As research about the science of reading goes more mainstream, schools and states are making many positive changes: teachers are learning about and training in evidence-based practices, schools are adopting explicit and systematic phonics curricula, and foundational skills are being taught and assessed in targeted ways. We are loudly cheering on these shifts!

But we’re concerned too. Many of the schools and districts where we work and live are simply adding a phonics program to go along with their current ELA curriculum–often Units of Study, Fountas & Pinnell, or another similar program. 

We believe that strong foundational skills instruction is essential for creating skilled readers, but it’s not sufficient. Students also need instruction that builds their vocabulary and knowledge of the world in a systematic and organized way. They need access to content-rich and complex texts as well as opportunities to discuss and write about what they’re reading. Unfortunately, the most popular American ELA curricula do not offer these things. 

So what can you do if you work at a school that has adopted Heggerty and Fundations while keeping Units of Study? How do you talk to your principal who assures you and your colleagues that you’re “doing the science of reading” now that you’re using UFLI next Fall? How do you make the case to your administration that the science of reading isn’t just systematic phonics? How do you respond to potential pushback about curricula that actually build knowledge? How do you initiate this conversation as a teacher? 

In this padlet, we’ve compiled a list of questions that we expect to encounter as we start these conversations. We believe that these are important questions that can be difficult to answer on the spot. For that reason, we invite YOU to share ideas, practiced responses, and helpful resources that can support teachers, interventionists, administrators, and anyone else who needs to speak to the importance of evidence-based practices on both sides of the reading rope.