellutino, F.R. (1991). Introduction to three studies on reading acquisition: Convergent findings on
theoretical foundations of code-oriented versus whole-language approaches to reading instruction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 437-443.
Vellutino, F. R, & Scanlon, D. M. (1987a). Linguistic coding and reading ability. In S. Rosenberg (Ed),
Advances in applied psycholinguistics (pp. 1-69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vellutino, F. R, & Scanlon, D. M. (1987b). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading
ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33(3), 321-
363.
Wagner, RK, & Torgesen, J. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the
acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.
Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and realiability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23(2), 159-176.
91 'A
FAX NO. 4015943
THRMI
RICKY
WH 00:11 TAI /6-10-XHW
EDUCATION WEEK
American Education's Newspaper of Record
Volume XVI, Number 22
February
26,
1997
© 1997 Editorial Projects in Education 1. $3.00
COMMUNITIES
Dallas Board
Without Abandonment
Is Buffeted by
Racial Unrest
Tension Has Deep Roots,
But New Causes Emerge
By Caroline Handrie
Dallas
W
ben African-American activists began
their latest protest at = school board
meeting here this month, Ernest Peña de-
cided he'd had enough Voicing a sentiment
shared by other local Letino activists. be re-
marked from the back of the auditor
that the protesters were DO better than the
Ku Klux Klan
Aaron Michaels, a leader in the Dallas
chapter of the New Black Panther Party,
wasn't going to take that sitting down.
Wheeling and confronting Mr. Pena. Mr.
Michaels demanded that the Hispanic par-
ant repeat his remark reportudly uttering
an obsonity along the way.
As board President Bill Keever pounded
the gavel and school police converged, the
men and their ullice tungled in the sicle. A
school custodian allegedly involved in the
scuffle was led away in handcuffs and Later
charged with assaulting a security guard
Like akirmishes among sports fans in
the stands, the confrontation Feb. 11 was
Christopher Rueso is the principal of a Roman Catholic bigh
education. see Story, Page 19. Catholics are also doing
an extension of the main event. In this
school in southeast Baltimore and is struggling to kaep bis
bettle with an Identity crisis as more Lay professionals fm
city, race has long been an unpublished
school la tune with changing times for arban Catholic
jobs previously bold by priests and sura See Story, Page 30.
Continued an Page 24
Effectiveness of To Snare the Best, Fairfax Revamps Teacher Hiring
Clinton Reading
By Jeanne Ponessa
resources. "and schools were frustrated be-
"What Matters Most"
Springfield, Va.
cause they feit we were losing candidates"
strategies for effective teaching
Plan Questioned
So the 143,000-student district revemped
the Fairfax County school district's cen-
its hiring system. Now, not only is it
tral hiring office had a "What's La and
dardized, research backed interviews.
streamlined than before, it's also designed
What's Out* list for 1997. it would look
Forty-eight-bour response time.
to pinpoint the best teachers for the system.
By Kathleen Kennedy Manzo
something like this:
Administrators here say that their old
When large bureaucracies can't confirm
and Joetta L Sack
Out Rows of file cabincts stuffed with ap-
hiring process-now out-wes not only
vacancies and process applications fast
Washington
plications Subjective interviews. Sixty-one-
cumbersome but also cost them some good
enough, good teachers often slip through the
day delays before getting back to anxious
prospective teachers We had too many file
cracks, according to "What Matters Most:
A
t first glance, educators say, it is
job applicants
cabinets," recalled Brad Draeger, the dis
Teaching for America's Future," last fall's re-
grand plan- Mobilize a "citizen army
In: Résumé-scanning database. Stan-
trict's assistant superintendent for human
Continued on Puge 26
of college students parents, senior citizens,
and other do-gooders, and march them into
INSIDE
schools around the nation to help all chil-
Districts Are Following No One Map
The Clintoa Agenda: a closer look
Strike Averted
Hawaii toachers' union and state
In Ferrying Youngsters After School
dren read by the end of 8rd grade
officials agree to raise salaries 17
And few disagree that President Clinton's
percent over the next 2½ years.
