The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know

This is the hub of the site and the place to post queries, start discussions and join in the conversation!
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:03 pm

Faith Borkowsky writes about the 'idiocy' of combining Reading Recovery, and/or its multi-cueing word-guessing methods underpinning other programmes, via her site HIGH FIVE LITERACY AND ACADEMIC COACHING:

READING RECOVERY HOPS ON

November 8, 2018

Faith Borkowsky

Early Intervention

“Why are we teaching phonics in fourth grade and asking first graders to do ‘deep reading’ of words they haven’t been taught to read?”


https://highfiveliteracy.com/2018/11/08 ... y-hops-on/

Evidence for ESSA cites reports generated by The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), which uses existing research on different programs, products, practices, and policies in education. The Evidence Snapshot on WWC’s website appears to give Reading Recovery a strong rating; however, when you look at the details, you will see that the so-called “evidence” relied upon by WWC is minimal. In fact, the underlying studies relied upon by WWC in assessing Reading Recovery are flawed, if not entirely invalid, due to the clear conflict of interest that exists between Reading Recovery and the measurement relied upon by WWC to support its strength. The WWC website states in the “WWC Effectiveness” section, as follows:

“… for the four beginning reading domains, subtests of the Clay Observation Survey were used in some of the studies. The Clay Observation Survey was developed by Dr. Marie Clay, who also developed Reading Recovery®. Although there is no evidence of obvious over-alignment between the measure and the intervention (intervention students receiving exposure to the measure during the course of treatment), it should be noted that the same person developed the intervention and the measure.”

What does that even mean? In a blatant example of doublespeak and, perhaps, purposely cryptic and confusing language, WWC discloses the conflict of interest while at the same time essentially saying “Trust us. There was no over-alignment.” In other words, just ignore the fact that Dr. Clay developed both Reading Recovery and the survey used to gauge its effectiveness.


Faith concludes:

The “Topsy Turvy” world that is education would like us to believe that balance is best. But when we parse the doublespeak, we can see the problem clearly. Is it any wonder why children need phonics in fourth grade while children in first grade are being asked to do deep reading of words they haven’t been taught to read?


Do read the whole piece.

I myself have seen masses of 'doublespeak' in the world of education. But try holding anyone in authority to account for this state of affairs - it's impossible.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:43 pm

As I write, there is outrage and incredulity being expressed via Twitter about the publication of yet another study of the Reading Recovery intervention programme - this time in England, claiming the long term effect of RR is better GCSE outcomes. I confess I am one of those people vociferously expressing my dismay.

Thank goodness for well-respected science teacher-blogger, Greg Ashman, who has immediately added to the debate with another of his many measured posts:

Another flawed Reading Recovery study to add to the pack


https://gregashman.wordpress.com/2018/1 ... -the-pack/

Do read Greg's post in full - it is not long. He concludes:

In short, this new study demonstrates nothing much, even if we are inclined to believe that Reading Recovery has some effect.

The reason it is necessary to critique studies of this kind is that there are so many of them. As they pile up, commentators make statements to the effect that no other reading intervention has generated such a wealth of positive evidence and the individual studies get buried behind Hattie- or Education Endowment Foundation-style ‘effect sizes’ that teachers and school leaders take as evidence of effectiveness.

But it is not evidence. It is a house of cards.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:04 am

Dr Jennifer Buckingham writes an expose of the way Reading Recovery research findings are so often misrepresented because of missing statistics and missing information - I've added this Centre for Independent Studies policy document, published on 7th February 2019, to the 'Research and Recommended Reading' forum as well as to this thread:

Reading Recovery: A Failed Investment

Jennifer Buckingham


viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1195&p=2450#p2450

Return to “General Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests