Currents in Literacy

What Are Decodable Texts? And Why Are Policy Makers Mandating Them?

By Richard L. Allington and Haley Woodside-Jiron

In our study of state educational policy making we have identified recent policy recommendations or mandates concerning the use of "decodable texts" in early literacy instruction. We have traced the research citations used in policy documents and advocacy statements and analyzed those research reviews and original research studies. Three themes are identified in our analyses.

1. There exists a mismatch between definitions of "decodable texts" found in the research and those found in policy and advocacy documents. The very limited experimental research available defines decodable text without reference to the phonics instruction children receive. On the other hand, the policy and advocacy documents define decodable text with reference to the phonics instruction offered. That is, policy and advocacy documents define a decodable text as containing some unspecified proportion of words that could be expected to be decoded (pronounced) based on the phonics lessons already taught, while in the research studies located "decodability" was more simply a measure of the regularity of word pronunciation without reference to the phonics lessons taught.

Issue: Given the lack of definitional agreement, policy recommendations would seem premature, at the least.

2. There exists no common agreement concerning the appropriate proportion of words in a text that are considered decodable and subsequent identification of the text as a decodable text. In the several policy and advocacy documents we examined, the requirements for achieving decodable text status ranged from:

• composed of words that use the sound-spelling correspondences that have been systematically taught

• containing a high percentage of words composed of letter-sound correspondences the children have learned

• comprised mostly of words containing the sounds and symbols being taught

• text developed using words easily decoded using principles from that day's or previous day's instruction

• textual material developed from vocabulary that maximize the regularity of the print-to-speech mapping system of English

Thus, the available policy and advocacy documents define decodable texts along a continuum from exclusive use of decodable words (linking words and phonics lessons), to frequent use of such words, to using many such words, to including some decodable words (without reference to phonics lessons). Unfortunately, the available research offers no direct evidence as to the benefits of any particular proportion of decodable words in beginning reading texts.

Issue: Given that there exists no reliable, replicable research on the efficacy or appropriateness of different definitions of decodable texts, policy recommendations that narrowly define decodable texts would seem misguided.

3. Only a very limited number of actual research studies are cited in the policy and advocacy documents and none provided reliable, replicable evidence of the benefits of using decodable texts. Only one study was cited that estimated the impact of the use of decodable texts. However, the authors of this frequently cited study close their paper by noting that because there were no significant end-of-year achievement differences between the groups using the different types of texts, the data offer no support for the use of any particular approach in beginning reading instruction.

We did review several content analyses of reading series that were frequently cited as supporting the use of decodable texts but these studies report on the design of the curriculum materials, not the effects of using those materials in classrooms.

Issue: Given that there exists no reliable, replicable research that has systematically demonstrated the efficacy of the use of decodable texts in beginning reading instruction, policy makers might consider funding research on this topic rather than mandating the use of narrowly defined, unproven curriculum materials.

Summary: Over the past century, American schools have employed a variety of beginning reading materials, including, at various points in time, extensive use of texts that would fit the various definitions of decodable texts. During these different eras there have been proponents of the use of decodable texts in beginning reading. However, to date, the efficacy of the use of decodable text materials has not been demonstrated in any reliable, replicable manner. Instead, recommendations and mandates seem to be simply following the oft noted pendulum swings found in American education. Given the high level of American elementary reading achievement reported in the latest international comparisons, one must question why policy makers are recommending a return to the sorts of beginning reading texts used in earlier eras of lower reading achievement. Contrary to the policy and advocacy statements we collected and analyzed, there exists no research base for recommendations for the use of decodable texts.

A longer version of this article appears as Allington, Richard L. and Haley Woodside-Jiron, "Decodable Text in Beginning Reading: Are Mandates and Policy Based on Research?" ERS Spectrum ,Vol. 16, No. 2 (Spring 1998): 3-11.

Richard Allington, Ph.D. is Chair of the Department of Reading at SUNY/Albany. He is the co-author of Schools That Work and Classes That Work, both published by Longmans.

Haley Woodside-Jiron is currently a Ph.D. student in the Reading Department at SUNY/Albany and serves as research assistant for the National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement.