New evidence suggests Reading Recovery doesn’t work

The New South Wales Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) has released a new study into the use of the ‘Reading Recovery’ intervention programme with Year 1 students.

You may recall the publication earlier this year of a large-scale, randomised controlled trial of Reading Recovery which seemed to provide strong evidence in its favour. I criticised this study at the time and the CESE report echoes some of these criticisms, as well as concerns about the attrition rate.

The CESE study chose to follow matched students who were either in schools that offered Reading Recovery or schools that did not. Researchers also looked at the reading performance of these students in Year 3. The official CESE newsletter summarises the findings as follows:

“The results showed some evidence that RR has a modest short-term effect on reading skills among the lowest performing students. However, RR does not appear to be an effective intervention for students that begin Year 1 with more proficient literacy skills. In the longer-term, there was no evidence of any positive effects of RR on students’ reading performance in Year 3.”

The importance of this finding should not escape those with a view of the wider context. For instance, Researchers in New Zealand have argued that a reliance on Reading Recovery is responsible for that country’s ‘failed’ national literacy strategy.

It is also worth noting that the theoretical basis for Reading Recovery has attracted much criticism, particularly for the limited use of phonics and the reliance on the kind of multiple cuing strategies that were criticised in the influential Rose report.

So it doesn’t work in theory and it doesn’t work in practice either.


8 thoughts on “New evidence suggests Reading Recovery doesn’t work

  1. Pingback: New evidence suggests Reading Recovery doesn’t work |

  2. PStone says:

    It works in UK.

    Click to access Reading_Recovery_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_Republic_of_Ireland_2013-14.pdf

    ‘RR does not appear to be an effective intervention for students that begin Year 1 with more proficient literacy skills.’ ?? Children with more proficient literacy skills would not need an intervention. ??

    RR has not raised country wide Reading levels in Australia because it did not reach enough children. Too many Aboriginal and Island People children were not taught, for various reasons.

    Just as in UK, those that don’t read well have not been taught at all. It is not that they have been taught ‘wrong’.

    • They are referring to the more proficient end of the students selected for taking part in Reading Recovery ie the top end of the poor readers. RR has been used extensively in NSW and in New Zealand and yet studies from both places suggest it has had little impact.

  3. Pingback: What Australian parents need to know about the reading wars | Filling the pail

  4. Pingback: The $55M i3 trial of “Reading Recovery” |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.