Date sent: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:41:27 -0500
From: judihahn@iac.net
Subject: Reading Recovery in California -- an analysis -- LONG POST

POSTED TO THE NATIONAL LOOP, OHIO LOOP AND RIGHT TO READ LOOP.

My comments are prefaced by (*****).

Loopies all across the land (how's that for a beginning?)

I was given a copy of "Reading Recovery Task Force Report San Diego County Office of Education" -- June 1996.

While the book has many, many anti-R/R research articles in the back, it is the Task Force Meeting notes which have me fuming.

It is my understanding that this document can be had for a mere $5.95 from the San Diego County Office of Education. That may be incorrect, but that's what I was told.

Now to my CRITIQUE:

The RR task force report, as the task force report on reading in California, was written by whole language conspirators. The task force chair was Barbara Carpenter, Ph.D. (******No bio given on this person). We read that Maria Clay is a child psychologist on one page and on several other pages we read that Maria Clay (the developer of this program) is an educator. We are told over and over that R/R is a not-for-profit program. That R/R (Ohio State University) is not getting rich from this program. (Oh, yeah???)

The task force meeting took place on January 12, 1996, present were Dr. Barbara Carpenter, Consultant Dr. Patrick Groff, five countywide R/R teachers, two elementary classroom teachers, one county office of ed. R/R trainer, one university trainer from CSU, and county office staff from the language arts department. Already the deck is stacked. Patrick Groff is the only pro-phonics person in the entire bunch.

Read the following quote carefully: "Staff members of the County Office of Education AS WELL AS DR. GROFF were ENCOURAGED NOT TO participate in responding to the questions because the INTENT WAS TO GATHER INFORMATION FROM THOSE WHO WERE WORKING MOST CLOSELY WITH R/R -- the teachers." Are you getting the picture? Is this a one-sided, slanted, report or what? (See p. 1)

The chair asked: "If we put RR students against a direct systematic phonics-taught group of first graders, would our RR students read as well as the phonics-taught students?"

Response: "Yes, as long as they have access to books." (******Remember this is a RR teacher, or RR supervisor/trainer talking here. Well, duh, if a child doesn't have access to books, what's he going to read. Notice how the question was NOT answered!!!)

Response: "I GUESS (my emphasis) that RR could do even more because they know that reading is more than just decoding." (This respondent also talked about using visual clues (pictures) to decode the words.)

Response: "You are holding RR, this little program, accountable for a whole lifetime of success, when all RR is saying is that we can teach the child who is VERY MUCH AT RISK (*****note the new language here -- before it was just at risk) at the beginning of his school career." (****well, at the cost per pupil -- $3,000 to $4,800, they should be held accountable for a whole lifetime of success, don't you think?) "I am curious that we are holding RR accountable until a person dies, when no other program in the history of education has been held accountable for that long." (****We're not holding the program accountable, we're holding the lack of teaching of reading up to scrutiny.)

The Chair: Is RR so unique that successful programs such as Distar or Open Court cannot hold a candle to it?

Response: (****Note this is not answering the question.) "Those are classroom programs. RR is an individual one-on-one program. There's a difference here.

Chair: "If...(those) programs which heavily involve phonics were taught on a one-to-one basis, would they have the same results as RR?

Response: (*****Once again, the question is not answered). "No, no way. Because RR is individualized." (****Excuse me, but the question was, if phonics was used on a one-to-one basis. How much more individualized can you get than that?) "It depends on what the child brings with them to the printed page."

Chair: "So RR is unique...?

Response: "The child leads the teacher." (****Why pay a teacher, then. Isn't it a teacher's job to LEAD THE CHILD????? Used to be!)

Chair: "let me put two words on the board...Tulsa and Tuzla. Can a RR child read these words without knowing the meaning of them?"

Response: (****Once again, question not answered.) "I get the feeling from your question that you think that RR is devoid of the letter-sound relationship phenomenon that is probably about 1/3 of what everybody needs when they are reading."

Response 2: "A RR child could take it to boxes (****no indication what 'boxes' are).

Chair: "Do you use phonics in the RR program? If so, how much and how do you use phonics?"

Response: (again, question not answered.) "My child learn by GETTING THEIR MOUTH READY FOR THE BEGINNING SOUND." (****Okay, let's have some fun with that statement! My grandson gets his mouth ready for the beginning sound of a word -- lollipop -- by saying lol-lol-lollipop. How does that help him to read?) "They don't just go squeaking and squawking through a word because it doesn't do any good." (***Okay, so no one should learn to talk, because as we learn to talk, we squeak and squawk, right? Doesn't that squeaking and squawking do any good.) "THEY LOOK AT THE PICTURE TO SEE WHAT WOULD GO WITH THE PICTURE THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE." (*****See how well this teacher of reading answered the question?)

