# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Region 8 Literacy Leader Network January 24, 2025 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Region 8 Literacy Leader Network October 25, 2024 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Region 8 Literacy Leader Network February 28, 2025 @8:45-9:45 Rigorous & Complex Text + Reading Comprehension Kim Attendance https://tinyurl.com/3p6u6u75 Padlet https://padlet.com/StateSupportTeam8/r8ll-sor-network-2024-2025-2xnn3plsntjmjazb Slides https://bit.ly/ComplexTextR8LL Note Catcher 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The components of the Active Implementation Formula are defined by the five (5) Active Implementation Frameworks (AIF). The AIFs are the key ingredients necessary to achieve socially significant student outcomes.

Select links below to explore the Active Implementation Frameworks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The components of the Active Implementation Formula are defined by the five (5) Active Implementation Frameworks (AIF). The AIFs are the key ingredients necessary to achieve socially significant student outcomes. Select links below to explore the Active Implementation Frameworks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Ohio Department of Education aims to increase student achievement through improving language and literacy outcomes for all students. A successful language and literacy framework is built on five interrelated components-teacher capacity, shared leadership, multi-tiered systems of support, parent partnerships and community collaboration.

The Riverside Elementary Case Study examines how one building in Ohio turned around their literacy instruction to ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn to read.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Ohio Department of Education aims to increase student achievement through improving language and literacy outcomes for all students. A successful language and literacy framework is built on five interrelated components-teacher capacity, shared leadership, multi-tiered systems of support, parent partnerships and community collaboration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Think for a moment about the difference between a really, really great strawberry and a really, really awful strawberry-one you buy from a produce stand in May and one you buy from a supermarket in December. The first is perfectly ripe-sweet and tart, soft (but not too soft), and almost candy red-while the second...well, the second is flavorless, fibrous, tough, and pale.

Now, if I told you to come on over to my house for strawberry shortcake tonight, which would you hope I'd be serving? I'd bet you'd hope for the fresh ones because you'd know they'd be immeasurably better.

Ingredient quality matters. You can't have a good strawberry shortcake without good strawberries. If the raw materials aren't packing a punch with flavor, bringing the right texture, and looking delicious, the dish won't be all that great no matter how good a cake I bake.

At this point, you're probably wondering why you're reading about strawberries (isn't this blog about instructional materials?). The reason is, I want you to think about instructional materials as central, raw ingredients in students' educational experiences. If the materials anchoring the major learning of your classrooms aren't strong, it's challenging for teachers to deliver rigorous, meaningful instruction that prepares students for subsequent grades and beyond.

As discussed in our Early Literacy Playbook , teachers need "high-quality materials that attend to foundational skills, knowledge building, and vocabulary instruction." High-quality materials can be defined as standards-aligned, coherent curricula rooted in the science of reading and associated research.

However, even the best materials aren't a cure-all for improved instruction (as even the best strawberries won't do the work of baking a shortcake). No matter how great your materials are, students are unlikely to draw deep learning from them if stakeholders are ill-prepared to use them.

At Instruction Partners, we've worked with many schools across the country to support the selection, adoption, and implementation of high-quality instructional materials.

Here are four common pitfalls that we've seen schools and districts fall into.

Pitfall #1: Making decisions without teacher input

From pre-selection to implementation and beyond, one key to success in materials adoption is teacher buy-in. Too often, a small team chooses the curriculum that teachers throughout an entire school or district are expected to use without getting essential feedback from those very teachers. When new materials arrive, teachers wonder why the change is happening. What was wrong with their old curriculum? And what's so much better about the new one?

Without teachers' perspectives, selection teams can miss critical, on-the-ground context that could influence the selection, adoption, and implementation processes.

If leaders don't adequately address these questions during the curriculum adoption process, they may find that teachers aren't fully bought in to the new materials when it comes time to begin implementing them. Moreover, if they don't attend to teacher perspectives, leaders may not ultimately select the best possible materials for students.

Though leaders have a bird's-eye view of what's happening across classrooms and schools, teachers are on the ground doing the day-to-day work of making sure the materials in use meet the needs of their students. Without teachers' perspectives, selection teams can miss critical, on-the-ground context that could influence the selection, adoption, and implementation processes. For example, teachers may be quicker than administrators to flag the number and quality of student practice opportunities that curricula include, provide insight into what meaningful student practice looks like in the classroom, and determine whether a given set of instructional materials provides sufficient opportunity. Or, they may notice that accessing teacher support resources through a given provider is clunky and will be challenging to use practically.

Here's how to include teachers every step of the way.

Before selection
Teachers have valuable on-the-ground experience with instructional materials; rather than limiting their role in the adoption process, bring them to the table. Creating room for teachers' voices increases the likelihood that newly selected materials will meet the needs of students and complement the cultural context of classrooms. For instance, run surveys or hold focus groups that allow teachers to voice the strengths and weaknesses of the current materials, what they would like to see in new materials, and red flags to look out for when evaluating materials. In turn, allow leaders to share what they identify as lacking in the current curriculum.

During selection
Teachers tend to feel more invested in new materials when they confidently understand both the factors that inform the selection process and how the new materials will better equip them to support student learning. Share the "why" behind the process and decisions with teachers, and create a throughline that connects leaders' and teachers' needs to the materials ultimately selected.

During year 1 implementation
For the first year of implementation, the focus is acclamation-making sure that teachers understand how to use the materials, plan lessons, and navigate their time. During this adjustment period, leaders need to be in regular communication with teachers. Surveys, focus groups, and classroom visits provide opportunities for leaders to offer encouragement, address questions, and gain important insight into how teachers and students are experiencing the materials. That, in turn, helps leaders make informed decisions about ongoing training and development.At this stage, it's important for leaders to stay at the teacher level, which means serving as a partner in the work. When observing classrooms, leadership teams must 1) explicitly share with teachers what they are looking for; 2) talk to teachers about trends, bright spots, and areas for improvement; and 3) use all of the data and information collected to strategically plan professional learning.

