Creating New Possibilities The Promise of Clay’s Theory of Literacy Processing: Training Literacy Lessons Intervention Specialists Eva Konstantellou, Trainer, Lesley University Mary K. Lose, Trainer, Oakland University
Clay’s revisions of the Guidebook [Literacy Lessons Designed for teaching career as a special education that resulted in Literacy Lessons Individuals] acknowledges that teacher in New Zealand. Clay had Designed for Individuals Part One and these things have occurred achieved success in teaching children Part Two (Clay, 2005a & 2005b) and implies that further explo- with measured low intelligence how have not only signaled refinements ration of working with some to read, and she reported her work and changes in the Reading Recov- special education children is as part of her master of arts thesis, ery teaching procedures but have appropriate. (Clay, 2005a, p. ii) Teaching of Reading to Special Class also highlighted new possibilities Children, completed in 1948. At a Along these lines, Clay envisioned for applying the theory underlying time when other countries had training for specialist teachers who Reading Recovery instruction to documented success in teaching want to expand their teaching rep- the teaching of a broader spectrum mentally disabled children how to ertoire through intensive study of of children experiencing extraor- read at levels beyond their mental the literacy processing theory that dinary literacy difficulties (Doyle, age, similar outcomes for these informs Reading Recovery. In this 2009). In fact, the change of the children had not been achieved in article, we describe the rationale for title of the revised guidebook from the New Zealand education system. training Literacy Lessons interven- Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for At the time, New Zealand education tion specialists, the historical and Teachers-In-Training to Literacy Les- policy promoted approaches to theoretical frameworks for its devel- sons Designed for Individuals was classroom instruction that valued opment, the culture of collaboration meant to capture Clay’s intent that individual learners in classrooms, that optimizes learning for all chil- many teachers of struggling literacy but failed to adequately respond to dren in our schools, and the current learners—beyond our set of Reading the learning needs of the lowest-per- development of Literacy Lessons Recovery teachers—could benefit forming children in classrooms. intervention specialist training in the from Reading Recovery theory and United States. Clay attributed this lack of success instructional procedures. So, Lit- to late referrals to special education eracy Lessons can serve as a valuable classes, poor training for teachers of resource not only for Reading The Rationale for special children, uncertainty about Recovery teachers but also for those Individual Interventions instructional approaches, and inap- teachers who design individual les- Beyond Reading Recovery: propriate instructional materials. She sons to meet the needs of the special advocated for individualized, preven- populations they teach. In Clay’s What Is Possible for tive, early intervention, instructional words, All Children? methods and materials that would If children require special indi- A historical note place meaning-making and language vidual instruction, help can be Marie Clay’s commitment to a focus experience at the forefront of the gained from Reading Recovery on the individual learner and the child’s learning, fostering change professionals in exploratory tri- need for intervention specialist sup- over time in the child’s visual dis- als. The new title for this book port can be traced to her earliest crimination of print, and support-
62 Journal of Reading Recovery Fall 2009 • Celebrating 25 Years of Reading Recovery in North America Creating New Possibilities
ing the child’s control over his own Lessons from Reading Recovery fies those children who do not make learning (Ballantyne, 2009, p. 11). Clay’s research into what is possible the accelerated progress necessary In spite of these earlier recommenda- for children whose reading goes to meet grade level expectations and tions, Clay, working as a school psy- astray in the first year of school who, therefore, require longer-term chologist in the 1950s, observed that led to the development of Reading support for their literacy learning 10% of the referred children were Recovery as a preventive intervention needs. Clay had commented on the placed in special classes, while 90% in literacy learning. Reading Recov- role of Reading Recovery as a pre- of these same children remained ery serves the lowest-performing first referral intervention in her seminal in regular classrooms without the graders excluding no child for what- article, “Learning to be Learning essential specialist support needed to ever reason from services (Lose & Disabled” (1987): “Reading Recovery respond to their reading difficulties. Konstantellou, 2005). Children who is a programme which should clear have been labeled as learning dis- out of the remedial education system Clay consistently argued that the abled and children who are acquiring all the children who do not learn to child challenged by literacy learning read for many event-produced rea- requires a skilled teacher who is pro- sons and all the children who have fessionally trained and who embraces organically-based reading problems… the complexity of literacy learning Clearly, throughout her leaving a small group of children required for supporting the range career—from 30 years requiring specialist attention” (p. of diversity among literacy learners. prior to the development 169). It was with these children and She reiterated this view in a paper on of Reading Recovery to their specialist teachers in mind that learning disorders written