Chair: What if a child didn't have a picture.

Response: "Then they go by what sounds right." (***The old "think" method, eh?) "It is not sounding out, but he is getting his mouth ready for those letters as he goes across the page." (****Am I missing something here?)

Chair: Does this child go out of RR and into a mainstream class and start reading the same books?

Response: (****Once again, question not answered.) Before we talk about that, let's pretend I'm not a RR teacher." (****Then this person goes into a rather lengthy dissertation on the greatness of whole language.

Second response: (Once again, question not answered) "Most of these kids are without their ABCs and the letter sounds." (****Does this imply that the real classroom is using the alphabet and sounds -- what are words made up of -- not pictures, but letters and sounds. Duh!!!!)

Third response: "Students don't go "back into a classroom." They are already "in" a classroom but leave the classroom for 30 minutes each day for a RR session."

Chair: "Why do we need a program from New Zealand instead of America?

Response: (****Wait till you see how well this is answered!) "Wait a minute. RR is a nonprofit organization. Maria Clay is not getting rich from this. There is no money to be made." (****Says who?)

Chair: "Do you promote your successes with other teachers?

Response: "In RR we share. Anything we have we share."

Response 2: "The teachers are absolute zealots!"

Chair: "Is RR cost effective?"

Response: "There is research out there that compares RR to special education programs. (****What a great answer!! Now, read the question again. Do you see how well these "reading" teachers listen?)

Chair: "Are there other methods that could get the same results that would be cheaper?"

Response: "No, it's truly nonprofit." (****What was the question??)

Chair: "Back to the financial end of this."

Response: "Forget the financial, you have the answer. This is the best one-on-one program. This is the best." (****What a way to avoid an issue. Don't answer the question, and then tell the moderator just to forget the question, don't ask it. It is irrelevant, because this is the best program. Sound like anyone else (a prominent politician ) you all know?)

Chair: "Are you saying RR would not be as effective in a group?"

Response: "Yes."

Chair: "Do you have student in RR you can't get to?

Response: "Yes, sure. As an intervention, one thing that I can say about RR is that it CAN help learning disabilities. I haven't had ONE SINGLE CHILD with learning disabilities not learn. IT'S THE RATE OF ACCELERATION." (****It's OBE, mastery learning, etc. Keep a kid in school long enough and he WILL learn -- all kids can learn, blah, blah, blah!)

Chair: "What would you call a success rate?"

Response: 100 percent. (****But ALL the studies on RR indicate that the success rate -- based on those who complete the program -- are around 67% and of that rate, only about 40% are even with their peers at the end of 3rd grade).

Chair: "Do you think if almost every child had RR, we would have a successful [reading] program?"

Response: "Most children don't need RR. Only about 20% in some districts (****my district has about 40% in the program. NOW GET THE EXCUSES.) "In RR we DO NOT HAVE 100% success...at least we know we have given them everything that is humanly possible at our PRESENT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING..." (****Based on their ability to answer questions that are asked, their level of understanding is quite low.)

Second Response: "Every child is making progress every day.

Chair asked about test scores (very long question).

Response: If we pulled the time limit off tests, we would bump our scores. There are kids that don't function in a hurry."

Chair: "Let me ask this again. Why are our 4th, 8th and 10th graders scoring so poorly on reading tests?

Response: "The children in our state whoa re succeeding are coming from homes where there is real attention given to this. The children who come to our schools from a culture where there is large attention to schooling and value placed on schooling are doing well." (****This person then condemns ALMOST ALL children's home life, including affluent as well as poor. It's the parent's fault. Not the teacher's fault.)

Chair: We're seeing 8th and 10th graders with dismal [reading] scores.

Response: "It's not a reflection of the RR program. The 8th and 10th graders received a skill-based phonics program.

Chair: So you're saying that the 8th and 10th graders (who did so poorly on the CLAS exam) are the beneficiaries of direct systematic phonics, only?

Response: "The 10th graders for sure." (***That just isn't true. WL started en masse in CA in 1987 -- 10 years ago. The 10th graders would have been kindergartners back then and have come through the WL system -- NOT THE PHONICS SYSTEM).

Chair: "What do you mean by problem-solve by reading the text?

Response: "Figuring out the words when they come to them in context."

Chair: "Now aren't we back to phonics?"

Response: "My concern is that they don't see "father" as a whole word after sounding it out, but see it phonetically. RR solves that."

EXCUSE FOR NOT HAVING A 100% success rate? "We probably could teach them all to read if we had them for 18 months." (RR is 16-18 weeks)

The research articles section of the report has six reports by Patrick Gross. ALL worth reading.

That's all folks!