ERIC ED454492: Outcomes of the Muscogee County School District Reading Recovery Implementation Year, 1997-1998.

7 Pages·2000·0.22 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
CS 014 301
ED 454 492
Harrell, Betsy
AUTHOR
Outcomes of the Muscogee County School District Reading
TITLE
Recovery Implementation Year, 1997-1998.
Reading Recovery Council of North America, Columbus, OH.
INSTITUTION
2000-00-00
PUB DATE
NOTE
5p.
Reading Recovery Council of North America, Inc., 1929 Kenny
AVAILABLE FROM
Road, Suite 100, 1929 Kenny Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1069.
Tel: [phone]; Web site: http://www.readingrecovery.org.
Journal Articles (080)
PUB TYPE
Running Record; v12 n2 Spr 2000
JOURNAL CIT
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Academic Achievement; Comparative Analysis;
of
DESCRIPTORS
. *Outcomes
Education; Primary Education; *Program Evaluation; *Program
Implementation; *Reading Instruction; Student Evaluation
Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests; Iowa Tests of Basic Skills;
IDENTIFIERS
*Muscogee County School District GA; *Reading Recovery
Projects
ABSTRACT
After the first year, funding for the Reading Recovery
program in the Muscogee County School District in Georgia was to be
contingent upon getting results that would document the success of Reading
Recovery in the system. The following measures were used for program
evaluation: An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 1993);
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills; Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests; and a classroom
teacher assessment of student progress. On the Gates-MacGinitie reading
battery, the Reading Recovery group was superior to the comparison groups,
and the differences were statistically significant. On the Iowa Test, the
Reading Recovery group has significantly higher scores on four of the six
subtests at the end of the year. On the Observation Survey, the Reading
Recovery children made significantly higher scores than the comparison
children on five of the six subtests. The classroom teachers rated the
Reading Recovery children significantly higher than the comparison children
in all four academic areas. Results of the evaluation indicated that Reading
Recovery significantly affected the academic and social development of the
children in the program.
(NKA)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
Outcomes of the Muscogee County School District
Reading Recovery Implementation Year, 1997-1998.
by Betsy Harrell
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
I i
BEEN GRANTED BY
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
I
received from the person or organization
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
eRtk.ssi-L_
I
originating it.
I
i
CD
;
Minor changes have been made to
!
l
C,-)
I
improve reproduction quality.
I.
;
'71-
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
1
Points of view or opinions stated in this
Cl
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
I
document do not necessarily represent
2
1
official OERI position cr policy.
C/D
1
\ (")
1
The Running Record
Spring 2000 Page 11
A\1A1
Outcomes of the Muscogee County School District Reading Recovery
Implementation Year, 1997-1998
Betsy Harrell
Reading Recovery Teacher Leader
Atlanta, Georgia
Reading Recovery Evaluation for 1997-98 Pilot Year
eading Recovery had a big
beginning in the Muscogee
RR Group vs. Control Group
County School System in
Average End-of-Year Observation Survey
Columbus, Ga. In the first year of
60
implementation, we had 34 teachers
in training and a tremendous desire to
52.81
51.2
50
make this highly acclaimed
45.51
Intervention become a permanent-part
of the school system. Our superinten-
40
dent, Guy Sims, was determined to
33.33
bring Reading Recovery to our
29.98
30
26.87
system, and he accomplished dug
through initial funding from an
20
17.99
anonymous private donor who
16.03
15.91
13.35
provided $1.8 million for Reading
10
Recovery in the first year. Funding
6.68
for the following two years was
contingent upon getting results that
0I
Capitalization*
Dictation*
Text Reading* Writing Voc.
Word Test*
Letter ID
would document the success of
Reading Recovery in the system.
Control
IlReading Recovery
Early in the first year of implemen-
*Group Means Are Significantly Different (p<.05)
tation, the Muscogee County School
Average End-of-Year Teacher Assessment of Student Progress
District Reading Recovery team met
4.0
with Georgia State University (GSU)
Reading Recovery trainers, Cliffoid
3.59
3.5
3.4
Johnson and Sue Duncan, and GSU
3.29
3.26
3.2
3.19
3.08
researchers, Lorene Pilcher and Don
.2.94
3.0
2.86
Steele, to discuss ways to evaluate
2.67
2.65
2.59
2 52
2.5
2.46
2.46
the beginning of Reading Recovery
2.35
2.32
in Columbus, Ga. This meeting
2.0
resulted in the decision to use the
following measures for program
1.5
evaluation: An Observation Survey of
1.0
Early Literacy Achievement (Clay,
1993), Iowa Test of Basic Skills;
0.5
Gates-MacGinite Reading Tests, and
a classrodm teacher assessment of
0.0
Self- Confidence`
SI-Peers*
Reading Comp*
Math*
student progress on academic and
Follows SI-Adults* Work Habits
Written
Oral Comm.*
social criteria. One
purpose of the
Expression* Directions*
4
evaluation was to
compare the
Contr;
Reading Recovery
*Group Means Are Significantly Different (p<.05)
continued on page 13
W\I
Spring 2000 Page 13
The Running Record
'Outcomes of the Muscogee County
...
continued from page 11
Reading Recovery Evaluation for 1997-98 Pilot Year
progress and achievement of children
in Reading Recovery with an
RR Group vs. Control Group
identical group of children who
qualified for Reading Recovery but
Average End-of-Year ITBS Scores
for whom service was not available
50
48.1
due to lack of coverage. A second
43.5
purpose was to determine whether the
39.9 39.5
40
two groups differed in the spring of
38.5 38.6
38.4
38.1
36.3
the school year. In each of the 34
Muscogee Elementary schools, one
30
or two classrooms were designated as
Reading Recovery classrooms from
which children were selected for
20
Reading Recovery. In schools having
more than one first grade class,
another classroom designated as the
10
non-Reading Recovery classrooM
provided children for the Comparison
group. Reading Recovery teachers in
each school tested the children who
ITBS Word Analysis*
ITBS Vocabulary ITBS Reading Total*
were in the lowest third of the
ITBS Listening
ITBS Language*
ITBS Reading Comp*
designated classrooms, and
IIReading Recovery FiControl
107 matched pairs of children
were identified.
*Group Means Are Significantly Different (p<.05)
I remember clearly the spring day
several months later as I sat
surrounded with mounds of test
Average End-of-Year Gates-MacGinite Reading Test Scores
results, knowing that GSU would
15-
collect this information within two
13.3
h6urs. In my heart I knew what a
13.1
12.4
12.2
profound influence Reading Recovery
12
11.6
had had on the children served, but,
nevertheless, I wondered if the data
9.7
9.4
9.1
would confirm our success. I was a
9
newly trained Teacher Leader in my
field year, already having survived
6
ordering and disseminating materials
and supplies for 34 Reading Recovery
teachers, assessment training to 34
3
new teachers, teaching the training
class (and being extremely thankful
for the assistance of two teacher
0
leaders from the Atlanta City
Schools!), teaching my own children,
Reading Recovery
Control
and completing my first site visit. The
reason I mention this very busy time is
*Group Means Are Significantly Different (p<.05)
to explain why I had not been able to
continued on next page
review the assessment results before
2000
AWN'
Spring
The Running Record
Page 14
Outcomes of the Muscogee County ...
continued from previous page
which
they were collected by GSU. So it was
enabled them
that I awaited the news with bated
to have a
breath...
strong
Later that summer, we received the
literacy
following summary of the results (and
foundation
word that our funding would be
upon which
extended for another year):
to continue
An Observation Survey of Early
their
Literacy Achievement (Clay, 1993).
schooling,
The Reading Recovery children made
and it is
significantly higher scores than the
highly
Comparison children on five of the six
probable that
subtasks. Only on the Letter
without this
Identification task was the difference
intervention,
not significant, since this task has a
these
ceiling of 54 and almost all children in
Cliff Johnson (center), GSU Reading Recovery trainer, presented the
children
both groups could identify all letters at
Muscogee County results at the National Conference. Susan Krysack (left)
would have
the end of first grade.
and Florence Thorton-Reed (right) are teacher leaders in Muscogee County.
gone through
Gates-MacGinite Reading Tests
trainers at GSU who have facilitated
school as failing readers and writers
(1989). On all subtests of the Gates-
and guided our growth.
(Allington & Walmsley, 1995). There
MacGinite Reading Battery, the
We will continue to strive as a
is also a good possibility that because
Reading Recovery group was
system to stop the cycle of failure and
of the impact of Reading Recovery,
superior to the Comparison group,
replace it with a cycle of success,
these children will not experience
and the differences were statistically
always keeping in mind that this can
many of the social problems that
significant.
only truly happen when every child
struggling readers experience in year
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (1996).
who needs Reading Recovery has the
after year of failure.
