I'm linking this thread to events in Australia where Professor Kevin Wheldall has written an open letter to Education Minister Adrian Piccoli about the continued official use of Reading Recovery in New South Wales:viewtopic.php?f=2&t=532
It is looking like the questions raised about Reading Recovery are not being sufficiently addressed, or addressed at all, by the RR organisation itself and by others who continue to use and promote RR - including various government bodies and educational establishments around the world. Clearly this is an ongoing scenario of international concern, which has lasted many years, and it is arguably not an acceptable state of affairs.
Kevin relayed his experiences via a private forum and I asked his permission to share these on this thread. Kevin describes the chronology and reality of events thus:
As I have said before, RR is a great looking car with tremendous dealerships and owners associations but it has a really seriously underpowered and extremely unreliable engine. For many years I urged that they should keep the brand and the networks, not to mention their powerful links to government and funding, and simply replace the existing dodgy engine with a state of the art synthetic phonics engine. My blandishments fell on deaf ears.
(As my old English teacher once wrote in the margin of my essay, “This metaphor is now overworked!” and so I’ll stop.)
But it was only in the face of the RR community’s continual refusal to update their program to incorporate the research finding from the past thirty odd years, that led to our decision to devise a small group program alternative, MiniLit. I get very cross when folk say that we damn RR because we are pushing our own MiniLit barrow. I have been criticising RR for over 20 years now, since our evaluation of RR (subsequently published in RRQ in 1995) was completed; way before MiniLit was even a twinkle in my eye.