Reading Recovery (RR) is a short-term, one-to-one intervention designed to help the lowest achieving readers in first grade. This article presents first-year results from the multisite randomized controlled trial (RCT) and implementation study under the $55 million Investing in Innovation (i3) Scale-Up Project. For the 2011–2012 school year, the estimated standardized effect of RR on students’ Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) Total Reading Scores was .69 standard deviations relative to the population of struggling readers eligible for RR under the i3 scale-up and .47 standard deviations relative to the nationwide population of all first graders. School-level implementation of RR was, in most respects, faithful to the RR Standards and Guidelines, and the intensive training provided to new RR teachers was viewed as critical to successful implementation.
Abt Associates. (2012). National evaluation of i3: Analysis and reporting plan, version 1.0. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
AllingtonR. (2005). How much evidence is enough evidence?The Journal of Reading Recovery, 4(2), 8–11.
3.
AshdownJ.SimicO. (2000). Is early literacy intervention effective for English language learners? Evidence from Reading Recovery. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 5(1), 27–42.
4.
BaenenN.BernholeA.DulaneyC.BanksK. (1997). Reading Recovery: Long-term progress after three cohorts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2(2), 161.
5.
BloomH. S.RaudenbushS. W.WeissM. (2012). Estimating variation in program impacts: Theory, practice and applications. Manuscript submitted for publication.
6.
BormanG. D.D’AgostinoJ. V. (1996). Title I and student achievement: A meta-analysis of federal evaluation results. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 309–326.
7.
BriggsC.YoungB. (2003). Does Reading Recovery work in Kansas? A retrospective longitudinal study of sustained effects. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 3(1), 59–64.
8.
BrownW.DentonE.KellyP.NealJ. (1999). Reading Recovery effectiveness: A five-year success story in San Luis Coastal Unified School District. ERS Spectrum: Journal of School Research and Information, 17(1), 3–12.
9.
CenterY.WheldallK.FreemanL.OuthredL.McNaughtM. (1995). An experimental evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 240–263.
10.
ChapmanJ. W.TunmerW. E.ProchnowJ. E. (1999). Why Reading Recovery does not work: A longitudinal study in a whole language context. Thalamus, 17, 52–53.
11.
ClayM. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
12.
ClayM. (2005). Literacy lessons designed for individuals: Part one. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13.
CooperH. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature review. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
15.
D’AgostinoJ.MurphyJ. (2004). A meta-analysis of Reading Recovery in United States’ schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 23–38.
16.
DyerP. C.BinkneyR. (1995). Estimating cost-effectiveness and educational outcomes: Retention, remediation, special education, and early intervention. In AllingtonR. L.WalmsleyS. A. (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools (pp. 45–60). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
17.
ElbaumB.VaughnS. M. T.MoodyS. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605–619.
18.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic field notes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
20.
Gómez-BellengéF. X. (2002). Measuring the cost of Reading Recovery: A practical approach. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 2(1), 47–54.
21.
HiebertE. H. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: What difference does it make to an age cohort?Educational Researcher, 23, 15–25.
22.
HooverH. D.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A.OberleyK. R.BrayG. B.NaylorR. J. . . . QuallsA. L. (2006). The Iowa tests: 2005 norms and score conversions. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.
23.
IversenS.TunmerW. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447.
24.
JohnstonP. A.AllingtonR. L.AfflerbackP. (1985). The congruence of classroom and remedial reading instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 465–478.
25.
JohnstonP. H. (2011). Response to Intervention in literacy: Problems and possibilities. The Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 511–534.
26.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447.
27.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
LoflandJ.SnowD.AndersonL.LoflandL. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
29.
LyonG. R.FletcherJ. M.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.TorgesenJ. K.WoodF. B. . . . OlsonR. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In FinnC. E.RotherhamA. J.HokansonC. R. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–288). Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute and Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
30.
MayH. (2014). Distortions in distributions of impact estimates in multi-site trials: The central limit theorem is not your friend. Paper presented at the fall meeting of the Society for Research in Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
31.
MayH.Perez-JohnsonI.HaimsonJ.SattarS.GleasonP. (2009). Using state tests in education experiments: A discussion of the issues (NCEE 2009-013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
32.
MoatsL. (2007). Whole-language high jinks: How to tell when “scientifically based reading instruction” isn’t. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
33.
MorrowL. M. (1993). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
34.
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
35.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
36.
PikulskiJ. (1994). Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective programs. The Reading Teacher, 48, 30–39.
37.
PinnellG. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 161–183.
38.
PinnellG. S.DeFordD. E.LyonsC. A. (1988). Reading Recovery: Early intervention for at-risk first graders (Educational Research Service Monograph). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
39.
PinnellG.LyonsC.DeFordD.BrykA.SeltzerN. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 8–39.
40.
QuayL.SteeleD.JohnsonC.HortmanW. (2001). Children’s achievement and personal and social development in a first-year Reading Recovery program with teachers in training. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 5(2), 7–25.
41.
RasinskiT. V. (1995). Commentary: On the effects of Reading Recovery: A response to Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 264–270.
42.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
43.
RodgersE.Gómez-BellengéF.WangC.SchultzM. (2005). Predicting the literacy achievement of struggling readers: Does intervening early make a difference?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
44.
RodgersE.WangC.Gómez-BellengéF. (2004). Closing the literacy achievement gap with early intervention. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
45.
RoweK. (1995). Factors affecting students’ progress in reading: Key findings from a longitudinal study. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 1(2), 57–110.
46.
Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2002). A principal’s guide to Reading Recovery. Columbus, OH: Author.
RuheV.MooreP. (2005). The impact of Reading Recovery on later achievement in reading and writing. ERS Spectrum, 23(1), 20–30.
49.
SchmittM. C.GregoryA. E. (2005). The impact of an early literacy intervention: Where are the children now?Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 10, 1–20.
50.
SchwartzR. (2005). Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 257–267.
51.
ShanahanT.BarrR. (1995). A synthesis of research on Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958–996.
52.
ShaywitzS. E.FletcherJ. M.HolahanJ. M.ShneiderA. E.MarchioneK. E.StuebingK. K. . . . ShaywitzB. A. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut longitudinal study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104(6), 1351–1359.
53.
StricklandD. S. (2002). The importance of effective early intervention. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 69–86). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
54.
TorgesenJ. K. (2000). Individual responses to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64.
55.
TunmerW. E.ChapmanJ. W. (2002). The relation of beginning readers’ reported word identification strategies to reading achievement, reading-related skills, and academic self-perceptions. Reading and Writing, 15(3–4), 341–358.
56.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS.ChenR.PrattA.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
57.
VellutinoF. R. (2010). Learning to be learning disabled: Marie Clay’s seminal contribution to the Response to Intervention approach to identifying specific reading disability. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 10(1), 5–23.
58.
WasikB. A.SlavinR. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179–200.
59.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2008). WWC intervention report: Reading Recovery. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
60.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2012). Procedures and standards handbook: Version 3.0. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