Although the two groups did not differ
opportunity to be served. To this end,
Of course, it is not really children
on any of the ITBS reading and
and as a result of the Reading
who have failed in the educational
language arts subtests at the beginning
Recovery's success, the system has
system; rather, the system has failed
of the school year, the Reading
increased the number of Reading
them. However, the Muscogee County
Recovery group had significantly
Recovery teachers and trained another
School System is a system with the
higher scores on four of six subtests at
teacher leader in preparation for
determination to meet every child's
the end of the year. On the remaining
further expansion in the coming years.
needs. Throughout our schools, Marie
two subtests, Vocabulary and
Clay's words can be found on
Listening, the Reading Recovery group
References
teachers' and administrators' walls, e.
had higher scores, but the differences
Allington, R, & Walmsley, S.A. (1995).
g., "If children are apparently unable
were not significant. These two tests
No quick fix. New York, N.:
to learn, we should assume that we
do not directly measure reading ability
Teachers College Press.
have not as yet found the right way to
on continuous text.
Clay, M.M. (1993). An observation
teach them" (Clay, 1991).
Classroom teacher assessment of
survey of early literacy achievement.
We are extremely fortunate to have a
student progress. The classroom
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
superintendent who has always placed
teachers rated the Reading Recovery
Clay, M.M. (1991). Reading recovery
children first, a strong administrative
children significantly higher than the
Surprises. In DeFord, D.E., Lyons,
team, an anonymous donor who
C.A., & Pinnell, G.S., eds., Bridges
Comparison children in all four
provided the seed money for Reading
to literacy. Portsmouth, NH:
academic areas and on all five
Recovery, school board members,
Heinemann.
personal/social characteristics.
Reading Recovery teachers, classroom
(1993). Iowa tests of basic skills
The results of the evaluation
(ITBS). Itasca, IL: Riverside
teachers, principals, family members,
indicated that Reading Recovery
Publishing.
children, a site coordinator, teacher
significantly affected the academic and
MacGinite, W.H, & MacGinite, R.K.
leaders and many more supporters who
social development of the children in
(1989). Gates-MacGinite reading
have all come together to make
the program. The Reading Recovery
tests (GMRT). Itasca, IL: Riverside
Reading Recovery work. We also have
children were provided an early
Publishing.
a tremendous support system in our
intervention/prevention opportunity
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
r
REPRODUCTION RELEASE
CS 014
301
(Specific Document)
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
atAintli
Title: OiliCiMAL.)
some-6-e, 'DtA-±10-c-6L(deaaLpt9 Wer..
`q24- )
/419 7-/998'
(72Ltd-Lit-L:n.ei
cAleUtititee)
Author(s):
Corporate Source:
Publication Date:
7. zap
c-6-0-e/Ly Catiut.C-0
Yee-,a-ce-z-K-f
Y2O-2th 0471,446&,
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:
In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and
significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents
announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education
(RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced
paper copy,
and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document
Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each
document, and, if
reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is
affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate
the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options
and sign at the bottom
of the page.
The sample sticker shown below will be
The sample sticker shown below will be
The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 1 documents
affixed to all Level 2A documents
affixed to all Level 2B documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
MICROFICHE. AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
BEEN GRANTED BY
FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
\e,
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
2A
2B
"1
Level 1
Level 2A
Level 2B
1
Check here for Levellrelease, permitting reproduction
Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction
Check here for Level 2B release, permitting
and dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival
and dissemination in microfiche and in electronic media
reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only
media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy.
for ERIC archival collection subscribers only
Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.
If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents wilt be
processed at Levell.
I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information
Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this
document
as indicated above. Reproductidh from the ERIC microfiche
or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system
contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is
made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies
to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete
inquiries.
Sign
t
Printed Name/Position/Title:
here, -
Jean F gusset Exec- 1)1r-rfinr-
(911.
Orpa,41n/Addksitor
please
Cg Utx?fiel f(goINI. Arnerl
F AX:
Te;217-2Cia /795
tni
-01q_r2-4404
e
s
1 f L
r
Eifgi; /41,ddresv1
t
2.10 I °(oq
Date:
L
-
C : I
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please
provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly
available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more
stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and
address:
Name:
Address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being
contributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility
1100 West Street, 2nd Floor
Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598
Telephone: [phone]
Toll Free: 800-799-3742
FAX: [phone]
e-mail: [email protected]
WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com
EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97)
PREVIOUS VFRSIONS nF TNIS mrznA ARP nacni PTF