I debated whether Shanahan’s latest blog on Reading Recovery even deserved a response. When a well-known researcher swaps analysis for a grab bag of speculative takes, it’s fair to wonder: Is this critique or just commentary dressed up as one? This wasn’t a research paper or even a serious scholarly argument. It was conjecture built on a single, deeply flawed study.

Real talk: We’re not going to change Shanahan’s mind. It’s firmly made up, apparently immune to Reading Recovery’s 40+ years of positive outcomes or multiple reviews from the What Works Clearinghouse and Evidence for ESSA. Heck, he didn’t even bother to acknowledge the existence of other studies that draw opposite conclusions. So be it.

But throwing around a phrase like “causes harm” is not harmless. That kind of rhetoric matters, and it understandably struck a nerve with our community of literacy experts who’ve spent decades doing the actual work. Their expertise deserves more than a drive-by dismissal. Their millions of success stories aren’t mere coincidence.

Shanahan’s post trots out a series of wild speculations for the much-cited May study but relies on a conveniently selective reading of the research. The study itself? Widely known in the field for serious design flaws and a whopping 75% attrition rate. What Works Clearinghouse couldn’t even include it in its recent 2023 review of Reading Recovery.

Building sweeping conclusions on that while ignoring other longitudinal research showing different outcomes isn’t just incomplete. It’s misleading.

Even more problematic is the leap to cause-and-effect. The blog casually attributes later student outcomes to 12 to 20 weeks in Reading Recovery without accounting for the three to four YEARS of instruction that followed. That’s not a footnote; It’s the headline. Without controlling for what happened in those intervening years, any claim of causation is, at best, irresponsible guesswork.

To his credit, Shanahan admits uncertainty about the study. But instead of grappling with the full body of evidence, he offers a few speculative theories and calls it a day. He conveniently sidesteps other longitudinal studies like Hurry, Fridkin and Holliman’s exploring the long-term effects of Reading Recovery on UK students at age 16 that tell a completely different story. Funny how including more than one study tends to do that.

So no, this isn’t a compelling case of “effective teaching doing harm.” It’s a case study in what happens when you overinterpret weak evidence and ignore the bigger picture.

If we’re talking about harm, I’d argue that cherry-picking research and presenting it as settled truth does plenty of damage all on its own.

Dr. Billy Molasso is the executive director of The Literacy Council of North America, a nonprofit network of educators, school leaders, and advocates united by one mission: to ensure every child becomes a confident, capable reader and writer.