What Evidence Says About Recovery Executive Summary What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery CONTENTS

1. Reading Recovery is highly successful with lowest-performing first-grade students...... 2

2. Cost-effectiveness in a complex concept in education...... 3

3. Reading Recovery uses standard assessment measures...... 4

4. Change is an integral part of the Reading Recovery design...... 5

University Training Centers for Reading Recovery in the United States ...... 8

Authorship This report is written by members of the North American Trainers Group, an organization which includes researchers and academics from Reading Recovery’s 23 university training centers in the United States. It was published by the Reading Recovery Council of North America, a not-for-profit organization with the mission of making Reading Recovery available to every first-grade child who needs its support to learn to read and write.

For the Full Report A copy of the full 77-page report, “What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery,” can be downloaded from the Reading Recovery Web site, www.readingrecovery.org, or you may visit the Web site to find instructions for ordering a printed copy.

1929 Kenny Road , Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43210-1069 www.readingrecovery.org

© 2002 Reading Recovery® Council of North America, Inc. All rights reserved. What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In May 2002, a letter criticizing Reading Recovery was widely distributed to mem- bers of Congress and the education com- munity via the Internet. Although the let- ter purports to be an academic debate, its motivation appears to be political. The let- ter was released as states and local school districts were developing budgets and fed- eral grant applications. The letter builds a distorted case based on flawed research and selective reporting of Reading Recovery studies.

In the national debate about scientifically In Reading Recovery, children meet individually with based research and accountability, Reading a specially trained teacher for 30 minutes daily for Recovery is a surprising target because no 12 to 20 weeks. program is more accountable and has a stronger scientific base than Reading researchers at The Ohio State University. Recovery. Reading Recovery is a short-term Reading Recovery’s not-for-profit network intervention for the lowest-achieving chil- connects 23 universities, 3,293 school dis- dren in first grade. Children meet individ- tricts, Department of Defense Schools, and ually with a specially trained teacher for 10,622 elementary schools in the United 30 minutes daily for 12 to 20 weeks. States alone (National Data Evaluation Children are tested before entering Center [NDEC], 2002; see pages 8–9 for a Reading Recovery to assure that they are complete list of Reading Recovery universi- the lowest-achieving readers in their class. ty training centers). Reading Recovery is They are also tested after their lessons are not only available for children struggling to discontinued and at the end of first grade. learn to read in English: it has been recon- The outcome of their lessons is compared structed in Spanish, French, and Maori with a random sample of their peers. and is currently being reconstructed in Results are reported on school, district, and other . national levels. The Internet letter chooses to ignore all of Cumulative 17-year results show that in this easily available information in an the United States, 60% of all children attempt to undermine public confidence in served can read at class average after their Reading Recovery. In addition, the lessons, and 81% of children who have the Internet letter reflects a broader public full series of lessons can read at class aver- debate about the nature of scientific evi- age. No other intervention in the United dence in reading research and the relation- States has such an extensive database and ship of federal policy to local school deci- such strong accountability. More than one sion making. These issues are discussed million children have been served in more fully in a response letter signed by Reading Recovery since it came to the more than 200 academic leaders and United States in 1984 through a team of researchers outside Reading Recovery. The