After year 1 implementation
Lastly, remember that the initial transition to new materials isn't the end-it's the beginning. After a year, teachers should have settled into the rhythm of the curriculum; however, true curriculum mastery is a years-long process. Leaders need to facilitate continued reflection on what it's like to actually put the materials to use, where teachers want more support, and current priorities for deepening student learning. Leaders can say something like, "We know that implementing a new curriculum is hard-tell us what is and isn't working, and how we can help." Statements like these make teachers feel supported and like their voices matter. It allows teachers to leverage their expertise, and it helps leadership teams fine tune implementation.

By attending to teachers' voices, teachers will feel seen, valued, and heard, and leaders will make better-informed decisions about what materials and strategies will make the biggest difference in classrooms.

Pitfall #2: Inadequately training stakeholders

After selecting materials, leadership teams need to shift their focus to planning for continued professional learning about curriculum implementation. This is an important juncture because failure to appropriately train and support stakeholders in using new materials can lead to confusion, frustration, and ultimately dips in teacher and student success.

Curricula creators promote their own training, which has its merits (e.g., a solid overview of materials composition, guidance for use in virtual vs. in-person formats); however, these trainings tend to be one-off, high-level overviews of the materials. Rarely does training offered by curricula providers include follow-up touchpoints throughout the year or deep dives into units, lessons, and instructional planning. Training on how to use the materials is a great first step, but teachers and leaders need more than a shallow understanding if they want to effectively leverage the materials to improve instruction and student experiences.

It takes years of training, using materials as an anchor, to refine and strengthen teachers' ability to use the materials well. Follow-up training needs to get more granular to address how teachers are internalizing units and lessons to inform planning and facilitation and how they are using data to inform future instruction, including customized student support.

Facilitating this kind of meaningful, ongoing training requires implementation support teams to have a solid understanding of the materials. They need to have internalized the units and lessons-to know the materials as well as teachers do-to deliver the support teachers actually need, such as coaching and feedback, modeling, and curriculum-based training and lesson planning support. Though not all leaders in a building or district need such extensive knowledge, schools and districts need to dedicate a person or team to lead curriculum-based professional learning efforts, then let those folks create training and support opportunities for teachers.

Pitfall #3: Moving forward without a strategy

Imagine this scene: The curriculum selection team has made its choice. After completing initial training, teachers have a working understanding of how to use the curriculum. The leaders conducting classroom observations know the materials well enough to recognize whether or not they are being used with fidelity in the classroom.

It's one thing for leaders to know that their teachers need support; it's another to know what type of support they need and what next steps to prioritize. This is where a strategic implementation plan comes into play.

But how will they support teachers in improving their practice?

It's one thing for leaders to know that their teachers need support; it's another to know what type of support they need and what next steps to prioritize. This is where a strategic implementation plan comes into play. The heart of strategic planning is backwards mapping: getting teachers to Point B (i.e., successful use of materials in service of student outcomes, however teachers and leaders define it) from Point A (i.e., where you are now).

Once stakeholders create a vision for successful implementation , they can determine a strategic plan for realizing that vision, including identifying clear look-fors in classroom observations and outlining clear roles and responsibilities for everyone involved in supporting early literacy. Equipped with a vision, a strategy, and real-time data from classroom observations,* leaders can determine whether professional learning opportunities should focus on unit internalization, lesson preparation, progress monitoring, or something else.
*Tools like Instruction Partners' Instructional Practices Guides (IPGs) can help leaders stay focused during classroom observations, track improvement over time, and further refine their strategic plan. IPGs also work well when used in conjunction with the implementation guides that accompany the curriculum. Here are our IPGs for Math ELA early literacy
Pitfall #4: Not protecting time for ongoing support

As discussed in pitfall #2, offering teachers an introductory high-level training and a few flyover follow-ups isn't sufficient to develop deep knowledge of new curricular materials. Change takes time. Teachers and leaders cannot expect perfection right out of the gate; leaders need to carve out appropriate time for ongoing support.

But time, of course, is the scarcest resource in a school building. Protecting time is challenging in and of itself, but it's only half the battle-you also have to protect that protected time. It will always be tempting to repurpose time to handle one of the never-ending situations that arise in school buildings or to cancel the time outright to give educators a break, but it's absolutely crucial to stay the course in order to achieve long-term gains.

The good news is that leaders can tap into some of the teacher collaboration and learning structures they already have in place-professional learning communities (PLCs) are one great option. Activate PLCs so that you can leverage the protected time you already have for the sake of strategic curriculum implementation support.

serves as a good example of how a school leader transformed his team's PLC to better meet teachers' and students' needs, as well as how PLC members navigated challenges and remained rooted in the curriculum.

For more detailed guidance, tools, and templates for supporting the selection and implementation of early literacy materials and putting in place strategies and structures that can help you and your team avoid each of the four pitfalls, check out our free Early Literacy Playbook .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Common Pitfalls of Reading Curriculum Implementation - Instruction Partners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here are four common pitfalls that we've seen schools and districts fall into when implementing high-quality instructional materials (HQIM).

# data[].attributes.headline
3 ways to transform PLCs—and what to watch out for

# data[].attributes.subject
3 ways to transform PLCs—and what to watch out for

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 ways to transform PLCs—and what to watch out for - Instruction Partners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
James Johnson, principal of STAR Academy in Memphis, shares how he improved professional learning by transforming PLCs to better meet teachers’ and students’ needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Knowledge Matters Review Tool (print version).pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Rubric for Evaluating Reading/Language Arts Instructional Materials for Kindergarten to Grade 5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Title:
Rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5

Description:
This rubric was developed in response to a request by Improving Literacy Research Alliance members at the Florida Department of Education to be used in their instructional materials review process. It is a tool for evaluating reading/language arts instructional and intervention materials in grades K–5 based on rigorous research and standards. It can be used by practitioners at the state, district, or school level or by university faculty involved in reviewing instructional materials. The rubric is organized by content area for grades K–2 and for grades 3–5. Each item is aligned to recommendations from six What Works Clearinghouse practice guides. Each content area (for example, writing) includes a list of criteria that describe what should be consistently found within the instructional materials. Reviewers use a 1–5 scale to rate the degree to which the criteria were met. The rubric includes a guide for when and how to use it, including facilitator responsibilities, professional learning for reviewers, and ways to use the scores. Alliance members and reading coaches involved in a statewide literacy initiative in Mississippi provided feedback on the rubric.

