Reading Recovery: A Documented Winner for Supporting Struggling Readers

Specifics and Evidence

Background on Reading Recovery

Reading Recovery is founded on several core principles about literacy development. The program operates from the understanding that all children can master reading and writing with good instruction, including one-on-one instruction where appropriate. It emphasizes systematic observation of student behaviors as the foundation for instructional decisions, focusing on building from students' strengths rather than remediating deficits. It is centered around maintaining student agency during literacy learning as a means to build scaffolds to support the growth of a self-extending system. Reading theory of all types agree that no one can teach a reader everything they need to know to read well. At best, we can teach them how to learn for themselves. This notion is implicit in Marie Clay’s framework.

Placing particular importance on early intervention during the critical first year of formal schooling, this professional development system recognizes this period as an opportune window to prevent reading difficulties before they become entrenched. Having personal experience in a clinical setting providing instruction for both very early readers seeking a head start (my youngest student was four) and older struggling readers (my oldest was seventeen), I can attest that early learning is far more effective for two reasons: Habits, attitudes, and defenses are harder to change once they are embedded, and starting to participate in literacy early means building laminated layers of expertise to build on later. Marie Clay’s self-correction strategy and self-extending system bear fruit later on.

Phase I: Roaming Around in the Known

As experienced reading clinicians have long understood, the early hours of working with a beginning reader who struggles are best spent systematically observing the child and building trust. Early instruction with a child in the 20-week one-on-one teaching program involves two weeks of “roaming around in the known,” a space in which the professional observes the reader’s behaviors and discovers the “known.” No new teaching occurs; instead, the teacher and student explore the learner’s familiar territory together while the teacher builds rapport, establishes routines, and gathers detailed information about the student's approaches to reading and writing. Activities include reading familiar books, writing known words, and engaging with texts in ways that build confidence. This phase allows the teacher to design subsequent instruction that precisely targets the student's learning needs.

Before beginning the "Roaming Around the Known" phase, Reading Recovery teachers complete the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. This comprehensive assessment includes six tasks that are non-negotiable:

• Letter Identification - determining which letters the child can identify;

• Word Test - assessing the child's ability to read high-frequency words;

• Concepts About Print - evaluating the child's understanding of print conventions;

• Writing Vocabulary - documenting the words the child can write independently;

• Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words - assessing phonemic awareness;

• Text Reading Level - determining the level at which the child can read with 90-94% accuracy.

During this phase itself, teachers continue systematic observation but in a less formal way. They maintain detailed records of the child's behaviors, responses, and strategies, creating a rich profile of the child's current literacy processing system. This continuous assessment, though not formalized as a test, is non-negotiable and forms the foundation for subsequent instructional decisions.

Phase 2: Taking on New Learning

The core instructional phase of Reading Recovery represents the period when accelerated progress becomes the central focus. This phase, which constitutes the majority of the intervention, embodies Marie Clay's vision of creating a self-extending system that allows struggling readers to develop effective literacy processing strategies and make rapid gains.

The Structure of Daily Lessons

Reading Recovery lessons follow a consistent, research-based format that includes a specific sequence of activities, each carefully designed to support different aspects of literacy development while maintaining integration across domains. According to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) evaluation, this lesson structure demonstrates "strong fidelity to the standard format of lessons" across implementation sites (CPRE, 2013).

Each 30-minute lesson (note suggested minutes are subject to teacher judgment) includes:

Reading Familiar Books (First 5-7 minutes)

Students begin by rereading several familiar books, providing opportunities to practice fluent reading, build confidence, and consolidate recently acquired reading strategies. This familiar reading component occurred in 99% of observed lessons during the i3 evaluation (CPRE, 2013).

Running Record (3-5 minutes)

The teacher takes a running record on yesterday's new book, documenting the student's reading behaviors, error patterns, and self-correction strategies. This detailed record-keeping serves as both assessment and teaching tool. The CPRE evaluation found that running records were administered in 95% of lessons observed, and 100% of randomly sampled student files included documentation of daily running records (CPRE, 2013).

Word Work (5-7 minutes)

Students engage in structured work with letters and words, typically using a magnetic board. This component develops phonological awareness, letter-sound relationships, and word-solving skills. The evaluation showed word and letter work occurred in 96% of observed lessons (CPRE, 2013).

Story Composition and Writing (10 minutes)

The student composes and writes a brief story with teacher support. This writing process helps develop phonemic awareness, spelling patterns, and the reciprocal relationship between reading and writing that Clay emphasized. Story writing was documented in 97% of observed lessons (CPRE, 2013).

Cut-up Story (3 minutes)

The teacher writes the student's story on a sentence strip, cuts it into words or phrases, and the student reassembles it, reinforcing directional movement, word recognition, and sentence structure. This activity occurred in 90% of observed lessons (CPRE, 2013).

New Book Introduction and Reading (10 minutes)

The lesson concludes with the teacher introducing a carefully selected new book and supporting the student's first reading of it. New book introduction and reading were documented in 97% and 96% of observed lessons, respectively (CPRE, 2013).

Responsive Teaching and Acceleration

The hallmark of Reading Recovery in this phase is its highly responsive nature. As one teacher described in the CPRE evaluation: "It's watching children come along and able to problem-solve on their own... that is really incredible to see" (CPRE, 2013, p. 130). Teachers make moment-by-moment decisions based on careful observation, providing precisely calibrated support that enables successful problem-solving without creating dependence.

This responsive approach facilitates acceleration, a key principle of Reading Recovery. Clay (2001) emphasized that intervention must help children develop faster than their peers to close the achievement gap. The 2013 evaluation found strong evidence of this acceleration, with Reading Recovery students making gains at a rate 38% greater than the national average growth rate for beginning first graders (CPRE, 2013).

Building Strategic Processing

The central goal during this phase is to develop what Clay termed a "self-extending system,” internal strategies for problem-solving that allow children to learn from their own reading and writing experiences in desirable struggle. These strategies focus on enabling students to use meaning, structure, letter-sound relationships, and visual information in their reading and writing processes (Clay, 1991; 2005c).

As described in the i3 evaluation, Reading Recovery teachers consistently report that students develop improved problem-solving capabilities. More than 85% of first-grade classroom teachers surveyed noted that students who completed Reading Recovery were able to problem-solve while reading as well as, or better than, the average student in their class (CPRE, 2013).

Continuous Monitoring and Documentation

Progress monitoring is integral to the instructional phase. Teachers maintain detailed records including daily running records, lesson records, and periodic assessments of text reading level. The Text Reading Level (TRL) is typically updated at least weekly to track student progress.

This continuous assessment-instruction cycle ensures teaching remains precisely targeted to each student's evolving needs. As one teacher leader explained in the evaluation: "If a student is not moving one level a week then she wants to come out and see what's going on. I guess that's kind of what we should be expecting each student to go up once a week—like [one] level—and if they're not we need to look at that" (CPRE, 2013, p. 123).

The Teacher's Role and Expertise

Effective implementation during this phase depends heavily on teacher expertise. Reading Recovery teachers develop sophisticated observational skills and deep understanding of literacy processes through their year-long training and ongoing professional development. This extensive preparation enables them to make the complex instructional decisions necessary for responsive teaching.

The CPRE evaluation found that Reading Recovery teachers overwhelmingly reported that their training transformed their understanding of literacy. One teacher remarked: "What I've learned so far will change my teaching forever" (CPRE, 2013, p. 97). Another noted: "I've learned more in this one class than I have in my entire master's program to become a Reading Specialist... I feel like I've learned more about the reading and writing process and what kids might be doing and what they might not be doing and where they might be getting stuck and how I can push their learning forward" (CPRE, 2013, p. 94).

The instructional strategies developed during this phase often influence classroom practice beyond Reading Recovery lessons. The CPRE evaluation found that 75% of first-grade teachers surveyed indicated they had learned about literacy from the Reading Recovery teacher and program (CPRE, 2013). Reading Recovery teachers reported applying strategies learned in training to other instructional settings: "I'm using some of the same [Reading Recovery] strategies with my 2nd-3rd graders. Just some of the ways of getting the kids to hone in with the language and the comprehension" (CPRE, 2013, p. 98).

This core instructional phase exemplifies Clay's concept of "good first teaching"—instruction that is simultaneously supportive and challenging, individualized yet systematic, and focused on developing strategic processing rather than dependence on external support.

Phase 3: Accelerating Independence

The final phase of Reading Recovery represents a critical transition period focused on solidifying gains and preparing students for success beyond the intervention. This phase is essential for ensuring that the progress made becomes lasting change in the student's literacy development.

