Current understandings about literacy have moved away from the belief that literacy is simply a process that individuals do in their heads. These understandings do not negate the importance of the individual aspects of literacy learning, but they emphasize understandings of literacy as a social practice. In many cases, responses to early literacy intervention seem to be grounded in theories that appear out of step with current literacy research and consequent evidence that literacy is socially and culturally constructed. One such response is the Reading Recovery programme based on Clay’s theory of literacy acquisition. Clay (1992) describes the programme as a second chance to learn. However, others have suggested that programmes like Reading Recovery may in fact work toward the marginalization of particular groups, thereby helping to maintain the status quo along class, gender and ethnic lines. This article allows two professionals to bring their insider’s knowledge of Reading Recovery to an analysis of the construction of the programme. The article interweaves this analysis with the personal narratives of the researchers as they negotiated the borders between different understandings and beliefs about literacy and literacy pedagogy.
Atkinson, P.
(1981) ‘Inspecting Classroom Talk’, in C. Adelman (ed.) Uttering Muttering: Collecting, Using and Reporting Talk for Social and Educational Research, pp. 98–113. London: Grant McIntyre.
2.
Barnes, B. L.
(1997) But Teacher You Went Right On: A Perspective on Reading Recovery. The Reading Teacher50(4): 284–292.
3.
Blair, M.
(1995) ‘“Race”, Class and Gender in School Research’, in J. Holland, M. Blair and S. Sheldon (eds) Debates and Issues in Feminist Research and Pedagogy, pp. 248–261. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters/The Open University.
4.
Bochner, A. P.
(1997) ‘It’s About Time: Narrative and the Divided Self’, Qualitative Inquiry3(4): 418–438.
5.
Clay, M. M.
(1991) Becoming Literate: The Construction of Inner Control. Auckland: Heinemann Education.
6.
Clay, M. M.
(1992) ‘A Second Chance to Learn Literacy: By Different Routes to Common Outcomes (The Reading Recovery Programme)’, in T. Cline (ed.) The Assessment of Special Education Needs: International Perspectives, pp. 69–89. London: Routledge.
7.
Clay, M. M.
(1993a) An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Auckland: Heinemann.
8.
Clay, M. M.
(1993b) Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training. Auckland: Heinemann Education.
9.
Danby, S. J.
and Baker, C. D. (1998) ‘“What’s the Problem?”– Restoring Social Order in the Preschool Classroom’, in I. Hutchby and J. Moran-Ellis (eds) Children and Social Competence: Arenas of Action, pp. 157–186. London: Falmer Press.
10.
Devault, M. L.
(1990) ‘Talking and Listening from Women’s Standpoint: Feminist Strategies for Interviewing and Analysis’, Social Problems37(1): 96–116.
11.
Dudley-Marling, C.
and Murphy, S. (1997) ‘A Political Critique of Remedial Reading Programs: The Example of Reading Recovery’, The Reading Teacher50(6), 460–468.
12.
Ellingson, L. L.
(1998) ‘“Then you know how I feel”: Empathy, Identification, and Reflexivity in Fieldwork’, Qualitative Inquiry4(4): 492–514.
13.
Ellis, C.
(1999) ‘Heartful Autoethnography’, Qualitative Health Research9(5): 669–683.
14.
Ellis, C.
(2000) ‘Creating Criteria: An Ethnographic Short Story’, Qualitative Inquiry6(2), 273–277.
15.
Ellis, C.
and Bochner, A. P. (eds) (1996) Composing Ethnography: Alternative Forms of Qualitative Writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
16.
Ellis, C.
and Bochner, A. P. (2000) ‘Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity:Researcher as Subject’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn., pp. 733–768. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Foucault, M.
(1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. A. Sheridan. London: Allen Lane.
18.
Freebody, P.
and Luke, A. (1990) ‘“Literacies” Programs: Debates and Demands in Cultural Context’, Prospect5(3): 7–16.
19.
Gore, J.
