Transcript Reading Recovery: Can School Psychologists Contribute

Reading Recovery:
Can School Psychologists Contribute?
Ruth M. Kelly, Western Illinois University
Kelly R. Waner, Special Education Association of Adams County
Gay L. Hull, Bi-County Special Education Coop
INTRODUCTION
Reading Recovery is a commonly used early reading
intervention which has been found to have positive scientifically
based outcomes according to a review by the U.S. Department
of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (2008). The WWC
review found positive effects for alphabetics and general reading
achievement, and potentially positive effects for fluency and
comprehension.
Despite these positive ratings, the program continues to be
controversial with some reading experts. Over thirty reading
experts published a letter on the Wrightslaw Web site (2002)
expressing concerns about the program. They sited scientifically
based independent evidence that Reading Recovery does not
work with the lowest performing readers and they state that
Reading Recovery published studies exclude 25-40% of the
lowest readers from their results. The outside experts question
the methodology used in the evaluation studies. These experts
believe the program could be improved by teaching in small
groups instead of one-on-one, adding explicit instruction in
phonics and phonemic awareness, using standardized
measurement tools, and monitoring progress.
Dorn (2008) provides a description of how Reading Recovery
fits the RtI framework. She states 80% of all students need to
meet reading goals with the core curriculum from the classroom
instruction. Reading Recovery is a Tier 3 intervention in a 4 tier
model. Students are identified for more intensive interventions
with entry/exit assessments which include the Observation
Survey and text reading levels. She suggests using running
records, book graphs and writing vocabulary charts for progress
monitoring tools. The Fountas and Pinnell, Leveled Literacy
Intervention provides instructional reading levels for the first
three grades.
This paper will explore the role of school psychologists in the
implementation of Reading Recovery as part of the Response to
Intervention (RTI) service delivery model. The types of data
collected by literacy interventionists who rely on Dorn’s literacy
model will be compared with performance of the students on the
high stake’s reading exam given to every third grade student in
the state and the recommendation that 80% of students make
adequate reading progress in Tier 1.
METHOD
Participants
Two primary (K-3 grades) elementary schools, with 330 and 224
student enrollment in a small Midwestern city, collected data from
students at each grade level. The student population was primarily
white (82%/84%). Both schools met adequate yearly progress in
reading (67%/78%) in the spring of 2009.
Materials
The literacy teachers shared their assessment tools and assessment
scores for the 2009-2010 school year. The assessment tools at each
grade level included the student’s current reading level based on
placement in Fountas & Pinnell (2009) Leveled Literacy
Intervention curriculum and writing rubrics based on Fountas &
Pinnell and Dorn & Soffos, (2001). No psychometric data was
reported for these methods.
RESULTS
According to the high stakes state standards, 67% and 78% of the
students met the reading goal in Spring 2009. Reading goals were
met by 66% and 87% of third grade students in the fall 2009
assessments conducted by literacy interventionists. The most recent
reading assessment results show 59% and 84% met the goals in
January 2010 for 3rd grade students. One school also reported data
collected by the literacy interventionists during fall 2008 and 61%
of students met the reading goal.
CONCLUSION
It was noted that many reading researchers (Wrights Law,
2002) have expressed concerns about Reading Recovery in
regards to instructional content, grouping size, standardization,
and monitoring . These are the same concerns that practicing
school psychologists deal with on a daily basis when working
with problem solving teams and students who are displaying
reading difficulties. As practitioners, the movement into a
response to intervention model has prompted many of us to ask
or explore: what is being taught in general education and pull
out programs, how are the students’ needs met, how are
students grouped, how is progress monitored, and how do you
know whether or not additional reading supports need to be
implemented or additional evaluation information needs to be
collected in order to access special education? The assessmentintervention link that has been emphasized by the RtI model,
has had a significant impact on the role of school psychologists
and their ability to facilitate the movement of educational
teams and educators into a scientific, research based model of
educational decision making. The data obtained through this
project, illustrates several of the dilemma that practitioners
experience making the assessment-intervention link.
First, the data showed that one of the schools in this project
was not matching the proposed percentages of students in the
three tiered intervention model of service delivery (Dorn,
2008). The RtI model proposes 80% of the school population
should be in Tier I. According to the data from School 1, the
literacy interventionists were consistent with their
identification of between 59-66% of third grade students who
met regular education reading goals. This was also consistent
with the data from the state reading exam (67%). However, the
2009-2010 data suggests that more students were identified as
needing extra help than would be endorsed by RtI advocates.
The second school showed more students meeting reading
goals (84-87%) according to reading interventionist data, but
state reading exam showed fewer students met reading goals
(78%).
The schools need to address whether the general education
curriculum is teaching the fundamentals, the Big 5 Ideas that
the National Reading Panel details as being the essentials to
effective instruction. Other questions include: Should the
benchmark tools (text levels or writing rubrics) be changed?
Was progress monitoring data collected and reviewed? Were
tiered interventions implemented to meet the needs of students
not making progress towards reading goals?