Have you noticed the buzz about state-approved reading curricula lists popping up nationwide?
Some curricula are making the list, however, some well-respected advocates for evidence-based teacher training and curricula disagree with the choices.
The decisions aren’t all bad.
Some evidence-aligned curricula are making some lists.
The lists are just a mixed bag.
And then, there are evidence-based programs that aren’t making some of the lists, such as Bookworms, and Reading Simplified is also one of them.
Let’s pause, though, for a ray of sunshine!
Reading Simplified has made it onto Colorado’s lists and we couldn’t be more thrilled!
The Ohio Department of Education & Workforce recently named Reading Simplified Academy as an “Approved Evidence-Based Reading Intervention Program.” With this approval, schools across the state can utilize the Reading Simplified Academy for professional development and intervention.
Oklahoma also wisely incorporated Reading Simplified as an evidence-based professional development provider.
And Reading Simplified officially “Meets Expectations in All Reviewed Components” for which it applied as an Intervention in Virginia!
Which is fantastic!
– But hold on.
Why hasn’t Reading Simplified found its way onto your state’s list?
The Biggest Barrier to Making State-Approved-Curricula Lists
Here’s my response:
That’s an overarching reason quality training and curricula aren’t making the cut in some states:
“…gross ignorance of the research…”
Reviewers with limited preparation of the reading research base are surprisingly common in these review processes. Reviewing a curriculum is challenging! If we want to truly embrace the “science of reading,” then we need to call for true experts to do the reviewing.
Low budgets for the review process or reviewers who know only a handful of programs better than they know the research are not going to cut it.
I could end it there and with praise from Becki – because Reading Simplified has followed the science since its inception!
But let me give 6 additional reasons, shedding light on what might be keeping Reading Simplified off a list in your state.
The Six Reasons Why Reading Simplified is Not YET Approved in Your State
- Access to the online Reading Simplified Academy
- Laser Focus on Sound-Based Decoding Foundations
- Acceleration Through Streamlined Pathways
- Explicit but Not Exhaustive Phonics Instruction
- Teaching Flexibility in Decoding Strategies
- Integrated Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Instruction
Wait! What?
In many ways, it’s the things you’ve come to love about Reading Simplified, right?
Yep, what makes Reading Simplified simple, powerful, efficient, effective, and oh-so unique, makes it challenging to get on those lists
Let me explain.
1. Access to the Online Reading Simplified Academy
You love the professional development…
And access to the team and community that comes with it…according to Reading Simplified members, Melissa and Bridget:
One thing I noticed was how considerate, encouraging, and unfailingly positive you and your other “helpers” in the Academy were/are! I was and am very impressed by your extreme classiness at all times!!
...so easy. The resources and workshops are extremely valuable, especially for busy teachers. The academy community members are helpful, too. It is nice to have colleagues to share and discuss...lessons, resources, games, and bonuses! I highly recommend joining the Reading Simplified Academy if you are a parent, teacher, or tutor who wants to see students become successful readers!
Here's the problem:
Your individualized professional learning via the online Reading Simplified Academy – conflicts with what some state review boards expect in a reading program.
Our dedicated and very small team strives to provide exceptional service and disseminate an effective approach through professional development and embedded coaching available to the masses but – exclusive to Reading Simplified Academy members. And primarily via online videos and ongoing online coaching.
Most programs lead first with printed manuals. Professional learning is an optional, after thought.
Ironically, the research-based design for professional learning inside the Reading Simplified Academy can hamper our ability to apply in certain states, if they:
- aren’t seeking science-of-reading-aligned, individualized professional development and instead are exclusively prioritizing printed curricula/programs for their approved list, and/or
- design a process to gain approval that is too extensive, time-consuming, or varied from other states’ requirements.
Meaning – that we may not be able to apply as an approved program out of the gate or repeat the process of applying for every state because it limits our coaching and support to our current members.
2. Laser Focus on Sound-Based Decoding Foundations
Reading Simplified is meticulously designed to establish a strong foundation in sound-based decoding, a crucial aspect for students learning to read, or provided to those students who need help catching up.
