# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seven Hills-Change Map: Managing Complex Change in Phonics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seven Hills: Literacy Design Team Agenda

# data[].attributes.headline
Primary Considerations for Curriculum Decision Makers

# data[].attributes.subject
Primary Considerations for Curriculum Decision Makers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The History and Intent of The Reading League's Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines (CEGs)

Although the scientific evidence base for effective reading has existed for decades, the term "science of reading" has gained traction in the last few years, potentially leading to misunderstandings. As a result, The Reading League convened a group of experts who believed that a common definition would do the following:

support educators as they discern what is and what is not in alignment with the science of reading

assist people in becoming informed consumers of instructional materials, professional development, and resources

impact publishers' and policymakers' decisions as they develop materials and policy guidelines

In working together to clarify a definition, the Science of Reading: Defining Guide was created to provide all stakeholders with a clear understanding of what the science of reading is, what it is not, and much more. The Defining Guide also includes 11 calls to action for all stakeholders. Pertinent to this Curriculum Decision Makers content is the following call to action: " We call on curriculum publishers and professional learning providers to create and promote products that are aligned with the science of reading and to eliminate non-aligned products from their offerings. " Unfortunately, some publishers continue to offer materials and professional development that claim to be aligned with the science of reading but are not.

Many states have mandated the use of high-quality instructional materials to be chosen from lists based on alignment to standards, useability, and often one other feature-outdated practices. Alignment with the science of reading was frequently not included in the development of these lists. While some have identified aligned practices within curricula, none identified non-aligned practices. As a result, many states adopt curricula featuring instructional practices that can inadvertently prevent students from developing proficient reading and writing skills.

To assist curriculum decision makers, The Reading League developed its Curriculum Evaluation Tool, later renamed Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines (CEGs) in 2022. The most recent update of the CEGs (February 2023) places red flag practices front and center in the review process to help decision makers steer clear of curricula featuring them.

Structure and Use of the Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines

The practices used to review curricula are those featured in Hollis Scarborough's reading rope metaphor. These are the elements required for word recognition (phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics and phonic decoding) and language comprehension (background knowledge, vocabulary, knowledge of language structures, verbal reasoning, literacy knowledge). The CEGs also review curricula for practices related to fluency, writing (handwriting, spelling, composition), reading comprehension, and assessment.

The Reading League's CEGs are derived directly from scientifically-based research; that they are neither arbitrary nor biased is an incomparable strength of this resource.

When using The Reading League's CEGs, users should carefully examine the following features:

1. Preliminary statements and directions: Recommendations for review teams are provided. Teams should be comprised of educators who have been trained in curriculum-agnostic professional learning to build their knowledge in the science of reading. Decision makers from across tiers of instruction should be included, even if they will not be using the materials, to ensure that students are receiving the same instruction, grounded in the evidence, in general and specialized instruction.

2. Reviewer workbook: This workbook provides space for reviewers to rate the level at which they have found a red flag statement to be true. Reviewers can also note the location and language of the evidence to ensure the review is based on factual evidence and reduce subjectivity.

3. Reference section: An extensive and thorough listing of empirical research and meta-analyses related to each of the aligned and red flag practices in the CEGs is substantiated with a reference from the scientific evidence base.

It is essential to review all components of instruction to ensure your instructional materials provide robust teaching and practice in all components of language and literacy. Empowered with the knowledge of a thorough review, informed educators, coaches, and administrators can leverage this knowledge to ensure their instruction is grounded in evidence.
Stakeholder Uses of The Reading League's CEGs

Schools and districts: CEGs can be used to review existing instructional materials or as a walkthrough tool for instructional practices to ensure teachers are not teaching one component of literacy at the expense of another.

State education agencies: CEGs are useful as a gateway criterion for schools and districts to leverage for curriculum decision-making.

Institutions of higher education: CEGs are an important part of a framework for course syllabi, first teaching students about the research that substantiates each section, followed by deepening student understanding of the red flag practices and aligned practices. Since many schools and districts are shifting to high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) over teacher-created lessons, at the end of the semester, faculty members will ask students to review HQIM using the CEGs to teach them how to be critical consumers of their instructional materials.