By Linda Jacobson
That meant children would be dropped off
is Reads Challenge, which he pro-
Across the Nation, Page 3
only at stops near their homes
moted in his State of the Union Address and
ast fall, when the Denver school system
The policy change angured parents, and
again highlighted at a visit to an elamen-
redesigned its bus routes, officials de-
some even transferred their children to
tary school here last week, is a bold attempt
Union Targeted
cided that they could DO longer afford to ac-
neighboring school districts, said Richard
to address one of the critical problems in
A lawsuit charges the Washington
commodate special requests for after-school
Frye, a spokesman for the Denver district.
no education. With 40 percent of the
Education Association with multiple
transportation
We just got blasted'
nation's 4th graders overall-and much
campaign-finance violations
The end of court-ordered busing to deseg-
The situation in Denver is not uncom-
higher proportions of minority and dised-
vantaged students-reading below the basic
State Capitals Page 10
regate the district meant that neighbor-
mon. In many communities, school offi-
hood attendance boundaries for the city's
cials are struggling to balance financial
Continued on Page 28
elementary schools would be reinstituted
Continued on Page 23
Effectiveness, Feasibility of Clinton Reading Plan Questioned
Continued from Page 1
scope of the proposal-$2.75 bll-
lion to recruit and train 30,000
set by a national assessment,
reading specialists and 1 million
the challenge is huga
volunteers.
But as excited as educators are
"It is analogous to President
by the plan to Launch a national
Kennedy's pledge to put a man on
crusade to stamp out the reading
the moon, Robert E. Slavin, a
problems of U.S. children, many
leading reading researcher at
are questioning the initiative's
Johns Hopkins University in Bal-
I
ets for success.
timore and a creator of the Suc-
Nor are they the only skopties.
case for All reading program, said
Republican lawmakers,
last wook. That proposal excited 4
while acknowledging that the
nation to attain what many
thought was unatrainable, and
The Clinton Agenda: a closer look
President Clinton's plan has the
potential to do the same for bring-
ing students' reading skills up to
reading crisis is all too real, have
par, Mr Slavin said
theless dismissed the presi-
Although Mr Clinton's proposal
dent's plan as a duplication of ex-
would boost community involve.
isting programs. So far. the GOP
ment in education and infuse new
has identified 14 federal programs
life into existing tutoring pro-
numerous private-sector ones
grama, researchers and reading
that already promote literacy.
experts doubt that America Reads
Finally the plan has some people
can offer the cumprehensive ap-
wondering where the elementary
prosch that is necessary.
schools fit in and, perhaps more
You really have to be cautious
important. why all of these pro-
about using volunteers. If these
grams are necessary when the
children are learning to read
An AmeriCorps volunteer, one of 11,000 Involved is President Clinton's new America Reads
schools' foremost mission is to
easily, don't know how untrained
Challenge, tutore a student. AmeriCorps plans to mobilize volunteers and to set sp local programs.
children how to read
people Chn be expected to do it ber-
"If children at the end of 3rd
ter." said Judith R Birsh, an ad-
strategies. (See story, this page)
Bella Rosenberg, the assistant
tration send to Congress in
grade can't read, then TWO have to
junct assistant professor and niss-
They also suggest directing more
to the president of the American
the next few months, Ma<Ranco
examine what went wrong before
terteacher trainer at Teachers
resources toward teacher profes-
Federation of Teachers, said that
said.
we start talking about new pro-
College, Columbia University
sional development in reading in-
too many existing federal literacy
Democrate, who are in the mi-
grams and more money," Rep Bill
Ms. Birsh is joined by others
struction or toward existing federal
programs don't serve their pur-
nority on Capitol Hill, are confi-
Goodling, R-Pa., the chairman of
who say that the task of ceaching
programs that address reading de
pose, and that many don't address
dent that they can mobilize
the House Education and the
reading is a sophisticated one and
ficiencies, such as Title L
children's problems at all.
