What School Districts in the Bay Area Have Reading Recovery

Reading Recovery in California
Programme Overview

by Adria F. Klein, CSUSB, and Stanley L. Swartz, CSUSB

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Program History
• Reading Recovery in California
• West Declension Literacy Conference
• Descubriendo La Lectura
• Program for Children
• Program for Educators
• Reading Recovery as a System Intervention
• Reading Recovery every bit a Network of Educators and Institutions
• California Developments
• Enquiry Results
• Selecting and Evaluating Reading Recovery Children
• Characteristics of Reading Recovery Lessons
• Programme Implementation
• Implementation Year
• The Costs of Implementation
• What California Programme Participants Say
• Regional Training Centers for Teacher Leaders
• References

Introduction

Reading Recovery is a programme adult to assist children in first grade who are having difficulty learning to read. These children are identified past 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 1-to-1 tutoring of children is provided by a specially trained teacher v days per week, 30 minutes a day for an boilerplate of 12-twenty weeks. At the end of the programme, the child has adult a self-extending organization that uses a variety of strategies to read increasingly hard text.

The professional person development of teachers is an integral role of Reading Recovery. The grooming is an intense, year-long graduate course for teachers consisting of weekly classes affiliated with a university-based Regional Grooming Heart. As the teachers acquire how to implement the program, they work simultaneously with children in their home schools. The professional person level of the grooming has empowered these experienced teachers to make changes in their own pedagogy and to systemically touch the teaching in their schools.

Program History

Reading Recovery was developed by Marie Chiliad. 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 adult Reading Recovery procedures with teachers and tested the program in New Zealand (Dirt, 1979). The success of this pilot plan led to the nationwide adoption of Reading Recovery in New Zealand in the early on 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 yr. 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. Section of Education every bit a developer/demonstrator projection. This NDN designation is a recognition of proven program effectiveness.

Reading Recovery in California

In 1990-91, the California Department of Education held a serial of meetings throughout the state to encourage networking of teachers, administrators, and university faculty interested in early intervention approaches. This involvement was encouraged past Chiselled Programs Office Director Hanna Walker, and staff Dennis Parker and Beth Breneman, who were interested in exploring early on 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 Country University, San Bernardino (CSUSB), under the management of Kathy O'Brien, Coordinator of the Reading Program; Adria F. Klein, Chair of the Unproblematic/Bilingual Teaching Department; and Stanley L. Swartz, Chair of the Department of Avant-garde Studies in Teaching. The CSUSB School of Instruction, in collaboration with Function of Extended Teaching staff Jan Jackson and Mendy Warman, and San Bernardino and Riverside County Offices of Education staff Marilyn Bush and Pat Botini initiated instructor training during 1991-92 past employing Ohio Reading Recovery teacher leader, Rebecca Shook.

During this aforementioned time, ane school district and two county offices began developing plans to implement Reading Recovery instructor training in California. Yuba City Unified School Commune supported the preparation of teacher leader candidate Marilyn Todd, and the San Diego Canton Office of Education hired teacher leader Judith Holmes, both trained at Texas Adult female's University. The Orangish and Los Angeles County Offices of Education organized a consortium to back up the employment of teacher leader Jann Farmer Hailey, who had moved to the area from Commonwealth of australia.

California Country University, San Bernardino, adult a statewide implementation program and through funding from the California Section of Instruction, appointed Gay Su Pinnell from The Ohio State Academy 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 training for four trainers of instructor leaders (Patricia Kelly, Adria Klein, Judith Neal, and Barbara Schubert) and xi teacher leaders throughout the state. Additionally, Beverly Hoffman and Rebecca Shook completed an advanced training plan and were prepared every bit clinical trainers.

Reading Recovery has grown rapidly in California. Beginning with 4 teacher classes in 1991, the project has grown to 39 classes and 873 teachers in 1993-94. As an boosted dissemination strategy, CSUSB has adult a model of recruiting experienced teacher leaders and straight 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 bound commencement into Reading Recovery. It is estimated that this effort increased California'southward chapters tenfold in one year.

