To the editor, UA News
The Reading Recovery program has been the subject of considerable debate lately. As a student at MIT majoring in cognitive science, I have read some of the research on the Reading Recovery program. Based on the research, I believe that the concerns about the program are valid.
There are several problems with Reading Recovery. A major problem is that it is based on the "whole language" method of reading instruction. There is no scientific justification supporting the use of either whole language or Reading Recovery. I have been able to locate only two independent, comparative studies of Reading Recovery, one of which was done in Ohio. Both studies showed that any gains made by children in Reading Recovery disappeared after six months.
The official, glowing statistics about the success of Reading Recovery are made possible by the fact that children who aren't successful in the program are not counted in the statistics the program releases. In particular, many children with learning disabilities are excluded. When the excluded participants are added into the statistics, the success of Reading Recovery diminishes dramatically. Further, estimates of success have been based on assessments that the Reading Recovery teachers provide their superiors rather than independent objective measurements. Remedial reading programs do exist that are based on scientific research and that have been proven by controlled research to be far more successful than Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery is very expensive and not worth the cost. The money could better be spent on more effective programs.
I applaud the UA parents who are questioning their children's education. There is reason for concern.
Emily Hanna, UAHS Class of 1996
2161 Arlington Avenue
488-7794