Fort Bend ISD teachers are concerned about the district’s plans to overhaul a 22-year-old early literacy program. Reading Recovery, a short-term intervention program for struggling first-graders, is up for retirement in the 2016-17 school year.
District leaders told the board of trustees at its Feb. 8 meeting that they will create a new program to reach more students each year. District staff evaluated Reading Recovery at 15 of FBISD’s 46 elementary schools and reported inconsistent implementation of the 20-week program as well as disappointing success rates for the past three years.
FBISD staff presented information comparing the annual cost and scope of Reading Recovery compared to a newly proposed model[/caption]
“Last year, for Reading Recovery [the success rate] was 51 percent and 64 percent for [the bilingual equivalent Descubriendo la Lectura],” Kristi Corbitt, FBISD director of elementary curriculum, said.
Reading Recovery uses two teachers who spend half their day with first-graders in the program and the other half of the day in a regular classroom or another program. This model serves 16 children per elementary school and costs the district about $3.7 million annually.
The new model presented by the district would assign one full-time “interventionist” to work daily with approximately 56 students in grades k-5 at each school in small groups. It would cost the district about $2.2 million annually, or about 41 percent less than Reading Recovery.
Teachers argued the proposed model would not be as effective as Reading Recovery because students would not have as much dedicated time with a reading specialist.
“The children that we take in Reading Recovery don’t work in those groups,” said Sandy Rakoski, a teacher for the program at Dulles Elementary School.
FBISD Superintendent Charles Dupre said the extra funds would go back into the new literacy program and that the district would not cut staff numbers by eliminating Reading Recovery. Instead, current Reading Recovery teachers could apply for the new interventionist position or take another a spot in the district. Sandy Buell, a Reading Recovery teacher at Highlands Elementary School, said that would be difficult for teachers who are only trained to work in a certain grade level or program.
Cyndi Blatzer, a Sienna Crossing Elementary School Reading Recovery teacher, said children rotate through the program all year, and some move to other schools or are recommended for special education after the 20 weeks.
“It’s not a true reflection of what’s happening,” she said of the reported success rates.
Reading Recovery began in the district in 1994 and Corbitt told the board that a study of the current program was prompted primarily because no such evaluation had been done for 10 years. Teachers were surprised to learn on Feb. 4 of the district’s announcement to overhaul Reading Recovery, and many sent emails to trustees after hearing the news.
Changing Reading Recovery does not require a board vote, but trustees recommended piloting the new program for a test run.
“My concern is always that we’re going through, and we’re looking at new models and we get rid of things that work,” trustee Dave Rosenthal said.
FBISD staff presented information comparing the annual cost and scope of Reading Recovery compared to a newly proposed model[/caption]
“Last year, for Reading Recovery [the success rate] was 51 percent and 64 percent for [the bilingual equivalent Descubriendo la Lectura],” Kristi Corbitt, FBISD director of elementary curriculum, said.
Reading Recovery uses two teachers who spend half their day with first-graders in the program and the other half of the day in a regular classroom or another program. This model serves 16 children per elementary school and costs the district about $3.7 million annually.
The new model presented by the district would assign one full-time “interventionist” to work daily with approximately 56 students in grades k-5 at each school in small groups. It would cost the district about $2.2 million annually, or about 41 percent less than Reading Recovery.
Teachers argued the proposed model would not be as effective as Reading Recovery because students would not have as much dedicated time with a reading specialist.
“The children that we take in Reading Recovery don’t work in those groups,” said Sandy Rakoski, a teacher for the program at Dulles Elementary School.
FBISD Superintendent Charles Dupre said the extra funds would go back into the new literacy program and that the district would not cut staff numbers by eliminating Reading Recovery. Instead, current Reading Recovery teachers could apply for the new interventionist position or take another a spot in the district. Sandy Buell, a Reading Recovery teacher at Highlands Elementary School, said that would be difficult for teachers who are only trained to work in a certain grade level or program.
Cyndi Blatzer, a Sienna Crossing Elementary School Reading Recovery teacher, said children rotate through the program all year, and some move to other schools or are recommended for special education after the 20 weeks.
“It’s not a true reflection of what’s happening,” she said of the reported success rates.
Reading Recovery began in the district in 1994 and Corbitt told the board that a study of the current program was prompted primarily because no such evaluation had been done for 10 years. Teachers were surprised to learn on Feb. 4 of the district’s announcement to overhaul Reading Recovery, and many sent emails to trustees after hearing the news.
Changing Reading Recovery does not require a board vote, but trustees recommended piloting the new program for a test run.
“My concern is always that we’re going through, and we’re looking at new models and we get rid of things that work,” trustee Dave Rosenthal said.
