Reading Rockets offers a wealth of reading strategies, lessons, and activities designed to help young children learn how to read and read better. Our reading resources assist parents, teachers, and other educators in working with struggling readers who require additional help in reading fundamentals and comprehension skills development.

Building on the Best, Learning from What Works: Reading Recovery

By: American Federation of Teachers (1999)

This brief from the American Federation of Teachers examines the strengths and weaknesses of Reading Recovery, one of five promising reading intervention programs they evaluated (also see Direct Instruction, Early Steps, Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction, and Lindamood-Bell in this section).

Why are some schools effective at educating most students, even those from disadvantaged, high poverty areas, while others struggle fruitlessly to fulfill their academic mission? How can schools replicate the successes of their more effective counterparts?

Researchers, working for years to answer these questions, have described the characteristics of successful schools-e.g., high expectations for all students; challenging curricula; clear standards and a coherent, focused academic mission; high-quality professional development aligned to the standards; small class sizes, especially in the early grades; an orderly and disciplined learning environment; a supportive and collegial atmosphere; and an intervention system designed to ensure that struggling students can meet the standards. But, while we now know a great deal about which reforms are effective, comparatively little is known about how to achieve them.

As many schools have found out the hard way, systemic reform is extremely difficult-especially when it must occur simultaneously on many fronts, and is begun without benefit of high-quality curriculum materials, appropriate professional development, or readily available technical assistance. In fact, a number of schools-especially those that are already foundering-have found that lasting improvement is impossible without concrete, step-by-step implementation support.

According to a recent study of efforts to raise academic achievement for at-risk students (Stringfield, et al., 1996), the reform strategies that achieve the greatest academic gains are those chosen and supported by faculty, as well as administrators. Success is also dependent on the existence of a challenging curriculum, and on paying "a great deal of attention to issues of initial and long-term implementation, and to institutionalizing the reforms." This and other studies have also found that schoolwide reforms tend to be more effective than pull-out or patchwork programs, and that externally developed programs-particularly those with support networks from which schools can draw strength and tangible assistance-tend to do better than local designs.

Given these and similar research findings, we developed the criteria below to help identify promising programs for raising student achievement, especially in low-performing schools. You will find descriptions of five reading intervention programs on the following pages. Although each particular program has its own strengths and weaknesses, all show evidence of:

High Standards. The program helps all students acquire the skills and/or knowledge they need to successfully perform to high academic standards.
Effectiveness. The program has proven to be effective in raising the academic achievement levels of "atrisk" students in low-performing schools, based on independent evaluations.
Replicability. The program has been effectively implemented in multiple sites beyond the original pilot school(s).
Support Structures. Professional development, materials, and ongoing implementation support are available for the program, either through the program's developer, independent contractors, or dissemination networks established by schools already in the program.

In addition to information about each program's track record on raising student achievement, we have also attempted to gather and report details about main features and estimated costs. We hope that this information will assist members as they begin weighing the available options against student needs, school goals, and available resources. In deciding which programs warrant further investigation, we urge that you consider each program's "fit," as well the data on its efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Reading Recovery (RR)

Grades Covered	Grade 1.
Curriculum Materials	A set of professional books and a set of approximately 600 "little books" for children are provided. Texts are selected from many early reading series and from trade books of children's literature.
Instructional Support/Professional Development	All teacher leaders (school-level teachers and trainers) are required to complete a year of specialized academic coursework at selected local universities. Instructors of teacher leaders (district-level trainers) are also required to take a year of university classes. Only certified teachers who have received this training are recognized as Reading Recovery tutors. Inservice professional development is also provided, including two annual conferences, a three-day winter conference, and a four-day summer institute for teacher leaders.
School Reform/Restructuring Assistance	Some assistance is available upon request.
Role of Paraprofessionals	Only specially trained, certified teachers are used as tutors. Thus, paraprofessionals may work in the classroom, but do not work directly with the program.
Cost of Implementation	Total estimated start-up costs vary from about $2,500 to $10,000 per student. Costs include about $3,000 for installation of one-way glass, $2,000 for books and materials, and additional costs for tuition for the Reading Recovery teacher leader in training, estimated at $1,200. Other costs include release time (one teacher, tutoring part time, is able to work with about four students per semester).
*Preliminary Results/Effect Size**	Research on Reading Recovery has been uneven and results have been Effect Size2 mixed. At least two careful studies, however, show that, when properly implemented, the program can have significant, positive effects on some measures of reading achievement, with effect sizes ranging from +.57 to +.78. A small study of the Spanish-language version of the program- Descubriendo La Lectura-also showed positive effects. * To give a sense of scale, an effect size of +1.00 would be equivalent to an increase of 100 points on the SAT scale or 15 points of IQ-enough to move a student from the 20th percentile (the normal level of performance for children in poverty) to above the 50th percentile (the norm for mainstream students).