Online Availability:
Need Help Viewing PDF files?

Cover Date:
January 2017

Web Release:
January 11, 2017

Print Release:
January 11, 2017

Publication #:
REL 2017219
General Ordering Information

Center/Program: REL

Associated Centers: NCEE

Authors:
Barbara R. Foorman, Kevin G. Smith, and Marcia L. Kosanovich: Florida State University

Type of Product: Tools

Keywords:

Questions:
For questions about the content of this Tools, please contact:
Amy Johnson.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find information about and locate all publications and data products on education information from the National Center for Education Statistics--NCES--. In most cases you may also browse the content of publications or download data files.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Walkthrough for Grades 4-12 Literacy.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Notes document for breakout room PA/Phonics 1/24/25

# data[].attributes.subject
Notes document for breakout room PA/Phonics 1/24/25

# data[].attributes.body
Use this to clarify discussion for each stage and to inform next steps. Recommend using this tool with a literacy team at the district/building level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For more resources and information about implementing literacy instruction aligned with Ohio's Plan to Raise Literacy Achievement, access the resources for each age band.

Emergent Literacy Early and Conventional Literacy Adolescent Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Implementing Ohio's Plan to Raise Literacy Achievement: Resources for School Leaders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For more resources and information about implementing literacy instruction aligned with Ohio's Plan to Raise Literacy Achievement, access the resources for each age band. Emergent Literacy Early and Conventional Literacy Adolescent Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Department's seventh annual Literacy Academy is returning live and in-person on June 10-11, 2024 at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Columbus. Resources from this year's event will be available on the Department's website.

Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Department's seventh annual Literacy Academy is returning live and in-person on June 10-11, 2024 at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Columbus. Resources from this year's event will be available on the Department's website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Blast from the Past: This entry was first issued on September 6, 2016 and it was reissued on June 27, 2020. This week several readers on social media have reposted some of my earlier writings on teaching with complex text, and this month American Educator published a new article of mine on this topic. Given that, I thought it might be a good time to pull this blog back which suggests several practical steps to teaching students to make sense of complex text. If a better question doesn't emerge in the next couple of weeks, perhaps i'll write a new follow up, adding some additional ways teachers can support the reading of complext text.

Teacher Question: My district is currently "grappling" with the idea of asking students to read complex text if they are significantly below the grade level. As an example, within one fourth grade class, a teacher identified that more than half her class is 1-2 grade levels below the expectation for reading (using multiple measures). Her response is to change the level of the text, and try to move the students forward. The common theme in our schools is that growth is what matters, not proficiency.
However, our new reading series expects students to perform in more complex texts. Even the "approaching" level books are above what we typically would ask struggling students to read. Could you give some specific examples of how to scaffold, when students are unable to read half the words on a page? Shanahan's response:
First, determine which grade-level materials are the right fit for each student. If students are reading like first-graders - that is, they are struggling with decoding (and the statement that kids can't read 50% of the words in their book sounds like kids who are more than 1-2 years below level) - then you definitely should be trying to teach them out of easier books, not grade level ones. Indeed, the complex text prescription is not for them. However, if they are that low, you should be doing more than placing them in low demand reading books. You also should be providing them with substantial amounts of phonics and fluency training in class as well (like 30 minutes per day of each), and, perhaps providing them additional training in those outside of class.

However, if your fourth-graders really are reading like second- or third graders then teaching them with grade level materials makes sense. It not only means that you would be teaching your students what your state has committed you to teach them, but you would be exposing them to content or ideas more appropriate to their intellectual functioning and interests

Second, vary the reading demands on these students who will be working with, what for them, will be challenging text. They should be doing what athletes do, which is varying the degree of difficulty when they train. Some texts should be easier, some harder - with less scaffolding and support with the easier ones, and more with the harder ones. Traditionally, experts have argued that all instructional reading should be at the instructional level; I'm suggesting that it should vary, both up and down for maximum impact. Harder texts give students opportunities to negotiate the features of text that can be barriers to comprehension, while easier texts give them the opportunity to consolidate that learning.

Third, let the kids in on the secret. Tell them what you are doing. Make sure they know that instead of teaching them out of second grade books or other baby stuff you will be teaching them to read out of a fourth grade book; it will be harder, but also more interesting and more respectful. In my experience, which matches a lot of research on motivation, kids like challenge, especially if you'll help them to succeed with it. The point isn't to scare the students, but to let them know what's going on, why you are doing it, and assuring them that you intend to make them successful.

Fourth, if students are far behind, reverse the order that you normally use with guided reading and fluency practice. Most teachers will have kids read a selection for comprehension in the reading group and then have them practice reading that text aloud afterwards. That way, kids can quickly accomplish fluency with a text, since they have already read it once or twice and discussed it with the teacher. However, with kids two or more grade levels behind, it makes sense to reverse things. Give those kids a chance to read the text aloud once or twice before doing the comprehension reading in the group. (This can be done lots of ways: tape recorders, parent volunteers, paired reading, echo reading with the teacher... whatever). If kids have tried to read through the text once or twice before hand they will be in much better shape for trying to make sense of the harder text. Even though the emphasis of the fluency work would not be on comprehension, they'll figure out more of the ideas than you might presume and, most importantly in this context, they will have figured out enough of the decoding to have "raised their level" with that text by at least a grade level.

Fifth, preteach vocabulary that the author does not explain or define. If a word is explained in the text or you think kids can figure it out from context, do not take time to preteach it. But words that you don't think students will know, tell them ahead of time. With fourth graders it is usually enough to give them a glossary for those words.