Gradual Release of Responsibility

As students approach the conclusion of their Reading Recovery series, teachers systematically reduce scaffolding and promote greater independence. Marie Clay emphasized that the ultimate goal of Reading Recovery is for children to develop "independent systems" that allow them to "work on texts for themselves" (Clay, 2005a, p. 43). This process aligns with Pearson and Gallagher's (1983) "gradual release of responsibility" model, in which instructional support decreases as student competence increases. In Reading Recovery, this transition is carefully orchestrated, with teachers progressively transferring responsibility to students as they demonstrate readiness. Research by Schwartz (2005) confirms that successful Reading Recovery students demonstrate this shift from teacher-directed to self-directed problem-solving during the final phase of the intervention.

Transfer of Learning

A critical aspect of this phase is ensuring that students can transfer their learning to new contexts, particularly the regular classroom environment. Clay (2001) emphasized that Reading Recovery must "result in the construction of an inner control of literacy processing which is transferable to other reading tasks in other settings" (p. 132).

The CPRE evaluation (2013) documented that 82% of Reading Recovery teachers reported communicating weekly with first-grade teachers about Reading Recovery students. This collaboration is particularly important during the transition phase to ensure continuity of support.

Developing Self-Extending Systems

Clay (2001) defined a self-extending system as "a set of operations just adequate for reading a slightly more difficult text for the precise words and meanings of the author" (p. 49). This concept represents the core goal of Reading Recovery—developing students' ability to learn from their own reading and writing experiences. May et al. (2016) found that Reading Recovery teachers paid careful attention to indicators of this self-extending system when making discontinuation decisions, looking for evidence that students had developed strategic approaches that would continue to serve them beyond the intervention.

Discontinuation Decision-Making

According to the Standards and Guidelines of Reading Recovery (RRCNA, 2009), discontinuation decisions must be based on multiple indicators of progress, including reaching grade-level text reading expectations and demonstrating independent problem-solving strategies. Clay (2005a) emphasized that text reading level alone is insufficient; teachers must also consider evidence of strategic processing and independence. The CPRE evaluation (2013) found that discontinuation processes typically involved collaboration between the Reading Recovery teacher and teacher leader to ensure appropriate decision-making.

Transition Planning

The Standards and Guidelines (RRCNA, 2009) specifies that Reading Recovery teachers must "communicate with 1st-grade teachers and other school personnel" to ensure continuity of support (p. 11). Research by Askew and Frasier (1999) found that successful transitions depended on clear communication about strategies that worked for individual students and ongoing monitoring of progress after discontinuation. May et al. (2016) reported that Reading Recovery teachers typically follow their discontinued students' progress, with most checking on former students one to three times per month.

Long-Term Impact

Schmitt and Gregory (2005) found that students who demonstrated a self-extending system at discontinuation maintained their gains three years after intervention, noting that "Reading Recovery children were performing roughly as well as or better than their cohort sample peers on the task of oral text reading" (p. 1). This final phase exemplifies Clay's vision that early intervention should provide "a foundation of responses which accumulate over time and form the basis for successful literacy learning" (Clay, 2001, p. 59). By accelerating independence, Reading Recovery aims to ensure that progress becomes a lasting change in students' literacy trajectories

Beyond the "Three-Cueing System" Misconception

Reading Recovery has often been misrepresented in the media as simply teaching through the "three-cueing system." While teachers are indeed trained to understand how three linguistic systems interact to code speech—the meaning cueing system (each word takes on meaning from context), the syntactic cueing system (each word takes on function from context), and the grapho-phonic system (each word takes on pronunciation from letters)—the program itself is much more ambitious. Reading Recovery is a comprehensive, systematic intervention that unfolds in three distinct phases, each designed to accelerate literacy development through carefully structured instruction and support.

The instruction is integrated with regular classroom teaching in strategic and impactful ways. It is problematic to view this professional development system of responsive practice to instructional materials with scripts designed to teach one aspect to the reading process in isolation. In the end, we must look at scientific evidence, and there is plenty available to support the selection of Reading Recovery as an option for districts to choose, though they might have to file for a waiver from state laws.

Darling-Hammond’s Analysis of Evidence in Support of Reading Recovery

Linda Darling-Hammond, a prominent educational researcher and policy advocate, has offered critical analysis of Reading Recovery's evidence base that helps contextualize its effectiveness among early literacy interventions. Her assessment highlights both the strength of evidence supporting Reading Recovery and important considerations for educational policymakers.

