There’s No Right Way to Do the Wrong Thing: Rethinking Guided Reading and Reclaiming Small-Group Teaching for Children Who Need It Most
Guided reading has shaped Irish classrooms for more than two decades, offering structure, confidence, and a sense of support. But as research deepens, a difficult question arises: are we guiding child
When Good Guidance Goes Wrong
Few ideas in literacy have been as enduring, or as quietly misleading, as guided reading. For more than two decades it has shaped reading instruction in Ireland, giving teachers structure, offering children “just right” books, and promising targeted support in small groups.
But as research has deepened, one uncomfortable truth has become impossible to ignore: there’s no right way to do the wrong thing. Even the most carefully designed routine will fall short if it isn’t built on what evidence tells us about how children learn to read.
Why Guided Reading Worked—Until It Didn’t
Guided reading, as we know it today, emerged in the 1990s through the work of Fountas and Pinnell, who built on whole language theories that viewed reading as a meaning-making process rather than a skill to be explicitly taught. Their model, based around small, ability-based groups reading “just right” levelled books with teacher prompting, offered structure and differentiation at a time when classrooms in the US were moving away from phonics-focused instruction. It quickly spread across English-speaking countries, including Ireland, where it was reinforced through initiatives like Literacy Lift Off. However, decades of research in cognitive psychology and reading research (Ehri, 2014; Castles, Rastle & Nation, 2018; Denton et al., 2014) have since shown that guided reading rests on flawed assumptions about how children learn to read.
Guided reading gained popularity because it appeared to solve a genuine problem: how to support children at different levels of reading within one classroom. The “just right” book felt reassuring, neither too easy nor too hard. Tools like Running Records and instructional levels gave teachers a clear way to manage groups. In essence, guided reading professionalised small-group work and made literacy lessons feel purposeful and child-centred for teachers. The 2021 National Assessments of Mathematics and English Reading (NAMER) found that over 60% of second class teachers in Ireland use guided reading regularly.
Yet as research on reading has advanced, its limitations have become impossible to overlook. When applied to beginning or struggling readers, guided reading falls short because it assumes that reading develops through exposure and strategy use rather than through the direct teaching of the alphabetic code. Decades of research, from the National Reading Panel (2000) to studies by Ehri (2014), Kilpatrick (2015), and Seidenberg (2017), confirm that accurate word reading depends on explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics—not on guessing from context or pictures.
In classrooms where guided reading replaces systematic teaching, children who find reading difficult often make the least progress. Studies comparing guided reading with explicit, code-focused approaches show markedly stronger outcomes for the latter (eg. Denton et al., 2014; Foorman et al., 2016). Without consistent opportunities to apply phonics knowledge with carefully chosen decodable texts, many children remain dependent on visual and contextual cues. What once felt like differentiation can, in practice, widen gaps in attainment by supporting those who can already read while leaving behind those who cannot.
The situation is further complicated in Irish classrooms with the ‘stations approach’ with children rotating quickly between short tasks. For proficient readers, this structure can provide variety. For struggling readers, however, it often fragments attention and limits meaningful practice. Many are only beginning to grasp what is expected at one station before they are moved to the next, leaving little time for consolidation or corrective feedback. Guided reading may have felt right for its time, but as we now know more about how reading develops, we must accept that there’s no right way to do the wrong thing—no matter how well organised it feels or well intentioned.
Where Guided Reading Goes Astray
Static Grouping and the Problem of “Ability” Groups
In many guided reading classrooms, children are organised into ability-based groups that remain largely unchanged for months. These groups often reflect broad labels, such as high, middle, or low ability, rather than focusing on specific instructional needs. In guided reading, this means grouping can be based on a general impression of a child’s reading ability rather than a clear understanding of the particular skills that need strengthening.
Instead of flexible, short-term groups that change as children’s skills develop, these static arrangements can quietly create cycles of lowered expectation. Once placed in a group, children often remain there long after their skills have progressed, or worse, when the instruction they receive no longer matches what they need. This not only limits opportunity for acceleration but can also shape children’s self-perception as readers. Shanahan (2019) cautions that such fixed grouping can constrain progress and magnify inequities, especially for those who are already at risk of reading difficulties. Research consistently supports the use of fluid, needs-based groupings that respond to ongoing assessment of specific skills, such as blending, decoding, or fluency, rather than static notions of ability.
In other words, effective small-group instruction should be targeted, not tiered.
