Reynolds and Wheldall reviewed research relating to Reading Recovery (RR) and concluded that "RR has provided an excellent model in demonstrating how to plan, promote, and implement an intervention across an educational system and how to design a professional development programme" (2007, p. 218). They balanced this praise with concerns about the research base for RR, its effectiveness for the lowest-performing first-grade students, long-term change in literacy achievement for RR students and RR's cost-effectiveness. This response aims to address these concerns by discussing four central issues of evidence-based practice from their review: evidence of effectiveness; sustained gains; programme evaluation data from a response to intervention perspective; and cost-effectiveness versus cost-benefit. (Contains 1 table.)