Publishers: CEGs can be used to develop and refine content to align with the science of reading. This resource is not recommended, however, to be completed by publishers and distributed to schools and districts for marketing purposes.

Have you used the CEGs in another way? We'd love to hear about it! Email info@thereadingleague.org to let us know.

Using the CEGs to Review Curricula: The Development of The Reading League's Curriculum Navigation Reports

The most common question asked of The Reading League and of many other organizations and social media groups is, "Does my curriculum align with the science of reading?" In 2022, The Reading League developed a process to provide an answer.

Although the CEGs were created to guide teams of curriculum decision makers in the work of evaluating curricula, The Reading League realized that it continued to be intense work. Many consumers lacked the time, resources, or knowledge to be thorough evaluators of instructional materials.

The following are steps taken to formally review curricula:

1. The Reading League launched a pilot review study to develop a non-biased, informational report for some of the most widely used curricula in the United States.

2. Based on this pilot review, small revisions were made to the CEGs and the accompanying workbook.

3. Dr. Matthew Burns conducted an interrater reliability study on the CEGs (see the Interrater Reliability section that follows for more details). The interrater reliability of the CEGs was affirmed.

4. Review teams of three experts were hired and trained.

5. Publishers were contacted and informed that The Reading League wanted to review their curriculum (at no cost). The process was described. If publishers agreed to participate, materials were to be sent directly to the teams. Upon completion of the review, materials were returned to the publishers.

6. Review teams meticulously reviewed all K-5 materials of their assigned curricula. Each person on a team reviewed the programs independently. They then gathered and discussed their findings as a group, and if there were disagreements, a consensus was reached.

7. Data and evidence were gathered and presented to a writer, who drafted them into narrative reports.

8. Reports were then shared with the publishers to ensure nothing was inaccurately represented.

9. Narrative reports were finalized-The Reading League's Curriculum Navigation Reports are born!

The Reading League does not, and will not, recommend particular curricula. Decision makers can trust that these reviews and those involved in the review process, are entirely free from conflicts of interest and financial ties to publishers. The intent of these reports is to provide useful information on some of the most widely-used instructional materials for schools, districts, and states as they work towards building instruction, assessment, and systems aligned to the science of reading.

Interrater Reliability

Dr. Matthew Burns conducted an interrater reliability study of the Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines. This section provides a link to the pre-print of this study along with the abstract.
Reliability and Validity of The Reading League Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines
Abstract: The current study examined the reliability of The Reading League Curriculum-Evaluation Guidelines (CEGs), which were developed to help school-based teams rate the presence of red flags when considering adopting specific literacy curricula. A total of 30 coders (n = 30) independently used the CEGs to evaluate a free online English language arts curriculum. The coders consisted of 23.3% (n = 7) Ph.D. students in special education with previous teaching experience and master's degrees, and 76.7% (n = 23) preservice special education teachers completing their final semester of coursework before beginning their student teaching experiences. The results indicated strong internal consistency (a = 0.96), high interrater reliability (Hmean = .91, 95% CI =.89 to .93, p < .01), and an acceptable estimate of content validity (Vmean = .70, 95% CI =.68 to .72, p < .01). Overall, the CEGs demonstrated acceptable to strong evidence for being a psychometrically sound tool for evaluating reading curricula. The data were sufficiently reliable and resulted in acceptable evidence for content validity.

Publishers: Declining to Participate or Lack of Response

Some publishers declined to provide materials for The Reading League Curriculum Navigation Report review. Those publishers are listed below. The Reading League will continue to reach out to these organizations to request the opportunity to review their programs.
Publishers that declined review or did not respond:

American Reading Company (Declined 2023 and 2024)

Benchmark Education (Declined 2023 and 2024)

Heinemann's Fountas & Pinnell (Did not respond 2023)

Savaas' MyView (Declined 2023 and 2024)

Heinemann's Units of Study (Did not respond 2023)

Critical Considerations: Curriculum Navigation Reports

The Reading League's Curriculum Navigation Reports are the result of years of dedicated work.
To consider before you use the Navigation Reports

1. They are presented to you as informational reports to support decisions on instructional materials.

2. TRL does not recommend curricula, so there is not a mechanism for passing or failing.

3. The first and most important step in aligning a system to the science of reading is to build educator and administrator knowledge. Without professional knowledge about reading instruction related to the science of reading, even the most robust curriculum will not be successful.

