Reading Recovery’s (RR) transition from New Zealand to the United States began at Barrington Elementary School in the Upper Arlington City Schools in Columbus, Ohio in the mid ’80’s in conjunction with Ohio State University.
One of the first RR teachers in the United States was Joetta Beaver.
One of the first dyslexic students taught using RR was Joseph James…
Letter to the Stranger Requesting Due Process
Cameron James, in his May, 1996 “Letter to the Stranger” requesting a due process hearing against Upper Arlington City Schools explained that:
Just before Joe’s first grade year was to begin, his teacher contacted my wife and told her that Joe qualified for the Reading Recovery program and Joe would receive one- on-one instruction, daily, from Joetta Beaver. My wife reminded Joetta that Joe was dyslexic. However, Joetta said, “I don’t want to hear about his dyslexia. I’m going to recover Joe.”
Joetta Beaver had been our daughter’s classroom teacher. She was also a teacher leader in Reading Recovery. We thought she new what she was doing. We considered Joetta and the other educators at Barrington as the “experts” in deciding what to do about Joe’s reading difficulties.
Today, I have learned that Reading Recovery was probably the worst thing that we could have done to Joe. Due to Joe’s dyslexia he had no natural phonological awareness and a poor visual memory. Instead of an intensive, systematic, phonological method like Orton-Gillingham, the Reading Recovery method teaches the child to use picture and context cues, and tries to get the child to memorize sight words. Every day, Joetta taught Joe to guess at words based upon what he saw in the pictures and his understanding of the sentence context.
Joe did not learn to read with the Reading Recovery method, but he did practice guessing at words day after day. This has had a devastating effect on Joe’s learning to read. Every time he would guess and be wrong he felt he had failed. This will emotionally effect Joe the rest of his life.
Joe got so frustrated that year that it changed his personality. Joe our happiest child was gone and Joe became a child who feared failure. Joe began to judge himself by his peers. They could read and he couldn’t. Joe’s self esteem dropped through the floor. Joetta was so determined to Recover Joe that she indicated to us that she had kept him in the Reading Recovery program “twice as long” as normal. Joe finally got so upset that he refused to go to Reading Recovery and Joetta stopped her sessions.
To read the letter, go to: https://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/stranger/joejames.ltr.pdf
District Court Complaint
In the subsequent Complaint I filed in the U. S. District Court, I explained that:
The plaintiffs are also seeking damages for the continued use of the wholly inappropriate whole language Reading Recovery teaching technique that was used to secure economic gain and benefit for the Upper Arlington School District and the Upper Arlington School District staff to the detriment of their son.
In the body of the Complaint, I asserted that:
19. At the time it was used with Joe, Reading Recovery was not proven to be successful in teaching dyslexic children how to read and write.
20. Research conducted over the past several years has shown that Reading Recovery is not successful in teaching dyslexic children how to read and write.
21. The parents were not informed that Reading Recovery did not have a proven track record with dyslexic children.
22. Unknown at that time to Nancy and Cameron James, and upon present information and belief, the Upper Arlington School District, Joetta Beaver, and the Education Department of the Ohio State University either had, at that time, or have at present, entered into a business financial relationship with each other.
23. The effect of said business and financial relationship is to generate income for the Education Department of Ohio State University by promoting the use of Reading Recovery.
24. The effect of said business and financial relationship is to generate income for the Upper Arlington School District by promoting the use of Reading Recovery.
25. The effect of said business and financial relationship has been to generate income for Joetta Beaver by promoting the use of Reading Recovery.
To read the full complaint, go to:
Prevailing at the 6th Circuit
Needless to say, I have no use for RR.
While I made RR one of the primary psychological/emotional themes of my case, that portion was not litigated. We lost at DP, Review Hearing, and District Court without any actual evidence or testimony being heard at any stage.
However, in September, 2000, we prevailed at the 6th Circuit. Upper Arlington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court who refused to grant cert and the case was then settled without going to an actual trial.
Upper Arlington knew that we had the research and the experts lined up ready to testify that RR damages children with dyslexia. We also intended to prove that RR, Upper Arlington, and Ohio State had an insidious economic relationship, ergo, case settled.
Reading Recovery, Not for the Dyslexic
Robin Hansen, in her article Reading Recovery, Not for the Dyslexic or Anyone Else [no longer available] says, “…it has now been proven that Reading Recovery’s “research” was flawed and the results were not impressive!”
Read some of the findings of reviews and other studies evaluating the impact of Reading Recovery. http://www.examiner.com/x-4959-Special-Education-Examiner~y2009m4d29-Reading-Recovery-not-for-the-dyslexic-or-anyone-else [no longer available]