Reading Recovery (RR) is a one-on-one pullout tutorial for first graders who perform at or below the 20th percentile in reading. The program, developed in the 1970s by New Zealand child psychologist Marie Clay, is now in use in more than 9,000 schools across the United States. Reading Recovery is intended to supplement regular classroom instruction in reading and writing. Low-performing students receive 30 minutes of daily tutoring from a trained, certified teacher using methods and lessons that are proscribed, but not scripted, by program developers. The goal is to accelerate reading achievement so that struggling students can match the average performance level of their classmates. When a student has received the maximum number of sessions (60) or can read at a level comparable to their class average, he/she is discontinued from the program.

Main Features

Each Reading Recovery tutor works with about four students during a 12- to 20-week period. Each student receives a total of five sessions per week, which, although individualized, follow a fairly constant structure:

Roaming around the known

"Roaming around the known" is the program's introductory/diagnostic phase, which may last up to 10 sessions. Tutors use a variety of literature-based activities, including the reading of familiar books, to gauge students' functional literacy levels. If a student is judged to be making adequate progress by the end of this period, he or she is "accepted" into the program for the full course of treatment.

Reading a familiar book

First, the student rereads familiar books and stories. During this phase of the lesson, the tutor does not focus on correcting mistakes, and instead keeps a running record of student behavior, paying particular attention to errors, self-corrections and comprehension strategies. This information is then used to inform instruction.

Working with letters

Next, tutors work to extend students' letter and word knowledge. Depending on the student's proficiency level, activities might include identifying and naming letters of the alphabet, matching uppercase and lowercase letters, or putting letters together to form words. At more advanced stages, students write words in their workbooks and on the chalkboard.

Writing a story

Regular writing experience is another important feature of the program. With coaching from the tutor, students compose short messages and stories word by word, focusing on word analysis and spelling. Then students read their products aloud to the tutor. Next, the tutor reinforces concepts of language structure by selecting one of the child's sentences, cutting it up into individual words and asking the child to reassemble it.

Reading a new book

The final phase of the lesson involves the introduction of a new book. The student attempts to read the new text as independently as possible, with orientation and support from the teacher. Although students are taught to decode, the program places a heavy emphasis on the use of context clues and prediction in deciphering new text. After the student has finished reading, student and tutor will discuss the book and the reading strategies that were used. The book is then re-read during the following lesson as "familiar" text.

Results

In recent years, both Reading Recovery and the research into its effectiveness have become quite controversial. Although RR is one of the best known and most studied reading programs in America, critics point to several areas of concern. These include program costs, association with whole language approaches to reading instruction, selective use of data in regard to unsuccessful students, appropriateness of student assessment measures, and sustainability of results. The first two issues are addressed in the "Considerations" section, below. Here, we address the last three issues, which directly relate to research on program efficacy.

Although Reading Recovery was designed to serve the lowest-performing 20th percentile of firstgrade readers, not every struggling student is accepted into the program. Students' initial sessions, referred to as "roaming around the known," were designed to serve a screening, as well as a diagnostic, purpose. Children who seem likely to fail, despite tutoring in RR-those not progressing at the desired pace after 10 lessons-may be referred to special education and removed from the program. In many RR evaluations, these students are never accounted for. Thus, the lowest of the low achievers may be included in reporting for the control group, but excluded from RR data. In fact, some RR evaluations may only include data for students who were "successfully discontinued" (graduated) from the program after the full 60 lessons.

Second, in many evaluation studies, RR students and control group students (in studies where controls were used) are assessed using Reading Recovery-developed instruments. For some, this has raised questions of whether student gains are found using standardized assessments.