Iii California university sites provided Reading Recovery preparation beginning in 1993 94. The California Regional Grooming Centers are located at California Land University, San Bernardino; California State University, Fresno; and Saint Mary'south College, Moraga.

West Declension 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 briefing draws teachers, administrators, and Reading Recovery personnel from throughout California, thirty states, and 4 strange countries to an of import grooming opportunity for literacy educators. Attendance was almost 1600 in 1994, and exceeded 2000 in 1995. (The 1996 conference is Feb 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 inquiry and program results, the Council founded an international journal focusing on early literacy, Literacy, Teaching and Learning, edited past Adria F. Klein and Stanley Fifty. Swartz. The outset issue of the journal was published in December, 1994.

Descubriendo La Lectura

California Country University, San Bernardino, began the implementation of a statewide dissemination program for Reading Recovery in Spanish during 1993-94. Descubriendo La Lectura (DLL), an awarding of Reading Recovery in Castilian (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 Eye at CSUSB with the preparation of Cristina Gomez-Valdez as a bilingual trainer of instructor leaders. This training was designed and completed under the direction of Gay Su Pinnell, with the help of Diane DeFord and Carol Lyons from The Ohio State University; Patricia Kelly from CSUSB; Billie Askew and Yvonne Rodriguez from Texas Woman's Academy; and Kathleen McDonough and Olivia Ruiz from the Academy of Arizona. This Middle at CSUSB has played a leadership office in Descubriendo La Lectura/Reading Recovery in Castilian and has made a significant impact on the development of the program and its accessibility. The 1994 95 DLL teacher leader training form included participants from Arizona, California, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington.

During 1994, CSUSB, in collaboration with the Los Angeles County Office of Didactics and the San Francisco Unified School District, sponsored a workshop for bridging to Spanish (supplemental preparation for those already trained in English) in San Bernardino and San Francisco. California Country University, San Bernardino, also initiated a DLL teacher training grade on campus beginning in the autumn of 1994, taught by Birdie Munoz. This form served every bit a grooming site and a resources for other California DLL teachers and teacher leaders. These activities initiated concentrated chapters-edifice efforts that will make DLL bachelor in various locations in California.

Program for Children

Reading Recovery gives children a chance to succeed before they enter a bicycle of failure. Children are selected for the program based on accurate 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 aid children develop effective strategies for literacy acquisition. Education continues until the child tin read at or above the class average and can continue to learn without later remedial aid.

A high percentage of the children in California who take completed a Reading Recovery program accept get independent readers. Initial data from California are consistent with numerous other studies which accept shown that Reading Recovery helps a big majority of low-progress readers accomplish 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-chance students. The key to success for such children is specialized teaching that volition enable them to amend quickly-before they are labeled as failures-without disrupting their regular classroom curriculum.

In Reading Recovery, the instructor training begins with a yearlong curriculum that integrates theory and do and is characterized by intensive interaction with colleagues. Post-obit the training twelvemonth, 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 fourth dimension. Reading Recovery teachers-in-grooming become literacy experts with highly developed observational skills and a repertoire of intervention strategies that tin be tailored to meet the individual needs of students.

Reading Recovery every bit a Arrangement 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 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 schoolhouse and the university promotes modify inside 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 transport an experienced teacher to ane of iii California Regional Training Centers. Post-obit the grooming twelvemonth, these especially 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 consummate the programme. The results achieved past the teachers and children involved in Reading Recovery demonstrate for the entire commune the impact powerful teaching can have on depression-progress children. Through interaction with Reading Recovery teachers, classroom teachers ofttimes begin to construct new theories almost 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 charge per unit of retentiveness, special instruction placements, and remediation beyond start grade. And no fourth dimension is lost delivering the services that will consequence these changes. Teachers undergo training outside of regular school hours and they really begin working with students every bit the training begins.

Reading Recovery equally a Network of Educators and Institutions

Institutions and educators that have adopted Reading Recovery become function of an extensive network to support early literacy. In 1994-95, the Reading Recovery in California network included more than than 500 school districts. The staffs of these institutions included more than 1800 educators, including 1600 Reading Recovery teachers, 71 instructor 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 on intervention program in California.

