The impact and effectiveness of the Reading Recovery program in Warwick Public Schools was on display at the School Committee meeting last week, as Jacob, a Sherman Elementary School third grade student, stood at the microphone and read from a book he’s never read before, demonstrating his ability to read above grade level.

Before Jacob took the microphone, his mother talked about how important the Reading Recovery program has been and the integral role it played in his reading progress.

“Jacob has benefited from Reading Recovery and he now reads above grade level,” she said during the public comment portion of the meeting. “The only reason he’s successful is because of the Reading Recovery program and the wonderful teachers that unlocked the mystery of reading for him.”

Jacob and his mother were two of many who spoke up at the meeting, expressing great concern over a proposal that would eliminate the Reading Recovery program in order to lend more support to students that aren’t receiving it under the current model, especially in grades four through six.

Although the matter was not voted on last week, there was plenty of discussion regarding the proposal as well as a brief presentation on how the current model of reading service delivery at the elementary level works and how it would be altered to reach additional students.

Lynn Dambruch, director of elementary education, explained that the Reading Recovery program is the current model of reading service delivery, which features 22.5 reading interventionists, or specialists, working in a one-on-one basis with individual students in kindergarten through third grade.

According to Kathleen Desrosiers, coordinator of English Language Arts, reading specialists service between 24 and 30 students each year, but that number is much smaller in the Reading Recovery program, which involves much more intensive one-on-one work, with specialists working with eight to 10 students each year.

She described the program as short-term learning that provides a “quick boost” for students and said it has a 75 percent success rate throughout the district, which accounts for approximately 150 to 160 students.

“First-graders have made great progress and held their gains,” she said.

However, a concern with the current model is that a number of students aren’t consistently serviced by it, especially students in grades four through six.

“Currently there are 342 at-risk students in kindergarten through grade six that are not receiving support from a reading specialist,” Dambruch said. “A low percentage of students are achieving at the expected level in grade 2.”

According to a chart shown during the presentation, 45 percent of students in grade two were at benchmark in the fall of 2013, which rose to 49 percent in the fall of 2014 but fell to 47 percent in the fall of 2015.

Desrosiers said the district needs to work to ensure a complete transition out of service.

“We need to reduce services a little at a time to move the child from directed learning to non-one-on-one [learning],” she said.

In order to address the problem of students not receiving consistent support, Dambruch said the school department plans to transition to small group, research-based reading interventions next school year to service all at-risk students in kindergarten through grade six.

“There will be various research-based interventions based on student need,” she said. “That allows for support and consultation with classroom teachers, which will strengthen core instruction.”

According to the presentation, some examples of small group intervention approaches include programs such as Orton-Gillingham, Fundations, and Wilson, as well as a leveled literacy intervention system and various comprehension interventions.

“Other students aren’t being served [by Reading Recovery], so we added Orton-Gillingham. The staff is trained on it and started using it in 2013-14 at all grade levels,” Desrosiers said. “We don’t want to be one-dimensional. It’s about having a variety of interventions; the staff, which is second to none, has trained in several techniques.”

Under the current model, Dambruch said there is one literacy coach that serves four elementary schools, but the proposal would add more literacy coaches to service additional elementary schools. Unlike reading specialists who work directly with students, literacy coaches work directly with teachers.

Dambruch said the department is also looking to add a consulting role to reading specialist services to strengthen instruction at all levels.

“Consulting roles have diminished because the interventionist roles have grown,” Desrosiers said.

School Committee member Karen Bachus wasn’t happy to hear that Reading Recovery could be removed.

“Why would we get rid of something that works? We used to have literacy teachers six days a week and we got rid of that,” she said. “The issue is it costs too much for our district, isn’t it? There’s a lot we can do; we don’t need to get rid of Reading Recovery. We need to add personnel, increase literacy and make Warwick the best it can be.”

It was a sentiment shared by Darlene Netcoh, English teacher and department head at Toll Gate High School.

“Why replace a successful program?” she echoed. “You need to add reading specialists in grades four through six.”

In response, Superintendent Philip Thornton said he couldn’t promote a reading program that leaves kids behind.

“We’re not helping 342 children,” he said. “Less than half of kids come in lower than where they’re supposed to be.”

School Committee Vice Chairman Eugene Nadeau said he’s received calls and emails from parents of first-graders for the past month talking about the success of the Reading Recovery program and their concerns about its removal.

Many others expressed similar concerns during the meeting, including former elementary education director Robert Bushell.

“We started Reading Recovery in the early 1990s and it went very well. Third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students that had Reading Recovery in first grade did better,” he said, adding that keeping a child out of the special education track would save schools more than $100,000 over the child’s school career. “Reading Recovery is a well-run, concise program. Eliminating it due to cost is a poor reason. Don’t eliminate a program that’s effective and works for kids.”

A number of teachers also spoke in favor of the Reading Recovery program.

Michael Pierce, a social studies teacher at Gorton Junior High, said reducing reading specialists at the elementary level to spread support across six grades, instead of three grades, “doesn’t make for better anything.”

A reading specialist from John Brown Francis Elementary School read a letter from a parent at the school who said their son struggled with reading concepts and began to hate school.

“Then he got the Reading Recovery program and everything started coming together,” the parent said in the letter. “The progress made was life-changing. My son is now in fourth grade and he’s doing a great job.”

Reading specialist Lauren Pellegrino read a letter from Kristal Gardiner, a fourth grade teacher at Park Elementary School.

“Reading is the foundation for success and when that foundation is compromised, it will crumble over time,” Gardiner said in the letter. “You’re taking away valuable and critically important services for students and robbing future opportunities for other kids.”

Warwick Neck Elementary School first grade teacher Elizabeth Nawrocki said she’s seen the “amazing effect of Reading Recovery in the classroom,” which tailors lessons to individual student needs.

“We don’t need a cookie-cutter, one size fits all program,” she said.

Jacob’s mother expressed concerns over the new Wilson program, which she described as “a cookie-cutter program designed for special education and not the general public.”

Darilyn Gorton, an English teacher at Gorton, said she wanted to bring up a point that nobody had made about the Reading Recovery program.

“Reading Recovery was a fantastic home-school collaboration, as a parent working with the teacher,” she said.

Ann Bannon, a fourth grade teacher at Hoxsie Elementary School, said she started teaching at Park without the Reading Recovery program.

“There were many students that had to repeat,” she said. “Teachers weren’t able to reach all students in small groups.”