And finally, there is debate over whether any benefits are sustained. In this case, the research has been mixed. Some studies indicate that RR students' achievement gains dissipate by the third or fourth grade. Other studies suggest that the program's benefits extend through fourth grade and beyond.

Despite the lack of conclusive longitudinal data and design problems with some of the research, there are a few strong studies indicating that a wellimplemented Reading Recovery program can help low-performing students learn to read. At least two evaluation studies compare the achievement gains of all program and control group students, including those who were screened out of RR during "roaming around the known." Both showed positive results for Reading Recovery. One pilot study involved a within-school design, matching students in different classrooms at six inner-city schools. A second study involved 12 schools in Columbus, Ohio. In this study, students performing in the lowest 20th percentile in reading were randomly assigned to RR or a control group and tested using a battery of program-aligned assessments. Reading Recovery students significantly outperformed students in the control groups on all measures, with effect sizes ranging from +.57 to +.72. A follow-up study indicates that these gains may not be sustainable, however. Students were assigned oral reading measures developed by the program. At the end of first grade, gains for RR students and the cohort group were ES +.72 and +.78, respectively. At the end of second grade, these gains were ES +.29 and +.46, respectively. At the end of the third grade, the results were ES +.14 and +.25, respectively.

In addition, a third, small study evaluated the effects of the bilingual version of Reading Recovery (Descubriendo La Lectura, or DLL). Twenty-three DLL students outperformed 23 matched comparison students in a non-DLL school, with effect sizes ranging from +.097 to +1.71. When comparing these scores to those of a random sample of all students, DLL students also outperformed their peers who were not necessarily in need of DLL services.

Case Study

Arkansas The state of Arkansas approved Reading Recovery for statewide use in 1988. From 1991 to 1994, 1,088 struggling students received the full RR program (defined as having received 60 lessons). Of those students, 940 (86 percent) attained grade level. Fifty-nine students who had successfully completed the program were followed for an additional two years. Compared to a random sample of non-RR students, the RR students tended to perform as well or better on measures of dictation, spelling and text reading in both the third and fourth grades.

Considerations

Reading Recovery is an early intervention program with several strengths and weaknesses that faculty members should consider carefully. First, one of the most serious critiques of the program has been that it does not reflect the latest research consensus on beginning reading acquisition. Indeed, there are alternative programs that are more aligned with consensus research and contain more systematic, explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics-i.e., RR encourages the use of context cues, rather than decoding, and tends to give students the keys to sound-symbol relationships only after they have encountered problems with text. Nevertheless, it's also true that RR has evaluation data showing it is a program that can be used effectively.

Second, RR may be prohibitively expensive for many schools-especially those with large numbers of students in reading failure. For example, it has been estimated that an average RR teacher only serves about seven students per year, while start-up cost estimates range from $2,500 to $10,000 per student. Another problem for low-performing schools arises from the design of the program-i.e., it is intended as a means to raise the performance of the lowest-achieving 20 percent of students up to the class average. Obviously, this is of limited benefit to schools where overall average reading levels are unacceptably low.

On the other hand, another frequent criticism actually signals a great strength: The program requires extensive teacher training. According to a recent report from the National Research Council, "Despite the controversies regarding the efficacy of Reading Recovery, a number of intervention programs owe their design features to it, and it offers two important lessons. First, the program demonstrates that, in order to approach reading instruction with a deep and principled understanding of the reading process and its implications for instruction, teachers need opportunities for sustained professional development. Second, it is nothing short of foolhardy to make enormous investments in remedial instruction and then return children to classroom instruction that will not serve to maintain the gains they made in the remedial program."

Selected resources

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

Bracey, G. W. (Feb. 1995). "Reading Recovery: Is it effective? Is it cost effective?" Phi Delta Kappan, 76(6).

Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L. & McNaught, M. (1995). "An evaluation of Reading Recovery." Reading Research Quarterly, 30.

Iversen, S. & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). "Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program." Journal of Educational Psychology, 85.

Shanahan, T. & Barr, R. (1995). "Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners." Reading Research Quarterly, 30.

Wasik, B. A. & Slavin, R. E. (1993). "Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs." Reading Research Quarterly, 28.

For more information

Reading Recovery Council of North America, 1929 Kenny Road, Suite 100, Columbus, OH 43210 Phone: 614/292-1795. Fax: 614/292-4404. Email: bussell.4@osu.edu Internet: http://www.readingrecovery.org.

Additional Reading

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

American Educator, (1998) Vol. 22, Nos. 1&2: Spring/Summer.

Adams, M.J., Foorman, B.R., Lundberg, I. & Beeler, T. (1998). "The elusive phoneme."

Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Hamilton, R.I. & Kucan, L. (1998). "Getting at the meaning"

Cunningham, A.E. & Stanovich, K.E. (1998) "What reading does for the mind."

Greene, J.F. (1998). "Another chance."

Moats, L.C. (1998). "Teaching decoding."

Torgesen, J.K. (1998) "Catch them before they fall."

American Educator, (1995) Vol. 19, No. 2: Summer.

Adams, M.J. & Bruck, M. (1995). "Resolving the 'Great Debate'."

Beck, I.L. & Juel, C. (1995). "The role of decoding in learning to read."

McPike, E. (1995). "Learning to read: Schooling's first mission."

Moats, L.C. (1994). "The missing foundation in teacher education."

Blachman, B.A. (1997). Foundations of Reading Acquisition and Dyslexia: Implications for Early Intervention. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw Hill.

Gough, P. B. & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). "Learning to read: An unnatural act." Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30.

Herman, R. and Stringfield, S. (1997). Ten Promising Programs for Educating All Children: Evidence of Impact. Arlington, Va.: Educational Research Service.

Learning First Alliance (1998). Every Child Reading: An Action Plan. Washington, D.C.: LFA.

Learning to Read, Reading to Learn (1997). Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers.

National Research Council (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Raising Student Achievement: A Resource Guide for Improving Low-Performing Schools (1997). Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers.

Shaywitz, S.E. (Nov. 1996). "Dyslexia." Scientific American.

Slavin, R.E. & Fashola, O.S. (1998). Show Me the Evidence! Proven and Promising Programs for America's Schools. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L. & Wasik, B.A. [Eds.] (1994). Preventing Early School Failure: Research, Policy and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stanovich, K.E. (1994). "Romance and reality." The Reading Teacher, 47.

Endnotes

Click the "Endnotes" link above to hide these endnotes.

1. Alliance for Best Practices in Education Policy, Education Commission of the States, 1998 brief on Reading Recovery.

2. An effect size is a standard means of expressing achievement gains and losses across studies, showing differences between experimental and control groups in terms of standard deviation. An effect size of +1.00 indicates that the experimental group outperformed the control group by one full standard deviation. To give a sense of scale, this would be equivalent to an increase of 100 points on the SAT scale, two stanines, 21 NCEs (normal curve equivalent ranks) or 15 points of IQ (Fashola and Slavin, 1996)-enough to move a student from the 20th percentile (the normal level of performance for children in poverty) to above the 50th percentile (in range with mainstream America). Because of differences among study designs and assessments, this can only be considered a "rough" measure of comparison. In general, an effect size of +.25 or more is considered to be educationally significant.

3. Hiebert, E. H. (1994). "Reading Recovery in the United States: What difference does it make to an age cohort?" Educational Researcher, 23(9), 15-25. Also, Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1994). "Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners." Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958-996.

4. Huck, C.S., Pinnell, G.S. (1986). The Reading Recovery Project in Columbus, Ohio: Pilot year, 1984-85.Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. Also, Pinnell, G.S. (April 1988). "Sustained effects of a strategy-centered early intervention program in reading." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

5. Pinnell, G.S., Short, A.G., Lyons, C.A., & Young, P. (1986). The Reading Recovery Project in Columbus, Ohio, Year I: 1985- 86. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. Also, DeFord, D.E., Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. & Young, P. (1988). Reading Recovery: Volume IX, report on the follow-up studies. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.

6. Escamilla, K. (1994). "Descubriendo La Lectura: An early intervention literacy program in Spanish." Literacy, Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 57-70.

7. Briggs, K.L. & Clark, C. (1997). Reading Programs For Students in the Lower Elementary Grades: What Does the Research Say? Austin, Tex.: Texas Center for Educational Research.

8. Wake County Public School System (1995). Evaluation report: Reading Recovery, 1990-94. Raleigh, N.C.: WCPSS.

9. National Research Council (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.