Making Evidence-Aligned Curriculum Decisions

The History and Intent of The Reading League’s Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines (CEGs)

Although the scientific evidence base for effective reading instruction has existed for decades, the term “science of reading” lacked a clear definition. To address this, The Reading League convened a group of experts to create the Science of Reading: Defining Guide in order to 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

The Defining Guide includes a pertinent call to action for Curriculum Decision-Makers: “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.

To assist curriculum decision-makers, The Reading League developed a resource to fill this gap. Originally titled the Curriculum Evaluation Tool, the second edition was renamed the Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines (CEGs) in 2022 and was later updated to the Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines (3rd Edition) in 2026.

The CEGs are derived directly from scientific research. They not only highlight where a curriculum is aligned with the evidence base but also alert the reviewer to “red flags,” which are practices within the curriculum that are not aligned with the science. The CEGs have been refined based on feedback and a lengthy pilot review, and have undergone an interrater reliability study, Reliability and Validity of The Reading League Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines, conducted by Dr. Matthew Burns, with positive results. They are neither arbitrary nor biased, which is an incomparable strength of this resource.

Structure and Use of the Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines (CEGs)

The components used to review curricula are those featured in Hollis Scarborough’s reading rope metaphor:

• Word Recognition
  • phonological and phonemic awareness 
  • phonics and phonic decoding
• Language Comprehension
  • background knowledge 
  • vocabulary 
  • knowledge of language structures
  • verbal reasoning
  • literacy knowledge

The CEGs also review these related curricular components:

• Fluency 
• Writing (handwriting, spelling, composition) 
• Reading comprehension
• Assessment

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

1. Preliminary statements and directions: Recommendations for who should be included in review teams are provided. 
2. Reviewer workbook: This workbook provides space for reviewers to rate the level at which they find a red flag statement to be true. Reviewers can also note the location and language of the evidence to 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 by references from the scientific evidence base.

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 teaching all components of literacy.
• State education agencies: CEGs are useful as gateway criteria for schools and districts to leverage in 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, then deepening their understanding of red flag practices and aligned practices. Since many schools and districts are shifting to high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) rather than teacher-created lessons, at the end of the semester faculty members will ask students to review HQIM using the CEGs to teach them 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. However, publishers should not use the CEGs to complete a review of their materials to distribute to schools and districts for marketing purposes.

The Development of The Reading League’s Curriculum Navigation Reports

Although the CEGs were created to guide teams of curriculum decision-makers in evaluating curricula, The Reading League recognized that many consumers lacked the time, resources, and/or knowledge to thoroughly evaluate instructional materials. Because of this, The Reading League assembled expert review teams to conduct a large-scale curricula review, resulting in informative Curriculum Navigation Reports (CNRs) based on the CEGs. 

The Curriculum Navigation Reports Review Process

The Reading League invites publishers to participate in the Curriculum Navigation Report review process at no cost; if a publisher agrees, they send K–5 materials directly to the review teams, who independently examine all of them, then meet to reconcile findings and reach consensus on any disagreements. Collected data and evidence are compiled by a writer into narrative reports, which are shared with publishers for accuracy checks before finalization and publication.

Critical Considerations: Curriculum Navigation Reports

Consider the following before reviewing the Reports :

1. The first and most important step in aligning a system with the science of reading is to build educators’ and administrators’ knowledge—curriculum alone won’t ensure success.
2. TRL does not recommend curricula, so there is no mechanism for passing or failing.
3. There is no perfect curriculum.
4. The Curriculum Navigation Reports are intended to help informed educators identify practices to avoid, enhance, or supplement, and to choose the curriculum best suited to their setting.

Consider the following during review of the Reports :

1. Many programs include excessive supplementary materials that make locating lesson content time-consuming; use the Reports alongside the Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines to prioritize what to teach.
2. Make sure all practices align with the science of reading; aligned word‑recognition instruction must be paired with aligned instruction in knowledge building, oral language, writing, etc.
3. Inclusion of a component does not mean the curriculum provides sufficient practice; it’s essential to check materials for continual deliberate practice (spaced review, corrective feedback, etc.) to mastery.
4. Evaluate how well materials support and reflect students’ cultural and linguistic diversity.
5. Verify the curriculum edition used; practices may differ across editions.

The intent of the CNRs is to provide schools, districts, and states with useful information on widely used instructional materials to guide them as they work toward instruction, assessment, and systems aligned with the science of reading.

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. 

Publishers Who Declined Review or Did Not Respond

Some publishers decline to provide materials for The Reading League Curriculum Navigation Report review process. The Reading League will continue to reach out to the following organizations and request the opportunity to review their programs in future review cycles:

• From Phonics to Reading (Declined 2024)
• Heinemann’s Fountas & Pinnell (Did not respond 2023, Declined 2024, 2025)
• Heinemann’s Units of Study (Did not respond 2023, Declined 2024, 2025)
• Jolly Phonics (Declined 2024)
• Wit & Wisdom (Declined indefinitely)