in 1972: the recent provision Clay envisioned instruction based For older children, the magic of Literacy Lessons on her theory of literacy learning is to individualize instruction innovations—Clay through adaptations of the Reading and to motivate the child to Recovery training and implemen- re-enter the area of previous called for appropriately tation. Clay expressed clearly her difficulty and try again. Given intensive instruction thinking regarding the teaching of these conditions, the chances of within education struggling readers needing long-term success are increased by having systems in support of specialist help in Change Over Time well-trained, sensitive teachers in Children’s Literacy Development. with a respect for the complex- the individual learner. If a policy of mainstreaming or ity of psychological functioning inclusion for children with pro- and for the diversity of paths nounced handicaps is operated which can lead to the same English are among those who have and a specialist report is avail- achievement. This eschews a responded successfully to Reading able, special conditions may be misplaced faith in one type of Recovery because teaching is tailored arranged, over and above the program and one theoretical to their individual needs, and the normal preventive thrust of the explanation for the disorder. instructional procedures allow for early intervention using the (Clay, 1982, p. 166) accelerated progress in literacy learn- same theoretical and instruc- ing. As Clay has emphatically stated, Clearly, throughout her career—from tional model, under a label “It is because these procedures are 30 years prior to the development like ‘literacy processing theory’ designed for adapting the instruction of Reading Recovery to the recent but not labelled as RR. Work to the learning needs of individual provision of Literacy Lessons innova- with such children proceeds children that they can be applied tions—Clay called for appropriately for longer according to need to many beginning readers who are intensive instruction within educa- with different rules for imple- in some kind of special education” tion systems in support of the indi- mentation and delivery, and (2005a, p. i). vidual learner. the lower outcomes predicted Reading Recovery also serves as a are accepted as worthwhile. diagnostic intervention that identi- This then becomes a treatment
Celebrating 25 Years of Reading Recovery in North America • Fall 2009 Journal of Reading Recovery 63 Creating New Possibilities
intervention for individuals, not tion provided additional one-to-one various challenges and are receiving a preventive intervention which intensive literacy instruction by special education services: is adopted by an education system Reading Recovery professionals for a Children who are profoundly [Clay’s emphasis]; it involves longer period of time, following the deaf, or have cerebral palsy, or longer-term treatments deliv- completion of the Reading Recovery other severe handicaps affecting ered to individuals but it uses series of lessons. eyesight, hand movements or the same literacy processing In addition to the children who language performance, could theory as RR to guide instruc- have received Reading Recovery and probably benefit from Reading tion for individuals who have a require longer-term specialist support Recovery instruction but they cluster of individual handicaps. are other learners who will benefit would be ideally served by a (Clay, 2001, p. 218) from the intensive treatment pro- teacher with special training Thus, Clay suggested that children vided by a specialist teacher trained for the child’s condition [Clay’s who are in need of long-term services in Literacy Lessons. These include emphasis] and additionally require instruction as robust and children who may have been identi- trained in Reading Recovery. supportive as the short-term early fied as having special needs before The question of time in the intervention previously provided, but first grade, children who do not have program could be handled by with longer treatment based on the access to Reading Recovery during this specialist teacher, and the diagnostic information gathered dur- their first-grade year, and elementary resourcing of standard Reading ing the intervention period and with children beyond the first grade. Clay Recovery would not be affected further adaptations based on the has commented on the appropriate- by this. (New Zealand Reading child’s unique needs. ness of designing individual lessons Recovery, 2004, p. 2) utilizing Reading Recovery teaching The training of specialist teachers Indeed, there have been remark- procedures for children who face in Literacy Lessons would further able results with utilizing such an enhance what is known as the second positive outcome of Reading Recov- ery (Jones et al., 2005), namely that Reading Recovery serves as a diag- nostic intervention for those children who do not make accelerated prog- ress. With the availability of Literacy Lessons training for teachers, many of these children will receive longer- term support from professionals who share a common theoretical founda- tion about literacy learning with their Reading Recovery colleagues. An early example of an innovation which demonstrated the potential of such an approach was the work of Phil- lips and Smith (1997), known as the third chance intervention for children who while they made some progress, did not reach within-average perfor- mance levels during their Reading Recovery lessons and subsequently Marie Halpin, special education teacher at Doherty Elementary in the West were referred for further specialist Bloomfield School District in Michigan, works with first-grade student Jordan. support. The third chance interven- Marie is training as a Literacy Lessons intervention specialist this year.