Strength of Evidence

Darling-Hammond, along with colleagues Hyler and Gardner (2017), identified Reading Recovery as an exemplar of effective professional development with clear evidence of impact on student achievement. Their analysis noted that Reading Recovery meets all seven characteristics of effective professional development they identified through extensive research: it is content-focused, incorporates active learning, supports collaboration, uses models of effective practice, provides coaching and expert support, offers feedback and reflection, and is of sustained duration (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).

In reviewing evidence-based literacy interventions, Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) highlighted Reading Recovery's strong performance in rigorous evaluations: "Reading Recovery is an example of a professional development model that has demonstrated effectiveness in supporting student learning gains in dozens of studies over several decades on multiple continents" (p. 5). This assessment aligns with What Works Clearinghouse findings, which identified Reading Recovery as having "positive effects on general reading achievement and potentially positive effects on alphabetics, reading fluency, and comprehension" (U.S. Department of Education, 2008, p. 1).

The i3 scale-up evaluation provided particularly compelling evidence that Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) referenced. This randomized controlled trial found that students who received Reading Recovery showed gains equivalent to "an additional 1.55 months of learning compared to the national growth average for 1st graders" (p. 5) and demonstrated that these effects extended to English language learners and students in rural schools.

Implementation Fidelity as a Key Factor

Darling-Hammond and colleagues emphasized the importance of implementation fidelity in Reading Recovery's effectiveness. The CPRE evaluation documented high fidelity to the Reading Recovery Standards and Guidelines, with RR teachers meeting 95% of standards on average (CPRE, 2013). Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) noted that Reading Recovery's comprehensive training model, with its intensive year-long preparation and ongoing professional development, ensures teachers develop the specialized knowledge needed for effective implementation.

This focus on implementation quality aligns with Darling-Hammond's broader work on teacher quality. She has consistently argued that teacher expertise is a critical factor in student achievement, particularly for struggling students (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Reading Recovery's investment in teacher development exemplifies this principle, with teachers receiving extensive training in observational assessment, instructional decision-making, and responsive teaching (CPRE, 2013).

System-Level Considerations

Darling-Hammond placed Reading Recovery within a broader context of educational improvement. In analyzing the i3 evaluation results, she highlighted Reading Recovery as an example of how targeted interventions can address equity concerns when implemented with appropriate support structures (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). However, she has also cautioned that even highly effective interventions like Reading Recovery cannot compensate for systemic inequalities. In her analysis of comprehensive school reform, Darling-Hammond (2010) emphasized that interventions must be part of coherent systems that address structural barriers to student success. This perspective suggests that while Reading Recovery can significantly impact individual student trajectories, its full potential is realized when implemented within supportive school and district contexts.

This aligns with findings from the CPRE evaluation, which noted that Reading Recovery implementation was most successful when there was strong alignment between the intervention and school-wide literacy approaches, and when principals actively supported the program (CPRE, 2013). May et al. (2016) similarly found that principal support was a key factor in successful implementation, a finding consistent with Darling-Hammond's emphasis on the importance of school leadership in educational improvement.

Cost-Effectiveness Considerations

Darling-Hammond has addressed the cost-effectiveness of intensive interventions like Reading Recovery, acknowledging the resource investment required while highlighting the long-term return. She has argued that early intervention is ultimately more cost-effective than remediation, particularly when the intervention has demonstrated strong effects (Darling-Hammond, 2010).

This perspective is supported by economic analyses of Reading Recovery. Schwartz (2005) calculated the cost-effectiveness of Reading Recovery compared to other interventions and found it compared favorably when considering both immediate outcomes and long-term savings from reduced special education placements and grade retention. More recently, the CPRE evaluation confirmed that Reading Recovery implementation led to significant reductions in special education referrals, representing substantial cost savings for districts (May et al., 2016).

Implications for Policy and Practice

Darling-Hammond's analysis of Reading Recovery offers several important implications for educational policy and practice. She highlights it as an example of how research-based interventions can be successfully scaled when implementation quality is maintained (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). The i3 scale-up demonstrated that Reading Recovery could maintain its effectiveness while expanding to serve more students in diverse contexts. Her analysis suggests that Reading Recovery exemplifies the kind of professional learning that education systems should prioritize—job-embedded, content-focused, and sustained over time (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). This contrasts with the one-shot workshops that remain common in many schools despite limited evidence of effectiveness.