4. There is no perfect curriculum.

5. The Curriculum Navigation Reports are intended to help knowledgeable educators understand more about which practices might be avoided, enhanced, or supplemented in instruction and/or determine which curriculum is most suitable for your setting.

To consider as you review the Navigation Reports

1. A Tier I curriculum often consists of an extensive array of materials. A common concern noted by our review teams is that there is insufficient time within the school day to cover all included content. In response to the requests of their consumers, publishers inflate their programs with supplementary materials, add-ons, and extension activities. This makes it challenging and time-consuming to locate necessary or recommended materials for a given lesson across manuals, texts, and digital platforms. Determining what to prioritize or omit due to time constraints can be unclear.
With these points in mind, it is imperative to review the Navigation Reports with a keen eye toward the CEGs.
Address ALL components of the CEGs even if there is no red flag present. For example, if a program did not receive a red flag because it has sufficient writing instruction, be sure to leverage that component of the program! If you take these reports at face value and do not teach and practice each component of the CEGs that was identified, you will be inadvertently creating a red flag of your own by not including it in instruction.

2. Ensure ALL practices are aligned with the science of reading. For example, evidence-aligned word recognition skills are essential but not sufficient. Skilled reading requires word recognition skills and knowledge building, oral language, writing skills, etc.

3. The mere inclusion of a component in the curriculum does not guarantee sufficient practice for successful outcomes. Frequently, the crucial concept of practice (e.g., spaced/distributed, cumulative/interleaved, retrieval practice, corrective feedback) is overlooked in teacher manuals. Therefore, utilizing data to tailor instruction and ensure mastery before progressing is critical.

4. It is crucial to assess the extent to which instructional materials foster and celebrate the cultural and linguistic diversity of students.

5. Note the publication dates of the reviewed curriculum, as the particular edition may feature practices different from the ones featured in these Curriculum Navigation Reports.

The Curriculum Navigation Reports: Coming May 1, 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Reading League's Curriculum Navigation Reports offer curriculum decision-makers an unbiased review of curricular alignment with the scientific evidence base.

# data[].attributes.headline
What to Consider if You’re Adopting a New ELA/Literacy Curriculum

# data[].attributes.subject
What to Consider if You’re Adopting a New ELA/Literacy Curriculum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted:

Check on the College- and Career-Ready (CCR) Standards-Alignment of Curriculum Options You Are Considering.
Let's say that you are ready for a new reading curriculum for any number of reasons, chief among them: a persistent percentage of your students aren't thriving in literacy learning and are falling behind. Or you imagine that more of your students could achieve at even higher levels. Changing curriculum requires a hefty investment of time and resources and is consequential for your students and staff. The good news is you don't have to go it alone. Countless teachers, researchers, schools, and other organizations have paved the way for you. Lean on their experience and expertise. Below you will find guidance that will be useful for those who have decided that adopting a new ELA curriculum is the right move for their students and teachers.

CCR standards are anchored in the crucial reading research elements: systematic, explicit reading acquisition skills; inclusion of quality, complex texts; vocabulary study and language development; and evidence-based discussions and writing. Foundational skills instruction includes print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency. Explicit, systematic instruction of foundational reading skills is critical in early elementary school. Students' ability to read complex text independently and proficiently is essential, not only for success in life, work, and postsecondary education, but also so that students in elementary grades can progress to text with more vibrant ideas expressed in more profound ways as their knowledge and skills deepen. The importance of students building knowledge and acquiring a rich and varied vocabulary is critical-both are inextricably connected to reading comprehension.

You will want to select materials that genuinely align with your state's CCR standards. These standards are (1) evidence-based, (2) aligned with college and work expectations, (3) rigorous, and (4) internationally benchmarked. Standards were included in these documents only when the best available evidence indicated that its mastery was essential for college and career readiness in a twenty-first century, globally competitive society. Bottom line, such standards will include what the evidence says students need to master to keep their postsecondary dreams alive.

How can you learn more about a curriculum's alignment to CCR standards efficiently? Start by exploring reviews that have already been completed.