California Developments

The implementation of Reading Recovery in California has presented some unique issues and opportunities. Reading Recovery personnel from throughout the country are actively involved in finding solutions to the early on literacy and learning challenges that affect the time to come success of children.

• Starting time in 1995, the West Coast Literacy Conference includes grooming institutes for Reading Recovery, Descubriendo La Lectura, and California Early Literacy Learning.
• New research questions and data sets were developed for use in California. This activity focused on a multifariousness of unique California needs, including speakers of other languages.
• Reading Recovery in California personnel have developed numerous little books that meliorate reflect the diverse cultures of California and deport a variety of more traditional American themes. These books are also translated into Spanish to support the DLL training.
• Equally part of its commitment to the western region of the United States, Reading Recovery in California is supporting the evolution of training sites in Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, and the Hawaiian Island of Lana'i. This assistance will help disseminate the project in rural areas and schools that are difficult to access.
• Bookish year 1994-95 also marked the beginning betoken in planning for Reading Recovery in Mexico. CSUSB, in collaboration with the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California, has initiated both the grooming of a DLL teacher leader and the development of training sites in Baja California.
• California Early Literacy Learning (CELL) is a new project supported by California State Academy, San Bernardino, designed to apply the powerful strategies adult by Reading Recovery in the principal classroom. The project is in its airplane pilot year and has the chief goal of providing access to practiced first educational activity for all children by implementing a literacy framework that uses high quality children's literature to ensure authentic reading and writing experiences. The projection is site-based and trains a Literacy Coordinator to serve as a staff developer and coach for the primary pedagogy squad. Rebecca Shook is the CELL Trainer and statewide coordinator and has developed sit-in schools in the Colton, Fontana, Newark, Riverside, and San Bernardino schoolhouse districts that will serve equally grooming sites during the 1995-96 schoolhouse year. CELL has been developed in collaboration with The Ohio State University with support from the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools. Literacy Coordinators trained during 1994-95 include: Marsha Pifer and Joan Smith (Colton); Barbara Staples (Fontana); Midge Fuller, Lynne Gurney, Cathryn Lang, and Chris Sheving (Newark); Pam Wagner (Riverside); and Tara Salinas (San Bernardino).

Research Results

The success of Reading Recovery has been advisedly documented since its inception. Pilot studies in New Zealand and the United States demonstrated that the programme provides children in the lowest 20 percent of their course with the strategies necessary to read at or above grade level in an average of 12-xx weeks. Follow-up studies in both countries further showed that Reading Recovery children continue to read at an average level or amend after receiving the intervention, reducing the need for long-term remediation.

California Results for 1991-94

1991-1992. During the offset twelvemonth 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) equally independent readers (O'Brien, Swartz, & Shook, 1992). All teachers involved were nonetheless in preparation, two groups at CSUSB, and ane each in Northern California, Orange County, and San Diego. Discontinued children were tested at the terminate of the twelvemonth on the level of text difficulty; 84 pct read at or above average class level. On a test of phonemic awareness, 93 percentage 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 commune administrators were overwhelmingly positive, many questions arose equally to how the program could be disseminated more rapidly. Unique California challenges arose during the commencement year of implementation; for example, new schedules for children's programs and teacher training had to be considered considering of the year-circular school model used extensively in California.

1992-1993. The 2d twelvemonth 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 plan, indicating that teachers served an boilerplate of 7 children each.