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery page 1 signers represent an international group of bring the learning of many children up to independent scholars and researchers who that of their average-achieving peers….It is have studied , , and learn- clear that many children leave the program ing in many contexts. This letter, entitled with well-developed reading strategies, “A Broader View of Evidence: Reading including and knowl- Recovery as an Example,” makes the fol- edge of spelling” (Shanahan & Barr, 1995, lowing key points: p. 989). • Public education dollars belong Many evaluation studies demonstrate that to citizens, not to a small group the majority of Reading Recovery students of researchers who have a particu- maintain and improve their gains in later lar point of view. grades. Several studies using widely accept- • A scientific stance requires a com- ed standardized measures or state assess- plete, evidence-based analysis of ment measures show strong results for any educational program. Reading Recovery students (Askew et al., 2002; Brown, Denton, Kelly, & Neal, • Policy makers have the responsi- 1999; Pinnell, 1989; Rowe, 1995; Schmitt bility to consider evidence from a & Gregory, 2001). wide range of perspectives and validated research models. Former Reading Recovery students, like all • Responsibly and rigorously col- students, need good classroom teaching to lected evaluation data provide continue their progress. Reading Recovery legitimate evidence of program is a short-term safety net, an essential com- success. ponent in a school’s comprehensive literacy program. Two studies in refereed journals • An early intervention program reveal that Reading Recovery students like Reading Recovery is part of a experience gains in self-concept (Cohen, comprehensive literacy effort. McDonnell, & Osborn, 1989; Rumbaugh & Brown, 2000). This report is written by Reading Recovery researchers and academics from Reading Evidence supporting Reading Recovery’s Recovery’s university training centers in the effectiveness not only appears in peer- United States and is a response to the four reviewed journals. It is also evident in the criticisms in the Internet letter. evaluation data collected and reported annually by the National Data Evaluation 1. Reading Recovery is highly Center located in the College of Education successful with the lowest- at The Ohio State University. The data performing first-grade students. allow local administrators and school boards to monitor children’s results and to Research in peer-reviewed journals docu- examine implementation data such as the ments Reading Recovery’s effectiveness number of lessons missed, reasons for (Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, & missed lessons, and level of implementa- McNaught, 1995; Iversen & Tunmer, tion in a school. 1993; Pinnell, 1997; Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994; Sylva & To advance their political agenda, the Hurry, 1996; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). authors of the Internet letter selectively Objective critics acknowledge that Reading report and distort the limited set of experi- Recovery works: “Evidence firmly supports mental studies they present to their col- the conclusion that Reading Recovery does leagues, politicians, and the public. The page 2 What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery clearest instance of this distortion is in By intervening early, Reading Recovery their use of the Elbaum, Vaughn, and reduces referrals and placements in special Moody (2000) meta-analysis. The letter education (NDEC, 2002), limits retention, states, “In fact, for the poorest readers, and has demonstrated lasting effects. empirical synthesis of ‘in-house’ and inde- Retention and special education referral pendent studies indicates that Reading each have a substantial price tag. The local Recovery is not effective. In Elbaum et al. costs of providing Reading Recovery servic- (2000), the gains for the poorest readers es for 12 to 20 weeks are substantially less instructed by Reading Recovery were than special education and retention costs, almost zero.” particularly when the majority of Reading Recovery children sustain and improve Why is this a distortion? It ignores the their literacy learning gains in subsequent major finding of this meta-analysis that the years of primary education (Brown et al., effect of Reading Recovery on student per- 1999; Schmitt & Gregory, 2001). formance was large and significant. The Elbaum et al. (2000) study states, “For Authors of the Internet letter base their Reading Recovery interventions, effects for recommendations on inadequate research. students identified as discontinued were The 2000 meta-analysis by Elbaum, substantial, whereas effects for students Vaughn, and Moody is again cited. A clos- identified as not discontinued were not sig- er look at the meta-analysis reveals that evi- nificantly different from zero” (p. 605). dence is based on an unpublished doctoral The Internet letter emphasizes the small number of students who did not make progress while it ignores the fact that the By intervening early, Reading Recovery reduces majority of students made substantial referrals and placements in special education. progress. It also implies that the not- discontinued students were the ones with the lowest entry scores. This is not true. The interpretation of this information in dissertation (Evans, 1996) and an unpub- the Internet letter seems biased. lished master’s thesis (Acalin, 1995). Evans’ doctoral dissertation supporting the effec- tiveness of group instruction is based on a 2. Cost-effectiveness is a complex very small sample of eight children: four concept in education. randomly assigned to Reading Recovery and four assigned to a small group inter- The Internet letter states that “Reading vention. The Reading Recovery teacher Recovery is not cost-effective because the studied in the dissertation was in the first developers require one-to-one interventions months of the training year and had not by highly trained teachers.” It is inappro- recently taught primary-grade students. priate to label a program as expensive or Evidence of equivalence for the two groups not cost-effective without extensive was lacking at pre-test. research comparison with other programs that target the same student population Evidence from the Acalin master’s thesis is and seek to achieve the same results. Both even more suspect. Reading Recovery les- long- and short-term benefits must be con- sons were not even delivered by a Reading sidered in this type of research. Such stud- Recovery teacher, but by special education ies are rare in medical research and almost teachers who had not participated in nonexistent in educational studies. Reading Recovery training. Furthermore, although Reading Recovery is a first-grade

