What Michigan tried to do was make all teachers "Reading Recovery" teachers 
 by teaching them the Reading Recovery strategies so that they could use 
them  with those students who needed them ( MLPP training). Why should just a 
few  teachers be privy to them? I loved the concept and supported it  
strongly but I'm not sure if it is still working. It kind of stalled with  NCLB 
and the NRP I think. Any other Michigan teachers want to jump in  here?
 
Nancy 
 
 
In a message dated 9/27/2009 9:54:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[email protected] writes:

Yes,  Lori.  All good points.  Anytime a strategy or intervention is seen  
as a "cure" we're in big trouble.
Elisa

Elisa Waingort
Grade 2  Spanish Bilingual
Dalhousie Elementary
Calgary, Canada

The best  and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even 
touched. They  must be felt within the heart. 
—Helen Keller

Visit my blog, A  Teacher's Ruminations, and post a  message.
http://waingortgrade2spanishbilingual.blogspot.com/



Reading  Recovery never failed to make a difference to a child in our 
district, but it  was not cost effective and the gains did not live up to 
expectation. Our  testing showed similar results--some short term gains and a 
tendency for  children to fall short of grade level expectations with 
consistency 
through  upper grades. At the risk of offending, I would say that that 
failure cannot  be placed only on the shoulders of the reading recovery 
program. 
The ability  to teach reading is not a given among classroom teachers and 
in my former  community, the consistency of support outside of the walls of 
the classroom  was rife.  We also saw Reading Recovery misused, and again, 
this is my  opinion, in that children who clearly were struggling across the 
board and  would otherwise have been referred to a more holistic and long 
term support  system were instead placed into RR in hopes of salvation.  These 
children  always made some sort of improvement but their needs were clearly 
going to be  ongoing. I believe this often prevented the 'ideal candidates' 
from being  services or relegated them to second round servicing. Try as 
they might (our  RR teachers were a WONDERFUL group), second round kiddos 
seldom got the full  benefits of the intervention. Another issue was continuing 
contact.  Most  of our schools overburdened the RR teachers so that the 
discontinued child was  simply thrown back into the sea and expected to swim 
solo.   


Lori Jackson M.Ed.Reading Specialist
Broken Bow,  NE






EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
Join  me


_______________________________________________
Mosaic  mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe or modify your  membership please go  to
http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.

Search  the MOSAIC archives at  http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.



_______________________________________________
Mosaic mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to
http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.

Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.

Reply via email to