Reading Recovery is a program developed to assist children in first grade who are having difficulty learning to read. These children are identified by their classroom teachers as being the lowest in reading acquisition. The program moves these children from the bottom of their class to the average, where they can profit from regular classroom instruction. The one-to-one tutoring of children is provided by a specially trained teacher five days per week, 30 minutes a day for an average of 12-20 weeks. At the end of the program, the child has developed a self-extending system that uses a variety of strategies to read increasingly difficult text.
The professional development of teachers is an integral part of
Reading Recovery. The training is an intense, year-long graduate
course for teachers consisting of weekly classes affiliated with
a university-based Regional Training Center. As the teachers learn
how to implement the program, they work simultaneously with children
in their home schools. The professional level of the preparation
has empowered these experienced teachers to make changes in their
own teaching and to systemically impact the teaching in their
schools.
Program History
Reading Recovery was developed by Marie M. Clay who conducted observational research in the mid-1960s that enabled her to design techniques for detecting early reading and writing difficulties of children. In the mid 1970s, she developed Reading Recovery procedures with teachers and tested the program in New Zealand (Clay, 1979). The success of this pilot program led to the nationwide adoption of Reading Recovery in New Zealand in the early 1980s.
The success of the program resulted in program initiatives over the next decade in Australia and Ohio (1984), Canada (1988), California and Great Britain (1991). In 1993-94, 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.
Reading Recovery is approved by the National Diffusion Network
(NDN) of the U. S. Department of Education as a developer/demonstrator
project. This NDN designation is a recognition of proven program
effectiveness.
Reading Recovery in California
In 1990-91, the California Department of Education held a series of meetings throughout the state to encourage networking of teachers, administrators, and university faculty interested in early intervention approaches. This interest was encouraged by Categorical Programs Office Director Hanna Walker, and staff Dennis Parker and Beth Breneman, who were interested in exploring early literacy programs for the at-risk population in California schools. At the same time, efforts to establish a statewide training site for Reading Recovery were underway at California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB), under the direction of Kathy O'Brien, Coordinator of the Reading Program; Adria F. Klein, Chair of the Elementary/Bilingual Education Department; and Stanley L. Swartz, Chair of the Department of Advanced Studies in Education. The CSUSB School of Education, in collaboration with Office of Extended Education staff Jan Jackson and Mendy Warman, and San Bernardino and Riverside County Offices of Education staff Marilyn Bush and Pat Botini initiated teacher training during 1991-92 by employing Ohio Reading Recovery teacher leader, Rebecca Shook.
During this same time, one school district and two county offices began developing plans to implement Reading Recovery teacher training in California. Yuba City Unified School District supported the training of teacher leader candidate Marilyn Todd, and the San Diego County Office of Education hired teacher leader Judith Holmes, both trained at Texas Woman's University. The Orange and Los Angeles County Offices of Education organized a consortium to support the employment of teacher leader Jann Farmer Hailey, who had moved to the area from Australia.
California State University, San Bernardino, developed a statewide implementation plan and through funding from the California Department of Education, appointed Gay Su Pinnell from The Ohio State University as a visiting professor during 1992-93. Pinnell, who along with Charlotte Huck (OSU Professor Emeritus) was instrumental in bringing Reading Recovery to Ohio in 1984, provided programs of preparation for four trainers of teacher leaders (Patricia Kelly, Adria Klein, Judith Neal, and Barbara Schubert) and eleven teacher leaders throughout the state. Additionally, Beverly Hoffman and Rebecca Shook completed an advanced training program and were prepared as clinical trainers.
Reading Recovery has grown rapidly in California. Beginning with four teacher classes in 1991, the project has grown to 39 classes and 873 teachers in 1993-94. As an additional dissemination strategy, CSUSB has developed a model of recruiting experienced teacher leaders and directly employing them to establish and operate training sites until local districts are able to train their own personnel. This effort has been instrumental in providing California a jump start into Reading Recovery. It is estimated that this effort increased California's capacity tenfold in one year.