enough public support to gets bill
Workforce Committee, said at a
best attempted by those with an
But Carol Hampton Raaco, a 86-
America Reads, Ma Rosenberg
passed "I find it hard to believe
recent press conference.
understanding of Language and
nior adviser to Secretary of Edu-
said, is just what is needed to put
that Congress is not going to want
"What we are discovering in't
how children learn to read.
cation Richard W. Rilex said that
children with less severe prob-
to put some resources into a goal
that we don't have caough pro-
Also coloring the issue is the on-
the program would be closely tied
lems "over the hump"
that has such bipartisan support."
grams," said Mr. Goodling, a for-
going debate over whether phon-
to children's regular classes and
said Harris L Wofford Jr., the di-
her and principal, "but
ics or whole language is the best
that the tutors would serve as
AmeriCorps at the Core
rector of AmeriCorps and a for-
the problem is many of those pro-
method of teaching reading, al.
"learning partners" who would
Even though Mr. Clinton first
IDCT U.S. senator.
grams don't work."
though most researchers say a
read with children, rather than
proposed the program last August
AmeriCorps, the federal pro-
A Sophisticated Task
combined approach works best
provide instruction. Classroom
as part of his re-election cam-
gram that offers young people col-
Some say the money would be
teachers would refer children to
paign, the details are still being
lege-tuition aid in return for com-
Almost universally, educators
better spent on better training for
the tutors. said Ms. Rasco, who
hashed out. They will be written
munity service, plans to mobilize
and policymakers note the sheer
teachers in beginning-reading
will oversee America Reada
into legislation that the adminis-
volunteers this nummer and set up
Teacher Training Seen Key to Improving Reading in Early Grades
By Kathleen Kennedy Marizo
improving the skills of teachers instead of
going tag-of-war over how best to teach
helped fill in the gaps in the expertise of
and Joette L Sack
volunteers.
reading. The drastic shift in many states
teachers. Specialists are generally required
"With the federal government already
several years ago toward what is known as
to have taken advanced sourses in roading
1
of the research on reading profi
spending $7 billion on remedial education
the whole-lauguage approach to reading
instruction, evaluation. and research. But
ciency agrees that a student's success
and $4 billion on Head Start, why doesn't
was reflected in teacher education pro-
partly due to budget cuts, those positions
throughout his or her school caroer hingus
the literacy proposal re-evaluate instfective
grama That approach downplays the teach
have steadily declined nationwide over the
on learning to read well in the early
classroom-based reading initiatives in
ing of "decoding" skille-the essence of the
past decade, according to Richard M. Long,
gradea. Yet, most elementary education
these existing programs?" Rep. Bill
phonics method-and sims to engage stu-
the International Reading Association's
teachers have little formal training in the
Goodling, R.Pa, the chairman of the House
dents in reading through the use of high-
Washington representative
structure of the language and in how chil-
Education and the Workforee Committee,
quality children's literature The recent mo
The TEA, a professional organization of
1 to read.
wrote in a letter to Mr. Clinton this month
mentum toward balancing the use of
language arts educators based in Newark,
Experts say that expending tutoring of
Although many educators are enthusise-
literature with skills-based teaching meth-
Del, is supporting the Clinton plan be-
forts in grades K-3, as President Clinton
tic about the president's idea of creating a
ods, however, has left many yuung teachers
cause of the thousands of new positions it
proposes, may be of little benefit unless of-
curps of 1 million tutors and 80,000 reading
without the appropriate experience.
would create for reading specialists. But
forts are also focused on improving teacher
specialists to help all students learn to read
Many teachers have DO background in
extra money is still needed to improve pro-
preparation and classroom instruction
by the end of 3rd grade, they say that the
the balanced approach. Mr Slavin said. "In
fessional development for elementary
"It makes no sense to have kids sit six
initiative fails to address the inadequate
a sense, there is an enormous retooling job
school teachers, the group's leaders say.