Levelled Texts and the “Instructional Level” Myth
The idea of matching children to “just right” or levelled texts can be traced back to Emmett A. Betts (1954), whose Reading Adjustment Theory proposed that children learn best when reading at their instructional level—defined as 90–95% accuracy. This concept became foundational to later guided reading frameworks and commercial levelling systems, including those developed by Fountas and Pinnell. However, Betts’ theory was based on observation, not empirical research, and has never been validated through experimental studies. Subsequent analyses (eg. Shanahan, 2019; Hiebert, 2017) have found no evidence that confining children to texts at a fixed accuracy level improves reading achievement. In fact, research suggests that occasional exposure to more challenging texts, supported by explicit instruction, promotes greater growth in vocabulary, stamina, and decoding skill.
The idea was deeply appealing because it seemed scientific and child-centred. Teachers felt reassured that each child was reading in their “zone of proximal development,” progressing at their own pace. For struggling readers, however, spending years on simplified books limits vocabulary, stamina, and motivation. It also clashes with what we know about phonics. Systematic phonics requires connected text that reflects the sound–letter patterns already taught. Decodable texts provide this match, helping children apply their phonics knowledge and strengthen orthographic mapping (Ehri, 2014; Mesmer, 2005).
Levelled texts, by contrast, are based on broad qualitative features, such as sentence length, vocabulary, predictability, not on the phonics knowledge children have mastered. This makes them very difficult to use diagnostically. How do we, as teachers, genuinely know the difference between a Level M text and a Level P text? These gradings are not standardised or transparent; they vary across publishers and rarely indicate which grapheme–phoneme correspondences or morphological patterns the text contains. As a result, a book may be labelled “just right” even though it includes many words a child cannot yet decode.
This makes it nearly impossible to use levelled texts to determine where children are in their reading development. A child who can “read” a Level K book fluently may in fact be relying heavily on context or memory, masking weak decoding skills. Another child who struggles through the same text might actually be applying phonics knowledge more accurately but appears less fluent. Levelled books, then, can blur rather than clarify what a child truly knows and can do. In one large study, Denton et al. (2014) found that children who received explicit, code-based instruction made significantly greater gains in word reading than those taught through guided reading groups.
Not Every Child Needs Small-Group Instruction
A common misconception in many classrooms is that every child should take part in small-group reading every day or that every child’s reading must be heard daily. While this may feel equitable and child-centred, research and experience suggest otherwise.
When whole-class teaching is explicit, well-sequenced, and responsive, many children will make strong progress without the need for additional small-group support. In fact, constant rotation through groups can dilute instructional time and reduce opportunities for the teacher to focus where help is most needed. The purpose of small groups is not to give every child equal time, but to ensure that time is used where it makes the greatest difference.
Targeted small-group instruction should therefore be intentional and need-based, not routine. Some children will require daily or near-daily support in phonics or reading fluency, while others may only need periodic check-ins. The aim is not for every child to read aloud to the teacher each day, but for every child to receive the type and intensity of instruction that best supports their progress.
So, what takes the place of Guided Reading
If guided reading has taken us off course, the solution is not to abandon small-group instruction but to reclaim its purpose.
Screening and Assessment: Knowing Who Needs What
If small-group teaching is to be genuinely targeted, it must be grounded in regular, reliable assessment. Moving beyond guided reading levels or running records, teachers need clear, skill-specific information about what children can do and where they need support.
Universal screening at key points in the year (for example, in September, January, and May) provides a snapshot of each child’s progress in phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge, blending, segmenting, and word reading. This screening information should then guide instructional planning. Children who are progressing as expected continue with the whole-class lessons. Those showing gaps receive additional practice or pre-teaching in small groups.
Beyond formal screening, ongoing formative assessment, such as listening to children read, analysing spelling attempts, or observing blending during phonics practice, provides daily feedback on what is working and what needs adjustment. When teachers have data on children’s word-reading and language skills, small-group instruction becomes a sharp, responsive tool rather than a routine timetable slot. In this way, assessment replaces levelling as the compass for instruction and ensures that teaching decisions are based on evidence, not assumption.
Whole-class teaching as the anchor
Whole-class teaching should provide the foundation for early literacy instruction. Every beginning reader, regardless of background, ability, or support level, needs access to explicit, systematic teaching in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. This ensures equity: that all children, not just those who struggle, receive consistent, high-quality instruction in how print works and how meaning is constructed.
