The devil is in the detail regarding the efficacy of reading recovery: A rejoinder to schwartz, Hobsbaum, Briggs, and Scull

This rejoinder provides comment on issues raised by Schwartz, Hobsbaum, Briggs and Scull (2009) in their article about evidence-based practice and Reading Recovery (RR), written in response to Reynolds and Wheldall (2007). Particular attention is paid to the processes and findings of the What Works Clearinghouse evaluation of RR. The suggestion that this evaluation is flawed casts doubt about some of its findings. The authors maintain their earlier stance that RR is effective for many students but do not accept that there is evidence that initial gains are sustained through the primary grades, that RR is an efficient tier two intervention in a response to intervention approach and that significant cost benefits have been demonstrated in education systems. It is concluded that research into alternative interventions that could be implemented at lower cost is warranted.