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: 2239
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: 2239
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: 2239
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: 2239
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: 2239
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
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
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 » Sun May 17, 2020 12:16 pm

This is an excellent post, amongst many other excellent posts, by the author of TheReadingApe blog. But what I don't understand, and I've said so via Twitter, is why the author of the blog does not signpost the information flagged up by the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction, for example, this particular thread featuring worries raised about the Reading Recovery programme featured at the end of this post here:

The very peculiar case of Goodman, Smith and Clay (or why the whole language approach just wont die).

April 27, 2020


https://www.thereadingape.com/single-po ... t-wont-die

Marie Clay’s Reading Recovery (1995) programme is perhaps the most remarkable evidence of the indestructability of the whole language approach to reading. Clay (1991) popularised the whole language approach in New Zealand along with Smith and Elley who maintained that, ‘children learn to read themselves; direct teaching plays only a minor role…’ (1995, p87) as learning to read was akin to learning to speak. This resulted in 20% of all six-year-olds in New Zealand making little or no progress in toward gaining independence in reading in their first year of schooling (Chapman, Turner and Prochnow, 2001). The solution was Clay’s Reading Recovery programme: the same approach that had failed the same children in their first year of teaching. It seemed the ultimate insult to these struggling readers and should have been the final nail in the whole language coffin. But this reading instruction Rasputin refused to die and clung to life with a remarkable feat of resurrection.

Reading recovery worked.

Studies showed that not only is it beneficial, it is cost effective too (May et al, 2015) and is recognised as good practice by the Early Intervention Foundation, European Literacy Policy Network, Institute for Effective Education and What Works Clearinghouse as well as being advocated by London University’s UCL. A recent US study (Sirindes et. al, 2018) reaffirmed these assertions which were backed on social media by education heavyweight Dylan Wiliam (2018).

How can a whole language model of reading instruction defy the avalanche of research that undermines the efficacy of the approach? How can it work when the eyes and brain cannot process the contextual adjustment involved in psycholinguistic guessing fast enough for it facilitate efficient reading (https://www.thereadingape.com/single-po ... ple-cueing).

The answer lies partly in the model and partly in the research. The programme constitutes twenty weeks of daily, thirty-minute one-to-one sessions with a trained practitioner. Fifty hours of one-to-one reading, however poor the instruction, will result in some improvements for most readers. This may be the result of improved guessing strategies, greater numbers of words recognised by shape and far greater opportunities for the child to start to crack the alphabetic code by themselves as well as any phonics instruction the child is receiving outside of the programme. Furthermore, the research is not nearly as positive as it at first appears. Tumner and Chapman (2016) questioned the research design of May et al (2015) as a result of the lowest performing students being excluded from the study. They concluded that the successful completion rate of students was modest and that there was no evidence that reading recovery leads to sustained literacy gains. More damning, however, is their highlighting of the range of experiences and interventions that the control group were exposed to. This cuts to the kernel of the traction maintained by Reading Recovery: until it is tested directly against an efficient systematic phonics programme it will continue to indicate modest improvements in reading for its participants. Reading Recovery versus fifty hours of extra one-to-one linguistic phonics instruction: no contest.

When the study is finally commissioned and completed, expect some very red faces in the world of education academia – not least at UCL.


And I would go further than suggesting the academics at UCL would be red-faced if ever any researchers ever do get round to researching the efficacy of Reading Recovery as an intervention compared to high-quality phonics provision, there should be other red faces too.

It is surely encumbent on the government in England to hold UCL to account for its promotion of Reading Recovery which is in direct contradiction to the official guidance, informed by a body of international research findings and leading-edge phonics practice, now embodied in the National Curriculum for reading instruction and upheld by the Ofsted (schools' inspectorate) Framework 2019 - and 'Teaching Standards' (guidance for teacher-training).

And why is the Education Endowment Foundation not pursuing this line of research in England considering developments in England to date?
Geoff Vaughan
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:03 am
Contact:

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

Postby Geoff Vaughan » Mon Jul 06, 2020 12:03 pm

I would also really like to see 'thereadingape' making a mention of the work and content of IFERI in their excellent, continuing blog posts. The quality of the research cited and the clarity of the arguments certainly chime with what IFERI believes in.
The situation with both IoE at UCL and RR continues to be of concern. It would be so good to see a movement in the direction of acknowledging that the science of reading is providing far more clarity and evidence about what actually works. This would hopefully also be reflected by the EEF. There is so much to do to get every child reading and joined-up thinking would certainly go a long way. Powerful and influential education institutions and bodies pulling in the same direction would make huge strides in tackling illiteracy both in the UK and internationally.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
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 » Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:54 am

SchoolsWeek reports on the omission of the KPMG Foundation's report on Reading Recovery - as revealed by the pioneer Professor Jennifer Buckingham:

KPMG Foundation report left out negative findings

Jess Staufenberg


https://schoolsweek.co.uk/kpmg-foundati ... -findings/

An education foundation left out negative findings from a study of its flagship literacy programme.

In December the KPMG Foundation, the charity arm of the global consultancy firm, released the findings of a major study into the Reading Recovery programme.

The report said pupils on the programme, which the charity’s website describes as its “flagship project”, were twice as likely to get five good GCSEs.

But the original report, put together by academics at the UCL Institute of Education and seen by Schools Week, showed findings relating to a comparison group were left out of the version released by KPMG.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2239
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 Sep 22, 2020 1:58 pm

This is an update which is relevant to the Reading Recovery programme and its proponents.

In England's context, the Government has promised hundreds of millions of pounds of public money to support the Education Endowment Foundation with its 'National Tutoring Programme' set up as a response to interrupted education because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

We can show, however, that the direction of travel of the Education Endowment Foundation is not in line with the Government's guidance for teachers, and not in line with the Ofsted schools' inspection handbook. I've written this post describing this:

The Education Endowment Foundation is actively undermining the Government in England and here is the evidence trail to show this



https://debbiehepplewhite.com/the-educa ... show-this/

Return to “General Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests