Nancy, in the school district I worked in for ten years (in San Jose,
CA) we did essentially the same thing. We had "officially trained and
certified" RR teachers, AND primary teachers were given training on RR
strategies to use them in the classroom. I thought it worked quite
well. We had the RR teacher for support and she worked with a few
students from each primary classroom.
Renee
On Sep 27, 2009, at 6:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
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.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities."
~ Voltaire
_______________________________________________
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.
