If we are to have high expectations for the achievement of all Alabama school children, we must provide effective support for those who find learning difficult.  Reading Recovery, documented by 20 years of research and evaluation, provides a safety net for low-achieving children as a supplement to good classroom instruction.  This report summarizes the effectiveness of Reading Recovery in the state of Alabama.  The University of Alabama at Birmingham now serves as a regional center for Reading Recovery, offering school districts in Alabama better access to Reading Recovery training and expertise. This report; (1) summarizes Alabama results for the most recently completed school year, and (2) provides background information about this highly successful early intervention.

The  goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first-grade children who have extreme difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems.

Reading  Recovery^® is a highly effective short-term intervention which

• uses one-to-one teaching for low-achieving first graders,

• is not aligned with any specific classroom approach,

• offers individual help for the lowest-achieving children who are struggling to read and write. 

In Reading Recovery, children develop a network of strategies for reading and writing that go beyond isolated skill knowledge.  Children can use these strategies within any classroom approach that is taught effectively.

 

WHAT IS THE READING RECOVERY SUCCESS RATE IN ALABAMA?

     Accountability is a key component of any significant educational intervention.  In Reading Recovery all children served (even if only for one day) are included in reported results.  When a child completes a series of lessons, a status category is assigned.  These categories include:  a) discontinued or graduated, b) recommended for further action after a full program of 20 weeks, c) incomplete program at year end, d) moved during service, or e) none of the above.  Figure 1 shows outcome categories for Alabama children during 1999-2000.  Sixty-five percent of all children who received any Reading Recovery service at all successfully discontinued or graduated.

 

FIGURE 1:  OUTCOME OF READING RECOVERY INTERVENTION IN ALABAMA

Sometimes a child cannot receive a full series of lessons because the family moves before the lessons are completed, or because the end of the school year or some rare and extreme circumstance prevents the child from receiving a full 20 weeks of service.

Therefore, another way of looking at the outcomes may be useful.  The number of children who discontinued (graduated) can be examined in relation to the number of children who had a complete program.

 

FIGURE 2: SUCCESS RATES OF READING RECOVERY CHILDREN IN ALABAMA

Eight-six percent of the Alabama children who completed a full program of lessons met Reading Recovery’s stringent definition of success.

     Reading Recovery selects the lowest-achieving children for services.  Alabama’s Reading Recovery children who successfully completed their lessons began as the lowest non-readers in their schools. The children in the comparison group were randomly selected from children achieving at too high a level to be selected for Reading Recovery.   By the end of the first grade year, the successful Reading Recovery children were reading at the same level as the average Alabama children in the comparison group.

 

FIGURE 3: PROGRESS OF READING RECOVERY AND COMPARISON GROUP CHILDREN ON TEXT READING LEVEL FROM FALL TO YEAR END

     Truly successful interventions must not only help low-achieving children make progress.  These children must progress faster than their average peers.  Without these accelerated  gains, low-achieving children cannot reach the average band of performance. The children in Alabama’s comparison group (average  performing children) made a mean gain of almost 13 reading levels over the course of their first grade year.  The successful Reading Recovery children (lowest achieving children in their school) gained about 17 reading levels within the same time, ending at about the same level as their peers.

     The table above represents aggregated data.  Since Reading Recovery is an individual education intervention, it is important to look at individual progress.  At the end of the year, 557 (79%) of the Reading Recovery children who discontinued were able to read on text level 14 or higher, as compared to 262 (71%) of the random sample comparison group children.

     One important concern about intervention programs is whether children can maintain gains and continue to make progress after the intervention ends.  Figure 4 shows that Alabama’s Reading Recovery children who completed their lessons during the first semester continued to improve their text reading levels for the remainder of the year.

FIGURE 4: MEAN TEXT READING LEVEL OF ALABAMA READING RECOVERY CHILDREN AT END OF LESSONS AND END OF YEAR

    

School districts in Alabama have not done Reading Recovery follow-up studies to determine if Reading Recovery children continue to stay within the average range of performance throughout the primary years.  The Ohio State University (1997) looked at the performance of Reading Recovery students on the Ohio Fourth Grade Proficiency Test.  The subjects were children served by Reading Recovery in 1991 and 1992.  A total of 2,714 children were tested on reading and 2, 813 tested on writing in 1991; in 1992 2,994 students were tested on reading and 3,002 were tested on writing.  Of all eligible districts, 69% reported data.

 

FIGURE 5: PERFORMANCE ON OHIO 4^TH GRADE PROFICIENCY TEST

 

During both years of this study, former Reading Recovery students who took the 4^th Grade Proficiency Test scored with the average band.  This study included all children served by Reading Recovery, not just those children who had successfully completed their series of  lessons.  The results suggest that Reading Recovery children maintain average levels of achievement long after their lessons are completed.

     A follow-up study from Cobb County Schools in Georgia (1999) tested text reading levels for 294 Reading Recovery students who had successfully completed their series of Reading Recovery lessons between 1993 and 1998.  Reading levels were measured using the text reading task on Marie Clay’s Observation Survey.  Results demonstrate that most children continued to score at or above the average text level for their class as they progressed through the grades.  Figure 6 shows the percent of students at or above grade level for each of five years.

FIGURE 6: COBB COUNTY GEORGIA FOLLOW-UP STUDY

WHO RECEIVED READING RECOVERY?

     In Alabama, during the 1999-2000 school year, 1153 children received Reading Recovery services in 12 different school districts throughout the state.  These districts included those that could be described as urban, suburban, small town and rural.  A comparison group of 468 children was randomly sampled from the same districts.  The Reading Recovery group and the comparison group were similar in sex, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic level as measured by school lunch costs.