(1995) ‘Foucault’s Poststructuralism and Observational Education Research: A Study of Power Relations’, in R. Smith and P. Wexler (eds) After Postmodernism: Education, Politics and Identity, pp. 98–111. London: Falmer Press.
20.
Gore, J.
(1998) ‘Disciplining Bodies: On the Continuity of Power Relations in Pedagogy’, in T. S. Popkewitz and M. Brennan (eds) Foucault’s Challenge: Discourse, Knowledge, and Power in Education, pp. 231–251. New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
Heath, S. B.
(1982) ‘What no Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School’, Language in Society11: 49–76.
22.
Heath, S. B.
(1983) Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Hutchby, I.
and Moran-Ellis, J. (1998) ‘Situating Children’s Social Competence’, in I. Hutchby and J. Moran-Ellis (eds) Children and Social Competence: Arenas of Action, pp. 7–26. London: Falmer Press.
24.
James, A.
, Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998) Theorizing Childhood. New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
Lankshear, C.
and Knobel, M. (1998) ‘New Times! Old Ways?’, in F. Christie and R. Misson (eds) Literacy and Schooling, pp. 155–177. London: Routledge.
26.
Lather, P.
(1992) ‘Critical Frames in Educational Research: Feminist and Post-structural Perspectives’, Theory into Practice31(2): 87–99.
27.
Luke, A.
(1992) ‘The Body Literate: Discourse and Inscription in Early Literacy Training’, Linguistics and Education4(2): 107–129.
28.
McHoul, A.
(1978) ‘The Organisation of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom’, Language and Society7: 183–213.
29.
Mehan, H.
(1979) Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
Naples, N. A.
and Sachs, C. (2000) ‘Standpoint Epistemology and the uses of Selfreflection in Feminist Ethnography: Lessons for Rural Sociology’, Rural Sociology65(2): 194–214.
31.
Pikulski, J. J.
(1994) ‘Preventing Reading Failure: A Review of Five Effective Programs’, The Reading Teacher48(1): 30–39.
32.
Pinnell, G. S.
, Lyons, C. A., De Ford, D. E., Bryk, A. S. and Seltzer, M. (1994) ‘Comparing Instructional Models for the Literacy Education of High-risk First Graders’, Reading Research Quarterly29(1): 9–38.
33.
Prout, A.
and James, A. (1997) ‘A New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood? Provenance, Promise and Problems’, in A. James and A. Prout (eds) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, pp. 7–33. London: Falmer Press.
34.
Ross, S. M.
, Smith, L. J., Casey, J. and Slavin, R. E. (1995) ‘Increasing the Academic Success of Disadvantaged Children: An Examination of Alternative Early Intervention Programs’, American Educational Research Journal32(4): 773–800.
35.
Rowe, K.
(1997) ‘Factors Affecting Students’ Progress in Reading: Key Findings from a Longitudinal Study’, in S. L. Swartz and A. F. Klein (eds) Research in Reading Recovery, pp. 53–101. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
36.
Silverman, D.
and Gubrium, J. F. (1994) ‘Competing Strategies for Analyzing the Contexts of Social Interaction’. Sociological Inquiry64(2): 179–198.
37.
Sinclair, J. M.
and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English used by Teachers and Pupils.London: Oxford University Press.
38.
Smith, P. E.
(1994) ‘Reading Recovery and Children with English as a Second Language’, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies29(2): 141–155.
39.
Tancock, S. M.
(1997) ‘Catie: A Case Study of One First Grader’s Reading Status’, Reading Research and Instruction36(2): 89–110.
40.
Tedlock, B.
(2000) ‘Ethnography and Ethnographic Representation’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn., pp. 455–486. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Trethowan, V.
, Harvey, D. and Fraser, C. (1996) ‘Reading Recovery: Comparison between its Efficacy and Normal Classroom Instruction’, The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy19(1): 29–37.
42.
Wright, J.
(2000) ‘Disciplining the Body: Power, Knowledge and Subjectivity in a Physical Education Lesson’, in A. Lee and C. Poynton (eds) Culture and Text: Discourse and Methodology in Social Research and Cultural Studies, pp. 152–169. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.