Three California university sites provided Reading Recovery training
beginning in 1993 94. The California Regional Training Centers
are located at California State University, San Bernardino; California
State University, Fresno; and Saint Mary's College, Moraga.
West Coast Literacy Conference
Among its many professional development activities, Reading Recovery in California is the primary sponsor of the highly acclaimed West Coast Literacy Conference and Reading Recovery Institute. This annual conference draws teachers, administrators, and Reading Recovery personnel from throughout California, 30 states, and four foreign countries to an important training opportunity for literacy educators. Attendance was almost 1600 in 1994, and exceeded 2000 in 1995. (The 1996 conference is February 29 - March 3 at the Disneyland Hotel).
Reading Recovery Council of North America California has participated
in the development of the Reading Recovery Council of North America.
The initiation of this professional organization is considered
a milestone in the development of Reading Recovery. In order to
disseminate research and program results, the Council founded
an international journal focusing on early literacy, Literacy,
Teaching and Learning, edited by Adria F. Klein and Stanley L.
Swartz. The first issue of the journal was published in December,
1994.
Descubriendo La Lectura
California State University, San Bernardino, began the implementation of a statewide dissemination plan for Reading Recovery in Spanish during 1993-94. Descubriendo La Lectura (DLL), an application of Reading Recovery in Spanish (Escamilla & Andrade, 1992), was constructed for Spanish-speaking students because eventual success in learning to read in English is directly related to successful learning opportunities in native-language literacy. California established a DLL Training Center at CSUSB with the training of Cristina Gomez-Valdez as a bilingual trainer of teacher leaders. This training was designed and completed under the direction of Gay Su Pinnell, with the assistance of Diane DeFord and Carol Lyons from The Ohio State University; Patricia Kelly from CSUSB; Billie Askew and Yvonne Rodriguez from Texas Woman's University; and Kathleen McDonough and Olivia Ruiz from the University of Arizona. This Center at CSUSB has played a leadership role in Descubriendo La Lectura/Reading Recovery in Spanish and has made a significant impact on the development of the program and its accessibility. The 1994 95 DLL teacher leader training class included participants from Arizona, California, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington.
During 1994, CSUSB, in collaboration with the Los Angeles County
Office of Education and the San Francisco Unified School District,
sponsored a workshop for bridging to Spanish (supplemental training
for those already trained in English) in San Bernardino and San
Francisco. California State University, San Bernardino, also initiated
a DLL teacher training class on campus beginning in the fall of
1994, taught by Birdie Munoz. This class served as a training
site and a resource for other California DLL teachers and teacher
leaders. These activities initiated concentrated capacity-building
efforts that will make DLL available in various locations in California.
Program for Children
Reading Recovery gives children a chance to succeed before they enter a cycle of failure. Children are selected for the program based on authentic measures of assessment and teacher judgement. The lowest achieving children in first grade, without exception, are selected to receive the program (Swartz & Klein, 1994). Their regular classroom instruction is then supplemented with daily, one-to-one lessons.
The lessons consist of a variety of reading and writing experiences designed to help children develop effective strategies for literacy acquisition. Instruction continues until the child can read at or above the class average and can continue to learn without later remedial help.
A high percentage of the children in California who have completed
a Reading Recovery program have become independent readers. Initial
data from California are consistent with numerous other studies
which have shown that Reading Recovery helps a large majority
of low-progress readers achieve continued reading success.
Program for Educators
The remarkable progress that children make in Reading Recovery demonstrates that reading failure is not a foregone conclusion for at-risk students. The key to success for such children is specialized teaching that will enable them to improve quickly-before they are labeled as failures-without disrupting their regular classroom curriculum.
In Reading Recovery, the teacher training begins with a yearlong
curriculum that integrates theory and practice and is characterized
by intensive interaction with colleagues. Following the training
year, teachers continue to develop professionally through ongoing
contact with their colleagues and instructors. Teachers-in-training
teach children while being observed by their colleagues and get
feedback on their practice. They reflect on their teaching in
the light of literacy theory and peer critique over an extended
period of time. Reading Recovery teachers-in-training become literacy
experts with highly developed observational skills and a repertoire
of intervention strategies that can be tailored to meet the individual
needs of students.