It’s also what I based the development of the Targeted Reading Intervention on, which has been recommended by many national intervention organizations, such as Evidence for ESSA, and is on the IES. What Works Clearinghouse as an effective approach for teaching early word reading acquisition. (Read more about our evidence base below.)
So we’ve stayed in that lane because that’s my expertise, and it was one of the most flagrant problem with reading instruction in recent decades.
However, some states are only approving all-encompassing curricula or basals, expecting programs to cover the full gamut of handwriting, vocabulary, grammar, mechanics and knowledge-building instruction, alongside word recognition.
While Reading Simplified provides word recognition and beginning fluency work through decodable texts and quickly transitioning to more authentic texts, we are purposefully not all-encompassing so as to match every requirement for “Text Reading and Fluency” in the example below, such as “teachers read aloud…building vocabulary and background knowledge.”
Admittedly, these are essential goals for developing strong language and literacy skills, yet Reading Simplified incidentally builds vocabulary and background knowledge, as its primary focus is word identification leading to fluency.
But it’s not just the all-encompassing requirement that presents this list as misguided.
Practitioners trained in the Reading Simplified system can introduce more challenging texts sooner than as in mainstream programs, and this helps accelerate students into real reading much earlier. Yet, there are expectations in the above example that we think represent a misreading of contemporary reading research.
Let me give 2 examples:
- When referencing the first indicator in the table above, the guidance to introduce sentence and passage reading only after students can read taught words is misguided. Connected text reading can begin immediately, even with beginners, with scaffolds such as Buddy Reading, guidance by an adult, corrective feedback, and error correction, all learned inside the Reading Simplified Academy.
In a conversation with Drs. Mark Seidenberg and Molly Farry-Thorn, I shared this contrast between Reading Simplified and mainstream programs:
- The third indicator in the table above is an overreach of the evidence-base, as well. Students can be prevented from guessing and have some productive struggle with a text when we give them the scaffolds mentioned in my first rebuttal.
I would eventually like to see Reading Simplified be considered a program for foundational core word recognition instruction that can be combined with a knowledge-building curriculum.
Currently, only a few states are looking at that option. And we won’t get anywhere with guidelines like these.
3. Diagnostic Thinking and Acceleration through Streamlined Pathways
If you're using the Reading Simplified system, you appreciate being able to evaluate students' decoding skills and boost their comprehension through personalized instruction.
And you've been blown away by the results like Femida and Janna!
Equipped with assessments and diagnostic tools, Reading Simplified teachers rely on just 3 Streamlined Pathways for systematic, diagnostic instruction that rapidly accelerates students through the foundations of learning to read.
Rather than fumbling through hundreds of pages of lessons, activities, and objectives, Simplifiers simply consider which of 12 steps each student or small group on the Streamlined Pathway is.
So teachers make quicker diagnostic decisions in meeting each child's needs.
The Streamlined Pathways also reflect many skills and goals, simultaneously, in an integrated fashion much different from mainstream programs.
Despite this ability for teachers to:
- quickly assess students and diagnostically determine a starting point,
- design lessons to meet students’ most pressing needs, and
- meet multiple early literacy goals at once,
some states prefer daily, scripted lesson plans that are inherently not diagnostic.
Additionally, when states look at supplemental programs and interventions, the requirements are often that these programs align with the core curriculum's scope and sequence.
Reading Simplified’s approach empowers students to progress through code learning and achieve broader reading goals much faster than many core curricula.
So, the overall plan for acceleration seems to trip up reviewers who are simply expecting more of the status quo–curricula that treat every student like a widget on an assembly line.
4. Explicit but Not Exhaustive Phonics Instruction
You also love that the integration of multiple reading sub-skills through just enough phonics gets the snowball of real reading rolling down the hill quite quickly:
I think using the Sort It categories to write and spell also minimizes overwhelmed feelings because she knows that there are only a handful of spelling options to choose from in a particular sound. What before may have seemed to her like endless memorization, feels more doable now. I’m excited to see her progress over the next few months!
Reading Simplified employs explicit instruction with reduced teacher talk, clear procedures, ample practice opportunities, and corrective feedback; all required for explicit instruction.
However, state criteria often demand exhaustive coverage of each code piece in isolation.
I wrote about this persisting ignorance of the research here: EXplicit but not EXhaustive Phonics Instruction.