Sixth, when reading the text for comprehension, chunk it into small sections (a paragraph, a page)... Asking questions at the end of each and guiding rereading when kids can't answer the questions. As they get better with this, stretch them out, by giving them larger chunks

Seventh, go through the text and identify particularly complicated sentences (e.g., long sentences, sentences in passive voice, sentences with multiple clauses). During discussion time, ask a question about the ideas expressed in those sentences. If students can't answer them, then take them back to the sentence in the text and show them how to break it down to make sense of it. It's amazing that teachers, who are often willing to guide kids in breaking down multi-syllable words, don't provide similar support with complicated sentences.

Eighth, pay special attention to cohesion ... kids get lost in synonyms, pronouns, etc. Get students to be explicit about who "he" is, or what animal was being referred to as "the mammal." There are exercises that can be done to strengthen these skills, like drawing connecting lines between those words, but it can be enough to question kids closely about those relations.

Even more can be done, but those supports are substantial and effective. There is an extensive body of research supporting their effectiveness, both in improving student reading achievement and in transforming frustration level text into instructional text.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eight Ways to Help Kids to Read Complex Text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Blast from the Past: This entry was first issued on September 6, 2016 and it was reissued on June 27, 2020. This week several readers on social media have reposted some of my earlier writings on teaching with complex text, and this month American Educator published a new article of mine on this topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fifty years ago, when I was becoming a teacher, reading instruction consisted of a ubiquitous classroom practice: placing students in instructional groups according to their reading level. These groups were sometimes known by various colors or animals. I distinctly remember the redbirds, the bluebirds, and the buzzards among the most popular appellations. Today, although groups are now labeled with letters (Level G, Level L, etc.) and ornithological monikers are out of fashion, assigning students to instructional groups according to their reading levels is still a common practice in classrooms across the country.

A recent survey aimed at identifying the most popular current programs used to teach reading ¹ found that one common feature of all the top sellers was that they organize their teaching around leveled books. Other recent surveys show that teaching reading with leveled books is on the increase and that teachers believe it is endorsed or supported by their state educational standards, ² though, in most cases, it is not.

But how effective is such teaching? Does it work?

On the surface, those are easy questions. Leveled readers obviously work. Most American students are learning to read, at least at basic levels, ³ and since most are being taught with leveled books, there must be some potency in the approach.

But the real question isn't whether children can learn from leveled books, but whether such leveling confers any learning advantages. Might students do even better if taught with books they can't already read so well? That's the real question. In this article, I examine the research on leveled reading approaches and offer more effective ways that classroom teachers can ensure their students acquire the skills and knowledge they need to not only read a text but also comprehend it. First, I provide a brief history lesson in how we got here.

Teaching with Gradually More Difficult Texts

The idea of testing students to place them in different levels of text for instruction was first recommended more than 100 years ago, ⁴ and an early survey indicated that 58 percent of primary-grade reading instruction was already being delivered in small ability-based groups and that 42 percent of the teachers were adjusting text levels to facilitate learning. ⁵ They may not have referred to these texts as "leveled readers," and no company that published basal readers had yet coined the term "guided reading," but the practices of that time were markedly similar to those of today.

During the 20th century, research identified text features that correlate with reading comprehension, ⁶ and publishers started to control these features to a degree previously unimagined. One reading program I remember from my childhood bragged that it never introduced more than one new word per page, and any word that was introduced was repeated 15 times over the following pages. That's why those texts could be so mind-numbingly repetitive: "Oh. Oh. Oh. Look, Jane, look." If learning to read meant learning words-and at least since the time of Horace Mann that's been an idea held by many-then the accumulation of words gradually from selection to selection was how someone would best advance in learning to read.

But such tight readability controls made beginning reading texts so artificial that they eventually elicited an adverse reaction. The most remarkable of these reactions was the adoption of "whole language" policies by California in the 1980s. ⁷ These reforms required that the texts used to teach reading not be designed for reading instruction, and severely limited the text revisions that could be made for pedagogical purposes. What this meant was that for a brief period of time, even the beginning reading materials got much harder, ⁸ perhaps so hard for beginning readers that they represented a significant impediment to learning. ⁹ If the old basal readers were easier than necessary, these new books were decidedly too hard for the beginners, and they provided teachers with little or no guidance on how to teach with texts that the older students couldn't read successfully on their own. Exacerbating the effects of these harder books was that California's policies simultaneously discouraged phonics and spelling-instruction that could have helped students to better read the challenging materials, and the term "whole language" often came to mean "whole class" instruction in many schools. ¹⁰ Perhaps the thinking was, why group for instruction if nobody could read the books anyway?

It was in this environment that Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell published their landmark book in 1996, Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children. There was nothing terribly original in their presentation, but they rediscovered and championed a set of teaching procedures that in the not-too-distant past had been widely used to facilitate reading instruction. They recognized that texts varied in difficulty and that one could guide student progress successfully across a gradually harder progression of books. To do this successfully, they asserted that teachers would need to group children, matching different books to students based on their varied levels of reading. Their approach offered immediate relief for those beginning reading classes where easier books made sense, but even in the grades beyond, the shift was welcome because of the lack of any pedagogical support for teaching challenging books. Fountas and Pinnell's approach, although reminiscent of earlier popular instructional practices, differed from them in one important regard: because of the burgeoning availability of high-quality children's trade books, they could propose doing this without textbooks.

In the Fountas and Pinnell version of guided reading, teachers assess students to determine their reading levels and then assign them books that they can read with a high degree of accuracy and comprehension. Over time, if retesting shows improvement, the students are switched to more demanding books. When it doesn't work so well, students may languish for long periods at their current levels. Such languishment has been enough of a problem that in the second edition of their book, they recommend moving students up sometimes even when the testing shows no evident improvement. (This seems to me like a judicious amendment to the original plan, but it raises the question about why these students can be expected to learn from the harder books when it is assumed that no one else would be able to.) Currently, this approach to reading, in which leveled books are matched to student reading levels for reading instruction, predominates in U.S. classrooms.

