Early Literacy Intervention:
Expanding Expertise and Impact

a Reading Recovery initiative in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education

The goal of this initiative is to focus on developing highly effective teachers and resources for schools for improving the reading and writing abilities of students.
Funding has been provided through an award from the U.S. Department of Education, under award number U215K090094, for the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE) Program. The contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the federal government.


« return to RRCNA site

Home RTI principles RTI principle 5

An RTI approach calls for responsive and differentiated teaching to meet each student’s needs.
Reading Recovery: An Ideal Fit Within an RTI Framework

Reading Recovery teachers use a problem-solving approach, building on a child’s strengths and guided by ongoing observation data.

Reading Recovery’s “one-on-one tutoring by qualified tutors for at-risk readers” meets the U.S. Department of Education’s gold standard of research to determine what works. Contingent, responsive teaching requires the teacher to make decisions based on each child’s immediate context and knowledge (McEneaney, Lose, & Schwartz, 2006). Compelling student outcomes in English and in Spanish, across racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, and for English language learners validate the effectiveness of responsive and differentiated teaching in Reading Recovery.

Administrators in Reading Recovery schools look for interventions to help individual children build strategies that will transfer to independent learning in the classroom, rather than relying on packaged programs. They know that Reading Recovery’s problem-solving approach — building on a child’s strengths and guided by ongoing observation data — meets this goal.


Reference
McEneaney, J., Lose, M. K., & Schwartz, R. M. (2006). A transactional perspective on reading difficulties and response to intervention. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 117–128.