Implementation Survey

1
Implementation Survey

Information to inform actions to support and
strengthen Reading Recovery in USA
2
Responses (out of possible 529)

• No.
• Teacher Leaders 236 70.2
• Site Coordinator 92 27.4
• Other 8 2.4
• Total 336 64

3
Questions

• 3 top implementation issues/concerns
• Usefulness of implementation guides
• Impact of Common Core State Standards
• Concern about the future
• How likely is your site to continue?
• Ratings of support from administrators, teachers,
  parents

4
For this meeting

• Implementation Guides?
• The most frequently cited issue (Q1) and the
  issue identified as most likely to impact future
  of RR sites (Q4)
• A major (linked) issue which bubbled up and was
  reiterated throughout the survey lack of
  administrative support, 2nd most influential on
  future or RR sites
• Most interesting range of responses impact of
  CCSS/ text complexity

5
Q1. Your TOP three implementation issues?

• Category of Response First Second
  Third Total
• 1. Costs/Funding 78 44 31 153
• 2. Transporting Children 71 56 24
  151
• 3. Size of Training Class 49 37 17
  103
• 4. Level of Coverage 31 18 9
  5
• 5. Administrative Support 18 22 12
  52

6
Q4. How concerned are you about the future of
Reading Recovery in your site? (Check 1-7)

• Category of Response No. if concerned (5-7)
• 1. Cost and funding 100
• 2. Lack of decision-maker/admin. support 34
  
• 3. One-to-one vs. small group
  18
• 4. Under-implementation 14
  
• 5. Other
  24

7
Q6. Rate support for RR with these audiences (1
Highly Supportive 7 Not supportive)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Admin 18.4 27.8 17.8 15.4 10.9 6.9 2.7
Teacher 36.8 31.6 11.9 7.0 3.6 3.0 6.1
Parent 44.7 28.0 10.6 4.3 3.0 4.0 5.5
8
Implementation Guides?

• Rich data about issues and concerns some
  information about what resources would be useful
• Exemplars of successful problem-solving
• Funding
• Transportation issues
• Quality training for small groups
• Ten top ways to communicate to administrators
  about -- - cost / effectiveness of RR

9
Ten top ways to win over administrators

• In your group
• Identify a situation where a site has nearly
  collapsed but teachers /or teacher leaders found
  ways of saving it
• Or a situation where teachers/teacher leaders
  have done really smart things to communicate
  about (cost) effectiveness of RR

10
Reading Recovery

• And the Common Core State Standards

11
Q3. Impact of CCSS on Reading Recovery
implementation in your site or schools?

• No problems with CCSS yet 19
• Impact of CCSS generally positive 26
• Issues and concerns Impact on Reading Recovery
• General impact on Reading Recovery 29
• Impact of text complexity 22
• Confusion about RR CCSS 11
• Budget concerns 10
• Evaluation/measurement 3
• Other comments 10
• Not involved with CCSS 6

12
Concerns about CCSS RR

• Time -for professional development on CCSS,
  working with classroom teachers, teaching time
  role for other half of the day
• Focus -on CCSS reduces focus on interventions and
  administrators wanting RR teachers to work with
  groups the need for RR teachers to KNOW the
  standards
• Stress -including concerns about role of CCSS
  standards in RR the push for higher and
  inappropriate expectations for children
  negotiating shared responsibility with classroom
  teachers
• Tension -between following RR standards along
  with CC standards. Districts often want Reading
  Recovery to address the CCSS, forgetting that RR
  is an intervention. Need for administrators to
  better understand the theory of what we do in RR.
  
• Budget -money for Reading Recovery and other
  interventions may shift to implement CCSS. Some
  comment on expenses related to purchasing
  nonfiction books and funds for conferences that
  may be shifted to CCSS training.
• Impact -on teacher evaluation which includes
  setting measureable student improvement goals
  driven by CCSS. Concern was also raised about
  not on track students based on approved
  diagnostic measures.

13
Text complexity approx. 16

• a lack of understanding about the kinds of texts
  early readers need to read and a mismatch with RR
  understandings of reading
• fewer opportunities for Reading Recovery children
  to read texts on instructional levels in their
  classrooms
• the need to raise the exit text level for Reading
  Recovery students
• text level assessments and benchmarks may not be
  accepted as valid in Common Core
• potential impact on classroom instruction such as
  not matching texts to readers, more whole group
  instruction with less guided reading
• the amount of nonfiction text children are
  expected to read.