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery page 3 intervention, Acalin provided instruction needed to demonstrate the implications of to 66 subjects in first through fourth a change from individual to small group grades. Only eight of the children were in instruction; however, researchers within first grade, with four assigned to Reading and outside Reading Recovery should con- Recovery and four to Project Read. tinue to study all possibilities. Research supports one-to-one tutoring and indicates In addition to the two studies in Elbaum, that it may be essential for children who the Internet letter cites another unpub- are at high risk (Bloom, 1984; Juel, 1991; lished doctoral dissertation (Iversen, 1997) Wasik & Slavin, 1993). The systematic as support for group intervention. Iversen nature of Reading Recovery instruction is claims to compare Reading Recovery with based on a teacher’s detailed assessment an instructional intervention for groups of and analysis of a child’s knowledge base two. The Reading Recovery program, how- and skills. The teaching is highly efficient ever, was not standard with regard to train- because the teacher has this precise inven- ing, screening and selection procedures, or tory of skills and strategies and is able to teaching procedures. Design and method- teach exactly what the child needs to know ological issues also raise numerous ques- next. tions. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions about Reading Recovery from the data presented. 3. Reading Recovery uses standard assessment measures. Even casual consumers of scientific Reading Recovery pre-tests and post-tests research would wonder why the Evans and students using the measures published in Acalin studies were considered to have met An Observation of Early Literacy Achieve- criteria for inclusion in a meta-analysis that ment (Clay, 1993a/2002). The survey is a purports to follow, in the authors’ own standard set of measures developed in words, “best practices for research synthe- research studies with qualities of sound sis” (Elbaum et al., 2000, p. 606). assessment instruments having reliability, validity, and discrimination indices. It was Studies cited by Elbaum and her colleagues developed to meet the unique need to provide virtually no evidence to support a assess emergent literacy in young children. change from one-to-one to small group The survey is comprised of six literacy instruction for the lowest-achieving first tasks with established validity and reliabili- graders. The suggestions for Reading ty: letter identification, word test, concepts Recovery to change from one-to-one about print, , hearing instruction is especially weak because there and recording sounds in words, and text is documented evidence of success with reading. The Internet letter suggests a pref- hundreds of thousands of the lowest- erence for norm-referenced tests that are performing first-grade students. Reading widely available and commonly used in Recovery has also developed a design for reading intervention research. Although dissemination and teacher training that these tests may yield valid comparisons for allow these results to be replicated in students who are already reading, they are diverse contexts across the United States not sensitive to variability in emerging and the world. knowledge and are not useful as baseline measures to assess change in early literacy. One-to-one tutoring is a central aspect of Some studies, however, have used stan- both the theory and design of Reading dardized measures and state assessments to Recovery, and there is a body of research to explore subsequent performance of former support it. Extensive research would be page 4 What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery • differentiation between the way the teacher supports children dur- ing the reading of a new text and the role of familiar reading; and • more information on how to teach for and phrasing.

