OK. The training of the teachers is crucial. So the effectiveness of the intervention can only really be measured where the training is complete. That must be the same for all interventions. It can't really be compared to non-interventions (eg Letters and Sounds or Jolly Phonics which are used for all the children in a cohort and don't require specialist training, but even with those you can only measure the effectiveness of the programme if it has been followed correctly as set down). Published evaluation are questionable - so there needs to be proper independent evaluation. Does anyone know of any? This is to be expected, surely, and would be an indicator for further intervention. Mmm... some studies. What do the other studies say? This needs some further unravelling- is reaching the average the aim of the programme or is it about being able to 'keep up' with the average? There are always going to be 50% of children below the average, and these are always likely to be pupils who have had a difficult start with literacy. Do these children catch up later, I wonder? Thank you for the information Msz. I would agree that more research is needed into the effects and efficacy of RR but would not agree with those posts that have dismissed it so forcefully. Apparently RR has been going for over 20 years, so presumable there are some long term studies. Are there any formalised SP intervention programmes that have been going that long, for comparison?