viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1054
We conclude that RR does not tailor instruction to meet the needs of individual students, as claimed. The RR instructional model, developed in the 1970s, fails to recognise the importance of explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and the use of letter–sound relations. Such instruction is essential for most students who struggle with literacy learning during their early years of schooling and especially important for students who experience the most difficulty with learning to read. Suggestions are presented for strengthening the RR programme and for reducing the number of unrecovered students.
UPDATE: Dr Michael Johnston acknowledges the work of James Chapman in this article, August 2023:
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports ... conoclast/IN PRAISE OF A KIWI ICONOCLAST
James in a founding committee member for the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction, see here:James Chapman has led the fight to ditch Reading Recovery and adopt structured literacy for decades. Finally, late in his career, it looks as if victory is in the air. Ministry funding is now available to train teachers in structured literacy.
Professor Chapman may not be an idol like Dame Marie. In fact, when it comes to Reading Recovery, he’s an iconoclast. But he has science on his side, and a steely determination to do what’s best for our kids.
https://iferi.org/team-members-profile/ ... ew-Zealand
For James's review of the re-branded Reading Recovery programme (July 2023), follow this link:
viewtopic.php?p=3127#p3127