Darling-Hammond's work places Reading Recovery in the context of comprehensive literacy education, suggesting that its impact is maximized when it complements strong classroom instruction (Darling-Hammond, 2010). This aligns with Clay's (1987) original vision of Reading Recovery as a system-level intervention that could influence wider instructional practices. In summary, Darling-Hammond's analysis positions Reading Recovery as a well-supported intervention with demonstrated effectiveness and important implications for educational policy. Her perspective emphasizes both the strength of evidence supporting Reading Recovery and the importance of implementation quality and system-level supports in realizing its full potential.

According to the Reading Recovery website…

“The key to Reading Recovery’s success is not found in a box of purchased materials, a strictly sequenced curriculum, or a set of scripted lessons. To the contrary, the key to Reading Recovery’s success is a knowledgeable, effective teacher… Participating teachers are provided professional development that empowers them to design and deliver high-quality, individual lessons for young learners in need of specialized support to acquire early literacy.”

As a longtime researcher and practitioner in the field of language and literacy, I am not alone in having been alarmed by misinformation about and mischaracterization of Reading Recovery. Many references to it equate it with scripted programs. In my mind, that’s like comparing a paint by numbers box with genuine artistic vision. Reading Recovery is much more than curriculum materials and algorithmic practice. I’ve not seen the robust data to support these scripted programs sufficient to warrant state laws mandating them, though I have looked at the so-called “horse race” studies of the past and am not prepared to rehash their methodological problems today—this overly long post would expand beyond its intention.

For the time being, Reading Recovery may be shunned for reasons grounded in ideology rather than evidence, but enough has been documented on the record to assure us Reading Recovery will not disappear just as other truly useful tools have stood the test of time, e.g., Bloom’s Taxonomy. When the time arrives for educators to get serious about No Child Left Behind, this professional development model will be ready.

Appendix

Darling-Hammond’s Highlighted Evidence

For the evaluation of impact on student learning Darling-Hammond relies on a multi-site randomized controlled trial design. At each participating school:

• Low-performing students were identified using the Observation Survey;

• The eight lowest-scoring students were matched by pretest scores and ELL status;

• One student in each pair was randomly assigned to receive Reading Recovery;

• After the intervention (12-20 weeks), all students were assessed using the ITBS.

This design provides valid causal estimates of Reading Recovery's impact on student achievement.

Impact on Reading Achievement

The evaluation of the i3 Scale-up demonstrated significant positive impacts on student reading achievement:

• Treatment effect: 0.68 standard deviations relative to struggling readers; 0.47 standard deviations relative to all first graders. Note that all first graders gained, not just students who experienced one-on-one teaching.

• Reading Recovery students outperformed control students by approximately 18 percentile points as follows:

  Mean percentile ranks:

  • Total Reading: 36th percentile (treatment) vs. 18th percentile (control)

  • Reading Words: 43rd percentile (treatment) vs. 27th percentile (control)

  • Reading Comprehension: 39th percentile (treatment) vs. 19th percentile (control)

• The additional gain of 4.2 points equals 1.9 months of extra learning;

• Growth rate was 38% greater than the national average for beginning first graders;

• Effects were consistent across subscales: Reading Words (0.60 SD) and Reading Comprehension (0.61 SD);

• Similar effects were found for English Language Learners (0.51 SD) and students in rural schools (0.59 SD);

• The magnitude of impact varied across schools, but no schools showed negative effects;

• Most schools demonstrated moderate to large positive impacts (greater than 0.40 SD).

This evidence demonstrates that Reading Recovery substantially improves the reading achievement of struggling first-grade readers with impacts significantly larger than those typically found in educational interventions.

Reference List for Cited Sources

Askew, B. J., & Frasier, D. F. (1999). Early writing: An exploration of literacy opportunities. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 4(1), 43-66.

Clay, M. M. (1987). Implementing Reading Recovery: Systemic adaptations to an educational innovation. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22(1), 35-57.

Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in children's literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (2005a). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (2005c). Literacy lessons designed for individuals: Part two. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). (2013). Evaluation of the i3 scale-up of Reading Recovery: Year one report, 2011-12. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

May, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A., & Goldsworthy, H. (2016). Reading Recovery: An evaluation of the four-year i3 scale-up. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.

Reading Recovery Council of North America (RRCNA). (2009). Standards and guidelines of Reading Recovery in the United States (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Author.

Schmitt, M. C., & Gregory, A. 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), 1-20.

Schwartz, R. M. (2005). Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 257-267.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2008). Reading Recovery. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report.