In many schools, though, early reading activities are delivered through a small-group station approach. While well-intentioned, this model often means that the teacher works intensively with one group while the rest of the class completes independent tasks of uneven quality or cognitive demand. This pattern is also evident in team-teaching models widely used in Irish schools, where special education teachers (SETs) join the class for “station teaching” blocks. Although designed to provide targeted support, these sessions often mirror guided reading routines: groups rotate through stations, with every child completing similar activities at different tables, frequently reading levelled texts. In practice, much of what takes place in these rotations could be replaced by more effective, evidence-based instruction in phonics, phonemic awareness, decoding, and vocabulary.
Many of these evidence-based skills are best taught explicitly at whole-class level, ensuring that all children, including those who struggle, receive systematic instruction in how print works. During such lessons, the class teacher can lead direct, explicit teaching while the SET provides in-class support—roaming the room, prompting, giving feedback, and assisting children who need extra help in the moment. This structure promotes inclusion, ensures instructional alignment, and makes more powerful use of teacher expertise.
With this structure in place, small-group instruction becomes more purposeful. When core learning happens at whole-class level, small group instruction can focus on providing additional practice, pre-teaching, or targeted support where it is genuinely needed. Confident readers can continue to advance, while those at risk receive the same essential instruction, reinforced through short, focused sessions based on a specific, targeted need. Connor et al. (2009) found that when small-group instruction is aligned closely to children’s assessed needs and integrated with whole-class teaching, it produces far greater gains in reading progress.
Small groups with a targeted function
When the core instruction is strong, small groups become purposeful, not procedural. Their role shifts from “hearing reading” to targeted, skill-based teaching that supports, extends, and reinforces whole-class learning. These groups should be short-term, flexible, and diagnostic, formed around clearly defined skill needs rather than broad ability labels.
A small group might:
practise blending short vowels or consonant digraphs using cumulative, decodable text;
rehearse tricky heart words for automatic recall;
focus on oral language and vocabulary expansion through guided discussion; or
develop fluency and expression through repeated reading of meaningful text.
Crucially, small-group instruction should take place alongside—not instead of—whole-class teaching. For children who are at risk of reading difficulties, these sessions should function as a double dose—the same concepts explicitly taught to the whole class, then revisited and reinforced in smaller, more focused sessions with added scaffolding and practice opportunities.
Even more powerful, however, is when small-group instruction can occur before the whole-class lesson. This pre-teaching approach enables children who typically struggle to enter the next day’s lesson with a sense of familiarity and confidence. Rather than feeling behind, they start ahead—primed to recognise and participate in what is being taught.
For example: if the whole class is due to learn the grapheme “sh” tomorrow, the SET might meet with a small group the day before to introduce the sound, practise articulating it, and identify it in a few simple words (shop, ship, fish). The children could trace the letters, blend short words, and read a decodable sentence such as “The fish is in the shop.” When the grapheme “sh” appears in the next day’s phonics lesson, these children are ready—they recognise it, respond confidently, and feel included rather than overwhelmed.
This kind of frontloading can transform how struggling readers see themselves: not as the ones always catching up, but as active participants who know what’s happening and can contribute meaningfully in class.
Reclaiming Small-Group Instruction
Irish teachers now have the opportunity to reclaim small-group teaching as a responsive, skills-based practice that complements whole-class instruction by
Anchoring literacy in whole-class explicit teaching, ensuring every child masters foundational skills.
Using fluid, needs-based small groups for targeted practice in phonics, decoding, fluency, and vocabulary.
Incorporating decodable texts in the early years to reinforce phonics learning and build automaticity.
Embedding comprehension, vocabulary development and discussion across both whole-class and small-group work, drawing on quality literature and playful, oral-language-rich experiences.
“Small groups should not replace explicit teaching—they should extend it.”
Guided or misguided?
At times, it feels as though guided reading in Ireland has become a habit rather than a strategy. Its routines and practices often clash with phonics instruction and scatter teacher attention across endless small groups, resulting in less teaching where it counts. We don’t need to abandon small groups; we need to reclaim them. When whole-class explicit instruction leads and small-group teaching supports, every child benefits. It’s time to drop what doesn’t work and keep what does, because there’s no right way to do the wrong thing.
Join the conversation: share your reflections or examples from your own classroom in the comments, and pass this post along to anyone rethinking small-group reading.