hours in school and not be taught effec-
training of classroom teachers in perform-
to be done to bring teachers of beginning
Teachers need extensive training in the
lively, then to think that reading after
mg this most critical of tasks
reading up to the current conception* of
reading process," said Alan E. Farstrup, the
school with a totor is going to make every-
Teaching reading is complicated Teach
how to teach reading.
group's executive director "We are very con-
thing right," said Robert E. Slavin, a re-
are need to understand multiple layers of
cerned that the basic state-licensing pro-
searcher at Johns Hopkins University in
language
where the gaps are with a sub-
Minimal State Requirements
grams may not be requiring enough experi-
Beltimore and the creator of Success for
dent and how to plan lessons to reflect those
Requirements for earning teaching cro-
ence and coursework in the area of reeding."
All, a national early-intervention program
gaps." said Judith R Kirsh a master-seacher
dentials vary from state to state, but most
But teachers' union officials say that find-
to
elementary students in reading
trainer at Teachers College, Columbia Uni-
mandate that early-education majors take
ing qualified specialists to fill the part-time
"You just own't solve the problem of reading
versity, who last work hasted a furum as the
only one or two courses in reading founda-
positions envisioned by the Clinton plan
while leaving alone the instruction taking
inadequacy of teacher training in reading
tions or instruction, according to Penelope
may be a challcago in many communities
place
: the classroom"
aress. 1
ly think that we have to re
M Earley, the senior director of the Wash-
"By even a loose definition of a reading spe-
Republicans have taken aim at President
the training of teachers with a greater em-
ington-based American Association of Col-
cialist, the supply is lacking," said Bella
Clinton's plan-the A
ca Reads Chal-
P
on reading" she said:
legus for Teacher Education
Rosenberg. the assistant to the president of
lengo-arguing that the focus should be on
Part of the deficiency is blamed on the on-
In many districts, reading specialists have
the American F
of Teachers
local programs, Mr. Wofford said
think that if you read Grimm's
At the core of the initiative are
Fairy Talce to them, the children
11,000 AmeriCorps members who
will learn to read.
Teaching a Nationto Read
will be targeted to recruit and co-
States would be responsible for
ordinate local volunteers.
evaluating the programs that TC-
Sampling of Privately Operated Iteracy Programs
Administration officials expect
ceive money through America
to attract another 100.000 value.
Reads and for determining which
HIPPY (Home Instruction
Reading Receivery
teers from college work-study pro-
ones are effective.
Program for Preschool
Ohio State University
grame. Leaders of Campus Com-
Experts caution that even
Youngsters) USA
200 Ranseyer Hell
the MTTD of the Denverbased
though many programs report
Teachers College, Columbia
Parents or Teachers
29 W. Woodruff Ave.
Education Commission of the
positive outcomes for participat-
University
10176 Corporate Square Dave
Columboa, Ohio 43210
States that promotes community
ing students, there are few reli-
Box 113
Suity 230
(61 292-7807
service in higher education, re-
able data to prove these claims.
525 W. 120th &
St. Louis, Mo. 63132
Provides certified reading teachers
ly urged more than 500 col-
Evaluating which programs will
New York N.Y. 10027
(314) 432-4330
to guide espechieving 1M
lege presidents to act aside part of
offer the best investments could
(212) 678-3500
Early-childhood and family
graded through reading and writing
their federal moncy
be tricky, they say.
Assists parents in providing home
education program assists parents
likes outside the classroom.
for America Reads.
There isn't rouch information
Instruction to preschool children.
In choosing and using approartate
Founded 18708
More than $1.5 billion in new
about one-on-one tutoring, and
Founded: 1984
books for children from birthes
Participants: 15,000 teachers and
funding would provide school
certainly there is very little re-
Participants: 15,000 families
age S
81 1st graders in 49
mading specialists to train and ou-
search about effective tutoring
rudionwide.