Determining Text Levels

There are basically two ways to determine how difficult texts may be and to set their levels: quantitative readability measures and qualitative judgments about texts. Although they approach the task differently, the purpose of both is to array texts on a continuum of difficulty.

The quantitative study of readability identifies text features that may affect comprehension and then tries to array these features in an algorithm that will allow accurate predictions of text difficulty. It turns out that accurate predictions can be obtained with only two text variables: vocabulary and sentence complexity. Such formulas are imperfect, but reasonably accurate. They aren't able to make fine distinctions, and until recently, haven't been able to measure beginning text levels very well. Nevertheless, quantitative readability algorithms are able to provide a largely reliable and accurate scientifically derived text gradient.

Still, it is important to remember that readability was not developed to match books to students in a way that would facilitate learning. Readability measures predict comprehension, not reading progress. The idea of using these kinds of measures to establish which books would best promote learning to read came later.

With the advent of computer technology, readability measurement has improved. ¹¹ The newer readability measures that have emerged are now widely used by researchers and publishers and were employed by the Common Core State Standards to specify text level aspirations for the various grade levels. Despite all this, when teachers speak of "leveling" books, they are most likely referring to Fountas and Pinnell levels.

Researchers provide a useful history of the development of this qualitative leveling system. ¹² Basically, an early version of the approach was developed for use with Reading Recovery, ¹³ a short-term reading intervention for first-graders who have difficulty learning to read, and Fountas and Pinnell refined and expanded this system to apply to texts from beginning readers through eighth-grade texts. Texts are evaluated by judges who place them on a multipoint continuum (from A to Z) based on 10 criteria: genre/forms, text structure, content, themes and ideas, language and literary features, sentence complexity, vocabulary, words, illustrations, and book and print features. ¹⁴

No studies have evaluated the reliability of these judgments, but a couple of small studies suggest that the Fountas and Pinnell gradient correlates reasonably well with the better-validated quantitative readability measurements. ¹⁵ Publishers have now leveled tens of thousands of books using this scheme. But given its complexity-the simultaneous qualitative evaluations of 10 factors with no explicit prioritization rules-it is unclear how accurate these levels may be (a point Fountas and Pinnell themselves make ¹⁶). Clearly, this approach lacks the scientific rigor of the quantitative approaches and may result in varied book placements depending on who makes the judgments. But until more evidence is available, let's at least for the sake of argument accept that these levels are sufficiently accurate to consider their use.

To sum up, there are two approaches to setting text levels-one based on a great deal of scientific evidence and one less well understood. Nevertheless, existing data suggest that both can place texts on a reasonable comprehensibility continuum, from easy to difficult. The problem is that research does not support the idea that either approach can identify from which texts students will learn best. The point of leveling is both to establish a text gradient and to place students in the appropriate text along that gradient. The latter is the issue to which we now turn.

Book Levels That Promote Learning

More than 70 years ago, Emmett Betts published an influential textbook on the teaching of reading. ¹⁷ Betts claimed all readers have three reading levels: independent, instructional, and frustration. According to Betts, the independent level refers to texts that readers can handle on their own without assistance. Instructional-level texts are a bit harder, but not so hard that students can't improve their reading from working with them under the guidance of a good teacher. And, frustration level? These books would be so difficult that learning would be unlikely even with supportive teaching.

Betts wrote that the way to determine these levels was to have students read from the books aloud and answer comprehension questions. Instructional-level texts, according to Betts, were those that could be read with 95-98 percent accuracy (in terms of word reading) and understood with 75-89 percent comprehension-the criteria that continue to be used today. Instructional-level texts generate small numbers of mistakes and misunderstandings, which can then presumably be addressed successfully through instruction and practice. Betts claimed that research supported the idea of matching books to students in this way to optimize learning. This instructional-level scheme is what is used today in most popular reading programs.

It's easy to understand why someone might propose (or adopt) such an approach. It is incredibly frustrating when students can't read a text very well. At a time when teachers were limited to one grade-level text for reading, there would be plenty of students who wouldn't be able to read it proficiently. Under those circumstances, teachers would gladly embrace the idea of working only with books that children could already read well. But as gratifying as the idea of teaching students at their instructional levels may have been, there are legitimate questions about the degree of effectiveness of this approach. When there is so little to learn from a particular text, it is possible that progress will be needlessly slow moving.

Despite Betts' original claims and the current popularity of leveling, research evidence has not been especially supportive of the approach. The study Betts referred to as the source of the instructional-level criteria was a doctoral dissertation of one of his students, ¹⁸ and that study neither matched books to students for instruction nor evaluated learning. Betts' doctoral student simply checked to see how many oral reading errors fourth-graders could make and still maintain 75-89 percent reading comprehension; that was the source of the 95-98 percent accuracy criterion. Years later, the researchers were questioned about the source of comprehension numbers, and they couldn't remember from whence those had come. ¹⁹ Not a very substantial basis for such a widely recommended instructional practice.

In the 1960s and 1970s, William Powell challenged Betts' criteria, though he fully accepted the kind of evidence Betts had used to set them. ²⁰ Powell thought Betts got the numbers wrong. To that end, he conducted studies in which children from grades 1-8 were evaluated in much the same way as in Betts' doctoral student's study. Powell found a couple of interesting things. He reported different instructional levels for different grades; that is, some children could tolerate more disfluency and still comprehend what they were reading. He also reported that some students could tolerate quite a bit of disfluency, suggesting Betts was placing students in books that were too easy.

Later, another study tested how well second-graders could read the books they were taught with, and then measured how much they learned. The researcher found that texts that could be read with about 85 percent accuracy and less than 50 percent comprehension led to the biggest learning gains. In other words, students learned more from books that were at their "frustration levels."

