Reply to Pinnell, DeFord, Lyons, and Bryk

Abstract

M y intent in writing the original commentary was to suggest that alternative explanations to the findings reported by Pinnell, DeFord, Lyons, and Bryk were possible. I remain steadfast in this opinion. Despite their explanation, it's a stretch to believe, for example, that the Reading Recovery (RR) and Reading Success (RS) teachers are equivalent and that in student achievement are due solely to the nature of the RR treatment. Consider that (a) the RR teachers had 18 years of previous teaching experience, the RS teachers 3.5; (b) the RR teachers had a year of intensive training in the Reading Recovery program, the RS teachers 2 weeks; (c) the RR teachers had at least 2 years of practice in administering Reading Recovery prior to the study, while the RS teachers had no prior experience in implementing Reading Success; and (d) because of their continuing employment in their respective schools and the ongoing support inherent in Reading Recovery, the RR teachers were highly committed to their schools and to Reading Recovery. Being substitute teachers with very brief training in Reading Success, the RS teachers had little reason to be committed to either their schools or the RS program. In combination, these factors may have given the Reading Recovery teachers an unintended advantage that biased the study. The advantage of the RR teachers in experience, training, and familiarity and comfort with the treatment, schools, and students would undoubtedly translate into the more effective interactional styles, quality of interaction, management, and enthusiasm that Pinnell et al. identify as important variables in teaching. A recent study of reading in the United States found modest relationships between teacher training, education, and years of experience, on the one hand, and student achievement in reading, on the other, that taken together, can add up to significant achievement differences (United States Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, 1994, p. 289). The study specifically noted that Grade 4 teachers with 9 to 16 years of experience had significantly higher class mean reading proficiency scores on narrative and documentary reading tasks than teachers with 8 or fewer years experience. Moreover, according to the Postlethwaite and Ross (1992) study cited in my initial response, total teaching experience was one of the five most powerful indicators of student reading achievement in the United States and Canada among 56 school, classroom, instructional, teacher, and home variables studied. I agree with Pinnell et al. that time engaged in actual reading and writing instruction appears to be a critical variable in student success, and my analysis suggests as much. But again, as with the teacher factors, my major concern is the extent to which the reported main effects showing between treatments should be attributed to the differential nature of the treatments when there exist such substantial in actual instructional time in favor of RR, the treatment identified by the study as more effective. Many instructional treatments can be shown to be relatively more effective than others--just give them more time to be implemented. I find it interesting that Pinnell et al. criticize my analysis for not accounting for pretest data. Yet, the authors were careful to assign subjects randomly to treat-