What Evidence Says About Reading RecoveryExecutive Summary

For the Full Report

A copy of the full 77-page report, “What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery,” can bedownloaded from the Reading Recovery Web site, www.readingrecovery.org, or you mayvisit the Web site to find instructions for ordering a printed copy.

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery

CONTENTS

1. Reading Recovery is highly successful with lowest-performing first-grade students. . . . . . . . . . . .2

2. Cost-effectiveness in a complex concept in education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

3. Reading Recovery uses standard assessment measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

4. Change is an integral part of the Reading Recovery design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

University Training Centers for Reading Recovery in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Authorship

This report is written by members of the North American Trainers Group, an organizationwhich includes researchers and academics from Reading Recovery’s 23 university trainingcenters in the United States. It was published by the Reading Recovery Council of NorthAmerica, a not-for-profit organization with the mission of making Reading Recovery available to every first-grade child who needs its support to learn to read and write.

1929 Kenny Road , Suite 100Columbus, OH 43210-1069

www.readingrecovery.org

© 2002 Reading Recovery® Council of North America, Inc. All rights reserved.

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery page 1

In May 2002, a letter criticizing ReadingRecovery was widely distributed to mem-bers of Congress and the education com-munity via the Internet. Although the let-ter purports to be an academic debate, itsmotivation appears to be political. The let-ter was released as states and local schooldistricts were developing budgets and fed-eral grant applications. The letter builds adistorted case based on flawed research andselective reporting of Reading Recoverystudies.

In the national debate about scientificallybased research and accountability, ReadingRecovery is a surprising target because noprogram is more accountable and has astronger scientific base than ReadingRecovery. Reading Recovery is a short-termintervention for the lowest-achieving chil-dren in first grade. Children meet individ-ually with a specially trained teacher for 30 minutes daily for 12 to 20 weeks.Children are tested before enteringReading Recovery to assure that they arethe lowest-achieving readers in their class.They are also tested after their lessons arediscontinued and at the end of first grade.The outcome of their lessons is comparedwith a random sample of their peers.Results are reported on school, district, andnational levels.

Cumulative 17-year results show that inthe United States, 60% of all childrenserved can read at class average after theirlessons, and 81% of children who have thefull series of lessons can read at class aver-age. No other intervention in the UnitedStates has such an extensive database andsuch strong accountability. More than onemillion children have been served inReading Recovery since it came to theUnited States in 1984 through a team of

researchers at The Ohio State University.Reading Recovery’s not-for-profit networkconnects 23 universities, 3,293 school dis-tricts, Department of Defense Schools, and10,622 elementary schools in the UnitedStates alone (National Data EvaluationCenter [NDEC], 2002; see pages 8–9 for acomplete list of Reading Recovery universi-ty training centers). Reading Recovery isnot only available for children struggling tolearn to read in English: it has been recon-structed in Spanish, French, and Maoriand is currently being reconstructed inother languages.

The Internet letter chooses to ignore all ofthis easily available information in anattempt to undermine public confidence inReading Recovery. In addition, theInternet letter reflects a broader publicdebate about the nature of scientific evi-dence in reading research and the relation-ship of federal policy to local school deci-sion making. These issues are discussedmore fully in a response letter signed bymore than 200 academic leaders andresearchers outside Reading Recovery. The

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In Reading Recovery, children meet individually witha specially trained teacher for 30 minutes daily for12 to 20 weeks.

bring the learning of many children up tothat of their average-achieving peers….It isclear that many children leave the programwith well-developed reading strategies,including phonemic awareness and knowl-edge of spelling” (Shanahan & Barr, 1995,p. 989).

Many evaluation studies demonstrate thatthe majority of Reading Recovery studentsmaintain and improve their gains in latergrades. Several studies using widely accept-ed standardized measures or state assess-ment measures show strong results forReading Recovery students (Askew et al.,2002; Brown, Denton, Kelly, & Neal,1999; Pinnell, 1989; Rowe, 1995; Schmitt& Gregory, 2001).

Former Reading Recovery students, like allstudents, need good classroom teaching tocontinue their progress. Reading Recoveryis a short-term safety net, an essential com-ponent in a school’s comprehensive literacyprogram. Two studies in refereed journalsreveal that Reading Recovery studentsexperience gains in self-concept (Cohen,McDonnell, & Osborn, 1989; Rumbaugh& Brown, 2000).

Evidence supporting Reading Recovery’seffectiveness not only appears in peer-reviewed journals. It is also evident in theevaluation data collected and reportedannually by the National Data EvaluationCenter located in the College of Educationat The Ohio State University. The dataallow local administrators and schoolboards to monitor children’s results and toexamine implementation data such as thenumber of lessons missed, reasons formissed lessons, and level of implementa-tion in a school.

To advance their political agenda, theauthors of the Internet letter selectivelyreport and distort the limited set of experi-mental studies they present to their col-leagues, politicians, and the public. The

page 2 What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery

signers represent an international group ofindependent scholars and researchers whohave studied language, literacy, and learn-ing in many contexts. This letter, entitled“A Broader View of Evidence: ReadingRecovery as an Example,” makes the fol-lowing key points:

• Public education dollars belongto citizens, not to a small groupof researchers who have a particu-lar point of view.

• A scientific stance requires a com-plete, evidence-based analysis ofany educational program.

• Policy makers have the responsi-bility to consider evidence from awide range of perspectives andvalidated research models.

• Responsibly and rigorously col-lected evaluation data providelegitimate evidence of programsuccess.

• An early intervention programlike Reading Recovery is part of acomprehensive literacy effort.

This report is written by Reading Recoveryresearchers and academics from ReadingRecovery’s university training centers in theUnited States and is a response to the fourcriticisms in the Internet letter.

1. Reading Recovery is highly successful with the lowest-performing first-grade students.

Research in peer-reviewed journals docu-ments Reading Recovery’s effectiveness(Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, &McNaught, 1995; Iversen & Tunmer,1993; Pinnell, 1997; Pinnell, Lyons,DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994; Sylva &Hurry, 1996; Wasik & Slavin, 1993).Objective critics acknowledge that ReadingRecovery works: “Evidence firmly supportsthe conclusion that Reading Recovery does

By intervening early, Reading Recoveryreduces referrals and placements in specialeducation (NDEC, 2002), limits retention,and has demonstrated lasting effects.Retention and special education referraleach have a substantial price tag. The localcosts of providing Reading Recovery servic-es for 12 to 20 weeks are substantially lessthan special education and retention costs,particularly when the majority of ReadingRecovery children sustain and improvetheir literacy learning gains in subsequentyears of primary education (Brown et al.,1999; Schmitt & Gregory, 2001).

Authors of the Internet letter base theirrecommendations on inadequate research.The 2000 meta-analysis by Elbaum,Vaughn, and Moody is again cited. A clos-er look at the meta-analysis reveals that evi-dence is based on an unpublished doctoral

dissertation (Evans, 1996) and an unpub-lished master’s thesis (Acalin, 1995). Evans’doctoral dissertation supporting the effec-tiveness of group instruction is based on avery small sample of eight children: fourrandomly assigned to Reading Recoveryand four assigned to a small group inter-vention. The Reading Recovery teacherstudied in the dissertation was in the firstmonths of the training year and had notrecently taught primary-grade students.Evidence of equivalence for the two groupswas lacking at pre-test.

Evidence from the Acalin master’s thesis iseven more suspect. Reading Recovery les-sons were not even delivered by a ReadingRecovery teacher, but by special educationteachers who had not participated inReading Recovery training. Furthermore,although Reading Recovery is a first-grade

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery page 3

clearest instance of this distortion is intheir use of the Elbaum, Vaughn, andMoody (2000) meta-analysis. The letterstates, “In fact, for the poorest readers,empirical synthesis of ‘in-house’ and inde-pendent studies indicates that ReadingRecovery is not effective. In Elbaum et al.(2000), the gains for the poorest readersinstructed by Reading Recovery werealmost zero.”

Why is this a distortion? It ignores themajor finding of this meta-analysis that theeffect of Reading Recovery on student per-formance was large and significant. TheElbaum et al. (2000) study states, “ForReading Recovery interventions, effects forstudents identified as discontinued weresubstantial, whereas effects for studentsidentified as not discontinued were not sig-nificantly different from zero” (p. 605).The Internet letter emphasizes the smallnumber of students who did not makeprogress while it ignores the fact that themajority of students made substantialprogress. It also implies that the not-discontinued students were the ones withthe lowest entry scores. This is not true.The interpretation of this information inthe Internet letter seems biased.

2. Cost-effectiveness is a complex concept in education.

The Internet letter states that “ReadingRecovery is not cost-effective because thedevelopers require one-to-one interventionsby highly trained teachers.” It is inappro-priate to label a program as expensive ornot cost-effective without extensiveresearch comparison with other programsthat target the same student populationand seek to achieve the same results. Bothlong- and short-term benefits must be con-sidered in this type of research. Such stud-ies are rare in medical research and almostnonexistent in educational studies.

By intervening early, Reading Recovery reducesreferrals and placements in special education.

needed to demonstrate the implications ofa change from individual to small groupinstruction; however, researchers withinand outside Reading Recovery should con-tinue to study all possibilities. Researchsupports one-to-one tutoring and indicatesthat it may be essential for children whoare at high risk (Bloom, 1984; Juel, 1991;Wasik & Slavin, 1993). The systematicnature of Reading Recovery instruction isbased on a teacher’s detailed assessmentand analysis of a child’s knowledge baseand skills. The teaching is highly efficientbecause the teacher has this precise inven-tory of skills and strategies and is able toteach exactly what the child needs to knownext.

3. Reading Recovery uses standardassessment measures.

Reading Recovery pre-tests and post-testsstudents using the measures published inAn Observation of Early Literacy Achieve-ment (Clay, 1993a/2002). The survey is astandard set of measures developed inresearch studies with qualities of soundassessment instruments having reliability,validity, and discrimination indices. It wasdeveloped to meet the unique need toassess emergent literacy in young children.The survey is comprised of six literacytasks with established validity and reliabili-ty: letter identification, word test, conceptsabout print, writing vocabulary, hearingand recording sounds in words, and textreading. The Internet letter suggests a pref-erence for norm-referenced tests that arewidely available and commonly used inreading intervention research. Althoughthese tests may yield valid comparisons forstudents who are already reading, they arenot sensitive to variability in emergingknowledge and are not useful as baselinemeasures to assess change in early literacy.Some studies, however, have used stan-dardized measures and state assessments toexplore subsequent performance of former

page 4 What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery

intervention, Acalin provided instructionto 66 subjects in first through fourthgrades. Only eight of the children were infirst grade, with four assigned to ReadingRecovery and four to Project Read.

In addition to the two studies in Elbaum,the Internet letter cites another unpub-lished doctoral dissertation (Iversen, 1997)as support for group intervention. Iversenclaims to compare Reading Recovery withan instructional intervention for groups oftwo. The Reading Recovery program, how-ever, was not standard with regard to train-ing, screening and selection procedures, orteaching procedures. Design and method-ological issues also raise numerous ques-tions. Therefore, it would be inappropriateto draw any conclusions about ReadingRecovery from the data presented.

Even casual consumers of scientificresearch would wonder why the Evans andAcalin studies were considered to have metcriteria for inclusion in a meta-analysis thatpurports to follow, in the authors’ ownwords, “best practices for research synthe-sis” (Elbaum et al., 2000, p. 606).

Studies cited by Elbaum and her colleaguesprovide virtually no evidence to support achange from one-to-one to small groupinstruction for the lowest-achieving firstgraders. The suggestions for ReadingRecovery to change from one-to-oneinstruction is especially weak because thereis documented evidence of success withhundreds of thousands of the lowest-performing first-grade students. ReadingRecovery has also developed a design fordissemination and teacher training thatallow these results to be replicated indiverse contexts across the United Statesand the world.

One-to-one tutoring is a central aspect ofboth the theory and design of ReadingRecovery, and there is a body of research tosupport it. Extensive research would be

• differentiation between the waythe teacher supports children dur-ing the reading of a new text andthe role of familiar reading; and

• more information on how toteach for fluency and phrasing.

In addition to changes reflected in theGuidebook, Reading Recovery uses resultsfrom the National Data Evaluation Centerto analyze and guide changes in implemen-tation at the local, state, and national lev-els. Reading Recovery’s extensive and con-tinuing training for all personnel supportschanges. Change is also evident in thestandards and guidelines of the ReadingRecovery Council of North America. Allschools must adhere to these standards inorder to be in compliance with the royalty-free trademark granted annually to partici-pating schools by The Ohio State Univer-sity. This trademark helps to ensure qualityand consistency in Reading Recovery.Reading Recovery is a not-for-profit part-nership of universities and local school districts.

The Internet letter recommends explicitinstruction in phonics and phonemicawareness and suggests that ReadingRecovery ignores these important instruc-tional components. Any astute observer ofa Reading Recovery lesson would recognizethe explicit teaching of letters, sounds, andwords. In Reading Recovery, children areshown how to use letter-sound relation-ships to solve words in reading and writingand how to use structural analysis of wordsand to learn spelling patterns (Pinnell,2000). A study by Stahl, Stahl, andMcKenna (1999) demonstrates thatReading Recovery students do in fact per-form well on standardized tests of phone-mic awareness and phonological coding.

One academic researcher studying a widerange of programs made the followingobservation about Reading Recovery: “The

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery page 5

Reading Recovery children (Askew et al.,2002; Brown et al., 1999; Schmitt &Gregory, 2001); they show that ReadingRecovery children do in fact maintain andimprove their gains.

4. Change is an integral part of theReading Recovery design.

Reading Recovery has built-in mechanismsfor change. The central program documentis Reading Recovery: A Guidebook forTeachers in Training (Clay, 1993b).Originally published as Early Detection ofReading Difficulties (1979/1985), it wasthoroughly revised and retitled in 1993.The Guidebook reveals significant additionsover years of development including:

• more intensive attention to anddetailed description of the role ofphonemic awareness;

• explicit directions for teachers inhelping children use letter-soundrelationships and phonics;

• more deliberate focus on compre-hension strategies during thereading of a new book;

In Reading Recovery, children are shown how to useletter-sound relationships to solve words in readingand writing and how to use structural analysis ofwords and to learn spelling patterns.

importance of phonological and linguisticawareness is also explicitly recognized”(Adams, 1990, p. 420) and went on todescribe Reading Recovery as one of severalprograms that “are designed to developthorough appreciation of phonics.…Onthe other hand, none of these programstreats phonics in a vacuum” (p. 421).

The Internet letter cites two studies to sup-port its contention that Reading Recoverywould improve with more explicit phonics.The first, a 1993 study by Iversen andTunmer, recommended that ReadingRecovery add explicit phonics and phone-mic awareness. In fact, the modificationshad already been made before this studywas carried out. Iversen herself had beentrained as a teacher leader in the early yearsof Reading Recovery training in New

page 6 What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery

been included in Reading Recovery pro-grams around the world.

The second study cited in the Internet let-ter in support of explicit phonics is byMorris, Tyner, and Perney (2000). Thisstudy looked at some alternative staffing,training, and instructional approaches toearly intervention. Morris and his col-leagues did place a greater emphasis on iso-lated word study, but they also modeledmore than three-quarters of the lesson for-mat on Reading Recovery. The results indi-cated that students who participated intheir First Steps program made betterprogress than a matched group of low stu-dents in non-participating comparisonschools. This study was not designed tocompare results against Reading Recoveryor to isolate the contribution of a particu-lar form of word study in relation to otherprogram components. The claim in theInternet letter that “the addition of anexplicit component addressing spelling-to-sound patterns was highly effective” seemsquestionable given that First Steps studentsreceived tutoring for the entire school year,averaging 91 lessons per student.

In the debate about how to teach phonics,the authors of the Internet letter draw on a1999 report of the Literacy Experts Groupin New Zealand. The group recommended“greater emphasis on explicit instruction inphonological awareness and the use ofspelling-to-sound patterns in recognizingunfamiliar words in text.” In response tothe Internet letter and this recommenda-tion, a member of the Literacy ExpertsGroup wrote:

It would be regrettable if…[any ofthe] recommendations from the1999 Literacy Experts Group wasconstrued as meaning that thisgroup was among those attackingReading Recovery. Because it wasn’t…Most striking however, isthe clear message that most of this

One academic researcher studying a wide rangeof programs made the following observationabout Reading Recovery: “The importance ofphonological and linguistic awareness is alsoexplicitly recognized.” (Adams, 1990)

Zealand, but at the time of the study, shewas no longer teaching Reading Recoveryand was not attending continuing profes-sional development to receive programupdates. Thus, the Reading Recoveryinstruction provided in the study was outof date, even in 1993. Despite this short-coming, results of the Iversen and Tunmerstudy indicated that both the traditionalReading Recovery group and the phonics-enhanced group outperformed a controlgroup on all measures of phoneme deletionand phoneme segmentation. The groupwith increased emphasis on phonemicawareness had programs that were shorterthan Iversen’s traditional group. Interest-ingly, the increase in phonemic awarenessand phonics that Iversen included in train-ing of her experimental group had already

debate is about some researcherstalking to some other researchers,with very little buy-in from theteachers who implement ReadingRecovery, or those with experienceof translating research findings intoeffective classroom programmes.And, there is a huge gulf between aresearch study and a programmethat works in a classroom. This isone area where the four NewZealand signatories of the U.S.[Internet] letter are out-of-stepwith many other readingresearchers and literacy educatorsin New Zealand. (Croft, 2002, pp. 2–3)

In summary, there is substantial scientificevidence to support Reading Recovery’seffectiveness with lowest-performing first-grade students. Reading Recovery does notclaim to be the only solution to thenation’s reading problems, nor does it seekpreferential treatment for funding underthe No Child Left Behind Act. Rather,Reading Recovery seeks the right to beconsidered as an early intervention optionfor state and local educational authorities.

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery page 7

Cohen, S. G., McDonnell, G., & Osborn, B. (1989). Self-percep-tions of at risk and high achieving readers: Beyond ReadingRecovery achievement data. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell(Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research andinstruction: Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National ReadingConference (pp. 117–122). Chicago, IL: National ReadingConference.

Croft, C. (2002, July 15). Reading Recovery and literacy expertsgroup [Letter to the editor]. The Education Weekly, 13(506),2–3.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S. M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). Howeffective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for ele-mentary students at risk for reading failure: A meta-analysis ofthe intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology,92(4), 605–619.

Evans, T. L. P. (1996). I can read deze books: A qualitative compari-son of the Reading Recovery program and small-group intervention.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn,Alabama.

Iversen, S. (1997). Reading Recovery as a small group intervention.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University,Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Iversen, S. J., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phonological processingskills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 85, 112–126.

Juel, C. (1991). Cross-age tutoring between student athletes andat-risk children. Reading Teacher, 45(3), 178–186.

Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early Steps: Replicatingthe effects of a first-grade reading intervention program. Journalof Educational Psychology, 92, 681–693.

National Data Evaluation Center. (2002). Reading Recovery andDescubriendo la Lectura national report 2000–2001. Columbus,OH: The Ohio State University.

Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk childrenlearn to read. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 161–183.

Pinnell, G. S. (1997). Reading Recovery: A review of research. InJ. Squire, J. Flood, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research onteaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp.638–654). New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Pinnell, G. S. (2000). Reading Recovery: An analysis of a research-based reading intervention. Columbus, OH: Reading RecoveryCouncil of North America.

Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A., & Seltzer,N. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacyeducation of high risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly,29, 8–39.

Rowe, K. J. (1995). Factors affecting students’ progress in reading:Key findings from a longitudinal study. Literacy, Teaching andLearning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 1(2),57–110.

Rumbaugh, W., & Brown, C. (2000). The impact of ReadingRecovery participation on student’s self-concepts. ReadingPsychology, 21, 13–30.

Schmitt, M. C., & Gregory, A. E. (2001, December). The impactof early interventions: Where are the children now? Paper present-ed at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference,San Antonio, TX.

Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). A synthesis of research onReading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958–996.

Stahl, K. A. D., Stahl, S., & McKenna, M. C. (1999). The devel-opment of phonological awareness and orthographic processingin Reading Recovery. Literacy Teaching and Learning: AnInternational Journal of Early Literacy, 4(1) 27–42.

Sylva, K., & Hurry, J. (1996). Early intervention in children withreading difficulties: An evaluation of Reading Recovery and aphonological training. Literacy, Teaching, and Learning: AnInternational Journal of Early Literacy, 2(2), 49–68.

Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading fail-ure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs.Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179–200.

REFERENCES

Acalin, T. A. (1995). A comparison of Reading Recovery to ProjectRead. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University,Fullerton.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learningabout print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Askew, B. J., Kaye, E., Frasier, D. F., Mobasher, M., Anderson, N.,& Rodríguez, Y. (2002). Making a case for prevention in educa-tion. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal ofEarly Reading and Writing, 6(2), 43–73.

Bloom, B. (1984). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methodsof group instruction as effective one-to-one tutoring.Educational Researcher, 13, 4–16.

Brown, W., Denton, E., Kelly, P., & Neal, J. (1999). ReadingRecovery effectiveness: A five-year success story in San LuisCoastal Unified School District. ERS Spectrum: Journal ofSchool Research and Information, 17(1), 3–12.

Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught,M. (1995). An experimental evaluation of Reading Recovery.Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 240–263.

Clay, M. M. (1979/1985). Early detection of reading difficulties.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (1993a/2002). An observation survey of early literacyachievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (1993b). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers intraining. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

page 8 What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery

University Training Centers for Reading Recovery in the United States

1 California State University at FresnoDean: Paul ShakerTrainers: Jeanette Methven

Judith Neal

2 Clemson UniversityDean: Lawrence AllenTrainer: Diane DeFord

3 Emporia State UniversityDean: Tes MehringTrainer: Connie Briggs

4 Georgia State UniversityDean: Ronald ColarussoTrainers: Sue Duncan

Clifford Johnson

5 Lesley UniversityDean: William DandridgeTrainers: Irene Fountas

Eva Konstantellou

6 National-Louis UniversityDean: Elizabeth HawthorneTrainer: Tina Lozano

7 New York UniversityDean: Ann MarcusTrainers: M. Trika Smith-Burke

Jo Anne LoFasoJoe Yukish

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery page 9

8 Oakland UniversityDean: Mary OttoTrainers: Mary Lose

Robert SchwartzLee Skandalaris

9 Purdue UniversityDean: Jerry PetersTrainer: Maribeth Schmitt

10 Saint Mary’s CollegeDean: Nancy SorensonTrainers: Adria Klein

Barbara Schubert

11 San Diego State UniversityDean: Lionel MenoTrainer: Sharan Gibson

Patricia Kelly

12 Shippensburg UniversityDean: Robert BartosTrainer: Janet Bufalino

13 Texas Woman’s UniversityDean: Keith SwiggerTrainers: Nancy Anderson

Billie AskewBetsy KayeYvonne Rodriguez

14 The Ohio State UniversityDean: Donna EvansTrainers: Mary Fried

Susan FullertonCarol LyonsGay Su PinnellEmily Rodgers

15 University of Alabama at BirminghamDean: Michael FroningTrainer: Kathleen Martin

16 University of Arkansas at Little RockDean: Angela SewallTrainer: Linda Dorn

17 University of ConnecticutDean: Richard SchwabTrainer: Mary Anne Doyle

18 University of IowaDean: Sandra Bowman DamicoTrainer: Salli Forbes

19 University of KentuckyDean: James CibulkaTrainer: Judy Embry

20 University of MaineDean: Robert CobbTrainer: Paula Moore

21 University of North Carolina–WilmingtonDean: Cathy BarlowTrainer: Noel Jones

22 University of South DakotaDean: Hank RubinTrainer: Garreth Zalud

23 Western Michigan UniversityDean: Rollin DoumaTrainer: Beulah Lateef

Reading Recovery Council of N

orth Am

ericac/o The O

hio State University

1929 Kenny Road, Suite 100C

olumbus, O

hio 43210-1069

12752-900273-61801

The mission of the Reading Recovery C

ouncil of N

orth Am

erica is to ensure access to Reading Recovery for every child w

ho needs its support.

Phone614-2

92-7

111

Fax614-2

92-4

404

Visit us online ww

w.rea

din

greco

very.org

Nonprofit O

rg.U

S Postage PA

ID

Colum

bus, Ohio

Permit N

o.711