Over the past few decades, there have been several direct tests of the instructional level, and these have all ended with one of two outcomes. Instructional-level texts either have provided no learning advantages or have done harm. One example of the latter is another study with second-graders. ²¹ This study was the first randomized control trial of this practice. Students were tested and, using Betts' criteria, randomly assigned to one of three treatments. One group worked with texts at their instructional levels, one worked with texts two grades above this, and the third worked with books four grades above. Students read in pairs, practicing reading fluency with a partner. At the end of the school year, the students placed in books above their instructional level had made significantly bigger learning gains than those placed in the books supposed to facilitate their learning. This study was later replicated with third-graders. ²² Other studies again found big learning advantages from working with books at the children's grade levels rather than reading levels. ²³ Even students with learning disabilities have been found to obtain no benefit from these text placements. ²⁴

Betts saw a problem-students being taught from books that many couldn't read-and he proposed a solution, moving students to books that they could. Another solution, one he apparently didn't entertain, was that teachers could adjust their instruction in particular ways to facilitate students' interactions with these hard-to-read books. As a recent study found-this one with high school students-most students who were asked to read grade-level materials were able to learn more than those placed in the easier books. ²⁵

Basically, what this research reveals is that limiting students to texts they can already read well reduces their opportunity to learn-by limiting their exposure to sophisticated vocabulary, rich content, and complex language. With knowledge of the research on effective reading instruction, skilled teachers can facilitate students' productive interactions with harder text.

But what has happened since states started requiring that students be taught to read more challenging text?

In 2010, the majority of states adopted the Common Core State Standards. These standards, for the first time ever, set text levels that students were supposed to be able to read by the time they reached particular grade levels. The levels were set high to enable students to reach levels of proficiency that would ensure later life success.

States may have thought they had accomplished something pretty big by adopting those standards, and likewise district administrators may have thought they had dealt successfully with the complex text requirements when they purchased new textbooks matched to these new requirements. However, according to national surveys, ²⁶ all that has happened is that teachers, seeing that more of their students are now struggling with these newer texts, have increasingly relied on the idea of instructional-level teaching, and more and more are placing students in below-grade texts for reading instruction.

A More Effective Approach

As a teacher, I always taught with leveled books and worked hard to match texts to students in the ways described here. However, as I've learned of the research, I've gone a very different way-except with beginning readers. I know of no studies with kindergartners or first-graders showing that they should be trying to read particularly demanding texts (in contrast, there is a benefit to teachers reading aloud demanding texts to build young children's knowledge and vocabulary).

I've come to think of reading as the ability to make sense of the ideas presented in text, by taking advantage of the affordances and overcoming the barriers included in the text. Learning to read means becoming aware of these text features-and learning how to deal with them. Instructional-level texts are usually too easy to provide students with the opportunities to confront text features that they cannot already manage.

Affordances or barriers-and these are basically the same things-are features that authors build into their texts to facilitate communication. A particular text feature serves as an affordance if it does that, and-for some readers-it may serve as a barrier to understanding. For example, an author might aim for clarity and accuracy through apt diction, and for readers who know the meanings of the words so chosen, this can be a powerful text affordance. But for readers with more limited vocabularies? That potential affordance may become an unfortunate barrier for them.

It's not, however, as simple an equation as instructional-level theory makes out. It is not that some students have better vocabularies, so we should let them work with the relatively difficult books (the ones with the rich content and complex language), and that the other students-those who know fewer words-should be segregated into easier and more limited texts. That approach can have some unfortunate implications for students who are minorities and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds. ²⁷

What if, instead of segregating them into what some students call the "stupid books," we placed them in books with demanding vocabulary and taught dictionary skills, use of context, and morphology? What if we taught them when it was essential to figure out an unknown word meaning and when they might be able to soldier on successfully without doing that?

And, of course, vocabulary is just one of many such text features. Studies have long shown that teaching students how to disentangle the grammar of some sentences, ²⁸ how to take advantage of the cohesive links across a passage, ²⁹ and how to identify and use a text's organizational structure ³⁰ all can improve reading comprehension. Teaching students to negotiate these features of a text only makes sense if students are to be confronted by challenging texts, and none of them have value for students reading, what for them, are easy books.

If we are serious about raising reading achievement, we must think hard about whether it makes sense to continue teaching students to read books they can already understand so well. These easier books make learning unnecessary and, without adequate challenge, may even drain the fun out of learning. That doesn't mean that every selection used for reading instruction must significantly challenge students, only that grade-level texts should be part of the instructional mix.

Instead of a steady diet of instructional-level texts, students should be reading a range of texts in their classrooms. Some proponents of leveled reading claim they too support this idea, but they propose that instructional-level texts should be the focus of small-group teaching. I recommend just the opposite, having students reading really demanding texts when the teacher is close by and ready to help, and less demanding ones when on their own or when a teacher just isn't going to be available.

But this is not just an avenue to higher achievement (though research suggests that it could be), it is also an issue of equity. If fourth-graders are taught from a second-grade book, when will they have the opportunity to confront the language and ideas of fourth-grade books? This is a cruel math problem that tells students they are best served by books that don't match their interests, their curiosity, or their social aspirations. Leveled reading emphasizes students' current limitations, rather than increasing their possibilities, especially for the least advantaged of our students. We can do better.
Timothy Shanahan is a distinguished professor emeritus of urban education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the founding director of its Center for Literacy. Previously, he was the director of reading for Chicago Public Schools. A past president of the International Literacy Association, he was the chair of the National Early Literacy Panel and a member of both the National Reading Panel and the English Language Arts Work Team for the Common Core State Standards Initiative. He writes about education at www.shanahanonliteracy.com.
Endnotes