Reading Recovery as a System Intervention
As the scope of the instructional program suggests, Reading Recovery is not a teaching methodology that can be packaged and delivered through a set of materials, a workshop, or a series of courses. Reading Recovery is even more than a program for children and educators. It is a program for school systems that want to impact the educational opportunities for at-risk students. The collaboration of the school and the university promotes change within the system to impact instruction for all children.
The program is adopted by an entire school district or consortia of school districts that have made a long-term commitment to early literacy intervention. These Reading Recovery sites send an experienced teacher to one of three California Regional Training Centers. Following the training year, these specially prepared teacher leaders return to their home districts and work full-time teaching children, training teachers in Reading Recovery, and performing other duties related to the operation of a site.
The benefits of incorporating Reading Recovery extend well beyond the success of individual students who complete the program. The results achieved by the teachers and children involved in Reading Recovery demonstrate for the entire district the impact powerful teaching can have on low-progress children. Through interaction with Reading Recovery teachers, classroom teachers often begin to construct new theories about how children learn-theories that tend to carry over into classroom instruction.
Districts that have adopted Reading Recovery have the additional benefit of lower costs for special services. Reading Recovery has been shown to reduce the rate of retention, special education placements, and remediation beyond first grade. And no time is lost delivering the services that will effect these changes. Teachers undergo training outside of regular school hours and they actually begin working with students as the training begins.
Reading Recovery as a Network of Educators and
Institutions
Institutions and educators that have adopted Reading Recovery become part of
an extensive network to support early literacy. In 1994-95, the
Reading Recovery in California network included more than 500
school districts. The staffs of these institutions included more
than 1800 educators, including 1600 Reading Recovery teachers,
71 teacher leaders, and 15 university faculty including 7 trainers.
These individuals and institutions work together to preserve the
integrity of Reading Recovery and improve its effectiveness as
an early intervention program in California.
California Developments
The implementation of Reading Recovery in California has presented some unique problems and opportunities. Reading Recovery personnel from throughout the state are actively involved in finding solutions to the early literacy and learning challenges that affect the future success of children.
The success of Reading Recovery has been carefully documented since its inception. Pilot studies in New Zealand and the United States demonstrated that the program provides children in the lowest 20 percent of their class with the strategies necessary to read at or above grade level in an average of 12-20 weeks. Follow-up studies in both countries further showed that Reading Recovery children continue to read at an average level or better after receiving the intervention, reducing the need for long-term remediation.
1991-1992. During the first year of Reading Recovery implementation in California, 566 children were served. Of the 377 children who received 60 or more lessons, 303 successfully completed the program (discontinued) as independent readers (O'Brien, Swartz, & Shook, 1992). All teachers involved were still in training, two groups at CSUSB, and one each in Northern California, Orange County, and San Diego. Discontinued children were tested at the end of the year on the level of text difficulty; 84 percent read at or above average grade level. On a test of phonemic awareness, 93 percent were at or above an average band of performance for their grade. A survey of Reading Recovery teachers indicated a very positive response to their training. While the comments of classroom teachers, parents, and district administrators were overwhelmingly positive, many questions arose as to how the program could be disseminated more rapidly. Unique California challenges arose during the first year of implementation; for example, new schedules for children's programs and teacher training had to be considered because of the year-round school model used extensively in California.
1992-1993. The second year of Reading Recovery implementation in California was marked by rapid expansion. A total of 2027 children were served by the 330 teachers involved in the program, indicating that teachers served an average of 7 children each.
A large percentage (77 percent) of the teacher groups were in their training year. Of the 1334 children who received full programs, 1037 were discontinued as successful readers (Swartz, Shook, & Hoffman, 1993). These children received an average of 64 lessons, with discontinued children receiving an average of 59 lessons, and not-discontinued children receiving an average of 83 lessons. In general, not-discontinued children experienced a longer program and made slower progress than did those who successfully completed the program. Discontinued children made accelerated progress. Eighty-nine percent were at or above average levels in writing vocabulary, 95 percent on dictation, and 89 percent in reading, indicating that this group of children made accelerated progress and caught up with their peers. The total performance on each exceeded the average band of a group of randomly selected children not in the program. This comparison provides a very rigorous test for Reading Recovery children because the average band is drawn from the middle and upper level achievement groups.
1993-1994. Of the 3444 children who received full programs in the Reading Recovery and Descubriendo La Lectura/Reading Recovery in Spanish programs, 2580 were discontinued as successful readers (Swartz, Klein, Kelly, Shook, & Hoffman, 1994). These data indicated that all children who received the minimum number of lessons constituting a full program in Reading Recovery made progress during the year. The children were assessed at the end of the academic year on measures of reading, phonemic awareness, and writing. Table 4 shows the growth rate for Reading Recovery program children and Table 5 indicates the growth rate for Descubriendo La Lectura program children on measures of writing vocabulary, dictation, and text reading.
A goal of Reading Recovery is to help children build self-extending systems that allow them to continue to learn without extra help. Children who enter the program early in the first grade year are likely to be released midyear and are expected to continue to make progress through participation in regular classroom instruction alone. The extent to which this goal is reached is indicated by assessing the progress made from midyear to end-of-year by the group of children who are discontinued during the year. Discontinued children entered the program with an average text reading level score of .51, and ended the year with an average reading level of 14.34. DLL children entered the program with an average text reading level score of .31 and ended the year with an average reading level of 14.55. To put this into perspective, they entered as nonreaders, discontinued at a level considered to be the end of first grade, and at the end of first grade year reached a level equivalent to second grade reading level as usually defined in traditional reading systems.
Data for the first three years (1991-1994) of the project indicated that more than 76 percent of the children served by Reading Recovery were successfully discontinued from the program. Even though each year the majority of the participating teachers were still in training, these data are a clear demonstration of the potential the program has to help California's at-risk students become successful readers in their first year of school.
As Reading Recovery has grown, the academic community has shown interest in various effects of the program. Researchers have compared Reading Recovery with other intervention programs, evaluated its cost-effectiveness, and studied its long-term effects on children. Others have explored such areas as the success of the teacher training component and the impact of the program on learning disabled students. This research, combined with the data collected each year on children who receive the program, provides answers to some of the most commonly asked questions about Reading Recovery.
How do discontinued Reading Recovery students compare to their peers at the end of first grade? Reading Recovery students, all of whom begin first grade at the bottom of their class, make considerable progress as a result of the program, especially when combined with effective classroom instruction.
The first end-of-year study on Reading Recovery in the United States (Pinnell, DeFord, & Lyons, 1988) indicated that 73.5 percent of the 136 randomly assigned Reading Recovery students were discontinued from the program. Over 90 percent of the discontinued students were performing at or above average on four measures of reading ability at the end of first grade, and more than 70 percent were performing at or above average on three other measures of assessment. At the end of the year, the gain score of the Reading Recovery students on a nationally normed standardized test, California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), was 8.6 compared to a score of 2.4 earned by a similar group of randomly assigned first graders who had received another form of compensatory education.
Researchers at Texas Woman's University found that the 1789 Reading Recovery students who successfully completed the program performed at an average or better level on three measures of reading and writing ability at the end of their first grade year (Askew, Frasier, & Griffin,1993). Individual Reading Recovery sites documented similar results in their annual reports. The Halifax, Canada (Talwar & Hill, 1993) site reported that in the spring of 1990 their discontinued Reading Recovery students read an average text level of 15, compared with an average first grade band of 11-19. At the end of the school year in 1991, the discontinued Reading Recovery first graders were reading an average text level of 16, compared to an average band of 11-21, and in 1992, discontinued Reading Recovery students read at an average level of 16, compared to an average band of 15-22.
