Melissa Snell
EDRD 7717
READING
RECOVERY
SUCCESS FOR
ALL

READING
FIRST
RESPONSE TO
INTERVENTION

Used Across the United States
• Developed in New Zealand in the 1970’s by Professor
Mary Clay
• The U.S. began using the program in 1984 with First
Grad...
PRO’s of the Program
• Cleary laid out
elements
• One-on-one help
• Differentiated lessons
• In-context teaching
• Strong ...
• Developed at Johns Hopkins University in 1986
by Robert Slavin & Nancy Madden
• Goal is to prevent early school failure
...
5 Essential
 Strategies
PRO’s of the Program
• Increase reading
achievement
• Help cut the ethnic
achievement gap
• Ready made lessons
• Multiple ...
• Federal Education Program for K-3
• Developed after 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
• Funds allocated by National G...
PRO’s of Program
• Some positive gains
• Various teaching
methods used
• Repeated vocabulary
exposure
• Promotes readers t...
• Conceived after the 2001 NCLB and 2004 Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
• Created by many organization...
PRO’s of the Program
• Useful for all
elementary schools
• Minimal training
required
• Early identification of
problems
• ...
Click below to read my Reading
Compensatory Paper in full text.
READING COMPENSATORY PAPER
References
Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A. C. K., Chamberlain, A. M., & et al.
(2007). Final reading outcomes of ...
IRA issues statement on reading first report. (cover story). (2008). Reading
Today, 25(6), 1.
Kersten, J., & Pardo, L. (20...
Schwartz, R. M., Hobsbaum, A., Briggs, C., & Scull, J. (2009). Reading recovery
and evidencebased practice: A response to ...
Melissa Snell Reading Compensatory Programs Project
Melissa Snell Reading Compensatory Programs Project
Melissa Snell Reading Compensatory Programs Project
Melissa Snell Reading Compensatory Programs Project
Melissa Snell Reading Compensatory Programs Project
Melissa Snell Reading Compensatory Programs Project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Melissa Snell Reading Compensatory Programs Project

678 views

Published on

EDRD 7717 Reading Compensatory Project

Published in: Education, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
678
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Melissa Snell Reading Compensatory Programs Project

  1. 1. Melissa Snell EDRD 7717
  2. 2. READING RECOVERY SUCCESS FOR ALL READING FIRST RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION Used Across the United States
  3. 3. • 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)
  4. 4. PRO’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
  5. 5. • 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
  6. 6. 5 Essential  Strategies
  7. 7. PRO’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
  8. 8. • 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 ongrade 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
  9. 9. PRO’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
  10. 10. • 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
  11. 11. PRO’s of the Program • Useful for all elementary schools • Minimal training required • Early identification of problems • Leads to student success • Helps differentiate between which 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
  12. 12. Click below to read my Reading Compensatory Paper in full text. READING COMPENSATORY PAPER
  13. 13. References 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), 701731. 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
  14. 14. 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.
  15. 15. Schwartz, R. M., Hobsbaum, A., Briggs, C., & Scull, J. (2009). Reading recovery and evidencebased 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), 16911723. 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 Thanks for viewing this

×