Founded: 1981
Budget
pervise tutons They would provide
and less-effective tutaring," said
Budget About $1,300 per child.
Participants: More than 250,000
individualized instruction in after-
Gerald E. Sroufe, the director of
families nationwide.
Success for All
school weekend, and summer pro-
government and professional lial-
National Center for Family
Budget Averages $650 per child
Johns Hopidne University
go
For about 3 million children
son for the American Educational
Literacy
3505 N. Charles st.
in kindergarten through and grade
Research Association. based here
Waterfront Plaza, Sube 200
Reading is Fundamental
Bettimore, 21218-2496
who want and need exira help.
We believe this program is mov-
325 W. Main St.
600 Maryland Ave. S.W, Suite 600
(410) 616-8896
An additional $300 million in
ing in the right direction, but
Louisville, Kk 40202-4251
Washington, D.C. 20024
Certified toachers Integrate
challenge grants would be
there has got to be a good deal
(502) 584-1133
(202) 287-3220
tutoring program for lowes
awarded over five years to pro-
more research and development
Promotes family Insecacy through è
Network of projects that
achieving 1st and 2nd graders
grams that involve parents in their
for these programs"
combination of childhood and
provides books, are and other
with structured classroom
children's reading development.
More Than Training
education programs as any
DESCURCES for children and families
curriculum to improve meding
The plan also calls for the ex-
to combat Ameracy and poverty
to assist young readers.
skills
pansion of Head Seart, Title 1, and
The challenges do not end with
Founded: 1989
Founded: 1966
Founded: 1967
Even Start, federal programs
training, however. Althouch some
Participants: 50,000 families
Participants: 220,000 volunteers:
Participants; 473 schools in
1 at disadvantaged children.
of the participants in the America
nationwide.
3.8 million children regionwide
states:
to strengthen the teaching of
Reads program will be paid, most
Budget $6 million.
Budget: Not available
Budget: NA
res
in schools.
will not-st situation likely to cre-
Moreover,
Secretary
Riley
ate variations in the time and of
promised in his State of American 2
fort people ATR willing to commit
Federal Literacy Related Programs
Education Address last week to
to the project Reading experts
work with religious leaders from
also say it is impossible to hold
1907
15.07
across the country to rally tens of
volunteers accountable for the im
Targeted
Appropriation
With Broader Purpose
Appropriation
thousands of voluntecrs to this
provement of their students
national effort"
"A lot of kids this program is
Adult Education State Grants, local
Tide
L'essistance
m
aimed at, especially those in the
What Works?
BOUR education classes
13433 million
agencies for remedial education programs
lower 25 percent, are extremely
for disadvantaged children
372 billion
Observers agree that recruiting
disadvantaged. They have no
Adult Education National Programs,
1 million volunteera. difficult
book experience; they don't know
evaluation and technical assistance
250 million
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
thought it may be, is not the most
their slphaber," Ms Wasik said.
special ducation and related
daunting task. The troops can be
Even Start family-partered education
It seems very difficult to believe
services for children Identified as disabled 111 billion
rallied through the expansion of
projects and Staracy training for parents $1020 million
that those kinds of disadvantages
existing programs and from
can be amelicrated by a tutor who
a Education support
Inexpensive Book Distribution (Reading
AmeriCorps. college campuses
comes in twice a week"
and professional development
81887 million
to Fundamental), book distribution to
and local communities, they
Even teachers in the Success for
encourage children to read
$10.3 million
Immigrant
Education
maintain. Preparing those volun
All, an early-intervention reading
programs for new Immigrants
$1010
is another matter
program, who are trained and
Literacy Programs for Prisoners, programa
The use of tutors is fantastic as
certified. have difficulty assisting
for the incarcerated and Instrutionalized
$4.7 million
Educational
Reasarch
and
long as they get the training. That
such children, she said
Development
2728 million
National Institute for Literacy, studies of
is where they will succeed or fail,"
Some educators are also con-
learners'
exchange
to
said Miriam Y. Wastheimer, the
carned that volunteers will not be
Foromotion
$402.8
executive director of HITTY USA
equipped to deal with children
the Home Instruction Program
who have learning disabilitics.
