The recently reported i3 Scale-Up of Reading Recovery (May et al., 2015) found an effect size of +0.69 in favor of Reading Recovery compared to the control group. We discuss four issues: (a) many of the lowest achieving students were excluded from participation in Reading Recovery; (b) the control group received a range of different experiences; (c) the successful completion rate of students in the program was modest; and (d) no data supported the claim that Reading Recovery leads to sustained literacy learning gains. We question the value of this study as the basis for widespread implementation of Reading Recovery.