Opinion: Why ReadWell is the best reading program, and how to use it

I am so grateful to have used ReadWell when I was teaching kindergarten and first grade.

It made me a better teacher just by using it, and it taught me so much about great program design.

ReadWell is a leveled reading program that introduces a few new sounds and sight words with each level (there are 39 levels or “units”) and has an engaging story that incorporates the new words.  Every day has a practice drill, a story reading that uses the new learning, and work pages (which I term seat work here) that enforce the daily learning.   There is a quick fluency assessment at the end of each unit.

Before you read further, I acknowledge that some teachers hate ReadWell.  I believe this is because they have been forced to use it in ways that cancel out its effectiveness, such as having 3 large fixed reading groups – high, medium and low – in each classroom. One teacher at a local school told me her principal expected every teacher in the grade level to be on the same lesson on the same day with each reading group. That is exactly how to kill the beauty of ReadWell and to make it into something it was never meant to be.

The beauty of ReadWell is that the lessons move up so systematically and the assessments are so quick and so often, that it’s easy to place students in the “just right” group.  This amazing feature provides the flexibility for every student to be engaged and succeeding. It solves the problem that teachers constantly face – how to differentiate instruction when there are so many ability levels. 

It’s one thing to have a tool that allows for so much possibility and it’s another thing to put it all to use.  I grew up in the era where having a 3-speed bike was considered cool.  I didn’t have a 10 speed bike until high school.  The bike I have now has more than 10 (I don’t even know how many – 15?).  The reason I don’t know is that I still treat it like a 3 speed bike, using my few favorite gears.  As someone who takes short bike rides for fun, that’s no big deal, but if I had training goals I would want to learn how to make the bike work better for me in order to maximize my speed and efficiency. 

Considering that curriculum is just a tool to accomplish something – in the same way a vacuum cleaner, a bike or a computer is a tool – do we want the model that will have more possibilities or less?  For curriculum, I would hope for more.  The three speed bike model for teaching reading should be obsolete.

When I was teaching first grade several years ago, our school took full advantage of the possibilities of ReadWell.  One year we had 11 reading groups between three first grade classes.  This was possible due to a “walk to read” model and an hour every day of flooding grades K and 1 with paraprofessionals for reading instruction.   I owe thanks to my wise principal who understands that when you support the younger grades in reading, the payoff is huge later on. In first grade we had groups in various levels of ReadWell, and we also had a group in ReadWell Plus (extra units 39-50), a group beyond ReadWell who read and discussed chapter books, and a very small pre-ReadWell group who were working on letter and sound recognition and phonemic awareness.

The groups were always fluid and every month or so we would move some students around according to their progress and pace.  We had high-needs groups which worked for the full hour with a well trained para. We also had groups which met for 20 minutes with a teacher and then did appropriate seat work and independent reading.  Group size was no more than 6-8 students.

Here’s an example of a set-up we had one year for the first graders, and how the groups might look mid-year. (By the end of the year more groups would be in Read Well Plus).

Teacher 1: Three “middle” reading groups that had 20 minute rotations of direct instruction, seat work, and independent reading. Seat work was predictable and meant for review and practice.

Teacher 2: One “high” group in Read Well Plus, one group beyond ReadWell, and one “high middle” reading group with 20 minute rotation of direct instruction, seat work, and independent reading. Seat work was meant to be challenging and sometimes parent volunteers were engaged.

Teacher 3: Two intensive groups. Group 1 - 30 minutes with the teacher, 30 minutes SpEd. Group 2 - 30 minutes with reading specialist, 30 minutes with the teacher.

That’s eight reading groups. The other three groups were lower level readers who we didn’t want to have working independently because of instructional needs and challenges with staying on task. These groups each had their own para professional who was trained in Read Well. They spent a half hour with reading skills and a half hour doing seat work (and the para sometimes assessing or doing some 1-1 work during the seat work time).

Altogether for the hour, there were 3 teachers, three paras, a SpEd teacher and a reading specialist. Each year was similar to this with some slight variations.

Because I’ve seen what is possible, I firmly believe that we have to work as teams to give every student what they need. Teaching reading is not a time to claim “my class” as my own “territory” for teaching reading.

ReadWell allowed us to do all this because of how it was designed.  We were allowed to use it to its maximum potential.  Only after ten years of teaching did I encounter this amazing curriculum that allowed for maximum flexibility and effectiveness.  It inspired me in my design for teaching kids to write, knowing that it’s possible to make curriculum with built-in differentiation.  So many exciting things to learn… thank you ReadWell!