Many parents of kindergartners and first graders at-risk for reading disabilities make this mistake: They hastily challenge their school’s decision to use Reading Recovery to teach their child to read. Their reasoning is simple: Reading Recovery doesn’t work; the research shows it doesn’t work; lawyers and other experts say so. And if they challenge Reading Recovery in court, they’ll win because the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) requires schools to use “peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable” (§300.320).
But as I wrote in a previous posting, they’re wrong. Plenty of research supports the effectiveness of Reading Recovery. In 2005, Richard Allington, an outstanding literacy scholar whose work always teaches me a great deal, summarized much of the research on Reading Recovery. He made these points, points that can easily undermine the claim that peer-reviewed research doesn’t support the use of Reading Recovery:
- D’Agostino and Murphy (2004) [reported on a study] of 36 studies of Reading Recovery…. When examining only … [students who had finished the program], the Reading Recovery students improved significantly on all measures.
- The Brooks, Flanagan, Henkhuzens, and Hutchinson (1998) report analyzed 20 British studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of about 30 approaches to early reading interventions. Of particular interest is the evidence that Reading Recovery and Paired Reading produced sustained gains (evidence strongest for children receiving free lunch).
- Reading Recovery was found effective when compared to other tutoring interventions. Wasik and Slavin (1993) reported Reading Recovery as one of several expert tutoring approaches that produced reliable, positive effects on struggling readers’ reading development.
- Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, and McNaught (1995) provided a conservative analysis of Reading Recovery effects. They found that Reading Recovery was able to accelerate the reading growth of 35% of children who would not reach the level of successful peers under other conditions. Reading Recovery participants performed significantly better than controls on word reading and word attack but not on a measure of phoneme awareness.
- If evidence—scientific research evidence—was the true standard for decisions, then Reading Recovery and other tutoring interventions would be available for every child who could benefit from them.
- There is a powerful research base supporting the efficacy of Reading Recovery specifically, and for expert, intensive tutoring interventions in general. … While I believe that Reading Recovery has more research evidence supporting its efficacy than any other intervention in the marketplace, I do think we can improve on Reading Recovery.
Please note that I am not advocating the use of Reading Recovery. I am not saying it is perfect. I am not saying it is the best method for your child. I am saying, however, that research supports its use and that it may prove effective with your child. Unfortunately, the only way to find out is to try it and while doing so, to carefully and frequently monitor its effectiveness. The monitoring data will tell you if it’s working. If it is, stick with it; there’s no need for an impartial hearing. If it’s not, you now have hard, specific, relevant evidence to make your case.
One criticism about my suggestion is this: Why waste time with a method that might not succeed? The answer: Reading Recovery has as good a chance of succeeding as any other method. And other methods—Orton-Gillingham, Lindamood-Bell, the Wilson Reading System—methods with even less research support, may have even less chance of succeeding.
For information on how to determine if your child is at-risk for reading disabilities, read chapters 2 and 3 of Reading Disabilities: Beating the Odds (www.reading2008.com). For information on monitoring, read chapter 7, for information on solving conflicts with schools and preparing IEPs, read chapters 8, 10, and 11.
As always, feel free to comment on our posts. And if you disagree, tell us why.
Resources
Allington, R. (2005). How Much Evidence Is Enough Evidence? Journal of Reading Recovery, 4(2), 8-11.
Margolis, H., & Brannigan, G. G. (2009). Reading Disabilities: Beating the Odds. Voorhees, NJ: Reading2008 & Beyond (www.reading2008.com).
Howard Margolis (c) Reading2008 & Beyond http://www.reading2008.com/blog
When my son was going to be labelled slightly retarded because he couldn’t read I told the principal of the school to give me 3 months and he would be reading.
I worked with him constantly and it was working he was learning to read.
I came up with my own ways and teachers laughed at me but it worked.
But he also had a food alergy. Yes I know it doesn’t seem like it is connected but a food alergy can be a cerebral alergy. Doesn’t show up in skin tests and is very hard to figure out.
My son’s was to citrus. Any form plus citric acid which is used as a mold inhibitor in most foods.
When he would have a glass of orange juice he would go hyper and he would be dyslixic. Get the juice out of his system and the reading was normal. He is now an english teacher in a different country and loving it. But he still cannot have any citrus or he is dyslexic until it leaves his system.
So before you panic try finding out if your child has an alergy that is causing the problem.
If it is change the diet to avoid the symptoms.
Thank you Linda. One of the first things a diagnostician should do is eliminate probable and then possible physical causes. That’s one reason an interdisciplinary model–which is rare in schools–is so important. Related to your experience (but not allergies) are three important areas that are usually overlooked: nutrition, exercise, and sleep. Again, thank you. — H
is there someplace I could send what worked with teaching my son to read.
I don’t know if it is a way for others but it might help someone.
Thanks for your comment.
I think many parents would want to know what worked for your son. Please feel free to describe what worked by (a) commenting on one or several posts, or (b) writing a post of your own and submitting it to me at howard@reading2008.com. I’ll probably edit it and send it back to you for approval. If you follow our blog, you might notice that we occasionally have guest posts (and we would like more).
I hope my comments help.