A large percentage (77 percent) of the instructor groups were in their training year. Of the 1334 children who received total 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, non-discontinued children experienced a longer programme and made slower progress than did those who successfully completed the plan. Discontinued children made accelerated progress. Eighty-nine percent were at or above average levels in writing vocabulary, 95 percent on dictation, and 89 pct in reading, indicating that this group of children made accelerated progress and caught up with their peers. The total performance on each exceeded the boilerplate band of a group of randomly selected children not in the program. This comparison provides a very rigorous exam for Reading Recovery children because the average band is drawn from the centre 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 twelvemonth on measures of reading, phonemic awareness, and writing. Table four 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 permit them to continue to learn without extra help. Children who enter the plan early on in the outset grade year are likely to be released midyear and are expected to go along to make progress through participation in regular classroom teaching alone. The extent to which this goal is reached is indicated past assessing the progress fabricated from midyear to cease-of-year by the group of children who are discontinued during the twelvemonth. Discontinued children entered the program with an average text reading level score of .51, and ended the yr with an average reading level of 14.34. DLL children entered the plan with an average text reading level score of .31 and ended the year with an boilerplate reading level of 14.55. To put this into perspective, they entered as nonreaders, discontinued at a level considered to exist the cease of first class, and at the end of first form twelvemonth reached a level equivalent to second grade reading level equally normally defined in traditional reading systems.

Data for the beginning three years (1991-1994) of the project indicated that more than than 76 percentage of the children served by Reading Recovery were successfully discontinued from the plan. Even though each year the majority of the participating teachers were nevertheless in training, these data are a clear demonstration of the potential the program has to help California'due south at-risk students go successful readers in their first year of school.

As Reading Recovery has grown, the academic community has shown interest in various furnishings of the program. Researchers accept compared Reading Recovery with other intervention programs, evaluated its cost-effectiveness, and studied its long-term effects on children. Others take explored such areas equally the success of the teacher grooming component and the impact of the program on learning disabled students. This enquiry, combined with the data collected each year on children who receive the program, provides answers to some of the near commonly asked questions about Reading Recovery.

How do discontinued Reading Recovery students compare to their peers at the stop of outset grade? Reading Recovery students, all of whom begin first form at the bottom of their class, make considerable progress equally a consequence of the plan, especially when combined with constructive classroom educational activity.

The starting time end-of-year written report on Reading Recovery in the United States (Pinnell, DeFord, & Lyons, 1988) indicated that 73.5 pct 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 iv measures of reading ability at the end of beginning form, and more than than 70 pct were performing at or in a higher place average on three other measures of assessment. At the finish of the year, the gain score of the Reading Recovery students on a nationally normed standardized test, California Test of Bones Skills (CTBS), was 8.vi compared to a score of 2.four earned by a similar group of randomly assigned get-go graders who had received another grade of compensatory education.

Researchers at Texas Woman'southward University plant 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 cease of their starting time grade year (Beveled, Frasier, & Griffin,1993). Private Reading Recovery sites documented like 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 fifteen, compared with an average commencement grade band of 11-nineteen. At the end of the school year in 1991, the discontinued Reading Recovery first graders were reading an average text level of xvi, compared to an average band of eleven-21, and in 1992, discontinued Reading Recovery students read at an average level of 16, compared to an average ring of 15-22.

In 1992-93 (National Diffusion Network, 1993), 83 per centum (22,493) of all the children in N America who had received a complete Reading Recovery programme 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 ring range on writing vocabulary, 94 pct 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 merely get average or better readers in kickoff form, they develop a self-extending learning system, which enables them to continue learning at to the lowest degree 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). 4th grade Reading Recovery students demonstrated that they could accurately read text at the sixth-form level or above. Additionally, these children proved to be excellent spellers, producing spellings on a fifth class level spelling test closer to conventional than their randomly selected peers.

Smith-Burke, Jaggar, and Ashdown (1993) tested 174 2nd form children who had successfully completed Reading Recovery equally 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:

• Eighty-nine pct of the Reading Recovery children scored inside or above the average band on text reading compared to eighty percent of the random sample, and 23 percent of the Reading Recovery children scored in a higher place the average band.
• Xc-six percent of the Reading Recovery children scored at grade ii or to a higher place, compared to 89 pct of the random sample.
• At the stop of 2nd course, the average Reading Recovery child was able to read passages roughly equivalent to 5th class basal reading textile with at to the lowest degree 90 pct accuracy.

How does Reading Recovery compare to other early on intervention programs? Big calibration and local investigations demonstrate that Reading Recovery is a specially effective method to meliorate the reading acquisition of at-risk children.

A report by Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer (1994) compared Reading Recovery with iv other types of early intervention: (1) an individual tutorial program like to Reading Recovery, but taught by a teacher with an abbreviated training program; (2) Direct Instructional Skills Plan (Cooter & Reutzel, 1987), an private tutorial taught without Reading Recovery by experienced reading teachers; (3) a small-scale-group intervention taught past 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 amend than children from an equivalent control group and the three other intervention programs. Reading Recovery was the only group that scored improve on all tests, showing long-term improvements in reading. At the end of 70 days of education, Reading Recovery children were reading five levels ahead of children who received regular remedial reading lessons. Fifty-fifty though the command group connected to receive lessons for the rest of the year, Reading Recovery children were still 3 reading levels above the remedial group average when all children were tested the following autumn.

Some other 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 kickoff graders (Gregory, Earl, & O'Donoghue, 1993). The Reading Recovery students received daily Reading Recovery lessons plus regular classroom instruction. The comparison grouping received regular classroom educational activity, plus necessary intervention services (ESL, special education, parent volunteers, individual tutors). The reference group received regular classroom instruction only.

Researchers reported that Reading Recovery students scored higher than comparison students on cease-of-twelvemonth measures, that the performance of Reading Recovery students improved at a faster rate than their at-chance 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 assay.

Is Reading Recovery cost-constructive? Show indicates that Reading Recovery tin 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 audio and reduces the necessity of more than commonly used means of intervention. The study concluded that schoolhouse districts implementing the program will realize meaning long-term price savings through reductions in form retentions, remedial Affiliate one services, and special instruction placements-savings that can more than commencement the brusque-term costs of implementing and operating the program.

In an analysis of plan costs similar to the i reported by Dyer, Swartz (1992) adult a comparison of expenditures for remedial programs and Reading Recovery in the Land of California. Using average educatee caseloads and average costs per student provided by the California Department of Pedagogy and educatee service configurations and length-of-stay reported by practitioners, Reading Recovery costs were found to be one-half of those for Affiliate ane and retentiveness, and a quarter of those for special instruction placement. The price figures and estimates of various plan elements were purposefully conservative to ensure that the of import focus on plan effectiveness was non distracted by inflated toll-effectiveness claims.

Researchers have also examined Reading Recovery's power to reduce first grade retentions, the need for further remediation, and the number of students classified as learning disabled, with positive results:
* 1 report 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 commencement class from 1.8 pct of the kickoff grade in the 3 years before total implementation to .64 pct in three years after implementation.
* Another written report documented the experience of a commune that reduced its first grade retentions significantly in the 5 years post-obit 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 6 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 bookish twelvemonth, children at risk of reading failure are selected for Reading Recovery using classroom teacher sentence and results from the Ascertainment Survey. Looking beyond measures, teachers select children who are the lowest achievers. The Ascertainment Survey is also used to evaluate children who receive the programme. The following six measures comprise this diagnostic tool:

1. Alphabetic character Identification: Children are asked to identify 54 dissimilar characters, including upper and lowercase letters and conventional print for "a" and "m."
2. Word Test: Children are asked to read a list of 20 words drawn from the words used near frequently in early reading material.
3. Concepts near Print: Children are asked to perform a variety of tasks during a book reading. These tasks, presented in a standard situation, check on pregnant concepts about printed language, such every bit directionality and concept of word.
4. Writing Vocabulary: Inside a 10-minute menstruation, children are asked to write all the words they know. The score on this test is the number of words spelled accurately.
5. Dictation Test: Testers read a judgement to the children who write the words indicating their ability to analyze the word for sounds.
6. Text Reading Level: Measures of text reading level are obtained by constructing a gradient of text difficulty, then testing for the highest level read with accuracy of ninety percent or better. Levels are fatigued from a basal reading system that is non part of Reading Recovery instruction.

The offset 2 weeks of each child's program are designed to develop the educatee'due south strengths. This period, referred to every bit roaming around the known, is comprised of a multifariousness of literature-based activities that build the child's confidence and establish a rapport between teacher and kid. The instructor uses this time to acquire about the kid's power and build a foundation for the individualized lessons that will follow.

Each lesson includes 7 components:

• Rereading familiar books,
• Taking a running record,
• Alphabetic character identification and word making and breaking,
• Writing a story,
• Rearranging a cut-upwards story,
• Introducing a new book, and
• Attempting a new book.

During these reading and writing activities, the instructor provides just enough back up to aid the child develop the effective strategies that independent readers utilize. This teacher aid 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 letters, and for monitoring and checking their ain reading and writing.

The framework of a Reading Recovery lesson remains fairly consistent from child to child. However, each lesson is unique. The kid and instructor accept 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 kid's responses. Books to be used in the lesson are chosen specifically with each child in mind. Books are selected from a variety of trivial books from numerous publishers for their appropriateness of natural language, significant, 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 trouble-solving may also occur in this function of the lesson, although the chief focus is to ensure pupil success with a minimum of instructor assistance. After the familiar book, the child reads a volume that was read in one case the solar day earlier. The instructor keeps a detailed running record of the child'due south beliefs for use in selecting the appropriate pedagogy strategy.

Following the running record, the teacher spends a infinitesimal or 2 helping the child extend his or her letter noesis and supporting the child in learning how words work past making and breaking one or 2 words using magnetic letters.

Adjacent the child writes a story. This allows the kid the opportunity to observe the connexion of reading and writing. The child writes independently and is assisted by the instructor in areas where assistance is needed. The teacher'due south involvement volition decline as the kid becomes more than independent over time. A sentence written by the child is cutting up and the child reassembles it using visual data and language structure.

Each day the instructor selects a new book to introduce to the child at the cease of each lesson. The child is provided with equally much introduction equally necessary for the present level of independence. Supported past this introduction, the child reads the text as independently as possible with questions and help 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 part is that of neutral observer in this situation. Later the reading, the child and teacher will discuss the strategies the child used to solve issues and discover errors.

Characteristics of Reading Recovery Lessons

Individualized Instruction

Many early literacy programs try to move children along an bogus literacy continuum by instruction skills that somehow add upward to good reading and writing. In dissimilarity, Reading Recovery teachers carefully discover each student "equally a reader and writer, with particular attention to what the child tin practise within the processes of reading and writing" (Clay, 1993, p. seven).

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 private strengths or needs. Each kid responds in a unique way and the teacher and then adjusts the lesson to run into those needs. The catamenia of the lesson changes in response to the kid.

Working with Books and Stories Reading Recovery students typically work with an entire volume or a complete story, rather than with unconnected sentences or word lists. By reading and writing continuous texts, children acquire to utilise many dissimilar aspects of print-including letters, words, sentences, and pictures-to sympathise complete stories just every bit 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 tin can catch up with other children in the course. The majority of Reading Recovery children typically attain an boilerplate 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.

Piece of work from Strengths Accelerated learning is possible because Reading Recovery teachers base of operations 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 annihilation already known" (Clay, 1993, p. 3).

Contained Learning The goal of Reading Recovery is not only to improve the reading and writing ability of children, merely to help them learn how to keep improving on their ain, and so that afterward remediation is unnecessary. With the assistance of their Reading Recovery teacher, children larn the strategies that good readers use. Reading Recovery instruction continues until the child has a cocky-extending system for literacy learning.

Programme Implementation

It takes a school district two years to develop a Reading Recovery site: one year to take a qualified fellow member of its staff trained as a teacher leader at a Regional Training Center and a second yr to establish a training site and begin training teachers.

The Application Procedure to get an canonical grooming 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 didactics staff trained as a teacher leader. Equally part of the application procedure, prospective sites must secure financial support inside the district and obtain the approval of the district superintendent.

The applying commune 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 every bit administrative liaison with the Reading Recovery network.

The Grooming Year Applicants are selected for the program in the spring, and the yearlong residency plan begins the following autumn. The teacher leader training is a graduate form taken for credit at ane of the Regional Preparation Centers. The program for instructor leaders includes v 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 4 Reading Recovery students; three. Field requirements, including assisting with the preparation of Reading Recovery teachers, conducting colleague visits to observe other class members instruction a Reading Recovery lesson, and visiting other Reading Recovery sites; 4. Grooming for implementing Reading Recovery in their district; and 5. Omnipresence at a number of professional development activities including the Due west Declension Literacy Conference and Reading Recovery Constitute.

During the training year, teacher leaders work with their site coordinators to prepare the site for its first year of functioning. They inform advisable groups near the program, prepare the space where the teacher training classes will exist held, club materials for instructor preparation, and aid in the selection of appropriate teachers for the training class.

Implementation Year

Post-obit their training year, instructor leaders and site coordinators piece of work together to maintain the site. Teacher leaders train new teachers, collect data on children served, and fix an annual site report. They also participate in a variety of continuing contact events and activities, including national conferences and preparation seminars, in order to further their own professional evolution. In subsequent years, teacher leaders visit previously trained teachers and conduct continuing contact sessions.

Instructor 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 grade 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-fourth dimension in their school districts as they receive instruction in Reading Recovery procedures. The most mutual arrangement during the grooming twelvemonth and subsequent years is for the teacher to spend one-half a day teaching Reading Recovery students and the second one-half in other educational activity 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 solar day (two and half hours minimum) working one-to-one with children (usually four). The balance of the twenty-four hour period is assigned to various other teaching and support functions. Districts accept reported using the following configurations for assignments of teachers: * Chapter 1 remedial reading or Special Education Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teachers spend one-half of their day in Reading Recovery and the other one-half working with individuals or small groups using other instructional strategies. * Two teachers share a first grade classroom where one instructor teaches the class and the other uses Reading Recovery with individual children and then they switch roles for the second one-half of the 24-hour interval. * Kindergarten teachers teach one session then spend half a day in Reading Recovery. * Migrant education teachers use Reading Recovery in extended-day sessions. * One-half-time teachers are employed as Reading Recovery teachers.

The Costs of Implementation

The costs of adopting Reading Recovery include those associated with the institution of a site, as well as ongoing site maintenance. Start-up expenses include training fee, materials, and expenses for the instructor leader-in-training; the installation of a one-way glass at the new site for instructor grooming; and a portion of the site coordinator's bacon during the training year. Following the training year, new sites provide funding for teacher leader salaries, standing contact for teacher leaders, site staff back up, and training materials. For specific information regarding costs, contact the Regional Training Centre in your area.

The Benefits of Implementation Implementing Reading Recovery requires a substantial commitment on the function of the district. The integrated nature of the instructional programs for children and educators, the use of quantitative information to mensurate the results of the intervention on all children served, the strong professional person 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 past Reading Recovery plan children and the transformation of teachers who get true change agents in their districts.

What California Programme Participants Say

The effects of Reading Recovery extend far beyond the children served. In questionnaires administered to parents,administrators, and classroom teachers, equally well as Reading Recovery teachers and students, private reactions to the program were collected.

Parents:

• "Sean went from a disinterested dependent child in school to an enthusiastic, proud, and interested pupil. Information technology didn't happen overnight, but the confidence he gained through the elapsing of the program made Sean a happier and more than confident person. He loves school then much now, when before he was unhappy at that place."
• "I beloved the program. How many parents can say their kid learned to read in two months?"
• "The plan turned around a potential problem which could have limited his success in school."

Teachers:

• "After teaching kickoff form for over xx years, I have finally been involved in a plan that really helps low functioning, immature outset graders succeed. We need more than of this programme and should have had it sooner. Thanks."
• "I think this is i of the nearly significant changes in our educational system. It would be so wonderful for every child to feel."
• "It's a program that WORKS! Children involved in this program succeed."
• "I have noticed that each student has greater self-esteem. They seem to 'come up out' and agree their heads high . . . they have the mental attitude, 'I know I tin'."