National
Within
for P
rol Youngsters, a New
We want to make sure the peo-
Janching
of
billion
York City-based carly-childhood
plc coming into schools are well
enrichment program.
qualified" Sally N McConnell, the
$35.7
million
But
1 on which training
government relations director of
methods work and which don't is
the National Association of Ele-
NOTE
financials
Form
4
A
d. A 1993 study by Mr.
mentary School Principals, said.
BOURCER
LLC
Slavin and Barbara A Wasik, also
Dale Lestina, the chief lobbyist
House
a Johns Hopkins researcher
for the National Education Asso-
that programs deploying
cistion, worries that volunteers
certified teachers showed greater
will be unable to identify a dis-
swiftly as he would like, the data
improvements in student reading
ability. making it essential that
are untikely to provide guidance in
LIFE SKILLS
achievement than those using
tutors work closely with class
the early stages.
paraprofessionals.
room teachers
Planning such a far-reaching
Ongoing training and supervi-
The National Academy of Sci
program in the absence of more
STUDY.SKILLS
are the vital elements, anid
ences is hoping to address the re-
abundant research has left many
Marcia A. Invernizzi, who runs
search deficit. A committee of the
experts full of doubts.
CRITICAL THINKING
the Book Buddies program with
academy is conducting a study of
"I wish it had been called the
colleague Connie Juel
reading programs around the
America Tutors initistive," Mr
The (
ottesville, Va-based
country in the hope of isolating
Slavin of Johns Hopkins said But
Learning Power: Strategies for Student
program uses doctoral students
the elements that make programs
if you are creating the expectation
Success and The Learning Power Workbook
who serve as paid, part-time su-
effective. One part of the study
that all children are going to learn
pervisors to school-based volun-
will focus on volunteer tutoring
to read through the use of tutors,
Flexible student materials for 8ch & 9th grade
toors. The supervisors provide ini-
programs, said M. Suran Burns,
it's just not going to happen."
rial training. lesson plans,
the director of the study.
FREE EXAMINATION SET*
instructional materials, and con-
Sponsored by the Department of
On the Web
tinuing guidence to ensure that tu-
Education and the National Insti-
1-800-457-2913
tors are meeting students needs.
tutes of Child Health and Human
For Web links and past articles on
The supervisor is critical. Val-
Development, the study is ex-
President Clinton's education
www.leamingtoch.com
Leaming
unteers don't have a clue what to
pacted out late this year But if Mr
plans, click on This Week's
Technologies
"one free exdwondook X per school
do," Ms. Invernizri said. "Many
Clinton's initiative proceeds as
Links at http://www.edweck.org.
17'd
CC17612207
VU.I
U.A.L.R
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
READING RECOVERY
February 7, 1997
The First Lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mrs. Clinton:
I had just completed this letter when Dean Campbell came down to share with us the wonderful
news that you would be attending our Early Literacy for All Children conference for elementary
educational leaders here in Little Rock on March 11, 1997!!! WE ARE so EXCITED!!
We are so proud of all of you in so many ways. During the past two years, 1 have written
several letters to you to try to express my anguish about the extreme cruelty all of you have
suffered. I always decided that my letters might have served more as therapy for me than as
comfort for you, so I never mailed them. I have, however, cried on the telephone to Millie, who
always comforted me. I guess it's her background and experience as a pastor's wife that makes
her so effective with this.
We also are very encouraged that, as stated by the newspaper, "education is the No. 1 priority"
of this administration. That is the issue that all of you work with so productively.