Essentially, the only model of explicit instruction imagined by many in the field is still one with flashcard decks of alphabet letters and keywords, 10 minutes of teaching a new skill, and a lot of “I do, You do, We do” language.
In many speech-to-print, AKA structured linguistic literacy, approaches similar to Reading Simplified, the goal is to make the alphabetic principle clear.
These approaches start with teaching sound-symbol correspondences in whole words students already know and vowels and consonants in combination, not isolation.
While Reading Simplified maintains clear procedures for modeling, practice, and feedback, it's important to note that the gradual release of responsibility model, often described as “I do, We do, You do,” might not follow a consistent cycle in every lesson of Reading Simplified.
Upon exploring the history and beginnings of the gradual release framework as initially presented by Pearson and Gallagher in 1983, it becomes evident that its roots lie more in comprehension instruction rather than code-based instruction.
This origin raises the possibility that a rigid application of the model could be misapplied when considering how one can explicitly teach reading without a lot of heavy-handed talk, rules, and superfluous steps.
Our approach to teaching letter-sound recognition in the context of integrated word work with a lot opportunities to transfer with guided reading and re-reading practice, although tightly aligned with reading research and the science of learning, may be something unfamiliar to state reviewers.
See Miriam Fein’s excellent article for further discussion of differences between structured linguistic literacy approaches such as Reading Simplified and traditional phonics methods.
5. Teaching Flexibility in Decoding Strategies
You love it!
Instead of traditional spelling and syllable-types rules, Reading Simplified focuses on sound-based decoding by analyzing phoneme-grapheme relationships through a handful of activities, alternative spellings, and mispronunciation correction (aka set for variability).
Some states still require evidence of old-fashioned phonics rules, leading us to skip the application process…
Because our commitment is to provide a simplified and effective approach that is also flexible and aligned with current research.
Our path is more aligned with the science than some state review processes might lead you to think!
Let me share what other researchers are saying about flexibility in decoding instruction:
- In a recent Dyslexia issue of Reading Research Quarterly, Steacy et al. state:
“Explicit instruction in identifying syllable types based on the vowels within a multisyllabic word should be flexible rather than rule-based. Recent research suggests that rule-based syllable division patterns inconsistently provided accurate pronunciation of words and taxed students’ memories too significantly to be deemed a sound strategy. Instead, research supports instruction that helps students develop pattern recognition skills…” (p. 24).
- Dr. Mark Seidenberg had this to say during Reading Meetings:
“Now, the hard question is how much do you do, and how do you know when to stop? And what you said was you're opposed to this idea that you have to hit some target value and you have to know 90% of the phonemes of English or you have to know X percentage of the spelling sound rules. I find all those things really–I'm very, very skeptical about those things because people don't agree on what the spelling sound rules of English are. And so people are teaching different things.” - In this January 2024 article, Dr. Jennifer Buckingham summarizes:
“But beyond some basic guidance about the functions of syllables (i.e., that all syllables have a vowel sound), how useful is it to spend instructional time on ‘rules’ based on syllable divisions?”“It’s important to note the caveat if it can be avoided. Some rules do lead to greater efficiency and accuracy, but not all of them. When something becomes so complex that highly specific rules make it more complicated, we can apply heuristics or ‘rules of thumb’ and then allow the brain to do what it does well – find the patterns and remember the exceptions.” p.3
I hope future reviews of reading curricula will fall more in alignment with what scientists are demonstrating about how the child learns to read, as we see in the quotes above from leading reading researchers.
6. Integrated Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Instruction
You’ve seen Switch It do what oral-only phonemic awareness drills can’t:
Reading Simplified introduces phonemic awareness at the phoneme level in kindergarten, integrating it with real words and phonemic awareness instruction with letters through activities like Build It and Switch It.
