Many parents of kindergartners and first graders at-risk for reading disabilities make this mistake: They hastily challenge their school’s decision to use Reading Recovery to teach their child to read. Their reasoning is simple: Reading Recovery doesn’t work; the research shows it doesn’t work; lawyers and other experts say so. And if they challenge Reading Recovery in court, they’ll win because the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) requires schools to use “peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable” (§300.320).
Feb
04
Feb
01
Recently, Wrightslaw challenged the effectiveness of Reading Recovery, a widely used tutoring program for first graders who struggle with reading. Dr. Melissa Farrall, author of the challenge, correctly reported that “an international group of experts and researchers in reading development and intervention [found]… little evidence that Reading Recovery is effective.”
In her challenge, Dr. Farrall also asserted that
- “The scientific community … rejected [Reading Recovery’s] theoretical underpinnings.
- “Reading Recovery is ineffective with poor readers.
- “Reading Recovery does not outperform other methodologies that require less expense and less training.
- “Students [tutored by Reading Recovery] do not generalize and maintain their skills.”



