Policymakers in Oklahoma have banned the use of “three cueing” instruction in Oklahoma schools, a practice that encourages children to guess a word based on context, such as pictures, or even memorize entire words, rather than sound them out phonetically. That instructional approach has come under fire in recent years as a growing amount of research shows it is counterproductive.

Oklahoma lawmakers are not the only ones to ban three-cueing instruction in public schools. States around the country have banned the practice, instead shifting focus to phonics-based “science of reading” approaches.

But the college of education at Oklahoma State University continues to tout a program that has been criticized for its use of three-cueing strategies: Reading Recovery.

OSU’s website includes a page mostly devoted to touting the program, declaring that Reading Recovery “changes first-graders’ lives.” The program is a 12-to-20-week intervention for first-grade students who struggle with reading. The OSU website also touts the availability of year-long training for teachers in Reading Recovery practices.

An associated page of testimonials highlights the Broken Arrow school district as one that embraces the Reading Recovery program, declaring, “Broken Arrow Public School educators are committed to Reading Recovery because of its effectiveness.” (A Broken Arrow spokesperson says the school no longer uses the program.)

But a major review of Reading Recovery found that its long-term impacts on children are negative.

‘Statistically Significant and Substantially Negative’

A study published in the Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness in 2023 found that the impact of Reading Recovery on students’ reading/English Language Arts (ELA) test scores in third and fourth grades is “statistically significant and substantially negative.” The study found that students who participated in Reading Recovery in first grade had third- and fourth-grade state test scores in reading/ELA that were, on average, about one-half to one full grade level below the state test scores of similar students who did not participate in Reading Recovery.

Partly in response to that research, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute urged schools to “dump Reading Recovery” in 2023.

Aaron Churchill, the Ohio research director for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, wrote that reports of Reading Recovery’s success were based on substandard research.

“The vast majority of the research on Reading Recovery sheds no light on program effectiveness,’ Churchill wrote. “Some analyses lack comparison groups, so we don’t know whether Reading Recovery is any better than other interventions. Others are simply case studies or surveys. A 2013 review by the What Works Clearinghouse found just three out of 202 studies on Reading Recovery met its standards for high-quality evidence. That review did report somewhat positive effects, but the three small-scale studies included just 105 total participants. None of the studies tracked long-term impacts. They only evaluated results immediately after the intervention.”

Notably, the OSU website touts the What Works Clearinghouse review as evidence of Reading Recovery’s value.

“What Works Clearinghouse has confirmed that Reading Recovery is effective,” the OSU website states.

State Senator Expresses Concern

Oklahoma officials expressed concern that OSU continues to tout the Reading Recovery program despite its well-known reliance on three-cueing instruction.

In 2024, Oklahoma lawmakers passed and Gov. Kevin Stitt signed Senate Bill 362, which stated that Oklahoma public-school teachers “shall be prohibited from using the three-cueing system model of teaching students to read” starting in the 2025-2026 school year.

State Sen. Adam Pugh, an Edmond Republican who authored SB 362, said, “I welcome every stakeholder across Oklahoma to join with the Senate Education Committee in elevating education outcomes to give kids the gift of reading. That includes colleges of education implementing the Science of Reading and not outdated standards that are proven ineffective. The Science of Reading gives educators the best tools to teach every child how to read by relying on proven, research-based methods. By aligning standards with evidence-based research instruction with how a child’s brain learns, we unlock a lifetime of learning opportunities.”

Lucia Frohling, director of parent services at Oklahoma Parents for Student Achievement, said she was very disappointed that OSU continues to tout a program that relies on three-cueing instruction.

“As a parent, I watched my twins struggle and fall further behind in reading because they were taught using the three-cueing method—a strategy that encouraged them to guess words based on pictures or context instead of actually learning to decode them,” Frohling said. “They were labeled as behind, inattentive, and even lazy, when in reality they had never been given the tools they needed to read. Everything changed when they began Take Flight, a structured literacy program grounded in the science of reading. For the first time, they learned how language works—how to break down sounds, recognize patterns, and decode words accurately. They began to thrive.

“That’s why it’s so disheartening to see Oklahoma State University still training future teachers in Reading Recovery, a program based on the same discredited three-cueing approach that failed my children,” Frohling continued. “Even more troubling is that OSU’s own Speech-Language Pathology department teaches structured literacy, acknowledging what research shows actually works.”

OSU’s promotion of Reading Recovery has continued even after other universities have been criticized for supporting the program.

In 2020, an article published by APM Reports noted that Ohio State University and Lesley University in Massachusetts were facing scrutiny for their use of teacher training programs that encouraged the use of three cueing, including Reading Recovery.

When the Reading Recovery Council of North America filed a lawsuit in 2023 to overturn Ohio’s ban on three-cueing reading instruction, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine dismissed the law’s opponents as “people who just want to make money,” according to the Associated Press.

“They’re upset that they’re not going to be able to make money anymore,” DeWine told the Associated Press, responding to the Reading Recovery Council’s lawsuit. “They don’t care about kids, and I think Ohioans ought to be very angry about that type of a lawsuit.”

The Associated Press noted that three-cueing is “a key part of the Reading Recovery program.”

In a statement, officials with Oklahoma State University said the school is “is in full compliance with state law.”

While Oklahoma law bans the use of three-cueing instruction in public schools starting in the 2025-2026 school year, the law does not prohibit state colleges from training teachers in the three-cueing method.

The OSU statement also said that Reading Recovery “is not included in the curriculum of our undergraduate or graduate teacher preparation programs” and that the college will end the program soon.

“A limited number of school districts in Missouri have independently continued working with the Reading Recovery program, but the program is being phased out,” the OSU statement said. “No new schools are being recruited into the program.”

But critics say state colleges should have ended programs that relied on three-cueing methods long ago.

“Our universities should not be sending mixed messages,” Frohling said. “Oklahoma’s kids deserve consistent, research-based instruction and not outdated methods that harm them. OSU must do better.”

[For more stories about higher education in Oklahoma, visit AimHigherOK.com.]

NOTE: This story has been updated since initial publication to include comment from Oklahoma State University. A request for comment was sent to OSU more than 24 hours prior to initial publication of this story. Following publication of this article, OSU removed references to the Reading Recovery program from university websites, including a page highlighting Broken Arrow's use of the program.