HD20 - Reading Recovery Program as a Statewide Prevention Effort
Executive Summary: The purpose of House Joint Resolution No. 470 (Appendix A), directed by the 1993 General Assembly, was to determine the feasibility and appropriateness of implementing the Reading Recovery Program as a statewide prevention effort to reduce illiteracy in the Commonwealth. To address this issue, HJR 470 authorized a study to be conducted by the State Department of Education. The Reading Recovery program provides first-grade students daily, intensive, individualized instruction. Teachers trained in the Reading Recovery methods promote the development of students as independent learners. The Department of Education formed an interdisciplinary team of department staff and outside stakeholders to conduct the study required by the resolution. Information was obtained from the North American Council on Reading Recovery, Virginia educators at the elementary and higher education level, and policy and budget analysts and other staff in the department. Data collection methods included conducting an extensive review of recent studies assessing the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery Program and an analysis of the effectiveness of the program based on the conclusions of the review. Implementation of the Reading Recovery program involves training for educators at three levels. Candidates for each level of training must meet the minimum education and service requirements. Teacher instruction prepares teachers to work with children in their schools. Teacher leader instruction prepares educators to work with children, train teachers, and operate a Reading Recovery training site. Trainers of teacher leaders prepares university and college faculty to work with children and operate a regional training center for the instruction of teacher leaders. Training for teacher leaders and trainers of teacher leaders is provided at out-of-state universities and requires one year residency. While there is no regional training center at a Virginia institution of higher education to train teacher leaders, there is one training center in two neighboring states -- North Carolina and West Virginia. This year three teachers are being trained as teacher leaders. Since the numbers being trained each year are small, the establishment of a training center is not warranted at this time. The team examined the potential fiscal impact on implementing the Reading Recovery program in the state based on program mandates. Costs were projected for (1) employing personnel associated with the program, (2) providing facilities; (3) implementing the program in an average size school division; and (4) implementing the program on a statewide basis. Based on the information on the status of reading recovery nationally and statewide, the review and analysis of the research, and the fiscal impact, the team formulated its recommendations. Research data reveals that the success of Reading Recovery ranges from inconclusive to extremely positive with regard to its success as a preventive program addressing reading problems in first-graders. Its long-term effects are just now being realized since the program has only been operating in the United States since 1985 and in Virginia since 1986. Proponents credit a major success of the program to the fact that there are rigorous requirements for training and implementation. The estimated cost to implement the Reading Recovery program in an average-size school division in Virginia is $55,800 for the first year. This figure is based on staff training for 14 teachers and one teacher leader. If in the second year the trained teachers provided services to 115 students, the total cost would be $351,200 or $3,054 per pupil. In the third year and subsequent years, implementing the program would remain constant at approximately $309,175 or $2,688 per pupil. The Reading Recovery program targets the bottom 20 percent of all enrolled first graders. In 1992-93, there were 2,700 first-grade students who participated in a Reading Recovery program in Virginia. This number represents only 16 percent of those students who would be targeted for the program statewide. Chapter 1 funds offer the primary avenue for funding the program in the state; however, the Chapter 1 legislation is being reauthorized, and it is anticipated that a restructuring of funding may affect the state. This may have an influence on the continuation of Reading Recovery programs in some localities. Currently, 34 of 135 school divisions in the state have Reading Recovery programs operating in their localities. Informal investigations by the project team have revealed that some school divisions are interested in implementing the Reading Recovery program, however, the initial first-year costs for teacher training and material ($55,800 for an average-size school division) has impeded program growth. In addition, lack of access to training teacher leaders in the state has been a barrier to implementation. Recommendations: 1. The Department of Education should continue to study the Reading Recovery program and determine ways the program could be expanded. In its effort the department should: • develop strategies to encourage school divisions to consider implementation of the Reading Recovery program as one of the effective diagnostic and prescriptive intervention programs for first-grade children who are the least able readers (e.g., develop a brochure, organize an annotated bibliography, etc.). • conduct a survey to determine the commitment of school divisions and institutions of higher education to implementation. 2. State funds should be made available in the amount of $200,000 for the first year of the biennium and $300,000 for the second year to assist local school divisions with the costs for teacher training. This would allow a combination of 75-100 teacher leaders and teachers to be trained. It is estimated that the cost for training a teacher leader is $11,200 and the training cost for a teacher is $800. In addition, the start-up cost for materials and supplies for a new Reading Recovery teacher is $1,650. The salaries and other operating costs for the program, however, would continue to be funded from local and federal sources. The monies would be offered competitively. Eligibility criteria should be used when funding these school divisions. Priority should be given to: • School divisions where there is no Reading Recovery program; • Current programs funded who may realize significant losses in Chapter 1 funding under the reauthorization bill; and • Existing programs that want to expand to target children not eligible for Chapter 1 services. 3. As more Reading Recovery programs are implemented statewide and more teacher leaders are needed, consideration for the establishment of a regional training center at an institution of higher education to train teacher leaders is advised. 4. The seven colleges and universities currently offering graduate level credit for Reading Recovery teacher training should be encouraged to continue their involvement. They are the University of Richmond, George Mason University, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Tech, The College of William and Mary, Longwood College, and Lynchburg College. As additional school divisions in the various regions of the state begin programs, other institutions of higher education should be involved. The Reading Recovery program is one of the most effective diagnostic and prescriptive intervention programs for first-grade children who are the least able readers. Implementing this program as a statewide prevention effort requires a financial commitment. However, Reading Recovery intervention in a child's early education is an investment when compared to remedial efforts in later years. |