Reading Recovery Research: What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery

About RRCNA

Membership

News

Advocacy

Journals

Products & Publications

Philanthropy

Basic Facts

Lessons

Highlights

Marie Clay

Phonics

FAQ

Accountability

Federal Policy Alignment

Cost

Descubriendo la Lectura

Canada

International

Issues in Brief

IDEC

Professional Development

University Training Centers

Exemplary Training Sites

FAQ

Web-Based Learning

North American Trainers Group

NATG Members Only

Conferences Overview

National Conference

Information for Exhibitors

Conference Handouts & Recordings

Teacher Leader Institute

Regional/International Conferences

Scholarships

What is Implementation?

Getting Started

Comprehensive Literacy Plan

Effective Implementation

Educational Change

Replacing a Teacher Leader

Self-Assessments

Principal Profiles

Standards and Guidelines

Funding

RTI

Introduction to Research

International Data Evaluation Center

What Works Clearinghouse

Effectiveness

Continued Progress

Self-Esteem

Research Reviews

Cost Effectiveness

Responding to Critics

What Evidence Says about Reading Recovery

In May, 2002, a letter criticizing Reading Recovery was widely distributed to members of Congress and the education community via the Internet. This 76-page comprehensive report reviews the research base for Reading Recovery and responds to the four criticisms of the Internet letter concerning Reading Recovery effectiveness, costs, assessment measures, and teaching phonics. A 12-page summary report is also available.

Executive Summary (Complete 12-Page with Cover)

Section I Reading Recovery is highly successful with lowest-performing first-grade students.

Section II Cost-effectiveness is a complex concept in education.

Section III Reading Recovery uses standard assessment measures.

Section IV Change is an integral part of Reading Recovery design.