In Mr. Clinton's State of the Union address, he talked about the White House conference that you
and he would be convening to discuss early learning, the brain and how educators can best use
the startling new findings in these areas. 1 know that renowned educators and researchers from
throughout the nation will be invited to participate in this very important conference, but I am
offering to serve and assist you in any way possible to help make this a meaningful forum. In
our Reading Recovery training program here at UALR, a major focus of our study is how
children think and learn and the brain's role in that learning.
I am enclosing for you copies of recent publications and materials that are quite supportive of
what we're doing here in Arkansas and UALR to effect best literacy practices in Arkansas
schools:
* Paths to Success - Getting Elementary Schools Ready for Children: Reading First.
Southern Regional Education Board. July 1996.
This monograph by SREB is devoted exclusively to describing the Arkansas Reading
Recovery, Early Literacy and Comprehensive Literacy Support models, including tables of
statistics showing annual and longitudinal studies of the effectiveness of these programs in
Arkansas.
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK
2801 S. University
Little Rock, AR 72204-1099
(501) 569-3479/FAX 569-8694
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Page 2
February 7, 1997
* The Title / Program in Arkansas: Realizing the Promise. Final Report and Executive
Summary. The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. August 1996
These reports were the results of a comprehensive study of the strengths and weaknesses
of the implementation of Title I programs in Arkansas. Our hope (and that of the foundation) is
that this study will garner more state Title I support for early intervention programs,
including Reading Recovery. There are several references to some of our effective Reading
Recovery and Early Literacy programs in Arkansas schools.
* Arkansas is Successfully Closing the Disparity Gap. UALR. 1996.
We wrote this paper and a small research study as we realized that when low achieving
children were afforded appropriate learning experiences, they could read and write as well as
their previously higher achieving classmates.
We are grateful that the response to our Reading Recovery, Early Literacy and Comprehensive
Literacy Support Programs has been so positive and pervasive, not only in Arkansas but
throughout the country. We had approximately 160 educators from Arkansas and 16 other
states to attend our two Early Literacy Institutes held here in Little Rock last summer. We are
already swamped with requests for participation this summer. The bottom line, we trust, is
that more children will learn to read and write as the result of our efforts.
Thank you, again, for your dedication to and your belief in providing quality educational
opportunities for all of our children. Please call on me when I can help you do this. It does take
a village!
We are truly excited about your sharing time with us on March 11! If there is any information,
materials, etc. that we can provide for you prior to your visit, please advise:
office telephone (501) 569-3405
office FAX (501)-8694
home telephone (501) 225-8988
home FAX (501)-9374
Sincerely yours,
anne allen
Anne Allen, Ph. D.
Reading Recovery Trainer
Enc.
Arkansas is Successfully Closing the Disparity Gap
The gap between the scholastic "haves" and the scholastic "have nots" has been
growing. The scholastic haves" are coming to school infinitely more equipped to
be successful because of experience with books, home computers, CD rom,
literacy rich environments and life experiences designed to provide the young
child with access to information and learning. The scholastic "haves" have a depth
of understanding of stories, writing, editing, keyboarding, spelling and
comprehension. In the mean time the scholastic "have nots" arrive at school ready
to learn, full of potential but lacking the prior experiences with literacy and
information to demonstrate their skill in the same ways as the scholastic "haves".
As the scholastic "haves" are comfortable with information and its management,
the scholastic "have nots", while fully capable of reaching the same levels of
achievement, are lacking access to the experiences and tools which can show their
potential. The "haves" are feasting on success while the "have nots" are nibbling
and barely achieving.
Unfortunately, this disparity gap is reflected in the socio-economic and racial
differences in Arkansas schools. Home and community advantages set the stage.
Like lunch boxes, designer jeans and backpacks, the disparity gap arrives at the
schoolhouse doorstep whether it is wanted or not. Take for example the school
where in the course of an academic year, 10% of the students get a home computer
with CD rom, internet, encyclopedia and graphics. The immediate impact on the
disparity gap is evident as this 10% accelerates. While others may be moving at a
steady pace, the distance between the "haves" and "have nots" grows
exponentially. This growing disparity gap is not created by the school but often
the school has done little more than label children failures (under many titles and
names) and watch as the gap between rich and poor, black and white grows wider
and wider.
