1. Implementation Survey Information to inform actions to support and strengthen Reading Recovery in USA

2. Responses (out of possible 529) No.% Teacher Leaders 23670.2% Site Coordinator 92 27.4% Other 8 2.4% Total336 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, 2 nd 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) 1234567 Admin 18.4% 27.8%17.8%15.4%10.9%6.9%2.7% Teacher36.8%31.6%11.9%7.0%3.6%3.0% 6.1% Parent44.7%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. In your group (a) Identify a situation where a site has nearly collapsed but teachers &/or teacher leaders found ways of saving it (b) Or a situation where teachers/teacher leaders have done really smart things to communicate about (cost) effectiveness of RR Ten top ways to win over administrators

10. And the Common Core State Standards Reading Recovery

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.