1. S. Schwartz, "The Most Popular Reading Programs Aren't Backed by Science," Education Week, December 3, 2019.
2. D. Griffith and A. Duffet, Reading and Writing Instruction in America's Schools (Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Foundation, 2018); and J. Kaufman et al., Changes in What Teachers Know and Can Do in the Common Core Era (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2018).
3. National Assessment of Educational Progress, Results from the 2019 Mathematics and Reading Assessments (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).
4. L. Zirbes, "Diagnostic Measurement as a Basis for Procedure," Elementary School Journal 18, no. 7 (1918): 505-522.
5. W. Theisen, "Provisions for Individual Differences in the Teaching of Reading," Journal of Educational Research 2, no. 2 (1920): 560-571.
6. G. Klare, The Measurement of Readability (Ames, IA: Iowa State UP, 1963).
7. California State Board of Education, English-Language Arts Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten through Grade 12 (Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education, 1987).
8. E. Hiebert, "Changing Readers, Changing Texts: Beginning Reading Texts from 1960 to 2019," Journal of Education 195, no. 3 (2015): 1-13.
9. E. H. Hiebert and C. W. Fisher, "The Critical Word Factor in Texts for Beginning Readers," Journal of Educational Research 101, no. 1 (2007): 3-11.
10. P. Pearson, "The Reading Wars," Educational Policy 18, no. 1 (2004): 216-252.
11. A. Stenner et al., "How Accurate Are Lexile Text Measures?," Journal of Applied Measurement 7, no. 3 (2006): 307-322.
12. P. Pearson and E. Hiebert, "The State of the Field: Qualitative Analyses of Text Complexity," Elementary School Journal 115, no. 2 (1991): 161-183.
13. B. Peterson, "Selecting Books for Beginning Readers: Children's Literature Suitable for Young Readers," in Bridges to Literacy: Learning from Reading Recovery, ed. D. DeFord, C. Lyons, and G. Pinnel (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1991), 119-147.
14. I. Fountas and G. Pinnell, "Guided Reading: The Romance and the Reality," Reading Teacher 66, no. 4 (2012): 268-284.
15. J. Hoffman et al., "Text Leveling and Little Books in First-Grade Reading," Journal of Literacy Research 33 (2001): 507-528; and P. Hatcher, "Predictors of Reading Recovery Book Levels," Journal of Research in Reading 23 (2000): 67-77.
16. Fountas and Pinnell, "Guided Reading."
17. E. Betts, Foundations of Reading Instruction (New York: American Book, 1946).
18. P. Killgallon, "A Study of Relationships among Certain Pupil Adjustments in Language Situations" (unpublished PhD diss., Pennsylvania State University, 1942).
19. H. Beldin, "Informal Reading Testing: Historical Review and Review of the Research," in Reading Difficulties: Diagnosis, Corrections, and Remediation, ed. W. Durr (Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1970), 67-84.
20. W. Powell, "Reappraising the Criteria for Interpreting Informal Reading inventories," paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Boston, MA, 1968.
21. A. Morgan, B. Wilcox, and J. Eldredge, "Effect of Difficulty Levels on Second-Grade Delayed Readers Using Dyad Reading," Journal of Educational Research 94, no. 2 (2000): 113-119.
22. L. Brown et al., "The Effects of Dyad Reading and Text Difficulty on Third-Graders' Reading Achievement," Journal of Educational Research 111, no. 5 (2017): 541-553.
23. M. Kuhn et al., "Teaching Children to Become Fluent and Automatic Readers," Journal of Literacy Research 38, no. 4 (2006): 357-387.
24. R. O'Connor, H. Swanson, and C. Geraghty, "Improvement in Reading Rate Under Independent and Difficult Text Levels: Influences on Word and Comprehension Skills," Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (2010): 1-19.
25. S. Lupo et al., "An Exploration of Text Difficulty and Knowledge Support on Adolescents' Comprehension," Reading Research Quarterly 54, no. 4 (2019): 457-479.
26. D. Griffith and A. Duffett, Reading and Writing Instruction in America's Schools (Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Foundation, 2018); and V. Opfer, J. Kaufman, and L. Thompson, Implementation of K-12 State Standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts and Literacy: Findings from the American Teacher Panel (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016).
27. A. Sørenson and M. Hallinan, "Effects of Ability Grouping on Growth in Academic Achievement," American Educational Research Journal 23, no. 4 (1986): 519-542.
28. V. Mih and C. Mih, "Reducing Children's Reading Comprehension Difficulties through a Training for Enhancing Sentence Organization Skills," Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal 16, no. 3 (2012): 387-401.
29. J. Irwin, "Linguistic Cohesion and the Developing Reader/Writer," Topics in Language Disorders 8, no. 3 (1988): 14-23.
30. K. Wijekumar, B. Meyer, and P. Lei, "Web-Based Text Structure Strategy Instruction Improves Seventh Graders' Content Area Reading Comprehension," Journal of Educational Psychology 109, no. 6 (2017): 741-760.

[Illustrations by Angela Hsieh]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Limiting Children to Books They Can Already Read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifty years ago, when I was becoming a teacher, reading instruction consisted of a ubiquitous classroom practice: placing students in instructional groups according to their reading level. These groups were sometimes known by various colors or animals. I distinctly remember the redbirds, the bluebirds, and the buzzards among the most popular appellations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Direct and Indirect Vocabulary Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Blast from the past: Teacher question: Shanahan response:
I teach 4th-grade general education. I have read several of your articles the last few days because I have a growing frustration regarding guided reading. I believe a lot of your ideas about what does not work are correct, but I don't understand what you believe we SHOULD be doing. I am confused about how to give students difficult textbooks to read without reading it to them. I thought I was doing what I was supposed to be doing. I do not know how to scaffold science or social studies text for students that are 2 years behind without reading it to them. I also feel pressure in these subjects to read it to them because I thought it was more important for them to understand the information thoroughly by reading the text aloud, having thoughtful discussions, and follow up activities. Every time I think I know what I should be doing, I read another article and realize that I am doing that wrong too. So, please give me guidance on how to best to teach nonfiction and fiction text to my class whole group. What strategies and types of activities are the best? Originally posted February 2, 2013; re-issued October 12, 2024. Over the past 15 years, I have issued several blogs concerning the value of teaching students to read more challenging texts than we have used in instruction in the past. Despite a growing body of evidence showing that teaching students at their "instructional reading level" provides no learning benefits - and that sometimes it limits learning - most teachers continue to avoid challenging text by moving kids to easier text, reading texts to the students, or replacing texts with other sources of information (e.g., videos, teacher presentations). Given that I thought it would be a good idea to reissue this one. Oh, and by the way, I just completed writing a book on this topic. It will be published by Harvard Education Press early in 2025.
I feel your pain. What would it look like to scaffold a fourth-grade lesson from a social studies book with children who are reading at second-grade level? There are several possibilities.

