Additional Info About the Science of Reading and ARC
Additional Info About the Science of Reading and ARC
We have compiled a list of resources to assist those who seek more detailed information about the science of reading and the guidelines that we used to determine ARC's red flags.
Jump to a section
Here are a few resources that we recommend for parents and other stakeholders who are still learning about the science of reading:
Right to Read film - 2023 film that shares the stories of an NAACP activist, a teacher, and two American families who fight to provide our youngest generation with the most foundational indicator of life-long success: the ability to read. Visit the film's website for more information.
At a Loss for Words - 2019 audio documentary produced by APM Reports, about how a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers.
Sold a Story - 2022 podcast produced by APM Reports, about how teaching kids to read went so wrong.
Science of Reading Defining Guide, published by The Reading League.
Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines, published by The Reading League.
This evaluation was developed by The Reading League, using Scarborough's reading rope metaphor as a framework. These guidelines serve to assist curriculum decision makers by emphasizing red flag practices. Read more about The Reading League and their documents.
Furthermore, The Reading League has conducted their own extensive, impartial reviews of popular reading curriculum. American Reading Company has declined to be reviewed for all review cycles to date, which includes 2023, 2024, and 2025.
In materials that ARC sends out to their school partners, American Reading Company tries to use the following reviews and studies to show that ARC Core is a high-quality and evidence-based curriculum. Here are the reasons to question this "evidence":
Knowledge Matters Campaign from 2023 - this "curriculum review program" accepted direct monetary contributions from multiple publishers, including American Reading Company, who contributed at least $55,000 to its parent non-profit, Standardsworks Inc. These are disclosed on their IRS forms which can be found on ProPublica.
Furthermore, this review tool focuses entirely on the "knowledge-building" portion of curriculum. It specifically notes that it does not review foundational skills. See the review document here.
EdReports Review from 2017 - as reported by APM and Sold a Story, EdReports previously did not flag three-cueing as a part of its review process. This invalidates the foundational skills portion of the 2017 review.
ESSA Analysis from 2022- this analysis of a 2021 study determined there were "significant impacts on students' motivation to read." This effect size was 0.32. The other two skills measured, reading comprehension and letter naming fluency, had lower effect sizes of 0.16 and 0.28, respectively. According to known guidelines, effect sizes lower than 0.4 or 0.5 might not be considered "educationally significant" or "practically meaningful".
For reference, studies on UFLI Foundations (a widely-used evidence-based program) have reported "very large" effect sizes, often exceeding 1.0.
American Reading Company has no other peer-reviewed research published on ARC Core.
As an additional data point, we have compiled a list of states that do not allow/recommend ARC Core for K-2. These state lists generally follow the science of reading, and many of these states also have three-cueing bans or discourage three-cueing practices.
Here is our compendium of information on ARC Core (2017). Go to bottom of Changes and Updates to see these laid out in a chronological timeline.
ARC Core and the Science of Reading, plus why this document is misleading.
Level Descriptions from American Reading at Home:
ARC Core New Scope and Sequence (likely from spring 2025)
Â