SERVING THE LOWEST CHILDREN FIRST

IN READING RECOVERY

University of North Carolina Wilmington

Many administrators and teachers unfamiliar with Marie Clay's ideas find it difficult to accept the Reading Recovery standard of selecting for service first the children with the lowest literacy performance. The standard further specifies that children should be selected without exclusions of any kind.

This article addresses arguments typically raised in objection to this standard. An attempt is made to counter those arguments on the basis of Clay's theories and on the basis of evidence and experience with the teaching of hundreds of thousands of Reading Recovery children.

• Entry level scores are valid predictors of who can make accelerated progress

Observation survey scores are valid and reliable measures for assessing and comparing children's literacy understandings and skills at a given point in time. Without an individual intervention, entry level scores would be a fairly good predictor of future progress. However, given the opportunity of an individual intervention, future progress is unpredictable. Many children with very low entry scores have accelerated and discontinued quite quickly. Many children with relatively higher scores have proved to be very difficult to teach and have made very slow progress. The point is that a strong, consistent intervention based upon skillful teaching confounds predictions based upon entering scores.

• Children with low fall scores would accelerate more quickly if they were first instructed in groups to develop literacy concepts and early strategies

Children with the lowest scores are the children that are least likely to profit from group instruction. Clay's research shows that at-risk children require individual tutoring tailored to what each child knows and is able to do at specific points in time. There are many reasons for children's low scores as they begin the task of becoming literate. As soon as two or more at-risk children are together for instruction, the chances of serving the leaning needs of each child are dramatically reduced. There are always going to be differences in what two children know, how they learn, how they relate to others, and in many other factors.

When low-scoring children are in group learning situations where they cannot successfully complete the learning tasks posed for them, they are still learning -- they are learning is how to cope in an environment where they cannot function. They learn that they are incapable. They learn how to tune out what others are talking about. They learn how to get attention in negative ways.

• If higher scoring children were served first, they would discontinue more quickly so that more could be served

The more rapid progress of second-round children is a product of their learning within the classroom and small group situations during the early part of the year. If children were selected properly - serving first the lowest children - then second round children would have been, on average, more capable of learning in small group or classroom situations. Sometimes they are more difficult to teach than first round children - because on learned habits and attitudes that interfere. But they have almost always picked up more literacy item knowledge - they have some literacy knowledge to build upon so that as they acquire strategies, they can use them more productively earlier in the process.

• Serving higher children first, and returning to pick up those with lower scores would be more efficient

Choosing higher scoring children for service first has not significantly reduced their time the program. Leaving the lowest scoring children in group learning situations does not advance their learning of literacy and it develops school failure syndromes. First-round children will take 12 to 20 weeks to discontinue (unless you are serving children who do not need an individual intervention), so second-round children have at most 10 to 12 weeks in the program. Serving lowest-scoring children second means that, as a group, they will not progress to levels where they can progress to the next grade and function successfully. They will still be a problem for he system.

E. Not all children can learn. Most children with low entering scores are destined for special education; there is a family history of special education.

Children who enter school with very limited learning or with serious confusions may eventually need long-term learning support from the exceptional children's program. However, many of these same children can be "recovered" from a slow learning path through an early intervention with skillful teaching. Reading Recovery has demonstrated over and over again that it is possible to accelerate the learning of many of these low performing children and enable them to function and learn in regular classrooms.

Convincing educators to retain an open mind about the fact that most children can learn, and to believe that specific children can learn, requires first-hand observation of dramatic changes in children brought about by teaching. Sometimes it is even difficult to convince a Reading Recovery teacher that the very lowest performing child can learn. Old beliefs persist, and if the teaching is at too high a level or is inappropriate for the child, these established beliefs become confirmed.

Many times a Reading Recovery child has become the first member of his or her family that has not been placed in special education. In places where the teacher leader and teachers work hard to learn how to teach such children, 60% or more of the first round children (the very lowest performers at the beginning of the year) have been successfully brought to average performance and normal expectations for their age and grade.

c:\wpdocs\Manuscri\99-00\Lowest first arguments