In addition to changes reflected in the Guidebook, Reading Recovery uses results from the National Data Evaluation Center to analyze and guide changes in implemen- tation at the local, state, and national lev- els. Reading Recovery’s extensive and con- In Reading Recovery, children are shown how to use tinuing training for all personnel supports letter-sound relationships to solve words in reading changes. Change is also evident in the and writing and how to use structural analysis of standards and guidelines of the Reading words and to learn spelling patterns. Recovery Council of North America. All schools must adhere to these standards in Reading Recovery children (Askew et al., order to be in compliance with the royalty- 2002; Brown et al., 1999; Schmitt & free trademark granted annually to partici- Gregory, 2001); they show that Reading pating schools by The Ohio State Univer- Recovery children do in fact maintain and sity. This trademark helps to ensure quality improve their gains. and consistency in Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery is a not-for-profit part- nership of universities and local school 4. Change is an integral part of the districts. Reading Recovery design. The Internet letter recommends explicit Reading Recovery has built-in mechanisms instruction in and phonemic for change. The central program document awareness and suggests that Reading is Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Recovery ignores these important instruc- Teachers in Training (Clay, 1993b). tional components. Any astute observer of Originally published as Early Detection of a Reading Recovery lesson would recognize Reading Difficulties (1979/1985), it was the explicit teaching of letters, sounds, and thoroughly revised and retitled in 1993. words. In Reading Recovery, children are The Guidebook reveals significant additions shown how to use letter-sound relation- over years of development including: ships to solve words in reading and writing • more intensive attention to and and how to use structural analysis of words detailed description of the role of and to learn spelling patterns (Pinnell, phonemic awareness; 2000). A study by Stahl, Stahl, and McKenna (1999) demonstrates that • explicit directions for teachers in Reading Recovery students do in fact per- helping children use letter-sound form well on standardized tests of phone- relationships and phonics; mic awareness and phonological coding. • more deliberate focus on compre- hension strategies during the One academic researcher studying a wide reading of a new book; range of programs made the following observation about Reading Recovery: “The

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery page 5 importance of phonological and linguistic been included in Reading Recovery pro- awareness is also explicitly recognized” grams around the world. (Adams, 1990, p. 420) and went on to describe Reading Recovery as one of several The second study cited in the Internet let- programs that “are designed to develop ter in support of explicit phonics is by thorough appreciation of phonics.…On Morris, Tyner, and Perney (2000). This the other hand, none of these programs study looked at some alternative staffing, treats phonics in a vacuum” (p. 421). training, and instructional approaches to early intervention. Morris and his col- The Internet letter cites two studies to sup- leagues did place a greater emphasis on iso- port its contention that Reading Recovery lated word study, but they also modeled would improve with more explicit phonics. more than three-quarters of the lesson for- The first, a 1993 study by Iversen and mat on Reading Recovery. The results indi- Tunmer, recommended that Reading cated that students who participated in Recovery add explicit phonics and phone- their First Steps program made better mic awareness. In fact, the modifications progress than a matched group of low stu- had already been made before this study dents in non-participating comparison was carried out. Iversen herself had been schools. This study was not designed to trained as a teacher leader in the early years compare results against Reading Recovery of Reading Recovery training in New or to isolate the contribution of a particu- lar form of word study in relation to other program components. The claim in the One academic researcher studying a wide range Internet letter that “the addition of an of programs made the following observation explicit component addressing spelling-to- about Reading Recovery: “The importance of sound patterns was highly effective” seems phonological and linguistic awareness is also questionable given that First Steps students explicitly recognized.” (Adams, 1990) received tutoring for the entire school year, averaging 91 lessons per student.