Back in 2017, Student Achievement Partners spent some time making a case for evidence-based reviews (conducted by states or independent organizations) of materials' alignment to college- and career-ready standards. A lot can be learned from the review process itself, and there are a variety of review tools to support educators in this work. This quick review tool is one such option. If you are looking for already conducted reviews, EdReports.org has hundreds of free, detailed reviews (conducted by trained educator reviewers) about the majority of the most widely used programs. The Louisiana Department of Education and MA Curate are other, state-led sources of high-quality reviews. If you're looking for a free, open educational resource, check out Washington State's reviews. EdReports.org designates programs as "Meets Expectations" (green) "Partially Meets Expectations" (yellow) and "Does Not Meet Expectations" (red) in their reviews. Programs with a "Does Not Meet Expectations" (red) rating are considered unaligned. Louisiana uses "Tier 3" to indicate those materials that do not meet non-negotiable criteria for standards alignment and quality.
Next, Pay Special Attention to the Scientifically Validated Practices in Reading Instruction as Embodied in the Curriculum Options.
Eliminate programs that receive a "red" or "Tier 3" rating from your search.

Standards define "what" should be taught. Standards do not-and are not designed to-tell you "how" to teach the "what" with nuance and fidelity. The same research base that underpins college- and career-ready standards-the reading research referenced above-can be used to understand more about the implications of instructional approaches and decisions that are built into the design of a curriculum. Understanding evidence-based pedagogical approaches and how they appear in curriculum is a natural complement to your knowing a program is standards-aligned. Further, this additional review will include factors that a review of standards-alignment alone can't quite capture.

Take complex texts. CCR standards require that students are able to read and comprehend complex grade-level texts. But once you know that a program features sufficiently complex anchor texts, then you need to find out what the program says about who's actually reading the texts: Teachers through read-alouds? Students themselves? What activities are included to prepare students to understand the anchor texts? What does the curriculum ask teachers to do to assist students in uncovering the central meanings and key details of the text? Does the program provide research-based strategies for students who need additional supports to engage fully with the texts?

A second example is reading fluency. While a standards-focused review will help you eliminate programs that don't feature fluency practice, you also need to determine which research-based practices are reflected in a given program's fluency component. For instance, does fluency practice include modeling of fluent reading through choral reading, buddy reading, or modeling by a proficient reader? How much time is allocated to fluency practice? Does it include repeated readings with the same text to allow for mastery of all three components (speed, accuracy, and prosody) of reading fluency? How often are students assessed? How are teachers directed to determine fluency levels?

Here's a model (and extensive citation list) to consider: Comparing Reading Research to Program Design: An Examination of Teachers College Units of Study. The goal of this paper, and of this type of review more generally, is to make transparent the research-based practices that should be evident in curricular programs in fundamental areas of reading and language development.

Seven preeminent literacy experts weighed in on the evidence-based practice approaches to the standards-aligned topics of reading instruction: phonics and fluency; text complexity and language development; and knowledge building and vocabulary. An introduction to each of the three research-based elements lays out succinctly what the research demands in terms of instruction. Each reviewer offers strengths and critiques, rooted in literacy research, to paint a picture of what works and what could be better in service to young learners. Each strength presented represents an area of instruction to amplify. Likewise, each critique offers an opportunity to redesign, adjust, or choose again to introduce practices in that area that are research-proven.
Pay Attention to the Sufficiency of English Learner Supports.
Okay. Time to kick out additional curricular options that fail to adequately follow the enormous body of research underpinning instructional practice on the key elements: phonics and fluency, text complexity and language development, and building background knowledge and vocabulary.

The number of English learners (ELs) joining our classrooms around the nation is growing dramatically. They face the double-barreled challenge of learning enough of a second language (English) to participate successfully in grade-level academic classes and gaining the disciplinary knowledge and skills they need to be prepared for college and careers enmeshed within that second language. The challenge is not insurmountable, however, as proven by the fact that many students who enter school as ELs attain English proficiency and learn academics are reclassified as fluent, make good grades, and graduate high school with their postsecondary ambitions intact. But neither is the challenge inconsequential and the right teaching matters.