First, I would "level" (pun intended) with the kids. I would not try to hide from them that I was going to ask them to read a book that in the past we would have avoided. The point here is motivation. People like a challenge and kids are people. When you ask them to take on something hard, let them in on the secret so they can take on the challenge with the right mindset and so they can be proud of themselves when they manage to meet the challenge - and we will make sure that they meet the challenge.

Second, it is essential that the teacher read the chapter before the kids do. We need to identify the linguistic, conceptual, and textual features that may be the source of their difficulty. Look out for ideas that you think will be especially complicated, subtle, or abstract, assumptions of background knowledge that you think your students lack, unknown vocabulary, complicated sentences, cohesive links that might be hard to track, organizational structure that students might ignore, and so on. Basically, you are trying to figure out what might make this text hard for your students to comprehend.

I'm willing to head off or avoid a problem if I think the students cannot surmount it. For instance, if there is a word that I think the students will not know and the author doesn't define it, the context doesn't reveal its meaning, or it can't be figured out from morphology, then I am willing to familiarize the kids with it prior to reading. However, if it is possible to gain its meaning from the text, I will not try to avoid the problem. I'd rather that they miss it, which will allow me to teach kids how to take it on successfully. Teachers must decide which problems to solve for the kids and which to guide them to fix themselves. The real learning will come from the latter.
References
Third, the scaffolding described above will likely require some rereading-either of the whole chapter (fourth-grade science and social studies chapters can be surprisingly short, so rereading the entire chapter is usually not that big a deal). Thus, they try to read it; I question them and help them work through the problems; and then they reread it (perhaps more than once), to see if they can figure it out the second or third time.

Fourth, if your kids' reading levels are more than a year or two below the level of the book that you are trying to teach, consider starting with fluency work. Have those students read the text aloud, once or twice before the lesson aimed at comprehension of the text. This can be done many ways (e.g., having partners practice reading the social studies text during their ELA fluency time, getting parents involved, including this kind of practice in a Tier 2 intervention). The point of the fluency work is to reduce the amount of basic reading struggle - the reading of the words - that these students may face. Once they have engaged in the fluency practice, these students should read the text along with the rest of the class. They will benefit from the same comprehension scaffolds noted above.

What you are trying to do with this encouragement, fluency work, and comprehension scaffolding is to enable the students to read the text that they are sure to struggle with. You can monitor their learning by how much improvement you see in their reading of each text. But remember your goal is not to avoid difficulty but to enable students to surmount difficulty. That means that you don't shift kids to texts at their supposed levels, you don't read the texts to the kids, and you don't go around the text by telling them what it says.

Shanahan, T. (In press). Leveled Readers, Leveled Lives. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Can I Teach with Books that are Two Years Above Student Reading Levels? | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog explains how teachers can teach students to read with books that are at the students’ supposed “instructional level.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WWC | Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This practice guide presents three evidence-based recommendations for helping students in grades 6-12 develop effective writing skills. Each recommendation includes specific, actionable guidance for educators on implementing practices in their classrooms. The guide also summarizes and rates the evidence supporting each recommendation, describes examples to use in class, and offers the panel's advice on how to overcome potential implementation obstacles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This practice guide was prepared for the WWC by Mathematica under contract ED-07-CO-0062.

The following research staff contributed to the guide: Cay Bradley, Virginia Knechtel, Nancy Murray, Bryce Onaran, and Cassie Pickens Jewell.

These videos were prepared by WestEd under the Doing What Works Contract (ED-PEP-11-C-0068).
All videos are based on recommendations from the WWC practice guides and are designed to complement the guides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
teaching elementary school students to be effective writers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WWC | Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This practice guide provides four recommendations for improving elementary students’ writing. Each recommendation includes implementation steps and solutions for common roadblocks. The recommendations also summarize and rate supporting evidence. This guide is geared toward teachers, literacy coaches, and other educators who want to improve the writing of their elementary students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Writing to Read is a new Carnegie Corporation report published by the Alliance for Excellent Education which finds that while reading and writing are closely connected, writing is an often-overlooked tool for improving reading skills and content learning. Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing Can Improve Reading identifies three core instructional practices that have been shown to be effective in improving student reading. Writing to Read is a part of a series of Carnegie Corporation of New York-funded reports intended to re-engineer literacy instruction across the curriculum to drive student achievement. The initial report, Time to Act: An Agenda for Advancing Adolescent Literacy for College and Career Readiness and corresponding reports were published in September 2009. Writing to Read is an extension of this work and provides practitioners with research-supported information about how writing improves reading while making the case for researchers and policymakers to place greater emphasis on writing instruction as an integral part of school curriculum.

Citation: Graham, Steve, and Michael Hebert. Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing Can Improve. Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010. Print.

Program: Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing Can Improve Reading | Carnegie Corporation of New York

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Writing to Read is a new Carnegie Corporation report published by the Alliance for Excellent Education which finds that while reading and writing are closely connected, writing is an often-overlooked tool for improving reading skills and content learning. Writing to ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Writing: Transcription | Ohio Department of Education and Workforce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In your Course Companion Document, consider these questions:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Writing: Paragraph Skills | Ohio Department of Education and Workforce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download the Course Companion document before starting this course. You can use the Companion Document to take notes on your learning, address reflection prompts, and as an easy way to retrieve course resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Region 8 Literacy Leader Network May 16, 2025 @ 8:45-9:45 Vocabulary + Fluency Kim Attendance https://tinyurl.com/3p6u6u75 Padlet https://padlet.com/StateSupportTeam8/r8ll-sor-network-2024-2025-2xnn3plsntjmjazb Slides https://bit.ly/ComplexTextR8LL Note Catcher 1