In 1992-93 (National Diffusion Network, 1993), 83 percent (22,493) of all the children in North America who had received a complete Reading Recovery program were discontinued. When compared to a random sample of classmates at the end of the year, 85 percent of these students scored at or above the average band range on writing vocabulary, 94 percent on dictation, and 83 percent on text reading.
Are the gains made in Reading Recovery sustained over time? Research indicates that Reading Recovery students not only become average or better readers in first grade, they develop a self-extending learning system, which enables them to continue learning at least as quickly as their peers in later grades.
A follow-up study to the Pinnell et al. (1988) study showed that students served in Reading Recovery maintained progress in second, third, and fourth grades (Pinnell, 1989). Fourth grade Reading Recovery students demonstrated that they could accurately read text at the sixth-grade level or above. Additionally, these children proved to be excellent spellers, producing spellings on a fifth grade level spelling test closer to conventional than their randomly selected peers.
Smith-Burke, Jaggar, and Ashdown (1993) tested 174 second grade children who had successfully completed Reading Recovery as first graders in 1990-91. Their performance on several measures was compared to that of a grade level, random sample of 177 children. The following results highlight the strong residual effects of the program:
How does Reading Recovery compare to other early intervention programs? Large scale and local investigations demonstrate that Reading Recovery is a particularly effective method to improve the reading acquisition of at-risk children.
A study by Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer (1994) compared Reading Recovery with four other types of early intervention: (1) an individual tutorial program similar to Reading Recovery, but taught by a teacher with an abbreviated training program; (2) Direct Instructional Skills Plan (Cooter & Reutzel, 1987), an individual tutorial taught without Reading Recovery by experienced reading teachers; (3) a small-group intervention taught by trained Reading Recovery teachers; and (4) a control group, which received a standard federally funded remediation program.
The final report concluded that Reading Recovery children performed significantly better than children from an equivalent control group and the three other intervention programs. Reading Recovery was the only group that scored better on all tests, showing long-term improvements in reading. At the end of 70 days of instruction, Reading Recovery children were reading five levels ahead of children who received regular remedial reading lessons. Even though the control group continued to receive lessons for the rest of the year, Reading Recovery children were still three reading levels above the remedial group average when all children were tested the following fall.
Another investigation supported the findings of this study. Reading Recovery students were compared with a group of students similarly at risk and a reference group comprised of average-performing first graders (Gregory, Earl, & O'Donoghue, 1993). The Reading Recovery students received daily Reading Recovery lessons plus regular classroom instruction. The comparison group received regular classroom instruction, plus necessary intervention services (ESL, special education, parent volunteers, private tutors). The reference group received regular classroom instruction only.
Researchers reported that Reading Recovery students scored higher than comparison students on end-of-year measures, that the performance of Reading Recovery students improved at a faster rate than their at-risk peers who did not receive Reading Recovery, and that Reading Recovery students made significantly greater gains than both their average-achieving classmates and the comparison group based on results of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, the Metropolitan Achievement Test, a spelling assessment, and a miscue analysis.
Is Reading Recovery cost-effective? Evidence indicates that Reading Recovery can reduce costs associated with at-risk students by lowering retention rates and thereby reducing the need for remediation and special education referrals.
Dyer (1992) found that while Reading Recovery requires an initial and ongoing investment, its implementation is educationally sound and reduces the necessity of more commonly used means of intervention. The study concluded that school districts implementing the program will realize significant long-term cost savings through reductions in grade retentions, remedial Chapter 1 services, and special education placements-savings that can more than offset the short-term costs of implementing and operating the program.
In an analysis of program costs similar to the one reported by Dyer, Swartz (1992) developed a comparison of expenditures for remedial programs and Reading Recovery in the State of California. Using average student caseloads and average costs per student provided by the California Department of Education and student service configurations and length-of-stay reported by practitioners, Reading Recovery costs were found to be half of those for Chapter 1 and retention, and a quarter of those for special education placement. The cost figures and estimates of various program elements were purposefully conservative to ensure that the important focus on program effectiveness was not distracted by inflated cost-effectiveness claims.
