Search

This report states that in 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 in Maine the number of Reading Recovery programs provided increased by 5% and 11% respectively, and that more than half of all Reading Recovery[R] students successfully completed the program. The report also states that students who successfully completed Reading Recovery[R] continued to improve in reading levels after they left the program, even without the extra instruction, and that most of the Reading Recovery[R] students who successfully completed the program were in the upper half of their classes in reading achievement, with many in the top quartile. It finds that the majority of Reading Recovery[R] students were reading on grade level at the end of first grade, and that very few were referred for special education services in reading, even though they had been the very lowest students in their first grades. It also finds that schools that reported they were able to serve all the students who needed Reading Recovery[R] recommended fewer students for further services and had fewer students with incomplete programs at the year's end. The report presents several implementation recommendations and calls for more funding for Reading Recovery[R] in Maine. (Contains 12 tables of data and 4 figures. Appended are: (1) a rubric for assessing a school's operation of Reading Recovery and (2) a hard to accelerate student action plan.) (NKA)

In an effort to discover how Maine schools are operating their Reading Recovery (RR) programs, Maine Reading Recovery teachers provided information related to school-level implementation. Although completion of the Maine data forms was optional, three-fourths of the 346 Maine RR teachers completed the forms. Two types of implementation data were collected: teacher data (questionnaires) and student data (questionnaires about RR students completed by teachers). This report presents the information collected on the Maine data forms and infers factors in the implementation that may affect Reading Recovery student outcomes in Maine. The report finds that these aspects of Reading Recovery programs are working well in Maine: skilled teachers are making a significant impact on literacy learning; the very lowest children in the first grade are being served; and most Maine schools have a RR team which participates in selecting and monitoring the progress of RR children. It states that analysis of implementation data indicates that Maine schools could improve the operation of their programs in three major areas: provide full coverage for Reading Recovery; begin first-round RR children's programs promptly; and train more special education teachers to use RR procedures. Includes 5 figures and 5 tables of data. A rubric for assessing a school's operation of Reading Recovery is attached. (NKA)

The purpose of this report is to identify the attitudes of parents, administrators, and teachers about the Reading Recovery[R] program in Maine. The report provides samples of comments and quality ratings as assessed by the standard annual survey forms and supplements the full State of Maine Reading Recovery[R] 1997-1998 Report and Evaluation. It states that, as part of program evaluation for Reading Recovery[R] in Maine, parents, administrators, Reading Recovery[R] teachers, and classroom teachers responded to open-ended survey questions and rated the program along dimensions of quality. It reports that the attitudes about the Reading Recovery[R] program were very positive. (NKA)

This report summarizes statewide findings about Maine's Reading Recovery (RR) program based on data from the 1996-97 school year. The information presented in the report includes a brief history of the program in Maine, school-level implementation of the program, demographic information about the children served, the amount of time children spent in the program, program outcomes, literacy achievement over the first-grade year, and information about classroom teachers' professional development in early literacy. At the end of the report, the Statewide Program Coordinator and Trainer of Teacher Leaders gives recommendations. The revised report differs from the original only where the "carried-over" children are concerned; after the initial report was published, additional data on these children were received that compelled researchers to reassess the outcome of this subgroup of children. The 1997-98 Revised Report and Evaluation Supplement focuses on the new data. The supplement explains that many RR students start the program as "second round" children, meaning they start the program after another child has exited (those with the greatest needs, "first round" children, are started first). Therefore, the second round children do not receive their first RR lesson until late winter or the early spring of their first grade year and the school year ends before they can complete the program. The supplement represents the first report to focus solely on the progress of such "carried-over" children. (NKA)