How are Schools Closing the Gap?
Unfortunately the disparity gap does not close up by itself. Fortunately, the gap is more
efficiently and effectively closed in the early grades, before students with solid potential enter
a chain of failure habits. Success in addressing the disparity gap happens by putting two kinds
of instructional support in place. Bridging the gap requires:
.EARLY INTERVENTION - Quick acceleration that focuses on the individual
child and his/her capabilities. Intervention is a short term, life changing, learning
experience which develops the child's scholastic capacity and instills habits of learning
which carry on into the child's future.
2. CONSISTENT QUALITY IN THE CLASSROOM - At least three consecutive years
of literate, supportive classrooms as children enter school.
Without a strategy for pulling children from the academic basement into the main floor, the
rate and percentage of failure will grow annually. Providing short term academic intervention
is not a luxury or experiment that only a few schools can afford; it is the duty of the
elementary school, as the first institution of the community, to provide service which puts
scholastic "have nots" into the ballgame with their peers. One central goal of the elementary
school is to provide, for all children, the tools and opportunity to succeed. Eliminating the
distance between the scholastic "haves" and "have nots" is happening in schools all over
Arkansas and must be a matter of priority for the any school or community which hopes to
prepare students for the 21st century.
Reading Recovery, Closing the Gap
Reading Recovery is a proven intervention program which has been accelerating learning for
some of Arkansas most at-risk children. In studies recently conducted by the University of
Arkansas at Little Rock, children across 27 school districts who had received the Reading
Recovery intervention were selected to see if the intervention was helping them get into the
scholastic mainstream and stay up with the average group in their class. The studies found that
Reading Recovery has indeed put children on the road to scholastic success by closing the
disparity gap in two ways:
1. Reading Recovery moves children from the academic basement into the successful
mainstream of their class with 16 - 20 weeks of tutorial help.
Children identified by their teachers as the most scholastically disadvantaged are involved in
the Reading Recovery tutorial and are taught by a specially tratined teacher who knows how to
accelerate learning in the most at-risk children in first grade. Of the 1000 children served by
Reading Recovery in Arkansas 860 are now reading and writing at the average of their class.
And even two years after having received Reading Recovery help, they are still performing
with their classmates.
2. Minority and non-minority children succeed at the same accelerated rate during and
after Reading Recovery intervention. There is no disparity gap between the reading,
writing and spelling performance of black and white children who have had the Reading
Recovery tutorial. Measured one full year after the Reading Recovery intervention on four
types of reading and spelling achievement tests, the black and white children initially labeled
as "at-risk" in first grade before the intervention, scored at the average of their class and the
scores of the black and white children differed on all measures by a total 5 points. Black and
white children, never labeled as at-risk, were taken from a random sample for comparison.
These children, from the same schools, showed scores which when averaged together were
comparable to the Reading Recovery children's scores. But when broken down by racial
groups, there was a difference between the white and black children of 23 points on the reading
and spelling measures. The strategies learned in the Reading Recovery intervention were
clearly helping children close the disparity gap.
Making room in the busy elementary day for tutorial help from the specially trained Reading
Recovery professionals is a challenge for many elementary schools in these days of budget
cutbacks and funding uncertainties. However, the investment of time and money for a few
weeks in first grade saves many more dollars that would be spent on these very same at-risk
children if they had not made it into the educational mainstream. Closing the disparity gap
during the early grades prevents the costly expenditures which follow students marked by
failure throughout their school careers.
Mean Scores of Anglo and African American Reading Recovery
and Non-Reading Recovery Students on Literacy Tasks at End of
Second Grade
RR Group
Non-RR Group
Anglo
African
Anglo
African
Measures
American
American
Dictation
.17
7.15
Spelling
.14
.97
Text Reading
1.12
3.96
Gates MacGinitie 3.54
11.70