Zealand, but at the time of the study, she In the debate about how to teach phonics, was no longer teaching Reading Recovery the authors of the Internet letter draw on a and was not attending continuing profes- 1999 report of the Literacy Experts Group sional development to receive program in New Zealand. The group recommended updates. Thus, the Reading Recovery “greater emphasis on explicit instruction in instruction provided in the study was out and the use of of date, even in 1993. Despite this short- spelling-to-sound patterns in recognizing coming, results of the Iversen and Tunmer unfamiliar words in text.” In response to study indicated that both the traditional the Internet letter and this recommenda- Reading Recovery group and the phonics- tion, a member of the Literacy Experts enhanced group outperformed a control Group wrote: group on all measures of deletion It would be regrettable if…[any of and phoneme segmentation. The group the] recommendations from the with increased emphasis on phonemic 1999 Literacy Experts Group was awareness had programs that were shorter construed as meaning that this than Iversen’s traditional group. Interest- group was among those attacking ingly, the increase in phonemic awareness Reading Recovery. Because it and phonics that Iversen included in train- wasn’t…Most striking however, is ing of her experimental group had already the clear message that most of this page 6 What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery debate is about some researchers Cohen, S. G., McDonnell, G., & Osborn, B. (1989). Self-percep- tions of at risk and high achieving readers: Beyond Reading talking to some other researchers, Recovery achievement data. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell with very little buy-in from the (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction: Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading teachers who implement Reading Conference (pp. 117–122). Chicago, IL: National Reading Recovery, or those with experience Conference. Croft, C. (2002, July 15). Reading Recovery and literacy experts of translating research findings into group [Letter to the editor]. The Education Weekly, 13(506), effective classroom programmes. 2–3. And, there is a huge gulf between a Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S. M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for ele- research study and a programme mentary students at risk for reading failure: A meta-analysis of that works in a classroom. This is the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605–619. one area where the four New Evans, T. L. P. (1996). I can read deze books: A qualitative compari- Zealand signatories of the U.S. son of the Reading Recovery program and small-group intervention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, [Internet] letter are out-of-step Alabama. with many other reading Iversen, S. (1997). Reading Recovery as a small group intervention. researchers and literacy educators Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. in New Zealand. (Croft, 2002, Iversen, S. J., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phonological processing pp. 2–3) skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112–126. In summary, there is substantial scientific Juel, C. (1991). Cross-age tutoring between student athletes and at-risk children. Reading Teacher, 45(3), 178–186. evidence to support Reading Recovery’s Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early Steps: Replicating effectiveness with lowest-performing first- the effects of a first-grade reading intervention program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 681–693. grade students. Reading Recovery does not National Data Evaluation Center. (2002). Reading Recovery and claim to be the only solution to the Descubriendo la Lectura national report 2000–2001. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. nation’s reading problems, nor does it seek Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children preferential treatment for funding under learn to read. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 161–183. Pinnell, G. S. (1997). Reading Recovery: A review of research. In the No Child Left Behind Act. Rather, J. Squire, J. Flood, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on Reading Recovery seeks the right to be teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. considered as an early intervention option 638–654). New York: Macmillan Publishing. Pinnell, G. S. (2000). Reading Recovery: An analysis of a research- for state and local educational authorities. based reading intervention. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America. Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A., & Seltzer, REFERENCES N. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, Acalin, T. A. (1995). A comparison of Reading Recovery to Project 29, 8–39. Read. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Rowe, K. J. (1995). Factors affecting students’ progress in reading: Fullerton. Key findings from a longitudinal study. Literacy, Teaching and Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 1(2), about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 57–110. Askew, B. J., Kaye, E., Frasier, D. F., Mobasher, M., Anderson, N., Rumbaugh, W., & Brown, C. (2000). The impact of Reading & Rodríguez, Y. (2002). Making a case for prevention in educa- Recovery participation on student’s self-concepts. Reading tion. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Psychology, 21, 13–30. Early Reading and Writing, 6(2), 43–73. Schmitt, M. C., & Gregory, A. E. (2001, December). The impact Bloom, B. (1984). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of early interventions: Where are the children now? Paper present- of group instruction as effective one-to-one tutoring. ed at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Educational Researcher, 13, 4–16. San Antonio, TX. Brown, W., Denton, E., Kelly, P., & Neal, J. (1999). Reading Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). A synthesis of research on Recovery effectiveness: A five-year success story in San Luis Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958–996. Coastal Unified School District. ERS Spectrum: Journal of Stahl, K. A. D., Stahl, S., & McKenna, M. C. (1999). The devel- School Research and Information, 17(1), 3–12. opment of phonological awareness and orthographic processing Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, in Reading Recovery. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An M. (1995). An experimental evaluation of Reading Recovery. International Journal of Early Literacy, 4(1) 27–42. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 240–263. Sylva, K., & Hurry, J. (1996). Early intervention in children with Clay, M. M. (1979/1985). Early detection of reading difficulties. reading difficulties: An evaluation of Reading Recovery and a Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. phonological training. Literacy, Teaching, and Learning: An Clay, M. M. (1993a/2002). An observation survey of early literacy International Journal of Early Literacy, 2(2), 49–68. achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading fail- Clay, M. M. (1993b). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in ure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179–200.