64 Journal of Reading Recovery Fall 2009 • Celebrating 25 Years of Reading Recovery in North America Creating New Possibilities
approach in the development of Lit- quickly and momentarily construct eracy Lessons with children who are a somewhat complex operating sys- The work of Literacy deaf whose particular literacy learn- tem which might solve the problem” Lessons intervention ing needs require the expertise of (Clay, 2001, p. 224). specialist teachers trained in Reading specialists who teach This theory is based on the following Recovery (Fullerton, 2008; Charles- special populations is principles: worth et al., 2006). grounded in the same • Reading is a complex prob- This conception of a school’s seam- literacy processing lem-solving process. less approach to meeting the needs theory that guides of all children with literacy chal- • Children construct their own Reading Recovery lenges—including those who respond understandings. to early intervention and those who professionals in their • Children come to literacy teaching of the lowest- need long-term treatment—has been with varying knowledge. a long-standing, fundamental tenet performing first graders. of Clay’s approach to literacy learn- • Reading and writing are ing: “It supports the expectation reciprocal and interrelated that schools will try to succeed with processes. all children in one way or another” • Learning to read and write writing (Lyons, 2003). The teacher’s (Clay, 2001, p. 219). involves a continuous process role in assisting children, especially of change over time. those who struggle, to construct this A common foundation: complex literacy process is critical. • Children take different paths Clay’s theory of literacy processing Responsive instruction tailored to the to literacy learning. The work of Literacy Lessons inter- most-struggling learners requires the vention specialists who teach special (Schmitt et al., 2005, p. 43) most-skilled teachers (Lose, 2007). populations is grounded in the same literacy processing theory that guides The understanding that children Similarly, the notion that children Reading Recovery professionals in take different paths to literacy learn- are active, constructive learners helps their teaching of the lowest-perform- ing helps explain why Clay’s literacy dispel a ‘deficit view’ of the learner ing first graders. Literacy Lessons theory would be ideally suited to and proclaim that no matter how intervention specialists receive pro- provide guidance for non-Reading challenging literacy learning is for fessional development that helps Recovery teachers who work with some children—including both the them meld their own knowledge of struggling readers and writers. The lowest-achieving first graders selected individual differences in learners emphasis on different paths to for Reading Recovery and older with an instructional approach based literacy learning suggests that vari- readers who are in some form of on Clay’s literacy processing theory. ability is normal and that teaching special education needing long- Clay has referred to her theory as with a view of variability enhances term literacy support—they all have “complex” (Clay, 2005a, p. 1) and instruction in support of the indi- unique strengths which teachers can posits that, as learners engage in vidual learner and is more efficient build on to design appropriate reading and writing activities, they and effective than one-size-fits-all instruction. Literacy processing assemble a system of perceptual and instructional approaches. This view theory fosters the flexibility needed cognitive competencies that helps embraces the diversity in children’s by Reading Recovery and Literacy them solve problems as they arise. In learning and accommodates all Lessons teachers to respond efficient- Clay’s words, “Learners pull together variants of individual learning dif- ly and effectively on behalf of their necessary information from print in ferences; it only requires that these most-challenged literacy learners. simple ways at first…but as opportu- very different children be supported nities to read and write accumulate by a sensitive, observant teacher who over time the learner becomes able to provides them with opportunities to learn from the act of reading and
Celebrating 25 Years of Reading Recovery in North America • Fall 2009 Journal of Reading Recovery 65 Creating New Possibilities
A Systemic Approach to Recovery, the same tenets of imple- Instead, allocate resources to Literacy Teaching and mentation apply to the development provide appropriately inten- of Literacy Lessons innovations for sive, one-to-one, early treat- Learning: Building a identified exceptional learners. ment at the first sign of dif- Culture of Collaboration These successful implementations ficulty for the most struggling Between Reading would build on a culture of col- literacy learners and build on Recovery and Other laboration within schools that offer their strengths as the founda- Reading Recovery and Literacy tion for subsequent learning. Literacy Professionals Lessons professional development for The Reading Recovery intervention • Systematizing a comprehen- teachers to support comprehensive has been successful in a wide variety sive approach to literacy with literacy efforts. of educational contexts. In part, this proven interventions. Provide success has resulted from its flexible To optimize learning for all children, Reading Recovery on entry problem-solving approach to the all members of the school team— to first grade for the young- multifaceted challenge of responding administrators, classroom teachers, est literacy learners need- early to the literacy learning needs specialist educators, Reading Recov- ing individual support and of the lowest-performing children in ery teachers, and Literacy Lessons provide one-to-one Literacy their second year of formal school- intervention specialists—would Lessons instruction for identi- ing. Clay placed problem-solving adopt this culture of collaboration fied special needs children responsibility for children’s literacy and the following associated features: for longer periods, e.g., both in the first grade and in sub- learning squarely within the educa- • Abandoning the assumption sequent elementary grades. tion systems in which these children that a lower performing child Additional support can be are educated: “I know that the lit- is a ‘slow learner’ or lacks provided to less intensively eracy processing systems constructed ability to achieve literacy. by learners during beginning literacy are massively influenced by expecta- tions and opportunities of the school curriculum and by the teaching practices of their schools” (Clay, 2005a, p. 3). To assure its replication in a variety of systems, Clay conceptualized the implementation of Reading Recovery across three concentric circles: imple- menting, teaching, and learning. The outer circle, implementation, would ask whether an education system could put the innovation into place. The middle circle, teaching, would determine whether teachers could be trained to respond to the broad range of diverse learners. The inner circle, learning, would apply the theoretical foundation that informs the instruc- tion that would support children’s learning (Clay, 1997). Drawing Northwest Area Education Agency teachers in Iowa go the extra mile for Gabriela. on the proven success of Reading She is supported by a group of dedicated professionals including her Reading Recovery teacher, classroom teachers, and other specialist teachers.
66 Journal of Reading Recovery Fall 2009 • Celebrating 25 Years of Reading Recovery in North America Creating New Possibilities
challenged learners by deploy- interventions (McEneaney, Lose, ing well-trained teachers to & Schwartz, 2006). By provid- By providing Literacy provide responsive classroom ing Literacy Lessons interventions Lessons interventions and small-group instruction. alongside Reading Recovery in the Provided with instruction context of supportive classrooms and alongside Reading tailored to their needs within small-group instructional settings, Recovery in the a comprehensive approach educators can collaborate to achieve context of supportive to literacy and with shared a seamless approach to meeting all classrooms and small- ownership among the mem- children’s needs. bers of the school team, any group instructional The goal is to ensure high-quality challenged literacy learner settings, educators can classroom instruction and small- can acquire more effective group support for more-able learners, collaborate to achieve literacy processing strategies Reading Recovery preventive services a seamless approach to and demonstrate progress in for the lowest-performing first grad- learning to read and write. meeting all children’s ers, and Literacy Lessons intervention needs. • Planning for a multilayered for students requiring longer-term approach in response to all specialist support. children as a standard educa- 3. Ongoing data collection, tional practice in the schools Current Explorations that implement Reading research and evaluation of Literacy Lessons Recovery and Literacy 4. Establishment of an infra- Lessons interventions. Intervention Specialist structure and standards to • Investing in training and