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: 2157
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: 2157
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: 2157
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
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2157
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 May 18, 2019 1:28 pm

I'm cross-referencing this thread with the campaign and petition in Victoria, Australia, for Reading Recovery to be withdrawn from schools - please consider signing the petition in support of our Australian colleagues.

Perhaps we need to generate some kind of global petition? It is overdue that Reading Recovery was disbanded. The RR personnel could consider creating a structured programme that does not rely on multi-cueing word-guessing - that is, asking children to read books that they cannot read without resorting to guessing:

'It was damaging': the campaign to rid schools of Reading Recovery

By Henrietta Cook



viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1225&p=2510#p2510
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2157
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 » Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:27 pm

Here is a dismaying update regarding the response to the critique of Reading Recovery by Pam Cook and Kay Lipsitz - this message below is from Pam and Kay:


Please feel free to share with others who share our concerns:

This site also includes “The Science of Reading Resources for Educators, Families, and Taxpayers”, an extensive compilation of evidence-based resources.

James Chapman has asked that we share this with you:


To all those who advocate for effective, evidence-based, and equitable reading instruction for all children,

On August 22, 2017, the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) published “The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know”, a peer-reviewed, open access article by Cook, Rodes, and Lipsitz in the LDA’s academic journal, Reading Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal published by Sagamore-Venture Publishing.

According to this article’s abstract, “Reading Recovery, a meaning-based reading program designed for young children at risk of reading failure, is widely implemented across the United States…. Overall, there is very limited evidence of Reading Recovery’s efficacy as an effective long-term reading intervention. We discuss the limitations of the Reading Recovery approach, how Reading Recovery can be improved, and strongly recommend that schools do not adopt this program unless it incorporates all components of evidence-based reading instruction.

Our journal article provided an opportunity for Reading Recovery to engage in a respectful academic response. Instead, the Reading Recovery Council of North America (RRCNA) chose to threaten “legal action” and post an anonymous and disparaging rebuttal, “The Truth about Reading Recovery”.

The RRCNA’s response resulted in the withdrawal of the LDA open access article from the LDA and Sagamore websites in October.

In 2018, the RRCNA posted its actions on its Facebook and RRCNA websites. This was followed in 2019 by a conference presentation and two internet articles that again disparaged “The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know”.

The link below includes our response to the RRCNA’s actions. As the authors of “The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know”, we want to make clear that we do not hold the LDA or Sagamore-Venture Publishing responsible as they were the primary targets of the RRCNA’s threat of “legal action”.

However, we do feel it’s important that the LDA and Sagamore-Venture Publishing, and organizations like them, know that an effective option is available when they are faced with unjustified threats of legal action/libel litigation targeted at academic journals.

To learn more, please click on this link below:

Response to Reading Recovery
(See: “Response to The Truth about Reading Recovery”)

https://sites.google.com/view/response- ... overy/home

Please feel free to share with others who share our concerns.

Respectfully,

Pamela Cook and Kay Lipsitz

Return to “General Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests