Reading Compensatory ProgramsMelissa SnellEDRD 7717

Used Across the United States

4 Different Reading Programs

READING RECOVERY

SUCCESS FOR ALL

READING FIRST

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

Reading Recovery

Reading Recovery• Developed in New Zealand in the 1970’s by

Professor Mary Clay• The U.S. began using the program in 1984 with First

Graders• Available to nonprofit schools that agree to follow

the guidelines of the program• 30 minutes of one-on-one tutoring daily for 12-20

weeks• Differentiated lessons using little books • Observational survey and running records to assess

throughout• 1 year training program for teachers • Inputting of data into IDEC (International Data

Evaluation Center)

Reading RecoveryPRO’s of the Program• Cleary laid out

elements• One-on-one help• Differentiated lessons• In-context teaching• Strong teacher training• Data collection • Frequent assessment• Positive gains

CON’s of the Program• Sending teachers to

training• Staffing• Money for books • Number of students

reached• Possible ethnic

achievement gap• Only 1 year

Success for All

Success for All• Developed at Johns Hopkins University in

1986 by Robert Slavin & Nancy Madden• Goal is to prevent early school failure• Used with students in K-3rd grade• 5 essential strategies (see next slide)• Multiple strategies used • Pre-made lessons• Teacher as a facilitator• Collect and analyze data

Success for All

5 Essential Strategies

Success for AllPRO’s of the Program• Increase reading

achievement• Help cut the ethnic

achievement gap• Ready made

lessons• Multiple strategies• Schoolwide support

team• SFAF training and

help

CON’s of the Program• Scripted lessons• Must be a

schoolwide implementation

• Only for early intervention

• Student mobility issues

• Grouping and scheduling difficulties

Reading First

Reading First• Federal Education Program for K-3• Developed after 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) • Funds allocated by National Government to states,

then to districts and schools• The goal of the program is to have all students reading

on-grade level by the end of the 3rd grade• 5 essential components taught daily in 90 minute

periods • 7 instructional design elements• Requires schools use Scientifically Based Reading

Research (SBRR)• Teachers trained to be effective teachers using data to

drive instruction

Reading First

Reading FirstPRO’s of Program• Some positive gains • Various teaching

methods used• Repeated vocabulary

exposure• Promotes readers that

are active and purposeful

• Repeated and monitored oral reading

• Phonics and phonemic awareness taught in small groups

CON’s of Program• Developed by the

government – not educators

• Scripted curriculum• Limited benefits• One-size-fits-all policy• Teachers forced to

participate• More than $6 billion

dollars spent by the government on the program

Response to Intervention

Response to Intervention• Conceived after the 2001 NCLB and 2004

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) • Created by many organizations and coalitions• Data-based decision making is at the heart of the

RTI process• Three major elements (see next slide)• Made up of three levels or tiers• Goal is to intervene before long-term problems or

negative outcomes are experienced• Teachers and teams discuss accommodations to

differentiate within the classroom for students in RTI process

• Used for academic and behavior problems

Response to Intervention

Response to InterventionPRO’s of the Program• Useful for all

elementary schools• Minimal training

required• Early identification

of problems • Leads to student

success• Helps differentiate

between which students need further evaluations

CON’s of the Program• Middle Schools

have not been successful in implementing

• More work for teachers

• Teachers need training on effective strategies

• Extra meetings and conferences

Reading Compensatory Program Paper

Click below to read my Reading Compensatory Paper in full text.

READING COMPENSATORY PAPER

ResourcesReferences

 Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A. C. K., Chamberlain, A. M., & et al. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of success for all. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 701-731. Compton-Lilly, C. (2010). Learning about mason: A collaborative lesson with a struggling reader. Reading Teacher, 63(8), 698. Compton-Lilly, C. (2011). Counting the uncounted: African american students in reading recovery. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(1), 3. Consumer guide for success for all. (1993). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/OR/ConsumerGuides/success.html Glasswell, K., & Ford, M. P. (2010). Teaching flexibly with leveled texts: More power for your reading block. Reading Teacher, 64(1), 57. Hanselman, P., & Borman, G. D. (2013). The impacts of success for all on reading achievement in grades 3–5: Does intervening during the later elementary grades produce the same benefits as intervening early? Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 35(2), 237.

IRA issues statement on reading first report. (cover story). (2008). Reading Today, 25(6), 1. Kersten, J., & Pardo, L. (2007). Finessing and hybridizing: Innovative literacy practices in reading first classrooms. Reading Teacher, 61(2), 146. Klingner, J., Cramer, E., & Harry, B. (2006). Challenges in the implementation of success for all in four high-need urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 106(4), 333. National center on response to intervention. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.rti4success.org National dissemintation center for children with disabilities. (2012). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://nichcy.org/schools-administrators/rti Prewett, S., Mellard, D. F., Deshler, D. D., Allen, J., Alexander, R., & Stern, A. (2012). Response to intervention in middle schools: Practices and outcomes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 27(3), 136. Reading first studies find limited benefits. (2008). Reading Today, 26(3), 3. Reading first: States report improvements in reading instruction, but additional procedures would clarify education's role in ensuring proper implementation by states: GAO-07-161. (2007). GAO Reports, , 1. Reading recovery council of north america. (2013). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://readingrecovery.org Reading recovery works. (2012). Education Journal, (138), 5. Scholastic. (2013). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/understanding-and-implementing-reading- first

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 & Education, 56(1), 5. Spear-swerling, L., & Cheesman, E. (2012). Teachers' knowledge base for implementing response-to-intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1691-1723. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.kennesaw.edu/10.1007/s11145-011-9338-3 Success for all foundation. (2012). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.successforall.org/ Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The response to intervention instructional model: Some outcomes from a large-scale implementation in reading first schools. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 38. U.S Department of Education. (2009). Reading first program. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163. Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 178-200. What works clearinghouse: Reading recovery. (2013). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=420

Thanks for viewing this presentation!