This is a letter a colleague of mine sent to the Pennsylvania Department of Education regarding the use of Reading Recovery. I admire her so much for her careful research and her passion to help students receive a research-based education. There is controversy over Reading Recovery and after seeing the program personally I have not seen gains for students. In addition, the research is not supportive. Please take the time to read Pam Cook’s letter and view the links and make your own educated decision.
Dr. Carol
Dear Dr. Zahorchak,
I am writing to express both my appreciation and concern regarding the PA Department of Education Race to the Top application: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/…/charter_schools_race_to_the_top/
I am an education consultant/advocate working on behalf of students with disabilities in western PA and have served on the PA Dept of Education’s RtI Parent Engagement Group since 2007.
In the PDE’s application for Race to the Top funds, I was pleased to see the focus on data-based decision making using “real time” data and a multi-measure evaluation system for teachers that takes into account data on student growth as a significant factor. I was also pleased to see the development of “Individual Learning Plans” for all students included in the application.
I am very surprised and disappointed to see Reading Recovery listed under “required programs in turnabout schools” (page 25).
According to “Evidence-Based Research on Reading Recovery”, a 5/21/02 joint statement by 31 leading reading researchers, Reading Recovery should not be used for the following reasons ( http://www.nrrf.org/rrletter_5-02.pdf http://www.nrrf.org/rrletter_5-02.pdf):
* Reading Recovery is not successful with its targeted student population, the lowest performing students. * Reading Recovery is not a cost effective solution. * Reading Recovery efficacy studies do not use standard assessment measures. * Reading Recovery does not change by capitalizing on research.
I’m really concerned that PDE is requiring Reading Recovery (“or comparable elementary reading intervention model”) for all students below grade level in grades 1 through 3 when Reading Recovery has been so widely criticized by so many highly regarded researchers. Please also see:
READING RECOVERY: AN EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS
Bonnie Grossen and Gail Coulter , University of Oregon
http://www.literacycare.com/patients/interventions/readingrecovery.pdf http://www.literacycare.com/patients/interventions/readingrecovery.pdf “If a school’s goal is to raise the overall level of reading performance, Reading Recovery is not the appropriate intervention to choose. Both Reading Recovery advocates and critics agree on this point.”
and
Reading Recovery: What do School Districts Get for Their Money? http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/read.rr.research.farrall.htm http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/read.rr.research.farrall.htm
“Summary” “Independent research does not validate Reading Recovery’s claims of success. Reading Recovery lacks a standard, nondiscriminatory goal for improving reading skills. Reading Recovery does not use standard measures of assessment to document progress.”
“In house-data from Reading Recovery does not account for the high number of children who are dropped from the program, or for the selection process used to determine eligibility for the program.”
“Reading Recovery does not reduce the need for special education and Title I services. Finally, Reading Recovery is expensive when compared to other programs.”
Is the PA Department of Education aware of these concerns? I know that Reading Recovery has met What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_Reading_Recovery_031907.pdf). In view of the findings above, the reasoning behind this is a mystery to me.
Finally, the following quotes highlight the extreme importance of this issue ( http://www.childrenofthecode.org/cotcintro.htm http://www.childrenofthecode.org/cotcintro.htm):
“No other skill taught in school and learned by school children is more important than reading. It is the gateway to all other knowledge. Teaching students to read by the end of third grade is the single most important task assigned to elementary schools. Those who learn to read with ease in the early grades have a foundation on which to build new knowledge. Those who do not are doomed to repeated cycles of frustration and failure.” – American Federation of Teachers
“Reading is absolutely fundamental. It’s almost trite to say that. But in our society, the inability to be fluent consigns children to failure in school and consigns adults to the lowest strata of job and life opportunities.” – Dr. Grover Whitehurst, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Education – Director, Institute of Education Sciences.”
In my opinion, requiring that Reading Recovery be taught to all students below grade level in grades 1 through 3 in our lowest performing schools will certainly not help Pennsylvania achieve success in its “Race to the Top” and will doom Pennsylvania’s “children to failure in school”.
I would very much appreciate hearing your views on this concern.
Pam Cook, M.Ed. ABC Consulting Services http://www.ABCadvocacy.net www.ABCadvocacy.net