Learning Disabilities & Reading Disabilities

Recently, Wrightslaw challenged the effectiveness of Reading Recovery, a widely used tutoring program for first graders who struggle with reading. Dr. Melissa Farrall, author of the challenge, correctly reported that “an international group of experts and researchers in reading development and intervention [found]… little evidence that Reading Recovery is effective.”

In her challenge, Dr. Farrall also asserted that

• “The scientific community … rejected [Reading Recovery’s] theoretical underpinnings.
• “Reading Recovery is ineffective with poor readers.
• “Reading Recovery does not outperform other methodologies that require less expense and less training.
• “Students [tutored by Reading Recovery] do not generalize and maintain their skills.”

Implications

In essence, Wrightslaw warned parents against Reading Recovery, implying that it shortchanged struggling readers. If this is true, schools that use it may be violating the provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) that requires special education, related services, and the like to be “based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable [so the child can] advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals [and] be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum” (IDEA, §300.320). This reasoning suggests that parents who challenge Reading Recovery in court may well prevail as the method lacks research supporting its effectiveness. But because the reasoning is based on faulty assumptions, it’s probably wrong.

New Information

The letter that Dr. Farrall referred to was signed by some of the world’s top researchers and scholars—in 2002. Since then, additional research has supported the effectiveness of Reading Recovery.

• In 2008, the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse found that Reading Recovery had “positive effects in alphabetics and general reading achievement and potentially positive effects in fluency and comprehension” (p. 6). This is a powerful endorsement.
• In 2009, The Johns Hopkins University’s Best Evidence Encyclopedia concluded that “Reading Recovery has strong evidence of effectiveness for struggling readers.” This too is a powerful endorsement.
• In 2009, Robert Schwartz and his colleagues published an insightful analysis of the research on Reading Recovery. They concluded that “there is more than enough experimental evidence … to conclude that Reading Recovery can make a large and significant increase in the early literacy learning of the most at-risk group of students (p. 9) …. [Reading Recovery] returns 70–90% of struggling readers who received a full intervention to average performance levels. The 10–30% of students who do not reach grade-level criteria … have received a dynamic assessment that can guide recommendations for further literacy support” (p. 10). This is a powerful analysis.

Perfection

Reading Recovery is not perfect. Critics will continue to assail it. And some of their criticisms may well be valid.

But no prepackaged program is perfect. Perfection is a standard that the science of instruction hasn’t achieved. But neither is Reading Recovery a program without merit. It has strong support from some studies and from outstanding professionals. Thus, parents who challenge it in court—as a program that lacks the support of peer-reviewed research—may well lose, especially if the school’s experts understand the research. (And if the court believes, as most do, that decisions about methodology are the province of schools and professional educators, not courts.)

A Recommendation

If your first grader struggles with reading, don’t get caught in the struggle between the pro- and anti-Reading Recovery forces. Arguing over methodology can waste precious, irreplaceable instructional time that your child needs—now.

If his school administrators and teachers are knowledgeable about Reading Recovery, skilled in using and monitoring it, and passionate about it, consider the merits of trying it. Their knowledge, skill, and passion can dramatically increase the odds of success. They may not have the same knowledge, skill, and passion about another program. Moreover, important research supports it and suggests that it works for most children at-risk for reading disabilities. But if you try it, do so with this mindset, a mindset for all programs: Monitor, monitor, monitor. And keep monitoring, well after he starts doing well.

If Reading Recovery works for your child, continue it. If it proves a struggle, if his progress is poor, quickly get him a full reading evaluation that includes trial teaching for identifying other approaches likely to accelerate progress. Don’t make the mistake of committing to a program—to Reading Recovery, to Orton-Gillingham, to any program. Instead, commit to his progress.

Chapter 3 of Reading Disabilities: Beating the Odds will help you work with the school once you suspect your child is at risk for reading disabilities. Chapter 5 will help you make effective use of reading evaluations. Chapter 7 will help you to monitor your child’s progress.

If you have comments or concerns about Reading Recovery, please share them with our readers. If you think we’re wrong, tell us why.

Resources

Best Evidence Encyclopedia (2009). Retrieved 1/30/2010, from http://www.bestevidence.org/overviews/R/ReadingRecovery.pdf.

Farrall, M. (2009). Reading Recovery: What do School Districts Get for Their Money? A Review of the Research. Retrieved 12/8/09, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/read.rr.research.farrall.htm.

Margolis, H., & Brannigan, G. G. (2009). Reading Disabilities: Beating the Odds. Voorhees, NJ: Reading2008 & Beyond (www.reading2008.com).

Schwartz, R. M., Hobsbaum, A., Briggs, C., & Scull, J. (2009). Reading Recovery and Evidence based practice: A response to Reynolds and Wheldall (2007). International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56(1): 5–15.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2008). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Reading Recovery. Retrieved 1/8/2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/reading_recovery/.

Howard Margolis © Reading2008 & Beyond