Ten Frequently Asked Questions
Reading Recovery is a research-based intervention used in more than 10,000 schools in forty nine states, the District of Columbia, Department of Defense Dependents Schools, plus Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Following are some of the common questions and issues identified over the past fifteen years in the United States.

  1. Is Reading Recovery a classroom program?

No. Reading Recovery helps low-achieving children make accelerated gains to reach the average range of reading performance in their class. To achieve this rapid learning, children are taught one-to-one. Each child's knowledge is assessed, then individual lessons are developed based on what that child already knows. Individual rather than group learning is essential because with group instructon, the teacher has to choose a compromise path, a next move for the group. Reading Recovery, in combination with strong classroom instruction, gives children the best chance for success.

There are two reasons. First, when children enter Reading Recovery, their progress cannot be predicted. Therefore, the most extreme cases are selected, and Reading Recovery serves as a period of diagnostic teaching. Second, if the lowest achievers are not selected, they may never catch up to the class average, thus requiring expensive special help programs in subsequent years. Any school or system not taking the lowest children is out of compliance with national standards and the principles underlying Reading Recovery implementation.

No. The majority of children who do not complete Reading Recovery either move away or enter Reading Recovery too late in the school year to complete the needed instruction.

The Reading Recovery design calls for up to twenty weeks of instruction for children who need that much time. In the event that a child is removed prior to twenty weeks, it is usually because a specialist has made a report with alternative recommendations. Such a decision is made at the school level and involves the school team and the site's teacher leader. Any school or system arbitrarily removing children from Reading Recovery is out of compliance with national standards and the principles underlying Reading Recovery implementation. The child's data are always retained and included in evaluation.

Reading Recovery does not necessarily increase mean (average) scores of the class. Tutoring increases the actual number of children who read within the average range of their first-grade cohort and decreases the number of children who need extra help.

Reading Recovery teachers understand the critical nature of helping children hear phonemes in words and recognize and use spelling patterns. During lessons, students apply sound-letter knowledge while reading and writing.

Reading Recovery teachers give specific and explicit attention to letters, sounds, and words, both while writing extended text and as direct instruction within each lesson. Reading Recovery recognizes that decoding must be purposeful. Teachers help children learn to use connections between letters and words while maintaining comprehension.

Reading Recovery was not designed to take the place of a comprehensive plan for literacy, but to provide a safety net within a comprehensive literacy plan. However, many educators in the United States have discovered that Reading Recovery becomes a catalyst to identify and make needed changes. For example, in one school district, classroom teachers (not Reading Recovery teachers) reported changes in their own practices — teaching for strategies, choosing books appropriately, assessing children, focusing on strengths, and teaching with higher expectations.¹

  7. Is Reading Recovery aligned with any specific reading or classroom approach?

Reading Recovery is not aligned with any specific classroom approach. For decades, educators and parents have debated the best approach for teaching children to read. Though teaching strategies change, research demonmstrates that children have individual learning strengths, and no single strategy is best for all children.

Reading Recovery offers individual help for the lowest-achieving children who are struggling to read and write. In Reading Recovery, children develop a network of strategies for reading and writing that go beyond isolated skill knowledge. Children can use these strategies within any classroom approach that is taught effectively.

Costs for Reading Recovery occur in two phases: start-up and ongoing expenses. Because teacher salary schedules and school operating expenses vary across districts and regions of the country, each school must calculate its own costs. A research report published by the Reading Recovery Council of North America discusses the following cost considerations:

Districts generally report costs per child that range between $2,300 and $3,500. The investment reduces the number of children who need ongoing, expensive services. Because a large number of initially low achievers respond quickly and require only a short-term intervention, the resources saved can be used to support the small percentage who need longer-term help. Costs, then, must be considered against the costs of retention and/or special provisions for children requiring long-term specialist help.²

Though it is difficult to assess the costs and benefits of an errly intervention program, several authors have demonstrated cost-effectivensss for Reading Recovery implementation.³

"When you compare the success rate of Reading Recovery with other programs that keep children for years and never get them reading on grade level, Reading Recovery is a bargain!".⁴

  9. What is the Reading Recovery research base?
Reading Recovery is based on substantial research about how children learn to read and write. Its roots are in Marie Clay's basic research in classrooms and clinics as well as intensive studies from other disciplines. Three strands of research make up the knowledge base.

Reading Recovery assessment of children's reading and writing achievements is based on observation techniques that comprise An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement⁵ developed by Clay. The Survey is widely used by classroom teachers, reading teachers, evaluators, and researchers because it has been developed through rigorous research. The Survey tasks have high reliability and validity.

Clay also explored the question of "What is possible when we change the design and delivery of traditional education for the children that teachers find hard to teach?" A number of studies examined this question, including the original Reading Recovery design studies, field monitoring studies, and subgroup studies.⁶

Reading Recovery is also subjected to ongoing evaluation through the collection of data on every child who enters and leaves Reading Recovery to determine what progress the child has made. Numerous follow-up studies document Reading Recovery's impact on children's literacy performance through the primary grades.

Dyer, P.C. & Blinkney, R. (1995) Estimating cost-effectiveness and educational outcomes: Retention, remediation, special education, and early intervention. In R.L. Allington & S.A. Walmsley (eds.) No quick fix: Redesigning literacy programs in America's elementary schools. Newark, DE: Teachers Press and the International Reading Association. 61-77.

Lyons, C.A. & Beaver, J. (1995). Reducing retention and learning disability placement through Reading Recovery: An educationally sound cost-effective choice. In R. Allington & S. Walmsley (eds) No quick fix: Redesigning literacy programs in America's elementary schools. Newark, DE: Teachers Press and the International Reading Association. 116-136.

Condon, M. & Assad, S. (1996, Winter). Demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of Reading Recovery: Because it makes a difference. The Network News, Reading Recovery Council of North America. 12, 14.

Moriarity, D.J. (January 25, 1995). Our Reading Recovery Results: "Conclusive." Education Week, 36.