Researchers have also examined Reading Recovery's ability to reduce
first grade retentions, the need for further remediation, and
the number of students classified as learning disabled, with positive
results:
* One study found that the first grade retention rate
in a school district that had implemented Reading Recovery dropped
from 4.3 percent in the three years before implementation to 2.9
percent four years after system-wide implementation (Lyons &
Beaver, 1994).
* The same study showed that the district reduced
its enrollment in learning disabilities classrooms at the end
of first grade from 1.8 percent of the first grade in the three
years before full implementation to .64 percent in three years
after implementation.
* Another study documented the experience
of a district that reduced its first grade retentions significantly
in the five years following the implementation of Reading Recovery,
which resulted in considerable savings (Lyons, Pinnell, &
DeFord, 1993).
The Reading Recovery Lesson Reading Recovery teachers use a battery of six measures called the Observation Survey to select the lowest achieving children in their classrooms. In addition to regular classroom reading instruction, these children receive daily Reading Recovery lessons.
Selecting and Evaluating Reading Recovery
Children
At the beginning of each academic year, children at risk of reading
failure are selected for Reading Recovery using classroom teacher
judgement and results from the Observation Survey. Looking across
measures, teachers select children who are the lowest achievers.
The Observation Survey is also used to evaluate children who receive
the program. The following six measures comprise this diagnostic
tool:
The first two weeks of each child's program are designed to develop the student's strengths. This period, referred to as roaming around the known, is comprised of a variety of literature-based activities that build the child's confidence and establish a rapport between teacher and child. The teacher uses this time to learn about the child's ability and build a foundation for the individualized lessons that will follow.
Each lesson includes seven components:
During these reading and writing activities, the teacher provides just enough support to help the child develop the effective strategies that independent readers use. This teacher assistance supports the process through which children learn to predict, confirm, and understand what they read. Writing opportunities are essential for developing strategies for hearing sounds in words, representing messages, and for monitoring and checking their own reading and writing.
The framework of a Reading Recovery lesson remains fairly consistent from child to child. However, each lesson is unique. The child and teacher have their own interactions which determine the direction each lesson may take. The teacher constantly observes the child's reactions and questions. All will vary based upon the child's responses. Books to be used in the lesson are chosen specifically with each child in mind. Books are selected from a variety of little books from numerous publishers for their appropriateness of natural language, meaning, and level of difficulty.
At the beginning of each lesson the child reads familiar books. These books were introduced in earlier lessons and have been placed in a group specifically for the child to read with ease, confidence, and fluency. Some problem-solving may also occur in this part of the lesson, although the primary focus is to ensure student success with a minimum of teacher assistance. After the familiar book, the child reads a book that was read once the day before. The teacher keeps a detailed running record of the child's behavior for use in selecting the appropriate teaching strategy.
Following the running record, the teacher spends a minute or two helping the child extend his or her letter knowledge and supporting the child in learning how words work by making and breaking one or two words using magnetic letters.
Next the child writes a story. This allows the child the opportunity to observe the connectedness of reading and writing. The child writes independently and is assisted by the teacher in areas where assistance is needed. The teacher's involvement will decline as the child becomes more independent over time. A sentence written by the child is cut up and the child reassembles it using visual information and language structure.
Each day the teacher selects a new book to introduce to the child at the end of each lesson. The child is provided with as much introduction as necessary for the present level of independence. Supported by this introduction, the child reads the text as independently as possible with questions and assistance from the teacher. This book is read the next day independently while the teacher takes a running record of everything the child says and does during the reading. The teacher's role is that of neutral observer in this situation. After the reading, the child and teacher will discuss the strategies the child used to solve problems and detect errors.
Characteristics of Reading Recovery Lessons
By working from a knowledge base unique to each student, Reading Recovery teachers move well beyond the traditional skills and drills approach associated with remedial reading programs. Each lesson is different from the others. Books are selected specifically for each child based upon individual strengths or needs. Each child responds in a unique way and the teacher then adjusts the lesson to meet those needs. The flow of the lesson changes in response to the child.