The Literacy View podcast showcased a recent talk with researchers on the issue:
“Phonics is the teaching of letter-sound relationships. And so when you're doing this type of activity that I just described with letters, movable letters, or dry-erase boards, you're working on both phonics and phonemic awareness. You're working on two different goals with students with ONE activity. So we don't want to think of phonemic awareness as an ACTIVITY. We want to think of it as an awareness, or a GOAL of a lesson. And you can accomplish that goal by either doing activities orally or activities with letters, and if you're accomplishing that goal with letters, you're ALSO tying those brain connections from sounds to symbols which is what kids need to read and spell. –Tiffany Peltier, PhD.,
Source: What Should PA Instruction Look Like? Tiffany Peltier and Marianne Rice. 5:13-5:51
So, despite evidence supporting this approach for phonemic awareness with letters, states often demand a separate scope and sequence for phonological and phonemic awareness from the phonics scope and sequence and still promote oral-only phonemic awareness or work with larger units of phonological instruction.
Another requirement popping up is instruction in phonemic articulation, sometimes in the form of mouth pictures or sound walls.
Dr. Tim Shanahan addresses inquiries regarding word and sound walls in his blog. After sharing some background on how he’s seen the practices used in classrooms, he writes:
‘As usual, my first concern was, “What does the research have to say?” That’s easy. Research is mute on this issue.’
Dr. Shanahan goes on to give his opinion about sound walls:
“My take?
That’s far too cumbersome as a memory aid – about as practically useful as the lists of 3-cueing clues that some teachers provide: “If you come to a word you don’t know, look at the picture. If that doesn’t work, read to the end of the sentence…”
Besides the limited evidence base on sound walls, we’ve found Reading Simplified effective for teachers and students without adding this element to our lessons. (Struggling readers in the Targeted Reading Intervention studies, that Reading Simplified is based on, also made robust gains in word identification and word attack without sound walls, extensive articulation practice, or oral-only PA.)
Ongoing questions in the research on these topics may be valuable! Our point is that a state SoR review rubric should not include criteria that is, thus far, not shown as essential or effective by reading research. We don't want to be sold another story, right?
What Can We Do From Here?
If you’re using Reading Simplified and getting good results, here are a few ideas…
- Keep showing off your data while implementing Reading Simplified professional development and communicate that there is a 3rd way.
- Highlight how you pair Reading Simplified with knowledge-building curricula, rich discussion, and grade level and diverse texts for others to imagine how they can all fit together!
- Get to know your state’s requirements for approved programs and think about how you can respond.
While Reading Simplified may not be on every state's list, I hope the above 6 reasons showcase the uniqueness and effectiveness of the approach.
And if you’re new to Reading Simplified, get to know our evidence base.
I had the rare opportunity to lead the development of an intervention at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that was getting federal funds.
We asked kindergarten and first-grade teachers in low-income, rural communities to pull aside struggling readers for about 15 minutes a day to work one-on-one using the intervention we suggested and then coached them via webcam.
The program was called the Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI); recently renamed the Targeted Reading Instruction.
Across multiple top-tier journal articles that have been published on clinical trials of the program, struggling readers grew more than the control groups, with effect sizes ranging from 0.3 to 0.7. Pretty good effect sizes in education! The most used reading curriculum on the market today has demonstrated an effect size of just 0.1!
And because of results like these, the director of the Institute of Educational Sciences (IES) recommended that the Targeted Reading Intervention as one of the few studies so far that should be replicated. (Read more about IES.)
A cross-country move led me to develop Reading Simplified with the same 3-part lesson plan, handful of activities, and diagnostic-thinking as I packaged inside the Targeted Reading Intervention.
As exciting as the effects were for TRI, very little was happening as a result in the field. A classic research-to-practice gap!
In addition, the Reading Simplified system expands on TRI and provides a diagnostic system of thinking about how to teach anyone to read, whether they’re a beginner or an older student.
In conclusion,
At Reading Simplified, we aim to rapidly bring teachers up to speed, particularly about to teach students how to read words and become fluent, while providing teachers with a method that can rapidly get anyone to read.
Who knows? We may be coming soon to a state-approved list in your neighborhood soon.
So stay tuned, because I’m about to highlight one school’s dramatic transformation in a state where Reading Simplified is on the approved list!
And remember…
Your Turn!
Have you been surprised by your state’s requirements or the list of approved curricula released? Comment below.
Here’s to making great readers!
I believe RS is on the approved list in Minnesota! I am a huge fan‼️
Thanks so much for you kind words but we’re not yet approved in MN. Perhaps we’ll be there soon if the application process begins again!