Although critics often quote research, advocates can be confident that the vast majority of research evidence supports Reading Recovery. These links provide needed detail to respond to those critics.
Prof. Bridie Raban (ALEA 2016) refutes media coverage of Reading Recovery outlining how according to the literature Reading Recovery does work.
Allington (2005) noted that Reading Recovery has more evidence supporting its efficacy than any other intervention in the marketplace.
Reading Recovery Council of North America (2017) provides a full response to Cook, P., Rodes, D. R., & Lipsitz, K. L. (2017).
Schwartz, R. M. (2015) demonstrates how Chapman and Tunmer’s (2015) perspective on literacy instruction and their ideological and political agendas have biased the research analysis they present.
Allington, Richard (Feb. 14, 2007) argues that Moat’s work (2007) has major flaws that pervade her report’s subsequent discussion about Reading Recovery.
Think Tank Review of Whole-Language High Jinks
Swarts (2015) discussed phonology and phonics and explains how as children engage in reading, writing, and word study activities they build the orthographic and phonological knowledge that makes fast, automatic word recognition possible. Using visual cues becomes their least effort strategy for word recognition with meaning and language structure serving as a way to check these words recognition attempts and construct their understanding of the text.
The Three Cueing Systems In Beginning Reading Instructions: Good idea or hoax?