Working with Books and Stories Reading Recovery students typically work with an entire book or a complete story, rather than with unconnected sentences or word lists. By reading and writing continuous texts, children learn to use many different aspects of print-including letters, words, sentences, and pictures-to understand complete stories just as successful readers do.
Accelerated Learning The goal of Reading Recovery is accelerated learning. Children are expected to make faster than average progress so that they can catch up with other children in the class. The majority of Reading Recovery children typically reach an average reading level after 12-20 weeks of daily instruction. During this period, they continue to work in the regular classroom for all but 30 minutes each day.
Work from Strengths Accelerated learning is possible because Reading Recovery teachers base their instruction on careful observation of what each child already knows about reading and writing. This approach creates efficiency, as the individualized instruction that follows "will work on these strengths and not waste time teaching anything already known" (Clay, 1993, p. 3).
Independent Learning The goal of Reading Recovery is not just to improve the reading and writing ability of children, but to help them learn how to continue improving on their own, so that later remediation is unnecessary. With the assistance of their Reading Recovery teacher, children learn the strategies that good readers use. Reading Recovery instruction continues until the child has a self-extending system for literacy learning.
It takes a school district two years to develop a Reading Recovery site: one year to have a qualified member of its staff trained as a teacher leader at a Regional Training Center and a second year to establish a training site and begin training teachers.
The Application Process to become an approved training site, a school district (or consortium of districts) begins by applying to one of the California Regional Training Centers to have a qualified member of its teaching staff trained as a teacher leader. As part of the application process, prospective sites must secure financial support within the district and obtain the approval of the district superintendent.
The applying district also selects an administrator in the district to assume administrative responsibilities for Reading Recovery. This site coordinator oversees the preparation of the facility, manages the budget, negotiates contracts, and acts as administrative liaison with the Reading Recovery network.
The Training Year Applicants are selected for the program in the spring, and the yearlong residency program begins the following fall. The teacher leader training is a graduate course taken for credit at one of the Regional Training Centers. The program for teacher leaders includes five components: 1. A graduate-level curriculum consisting of a clinical practicum, a seminar in theory and current research, and supervised fieldwork; 2. The daily teaching of four Reading Recovery students; 3. Field requirements, including assisting with the training of Reading Recovery teachers, conducting colleague visits to observe other class members teaching a Reading Recovery lesson, and visiting other Reading Recovery sites; 4. Preparation for implementing Reading Recovery in their district; and 5. Attendance at a number of professional development activities including the West Coast Literacy Conference and Reading Recovery Institute.
During the training year, teacher leaders work with their site coordinators to prepare the site for its first year of operation. They inform appropriate groups about the program, prepare the space where the teacher training classes will be held, order materials for teacher training, and assist in the selection of appropriate teachers for the training class.
Implementation Year
Following their training year, teacher leaders
and site coordinators work together to maintain the site. Teacher
leaders train new teachers, collect data on children served, and
prepare an annual site report. They also participate in a variety
of continuing contact events and activities, including national
conferences and training seminars, in order to further their own
professional development. In subsequent years, teacher leaders
visit previously trained teachers and conduct continuing contact
sessions.
Teacher Training at Reading Recovery Sites To implement Reading Recovery at the classroom level in districts where the program has been adopted, qualified teachers enroll in a yearlong academic course taught by a certified teacher leader. This course is offered for graduate credit through one of the Regional Training Centers. Through interactive clinical experiences and theoretical study guided by a teacher leader, teachers learn how to implement all components of a Reading Recovery lesson and to select teaching procedures appropriate for individual students.
Teachers-in-training continue to work full-time in their school districts as they receive instruction in Reading Recovery procedures. The most common arrangement during the training year and subsequent years is for the teacher to spend half a day teaching Reading Recovery students and the second half in other teaching duties.