Training sustain the implementation In 2006, at the International professional development for and maintain quality control Reading Recovery Trainers teachers of Reading Recovery Exploratory trials have been under- Organization (IRRTO) Executive and Literacy Lessons within taken by a number of Reading Board meeting, Marie Clay proposed a comprehensive approach Recovery university training centers a Literacy Lessons trademark that to children’s learning. By (UTCs) across the United States in would protect the quality of any definition, a comprehensive the past few years and the reports exploratory developments in design- approach means all children, from the field have been quite prom- ing lessons for individual children not most children and cer- ising. In April of 2008, the North based on her literacy processing tainly not the most capable 1 American Trainer Group, comprised theory. Clay suggested the inclusion or the most likely to achieve of Reading Recovery trainers from of four common descriptors in the literacy success. the United States and Canada, com- Literacy Lessons trademark applica- piled reports that described the kind The development of Literacy Lessons tion and in the development of of pilot projects undertaken by vari- intervention specialists meets the standards for Literacy Lessons in ous UTCs regarding the training of requirements of an effective response each country that implements specialist teachers in the theory and to intervention (RTI) approach. Literacy Lessons interventions procedural implications of Literary One of the primary goals of an RTI (Doyle, 2009, p. 300): approach is to provide support in Lessons. These specialist teachers 1. Individually designed and response to children’s learning that (including special education teachers, individually delivered is appropriately intensive, that avoids ELL teachers, teachers of the deaf, instruction for children delays in serving children, and that etc.) initially participated in training will foster their continuous progress 2. A recognized course for qual- classes with Reading Recovery teach- and prevent unnecessary refer- ified teachers with ongoing ers but, as demand has increased, rals and placement in longer-term professional development some UTCs have arranged for train-
1 The Literacy Lessons trademark in the United States is held by The Ohio State University.
Celebrating 25 Years of Reading Recovery in North America • Fall 2009 Journal of Reading Recovery 67 Creating New Possibilities
a common language around literacy Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time The collaboration of learning that will further support in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Reading Recovery teach- Marie Clay’s belief that if some chil- dren are unable to learn we should Clay, M. M. (2005a). Literacy lessons ers with their Literacy continually strive to find new, inno- designed for individuals part one: Why? Lessons colleagues will vative ways to teach them. Literacy when? and how? Portsmouth, NH: help create a common Lessons intervention specialist train- Heinemann. language around literacy ing presents the context for authentic Clay, M. M. (2005b). Literacy lessons dialogue around the teaching and designed for individuals part two: learning that will further learning of our most-challenged Teaching procedures. Portsmouth, NH: support Marie Clay’s learners, thus realizing the promise Heinemann. belief that if some of Clay’s theory of literacy processing Doyle, M. A. (2009). A dynamic future. In B. Watson & B. Askew (Eds.), children are unable and her conviction that all children can learn. Boundless horizons: Marie Clay’s search to learn we should for the possible in children’s literacy continually strive to find (pp. 287–306). Portsmouth, NH: References Heinemann. new, innovative ways Ballantyne, A. (2009). Research origins: Fullerton, S. K. (2008). The develop- to teach them. The historical context. In B. Watson ment of Literacy Lessons with children & B. Askew (Eds.), Boundless hori- who are deaf. The Journal of Reading zons: Mary Clay’s search for the pos- Recovery, 8(1), 34–42. sible in children’s literacy (pp. 7–34). Jones, N., Johnson, C., Schwartz, R., ing of intact classes of Literacy Les- Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. & Zalud, G. (2005). Two posi- sons teachers.2 Teachers who have Charlesworth, A., Charlesworth, R., tive outcomes of Reading Recovery: participated in Literacy Lessons Raban, B., & Rickards, F. (2006). Exploring the interface between training have reported remarkable Teaching children with hearing loss in Reading Recovery and special educa- Reading Recovery. changes in their understandings Literacy Teaching tion. The Journal of Reading Recovery, and practices that have had positive and Learning: An International Journal 4(3), 19–34. effects on the learning of their spe- of Early Reading and Writing, 6(1), 21–50. Lose, M. K. (2007). A child’s response cial education students. They have to intervention requires a respon- Clay, M. M. (1982). Learning disorders. also found that their school literacy sive teacher of reading. The Reading In M. Clay, teams benefit from the shared under- Observing young readers Teacher, 61(3), 276–279. standings among all participating (pp. 156–166). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lose, M. K., & Konstantellou, E. (2005). teachers regarding children’s literacy Selection of children for Reading development. These are brief, initial Clay, M. M. (1987). Learning to be Recovery: Challenges and responses. learning disabled. responses. Ongoing exploratory trials New Zealand The Journal of Reading Recovery, 5(1), Journal of Educational Studies, 22, will continue and findings will be 32–45. 155–173. (Reprinted in The Journal of studied to inform the development Lyons, C. A. (2003). Reading Recovery, 7(1), 54–66). Teaching struggling of standards and guidelines that will readers: How to use brain-based research Clay, M. M. (1997). International per- guide the training of Literacy Les- to maximize learning. Portsmouth, spectives on the Reading Recovery sons intervention specialists and the NH: Heinemann. program. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & McEneaney, J., Lose, M. K., & Schwartz, implementation of Literacy Lessons D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research R. M. (2006). A transactional per- innovations in our schools. on teaching literacy through the commu- spective on reading difficulties and The collaboration of Reading nicative and visual arts (pp. 655–667). Old Tappan, NJ: Simon and Schuster. response to intervention. Reading Recovery teachers with their Literacy (1), 117–128. (Reprinted in The Journal of Reading Research Quarterly, 41 Lessons colleagues will help create Recovery, 7(1), 16–34).
2 Districts and schools interested in Literacy Lessons training for specialist teachers should contact the Reading Recovery training sites in their regions. Training sites work closely with the university training centers they are affiliated with to address issues pertaining to the training and professional development of Literacy Lessons teachers.
68 Journal of Reading Recovery Fall 2009 • Celebrating 25 Years of Reading Recovery in North America Creating New Possibilities
New Zealand Reading Recovery. (2004). Entry to Reading Recovery: About the Authors Mainstreaming and inclusion. [Tutor information sheet]. Auckland, New Zealand: Author. Phillips, G., & Smith, P. (1997). A third chance to learn: The development and evaluation of specialized interventions for young children experiencing the greatest difficulty in learning to read. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Eva Konstantellou is associate pro- Mary K. Lose is associate profes- Educational Research. fessor in the School of Education, sor in the School of Education and and Reading Recovery trainer at Human Services, and director of Schmitt, M. C., Askew, B. J., Fountas, the Center for Reading Recovery the Reading Recovery Center of I. C., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. and Literacy Collaborative at Michigan at Oakland University (2005). Changing futures: The influ- Lesley University in Cambridge, in Rochester, MI. Her research ence of Reading Recovery in the United MA. Her research interests include interests focus on early literacy States. Worthington, OH: Reading language learning, the role of early intervention policies and initiatives, Recovery Council of North America. literacy intervention in school teachers’ professional development, change, and critical pedagogy. and contingent teaching.
ȱȱȱ¢ț ȱŘśȱ¢ȱȱǷȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱȬȱȱȱȬȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ŗşŞŖȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱǯȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱŜȬ¢Ȭȱȱ ȱȱǯ ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ǯȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱǯ ȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱŘśȱ¢ǯȱȱȱ ȱǯȱȱȱȱ¢ǯȱȱ ȱ ǯ ȱǰȱǯȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱŘśȱ¢ȱȱǯ
ȱǯȱ ȱǰȱ ǯ ȱȱȱ ǯ ǯȦȬǯȱȊȱŞŖŖȬřřŜȬśśŞŞȱ
-UO5GJ5HFDGERRNVULJKWLQGG 30 Celebrating 25 Years of Reading Recovery in North America • Fall 2009 Journal of Reading Recovery 69