Administrators:

• "All students involved with the program demonstrated a loftier level of self-confidence that was not visible earlier their involvement in the program. Reading has become a loftier priority for the students at schoolhouse and at domicile."
• "I am so pleased to say that the students take moved back into their classroom reading plan as confident grade level readers. Their self-esteem has actually risen and in some cases beliefs has improved."
• "Nosotros have . . . students who went from being at the bottom to being at the top or near the top of their form. Nosotros take students not in Reading Recovery who have benefited because their teachers (Reading Recovery trainees) accept done things differently with the whole form as a direct upshot of what they have been learning."
• "Our showtime grade teachers have never felt more positive about the students they are sending to 2nd form. I am sure that we have 'saved' several students who would otherwise have been in R.S.P. two or 3 years down the line."

Regional Training Centers for Instructor Leaders

• Reading Recovery in California California State University, San Bernardino Schoolhouse of Education 5500 University Parkway San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397 (909)880-5646; FAX (909)880-7010 Trainers of Instructor Leaders: Cristina Gomez-Valdez, Patricia Kelly, and Adria F. Klein
• Central California Reading Recovery Project California State University, Fresno Department of Literacy and Early Didactics 5310 North Campus Drive Fresno, CA 93740-0002 (209)278-0223; FAX (209)278-0404 Trainer of Teacher Leaders: Judith Neal
• Northern California Reading Recovery Project Saint Mary'due south Higher School of Pedagogy P. O. Box 4950 Moraga, CA 94575 (510)631-4309; FAX (510)376-8379 Trainer of Teacher Leaders: Barbara Schubert

References

Askew, B., Frasier, D., & Griffin, M. (1993). Reading Recovery report 1992-93 (Tech. Rep. No. four).

Denton: Texas Woman's University. Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Instruction.

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. Bookish Therapy, 23, 127-134.

Dyer, P. C. (1992). Reading Recovery: A cost-effectiveness and educational outcomes assay. Spectrum: Journal of Inquiry in Education, 10(1), 110-119.

Escamilla, K., & Andrade, A. (1992). Descubriendo La Lectura: An application of Reading Recovery in Spanish. Education and Urban Gild, 24(2), 212-226.

Gregory, D., Earl, L., & O'Donoghue, Thousand. (1993). A study of Reading Recovery in Scarborough: 1990-1992. Annual Site Written 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 pick. In R. Allington & South. Walmsley (Eds.), No Quick Fix. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lyons, C. A., Pinnell, 1000. South., & DeFord, D. East. (1993). Partners in learning: Teachers and children in Reading Recovery. New York: Teachers Higher Press. National Diffusion Network. (1993). 1992-93 discontinuation information (Research Rep.). Columbus: Reading Recovery National Information Evaluation Center.

O'Brien, K., Swartz, S. L., & Shook, R. E. (1992). Reading Recovery in California. 1991-92 site study. San Bernardino: California State Academy. Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-take chances children larn to read. The Unproblematic Schoolhouse Periodical, 90(2), 159-181.

Pinnell, G. South., DeFord, D. E., & Lyons, C. A. (1988). Reading Recovery: Early intervention for at-risk first graders. Arlington, VA: Educational Enquiry Service.

Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. Due east., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-hazard start graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(i), 9-38.

Smith-Burke, Grand. T., Jaggar, A., & Ashdown, J. (1993). New York Academy Reading Recovery project: 1992 follow-upwardly study of 2d graders (Enquiry 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 Periodical of Early Literacy, 1(i), 3-7.

Swartz, Due south. 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 Country Academy.

Swartz, S. Fifty., Shook, R. E., & Hoffman, B. 1000. (1993). Reading Recovery in California. 1992-93 site report. San Bernardino: California Land Academy.

Talwar, J., & Hill, S. (1993). Interim report. Reading Recovery: Halifax, 1989-1992 (Tech. Rep.). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Halifax District School Lath.

Reading Recovery in California California State University, San Bernardino 5500 University Parkway San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397 (909)880-5646; FAX (909)880-7010

urquhartreares.blogspot.com

Source: http://www.stanswartz.com/readrecover/overview.htm

Share this post