Implementation Models Reading Recovery has been implemented in California using a wide variety of models. Reading Recovery teachers are required to spend half a day (two and one-half hours minimum) working one-to-one with children (usually four). The remainder of the day is assigned to various other teaching and support functions. Districts have reported using the following configurations for assignments of teachers: * Chapter 1 remedial reading or Special Education Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teachers spend half of their day in Reading Recovery and the other half working with individuals or small groups using other instructional strategies. * Two teachers share a first grade classroom where one teacher teaches the class and the other uses Reading Recovery with individual children and then they switch roles for the second half of the day. * Kindergarten teachers teach one session and then spend half a day in Reading Recovery. * Migrant education teachers use Reading Recovery in extended-day sessions. * Half-time teachers are employed as Reading Recovery teachers.
The Costs of Implementation
The costs of adopting Reading Recovery include those associated
with the establishment of a site, as well as ongoing site maintenance.
Start-up expenses include training fee, materials, and expenses
for the teacher leader-in-training; the installation of a one-way
glass at the new site for teacher training; and a portion of the
site coordinator's salary during the training year. Following
the training year, new sites provide funding for teacher leader
salaries, continuing contact for teacher leaders, site staff support,
and training materials. For specific information regarding costs,
contact the Regional Training Center in your area.
The Benefits of Implementation Implementing Reading Recovery requires a substantial commitment on the part of the district. The integrated nature of the instructional programs for children and educators, the use of quantitative data to measure the results of the intervention on all children served, the strong professional development model-these and the other features of the program simultaneously ensure its effectiveness and demand a high level of support from participating individuals and districts. This level of support is justified by the accelerated growth achieved by Reading Recovery program children and the transformation of teachers who become true change agents in their districts.
What California Program Participants Say
The effects of Reading Recovery extend far beyond the children served. In questionnaires administered to parents,administrators, and classroom teachers, as well as Reading Recovery teachers and students, individual reactions to the program were collected.
Regional Training Centers for Teacher
Leaders
Askew, B., Frasier, D., & Griffin, M. (1993). Reading Recovery report 1992-93 (Tech. Rep. No. 4).
Denton: Texas Woman's University. Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Education.
Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Education.
Cooter, R. B., Jr., & Reutzel, D. R. (1987). Teaching reading skills for mastery. Academic Therapy, 23, 127-134.
Dyer, P. C. (1992). Reading Recovery: A cost-effectiveness and educational outcomes analysis. Spectrum: Journal of Research in Education, 10(1), 110-119.
Escamilla, K., & Andrade, A. (1992). Descubriendo La Lectura: An application of Reading Recovery in Spanish. Education and Urban Society, 24(2), 212-226.
Gregory, D., Earl, L., & O'Donoghue, M. (1993). A study of Reading Recovery in Scarborough: 1990-1992. Annual Site Report of the Scarborough School District. Ontario: Scarborough School District.
Lyons, C. A., & Beaver, J. (1994). Reducing retention and learning disability placement through Reading Recovery: An educationally sound, cost-effective choice. In R. Allington & S. Walmsley (Eds.), No Quick Fix. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lyons, C. A., Pinnell, G. S., & DeFord, D. E. (1993). Partners in learning: Teachers and children in Reading Recovery. New York: Teachers College Press. National Diffusion Network. (1993). 1992-93 discontinuation data (Research Rep.). Columbus: Reading Recovery National Data Evaluation Center.
O'Brien, K., Swartz, S. L., & Shook, R. E. (1992). Reading Recovery in California. 1991-92 site report. San Bernardino: California State University. Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 159-181.
Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E., & Lyons, C. A. (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., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 9-38.
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.
Swartz, S. L. (1992). Cost comparison of selected intervention programs in California. San Bernardino: California State University.
Swartz, S. L., & Klein, A. F. (1994). Reading Recovery: An overview. Literacy, Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 1(1), 3-7.
Swartz, S. L., Klein, A. F., Kelly, P. R., Shook, R. E., & Hoffman, B. M. (1994). Reading Recovery in California. 1993-94 site report. 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.
Talwar, J., & Hill, S. (1993). Interim report. Reading Recovery: Halifax, 1989-1992 (Tech. Rep.). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Halifax District School Board.
Reading Recovery in California California State University, San Bernardino 5500 University Parkway San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397 (909)880-5646; FAX (909)880-7010