A New Page ← Home

For educators, specialists & researchers

The research foundation of A New Page

A New Page is a Structured Literacy program for the home. This page lays out the published research, professional standards, and instructional frameworks it is built on — and, for each one, exactly how it is implemented in the program. Full references are at the bottom.

A note on claims. A New Page is built on and aligned with the methods, standards, and findings cited below. We do not claim that these studies evaluate or prove the efficacy of A New Page itself — no independent efficacy trial of this program has been conducted yet. Establishing that evidence, through pilots and outcome data, is the work ahead. What follows is a transparent account of the science the design follows.

The frameworks we build on

Structured Literacy

The whole program is explicit, systematic, cumulative, and diagnostic instruction in the structure of written language — phonology, sound–symbol correspondence, syllables, morphology, syntax. There is no guessing from pictures or context; we teach decoding directly, and we do not use the disproven three-cueing model.

Sources: International Dyslexia Association — definition of Structured Literacy & Structured Literacy: An Introductory Guide (2020); IDA Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading (2018).

The Science of Reading consensus

Our instructional choices follow the convergent, peer-reviewed evidence on how children learn to read — explicit, systematic phonics for word reading, built alongside language comprehension.

Sources: Castles, Rastle & Nation (2018), Ending the Reading Wars; National Reading Panel (2000).

The Simple View of Reading & Scarborough's Reading Rope

Reading comprehension is the product of word recognition × language comprehension. A New Page is built to develop the word-recognition strands (decoding, sight-word/orthographic mapping) with rigor, while the parent's narration and the story carry language comprehension — a deliberate two-voice design.

Sources: Gough & Tunmer (1986); Scarborough (2001).

How the research maps to what a child does each night

Every nightly session is one structured-literacy lesson. Here is the principle behind each part.

Sound play — phonemic awareness

Each lesson opens with brief, ears-only blending and segmenting — no letters. Phonemic awareness is among the strongest predictors of later reading and a foundation for decoding.

Sources: National Reading Panel (2000); Kilpatrick (2015), Equipped for Reading Success.

A systematic scope & sequence — phonics

Skills are introduced in a fixed, cumulative order; nothing appears in a child's reading before it is taught. The sequence follows a published, university-developed systematic phonics scope and sequence.

Sources: UFLI Foundations — Lane & Contesse (2022), University of Florida Literacy Institute; National Reading Panel (2000).

Decodable connected text — the "firewall"

The lines the child reads are generated to contain only phoneme–grapheme correspondences and words already taught. A child never has to guess a word they have not been equipped to sound out — decodable text matched to the scope and sequence.

Sources: Mesmer (2005), Text decodability and the first-grade reader; National Reading Panel (2000).

Heart words — orthographic mapping

Irregular high-frequency words are taught explicitly: the regular parts are decoded and the irregular part is flagged, so the word is mapped into memory rather than guessed. This reflects how readers store words for instant retrieval.

Sources: Ehri (2005; 2014) — phases of word reading & orthographic mapping.

Multisensory routines & explicit teaching

Children tap each sound, blend it, read it, and spell it — a see/say/build/write loop with scripted teaching and immediate corrective feedback. This draws on the Orton-Gillingham instructional lineage and the principles of explicit instruction.

Sources: Gillingham & Stillman (1997); Archer & Hughes (2011), Explicit Instruction; Rosenshine (2012), Principles of Instruction.

Rereading — fluency

Each line is reread to build accuracy and rate. Repeated reading is a well-supported method for improving fluency and, through it, comprehension.

Sources: Therrien (2004) meta-analysis; National Reading Panel (2000), guided oral reading.

Dictation — encoding

Children spell what they have read. Encoding is the inverse of decoding and reinforces phoneme–grapheme knowledge; spelling and reading draw on the same underlying system.

Sources: Moats (2020), Speech to Print.

Assessment & progress monitoring

Placement across the right domains

The opening check samples phonological skill, real-word decoding, nonsense-word reading (pure decoding, not memory), spelling, and fluency — the domains a comprehensive reading assessment should cover — and places the child conservatively.

Sources: IDA Knowledge and Practice Standards (2018); National Reading Panel (2000).

Curriculum-based progress monitoring

The weekly report uses oral reading fluency (words correct per minute) as a curriculum-based measure, charts the child against their own trend, and contextualizes a single benchmark against national ORF norms — framed as progress monitoring, never as a diagnosis.

Sources: Deno (1985), Curriculum-Based Measurement; Hasbrouck & Tindal (2017), Oral Reading Fluency norms.

Engagement & reading identity

Struggling readers read less and fall further behind, so motivation is not a luxury. A New Page gives the child an age-appropriate story they drive — including dignity for older readers who have been failed by babyish material — so that daily practice actually happens.

Sources: Stanovich (1986), "Matthew effects" in reading.

What we do not claim

A New Page is a structured-literacy practice tool for the home, designed to make high-quality daily reading work consistent and measurable. It is educational support, not a diagnosis, a clinical intervention, or a replacement for a trained specialist where one is needed.

We have not yet conducted an independent efficacy study of A New Page. We are actively seeking educators, specialists, and researchers to review the program, pilot it, and help us build that evidence honestly.

References

  1. Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching. Guilford Press.
  2. Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51.
  3. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232.
  4. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188.
  5. Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21.
  6. Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1997). The Gillingham Manual: Remedial Training for Students with Specific Disability in Reading, Spelling, and Penmanship. Educators Publishing Service.
  7. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
  8. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical Report No. 1702). Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
  9. International Dyslexia Association. (2018). Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading.
  10. International Dyslexia Association. (2020). Structured Literacy: An Introductory Guide.
  11. Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Equipped for Reading Success. Casey & Kirsch Publishers.
  12. Lane, H. B., & Contesse, V. A. (2022). UFLI Foundations: An Explicit and Systematic Phonics Program. University of Florida Literacy Institute / Ventris Learning.
  13. Mesmer, H. A. E. (2005). Text decodability and the first-grade reader. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(1), 61–86.
  14. Moats, L. C. (2020). Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers (3rd ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
  15. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. U.S. Government Printing Office.
  16. Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.
  17. Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.
  18. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
  19. Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252–261.
See a free reading check →

Are you an educator, specialist, or researcher? We would value your professional review — get in touch here.
A New Page is a program from A New Story · The science (for parents) · What a specialist does · For schools & specialists