The foundation of effective literacy practices for English learners is the same as effective literacy practices for students in general: phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension instruction, and ample opportunities to engage in meaningful and motivating reading and writing. However, because English learners not in bilingual programs face the dual challenge of learning English as they learn to read and write in English, effective programs must provide additional supports to help teachers and students navigate the more complex challenges. Pay special attention to this aspect of assessing for scientifically validated practices as described in the curriculum.
Still Have Promising Curricular Contenders? Now Find the Best Fit for Your School.
The previously mentioned review of Units of Study provides specific focus in this area in Dr. Claude Goldenburg's analysis. Another excellent approach is to review the curricular options against the rubrics from the English Learner Success Forum.

You may find that you have several curricular choices from which to choose that are CCR standards-aligned, with practices aligned to the research about reading instruction, including offering ample and explicit supports to ELs. Looking at standards-alignment reviews such as those from EdReports, you won't see recommendations for what you should buy; this decision is unique to your school. Now what?
So much is known about what effective approaches and content look like-there is no need to go it alone.
We recommend you leverage the work of other schools that have embarked on adopting new curricula and are having success. Personnel at those schools can tell you about their productive struggles to implement a new curriculum. Both StandardsWork, through its Knowledge Matters Tour, and Instruction Partners, through its work advising districts (see its Curriculum Support Guide), have done years of action research in the field. Both have created free online resources to share best practices from real schools and districts selecting new programs. Some questions to ask: Do they have evidence of positive student outcomes? How long did it take? Does the curriculum they adopted include educative features and support materials for teachers? Is it relatively easy for all teachers to learn and implement? What elements of professional learning did they achieve? How affordable was it? What worked? What didn't?

When it comes to our students, the stakes are too high and the investment too heavy to do anything less than a robust review process when selecting new ELA instructional materials. We'd love to hear from you! Did you consider other factors we haven't listed here? Share ideas below in the comments to help others who are just embarking on this most consequential journey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What to Consider if You're Adopting a New ELA/Literacy Curriculum - Peers and Pedagogy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let's say that you are ready for a new reading curriculum for any number of reasons, chief among them: a persistent percentage of your students aren't thriving in literacy learning and are falling behind. Or you imagine that more of your students could achieve at even higher levels.

# data[].attributes.headline
Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines (from The Reading League)

# data[].attributes.subject
Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines (from The Reading League)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hattie’s Barometer of influence - Infographic - VISIBLE LEARNING

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Throughout his Visible Learning journey John Hattie has used the “barometer” to visualize the effect size of an influence on student achievement. It has also also been on the cover of several Visible Learning books. The barometer scale is divided…Read more ›

# data[].attributes.headline
Deeper Discussion of Effect Sizes in Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Deeper Discussion of Effect Sizes in Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Effect Sizes | Pedagogy Non Grata

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Big is Big: A Beginners Guide to Understanding Effect Sizes

# data[].attributes.body
Melissa & Lori Love Literacy: Knowledge and Comprehension with Daniel Willingham and Barbara Davidson

Reading Comprehension is Not a Skill with Robert Pondiscio

The Knowledge Matters Campaign

Season 1: Ep 1 How Content Knowledge Builds Motivation to Read

Season 2: Ep. 1, A Reading Comprehension Call to Arms | Know Better, Do Better

Season 3: Ep. 1, Dylan Wiliam on How the Brain Learns | Literacy and the Science of Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Intro Fishtank ELA K-5_Erin Kent Consulting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fishtank ELA Free Pilot Program_Winter 2026/Spring 2026_K-5

# data[].attributes.headline
The Reading League Curriculum Navigation Report for Fishtank

# data[].attributes.subject
The Reading League Curriculum Navigation Report for Fishtank

# data[].attributes.headline
Multisensory Instruction: What Is It and Should I Bother?

# data[].attributes.subject
Multisensory Instruction: What Is It and Should I Bother?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Multisensory Instruction: What Is It and Should I Bother?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In our fifth installment of the blog series Structured Literacy: Unpacking Nine Key Topics for Transforming Reading Instruction and Outcomes for Readers, we're honored to feature guest author Dr. Holly B. Lane, director of the University of Florida Literacy Institute (UFLI). To catch up on earlier posts in the series, start with the introduction, "From [...]