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery page 7 University Training Centers for Reading Recovery in the United States

1 California State University at Fresno 5 Lesley University Dean: Paul Shaker Dean: William Dandridge Trainers: Jeanette Methven Trainers: Irene Fountas Judith Neal Eva Konstantellou

2 Clemson University 6 National-Louis University Dean: Lawrence Allen Dean: Elizabeth Hawthorne Trainer: Diane DeFord Trainer: Tina Lozano

3 Emporia State University 7 New York University Dean: Tes Mehring Dean: Ann Marcus Trainer: Connie Briggs Trainers: M. Trika Smith-Burke Jo Anne LoFaso 4 Georgia State University Joe Yukish Dean: Ronald Colarusso Trainers: Sue Duncan Clifford Johnson

page 8 What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery 8 Oakland University 16 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Dean: Mary Otto Dean: Angela Sewall Trainers: Mary Lose Trainer: Linda Dorn Robert Schwartz Lee Skandalaris 17 University of Connecticut Dean: Richard Schwab 9 Purdue University Trainer: Mary Anne Doyle Dean: Jerry Peters Trainer: Maribeth Schmitt 18 University of Iowa Dean: Sandra Bowman Damico 10 Saint Mary’s College Trainer: Salli Forbes Dean: Nancy Sorenson Trainers: Adria Klein 19 University of Kentucky Barbara Schubert Dean: James Cibulka Trainer: Judy Embry 11 San Diego State University Dean: Lionel Meno 20 University of Maine Trainer: Sharan Gibson Dean: Robert Cobb Patricia Kelly Trainer: Paula Moore

12 Shippensburg University 21 University of North Carolina– Dean: Robert Bartos Wilmington Trainer: Janet Bufalino Dean: Cathy Barlow Trainer: Noel Jones 13 Texas Woman’s University Dean: Keith Swigger 22 University of South Dakota Trainers: Nancy Anderson Dean: Hank Rubin Billie Askew Trainer: Garreth Zalud Betsy Kaye Yvonne Rodriguez 23 Western Michigan University Dean: Rollin Douma 14 The Ohio State University Trainer: Beulah Lateef Dean: Donna Evans Trainers: Mary Fried Susan Fullerton Carol Lyons Gay Su Pinnell Emily Rodgers

15 University of Alabama at Birmingham Dean: Michael Froning Trainer: Kathleen Martin

What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery page 9 Reading Recovery Council of North America Nonprofit Org. c/o The Ohio State University US Postage 1929 Kenny Road, Suite 100 PAID Columbus, Ohio 43210-1069 Columbus, Ohio Permit No. 711 12752-900273-61801 The mission of the Reading Recovery Council of North America is to ensure access to Reading Recovery for every child who needs its support.

Phone 614-292-7111 Fax 614-292-4404 Visit us online www.readingrecovery.org