Reading Recovery in Maine, 2001-2002:
A Qualitative Report

In 2001-2002, the University of Maine surveyed parents, administrators, trained and in-training teachers and classroom teachers about the Reading Recovery program. There was a very high response rate to our survey. 1,311 parents (64%), 225 trained Reading Recovery teachers (84%), 22 in-training Reading Recovery teachers (72%), 177 administrators (73%) and 439 classroom teachers (77%) responded. The response items were based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most positive rating. In addition, the respondents' open-ended comments were analyzed for themes.

Survey Results

There was overwhelming agreement among parents that Reading Recovery is a very good program (Mean = 4.9, N = 910). Administrators agreed that the program has had a large to very large impact in their schools since its inception (Mean = 4.5, N = 121). Trained Reading Recovery teachers felt they had become more effective Reading Recovery teachers (Mean= 4.2, N = 127). In-training teachers strongly agreed that their views of teaching had changed considerably (Mean = 4.8, N= 22). Finally, classroom teachers felt that Reading Recovery had a very large impact on Reading Recovery students' classroom performance (Mean = 4.6, N= 313). In sum, there was a remarkable agreement across these three groups that Reading Recovery was a very good program with a broad impact on students and teachers.

Better Learning

Parents, teachers and administrators agreed that Reading Recovery children made large gains in reading and writing. They became better at applying strategies such as decoding, connecting words and sounds and self-monitoring. They read with greater speed and comprehension, with some children becoming the best readers in the class. Reading Recovery students also showed a "big improvement in writing" and obtained "much, much better" classroom test scores.

The interviewees said that Reading Recovery children were less frustrated, had developed a love of reading and acquired more self-confidence. They were happier and more independent with enhanced self-confidence, enthusiasm and motivation to read and to succeed in school. They became more active learners, better risk-takers and more independent of their classroom teachers. Several parents described dramatic benefits for their children and expressed their appreciation for the program.

I am very thankful for the Reading Recovery program. My daughter was having great difficulty in reading and writing. Now she is at the same level as everyone in her class.

We are thrilled with the results! We are pleased SAD 45 utilizes the Reading Recovery program.

I think this is one of the best programs I’ve seen for kids. All the books she brings home she can read to us with very little help, and she acts so proud of herself.

Reading Recovery...[is] a wonderful part of our system that we should hang on to. They have helped make my child what he is today and they will affect him for the rest of his life!

Better Teaching

Teachers said that Reading Recovery had improved their teaching practice. Based on their observations of at-risk children, they developed a more extensive "catalog" of student misconceptions and a greater repertoire of skills, strategies and techniques for clarifying them. They learned more about the importance of starting out with what children already know, tailoring lessons to the needs of individual students, using visual information, choosing appropriate classroom texts, encouraging independence and recognizing strengths and needs earlier.

I recognize with more clarity each child's competencies and confusions...I am better able to respond to the strategies used [and] notice the evidence of what each child already understands...I...use my record plans more effectively.... to analyze performance and growth with more accuracy [and] to...make shifts/changes in the program as students move toward a self­extending system.

In addition, teachers reflected more on their teaching practice and had more collaboration with other teachers. In sum, they said that Reading Recovery had made them into better teachers who used classroom time more efficiently.

Impact on Grade 1 Classrooms and Beyond

One recurring theme was that Reading Recovery had a broad impact on literacy teaching in classrooms not only in Grade 1, but also in Grades 2 and 3. First, teachers incorporated Reading Recovery strategies and techniques into their classroom instruction. Secondly, Reading Recovery children were observed teaching other children new reading strategies. One administrator said, "The entire school's K-2 literacy program has been changed because of the Reading Recovery program. This program is also beginning to impact the 3-5 literacy program." Another said, "More children are better prepared to succeed in reading by the 3rd grade." A third administrator said "Reading Recovery has caused our elementary school to completely rethink and refocus the teaching of reading."

Better Cost-effectiveness and Assessment

Cost-effectiveness was another theme in the comments of administrators from across Maine. They reported fewer student special education and Title 1 referrals and lower retention rates, which reduced expenditures.

Reading Recovery has provided valuable information in decision-making regarding retention and Special Education placement. (Oxford Hills)

Student referrals to sped are down and fewer students are recommended for retention because of skillful teacher assessments of strengths, growth, and challenges of each learner. (Benton Site)

Reading Recovery has reduced the number of students identified for Title I programs, and accelerated student progress in Title I so they may be discharged earlier. (Enfield Site)

Fewer children referred to Title 1 reading and Special Ed. with these referrals being more appropriate. A reduced number of children being retained. (Westbrook Site)

Better cost-effectiveness was related to better assessment of student performance, which is stressed in Reading Recovery. First, teachers' in-depth observation and recording of students' performance lead to better classroom assessment. Secondly, children referred to Title 1 and Special Education were now more "solid" referrals, which reduced expenditures, not to mention stress on children and their families.

Concerns

When asked about their concerns, Reading Recovery teachers raised several implementation issues, including consistency in applying the treatment, unexpected emergence of classroom issues, time constraints and heavy paperwork requirements for teachers, especially at the beginning and end of the school year. Another recurring theme was concern about under-implementation, both in terms of students not receiving a full program and students who needed the program not receiving it.

Conclusions

In conclusion, there was a strong convergence in the qualitative data from parents, teachers and administrators that Reading Recovery was a very good program with broad impact on students and classrooms in Grade 1 and beyond. The respondents felt that the program had resulted in better teaching, learning, cost-effectiveness and assessment and more accurate referrals to other programs. There were no negative comments about the program except for a few specific implementation concerns.