Reading & Literacy What the Research Says

Concerns Raised Over Reading Recovery’s Long-Term Effects

By Sarah D. Sparks — April 29, 2022 5 min read
Image of a young boy selecting books in the library.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A widely used, and initially successful, intervention for struggling beginning readers may hurt students’ reading growth in the long run, a new study finds.

Reading Recovery was considered one of the breakout stars of the federal Investing in Innovation program, after a massive randomized controlled study found the literacy program helped struggling 1st graders gain significant ground in reading. But new findings from a longitudinal follow-up of the program suggest that by 3rd and 4th grades, former Reading Recovery students performed significantly worse than their peers who did not participate in the program.

The results, presented at last week’s annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, come as districts across the country search for ways to help catch up students who lost ground in reading during the pandemic. One-to-1 interventions like Reading Recovery have shown significant benefits in prior studies, but can be among the most expensive to maintain, both in training and staff time.

Reading Recovery, developed in the 1970s by New Zealand literacy researcher Marie Clay, is now used in Australia, Britain, and the United States as well.

Teachers provide 30-minute, 1-to-1 lessons with students who show early signs of reading difficulties. In each lesson, a child reads both familiar and new texts while a teacher keeps a “running record” of which words the student reads incorrectly, with notes about potential causes or miscues. The lessons also include writing and letter-sound practice.

In 2010, as part of the federal Investing in Innovation, or i3, research program, more than 8,000 of the lowest-performing readers were randomly assigned to participate in Reading Recovery either in the first or second half of their 1st grade year. That study found that after five months, children who participated in the program improved by more than 130 percent of the average reading growth for 1st graders nationwide—an effect considered at the timeto beone of the largest seen for reading interventions.

While the initial i3 studies, conducted by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Delaware’s Center for Research in Education and Social Policy, could show causal evidence of the short-term benefits of the program, it did not allow researchers to understand the long-term effects because students in the control group also participated in Reading Recovery by the end of the year.

So, in a separate study, Henry May and his colleagues at the Center for Research in Education and Social Policy also tracked reading progress in 150 to 500 Reading Recovery schools each year from 2011-2015 and again in 2016-17. Each school included at least seven students who initially scored just below the reading cutoff to participate in Reading Recovery, as well as at least three students who performed just above the reading cutoff and could act as a control group.

For these students, the early benefits of Reading Recovery seemed to reverse themselves over time. Students who participated in the program in 1st grade had state reading test scores in 3rd and 4th grade that were roughly half a grade level below the scores of the students who had barely missed participating in Reading Recovery in 1st grade.

“It’s really important to do long-term impact studies because often they differ from short-term effects,” said Sean Reardon, a Stanford University researcher who is serving on the peer review committee for the Reading Recovery study. “Either the effects of the intervention compound over time with cycles of positive feedback, or they fade out over time with compensatory interventions” for students who were in the control group, he said.
“I think the big takeaway here is that the estimated long-term effects [of Reading Recovery] are negative, significant, and meaningfully large,” Reardon added.

What caused the drop?

What’s not clear is why Reading Recovery’s effects changed so dramatically over time. Some critics have argued that Reading Recovery’s focus on individual student errors can leave holes in explicit instruction for foundational skills. May said it’s also possible that the intervention improves early reading skills that don’t translate as well to skills needed for comprehension in later grades.

But he said students may also lose the ground they initially gain either because schools do not continue the same level of literacy supports in higher grades or because schools actively reprioritize literacy supports for students who show improvements because of early interventions.

The study also comes with major research caveats. For example, less than a quarter of the students could be tracked into 3rd grade, and only 15 percent could be tracked into 4th grade.. While the researchers did not find differences between the students who dropped out of the study in the treatment or control groups, the smaller sample could provide less information on the program as a whole.

In a written response to the study, Reading Recovery advocates argued that students who were prioritized for support while they were in Reading Recovery may have been given less support in later years. “Reading Recovery was not designed to be a panacea,” they wrote, arguing, “the intervention is successful with a majority of the lowest 1st grade readers and writers who receive a full series of lessons. These students are able to continue to make satisfactory progress with the support of good classroom instruction.”

Similar concerns have been raised in other high-profile longitudinal evaluations, including those of the federal Head Start program, for example, in which early supports were not sustained in later grades and early benefits faded out.

May cautioned that Reading Recovery still has more evidence of benefits in early grades than many other common reading interventions. “I would say it’s still perhaps the most effective intervention if you want to produce benefits in 1st grade,” he said. “But that said, when you look at overall impacts across grades ... I do have concerns” about long-term effects.

However, the results may change the equation for schools considering the program: In a connected cost-benefit analysis of 18 reading interventions, which was also presented at the research meeting, Reading Recovery was among the most expensive, ranging from about $5,400 to more than $10,000 per student, depending on the school.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the May 11, 2022 edition of Education Week as Concerns Raised Over Reading Recovery’s Long-Term Effects


This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Mathematics Webinar
Pave the Path to Excellence in Math
Empower your students' math journey with Sue O'Connell, author of “Math in Practice” and “Navigating Numeracy.”
Content provided by hand2mind
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Recruitment & Retention Webinar
Combatting Teacher Shortages: Strategies for Classroom Balance and Learning Success
Learn from leaders in education as they share insights and strategies to support teachers and students.
Content provided by DreamBox Learning
Classroom Technology K-12 Essentials Forum Reading Instruction and AI: New Strategies for the Big Education Challenges of Our Time
Join the conversation as experts in the field explore these instructional pain points and offer game-changing guidance for K-12 leaders and educators.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Reading & Literacy Opinion Reading Research Is Getting Lost in Translation. What You Need to Know
There's a yawning gap between what experts know will work and how that's implemented in the classroom.
8 min read
Images shows colorful speech bubbles that say "Q," "&," and "A."
Reading & Literacy Opinion What Should We Really Make of Book Bans?
Opinions are divided on the significance of recent (and not-so-recent) efforts to remove certain books from schools.
5 min read
Manipulated image of old hardcover books flying on white background
Liudmila Chernetska/iStock + Education Week
Reading & Literacy Opinion Tired of the Reading Wars? Become a Conscientious Objector
Teachers' obligation is to their students. The research combined with the knowledge of individual students should be the guide.
14 min read
Images shows colorful speech bubbles that say "Q," "&," and "A."
Reading & Literacy 'I Literally Cried': Teachers Describe Their Transition to Science-Based Reading Instruction
Teachers describe their journeys as they navigated the changing landscape of literacy instruction.
6 min read
First grade teacher Tammy Satterfield of Mountain View Elementary uses her fingers to break up a word into its separate sounds with phoneme segmentation.
First grade teacher Tammy Satterfield of Mountain View Elementary uses her fingers to segment phonemes—or break up a word into its separate sounds.
Kitty Clark Fritz for Education Week-File