 

 

FIGURE 7:  WHO RECEIVED READING RECOVERY SERVICES IN ALABAMA?

DID RECOVERY IN ALABAMA SAVE MONEY BY AVOIDING FIRST GRADE RETENTION?

     Children having extreme difficulty learning to read and write are more likely than randomly selected students to be considered for retention in the first grade.  Without extra help, a large fraction of struggling readers would, in fact be retained at an estimated additional cost of $5300 per year per student (Alabama State Department of Education).

 

FIGURE 8: ALABAMA STUDENTS CONSIDERED FOR RETENTION IN THE FIRST GRADE

 

About 9% of the random sample children (average achievers) were considered for retention, and about half of these children (4%) were actually retained.  Twenty nine percent of the Reading Recovery children who completed their program had been considered for retention.  After completing a full program of Reading Recovery lessons, approximately one third of the struggling readers considered for retention  (10% of the whole RR group) were retained.  Reading Recovery teachers reported that adequate progress was most often cited as the reason for the decision not to retain.  While this study does not compare students participating in Reading Recovery to a matched group of students who do not receive Reading Recovery, it does provide evidence of program impact on retention rates.

 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS IN ALABAMA

Results reported here for Alabama school districts confirm that Reading Recovery is a successful early intervention that can dramatically reduce the numbers of first grade children in our state who fail to learn to read and write.  Districts that provide the Reading Recovery intervention for their lowest achieving first grade children have provided a real opportunity for success for children who most likely would have experienced failure.  The challenge ahead is for greater numbers of struggling Alabama first graders to be offered this powerful opportunity.

 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT READING RECOVERY

Is Reading Recovery  a Private Business?  Reading Recovery is not an independent business venture: it is a not-for-profit intervention that involves collaboration among schools, districts, and universities.  In the United States, the name Reading Recovery® has been a trademark of The Ohio State University since December 1990.  The purpose of the trademark is to protect the quality and integrity of Reading Recovery across multiple implementation sites.  Use of the trademark is granted annually royalty-free to sites that meet quality standards.  The University of Alabama in Birmingham is designated as Alabama’s University Training Center for Reading Recovery.

 

     What is the Role of Phonics in Reading Recovery?  Reading Recovery teachers understand the critical nature of helping children hear phonemes in words and recognize and use spelling patterns.  During lessons, students apply sound-letter knowledge while reading and writing. Reading Recovery teachers give specific and explicit attention to letters, sounds, and words, both while writing extended text and as direct instruction within each lesson.  Reading Recovery recognizes that decoding must be purposeful.  Teachers help children learn to use connections between letters and sounds.  Children use their knowledge of how words work in order to solve problems with difficult words while maintaining comprehension.

 

 

How Does Reading Recovery Address Professional Development? Reading Recovery is NOT a packaged program.         

Reading Recovery’s success depends upon exceptionally well-trained teachers who develop effective observational skills and a repertoire of teaching approaches that can be tailored to meet the needs of individual children. Professional development is an essential part of Reading Recovery. The training for teachers and teacher leaders begins with year-long graduate level study and is followed by ongoing training in succeeding years.

 

Is Reading Recovery Research Based?  Reading Recovery is built on a foundation of more than 20 years of research about how young low-achieving children take on the process of reading and writing.  Its roots are in Dr. Marie Clay’s basic research in classrooms and clinics as well as intensive studies from other disciplines.  Three strands of research make up the knowledge base.

•Reading Recovery assessment of children’s reading and writing achievement is based on observation techniques that comprise An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Clay. The Survey tasks have high reliability and validity.

•Clay  (1993) also explored the question of “What is possible when we change the design and delivery of traditional education for the children that teachers find hard to teach?”  A number of studies examined this question, including the original Reading Recovery design studies, field monitoring studies, and subgroup studies.

•Reading Recovery is also subjected to on-going evaluation through the collection of data on every child who enters and leaves Reading Recovery to determine what progress the child has made.  Numerous follow-up studies document Reading Recovery’s impact on children’s literacy performance through the primary grades.  For a bibliography of Reading Recovery research, see the Reading Recovery Review (Askew, et al, 1998).

     Reading Recovery has specific measurable goals for each child, including bringing the child’s reading and writing performance into the average range of performance in the class.  Reading Recovery monitors implementation and measures results for every child.

 

 

REFERENCES

Askew, B.J., Fountas, I.C., Lyons, C.A., Pinnell, G.S., and Schmitt.M.C.(1998) Reading Recovery review: Understandings, outcomes & implications. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.

Clay, M.M. (1993)  Reading Recovery:  A guidebook for teachers in training.  Portsmouth, N.H.:  Heinemann.

Hovest, C. & Day, J. (1997, February).  Sustaining gains:  Ohio’s Reading Recovery  students in fourth grade.  Paper presented at the 12^th Annual Reading Recovery Conference and National Institute, Columbus, OH.

Williamson, D. & Johnson, C. (1999).  The effectiveness  of Reading Recovery  in Cobb County, Georgia.  Presented as a written report to the administration of Cobb County Public Schools.  As quoted in fact sheets published by  Reading Recovery Council of North America.

 

Reading Recovery Office

                  UAB School of Education

                  Education Building, Room 113-A

                  Birmingham, AL 35294-1250

                  (205) 975-5369  email:kathmart@uab.edu

Prepared by Kathleen Martin, Ph.D., UAB Reading Recovery University Trainer.

Acknowledgement is given to NYU Reading Recovery Project and GSU Reading Recovery Program for their state report formats, and to Reading Recovery Council of North America for use of their fact sheets and background information.