I get a lot of people contacting me looking for “packages”. You know the sort of thing:
- scope and sequence documents,
- slide decks,
- word lists,
- advice on blending multiple programs together,
- neatly ordered prescriptions about “what to teach and when”.
I understand why.
They feel safe. They feel concrete. They look like a solution.
My training comes with such packages, but only as part of the training, and only as a suggestion as to what might be appropriate at a given stage. I do not sell, publish or prescribe these things as standalones for a good reason.
– “I’ve attached this document. What do you think?”
– “Have you heard of X program? Does it align with the science of X?”
– “Our last consultant told us to do this, but I know it’s no good. Can you suggest some corrections?”
If we could just map every phonics element, every spelling convention, every morphological feature into a progression, then surely teaching would be easier, learning would be better, and outcomes would improve. Right?
But here’s the uncomfortable truth: Language doesn’t work like a checklist. And expertise doesn’t live in a spreadsheet.
Often, these messages are accompanied by documents. Sometimes many documents. Often these messages are accompanied by “our previous consultant said this, but I’m pretty sure that’s not correct.”
What’s really being asked is:
“Can you do the intellectual work, for free, of designing effective instruction for us and/or correcting the work of someone we shouldn’t have hired in the first place?”
And yes, I can (but not for free), because I’ve spent my adult life studying:
• how orthographic knowledge develops,
• how spelling is retained (not crammed),
• how morphology is learned over time,
• how word families build automaticity, and
• how writing anchors spelling in memory.
It’s the work of years of experience: I’ve run a successful specialist practice, working with children and adults who need help with literacy development for thirty years now. I’ve seen and dealt with just about every scenario there is when it comes to learning to read and write.
It’s the work of continuing professional development: I don’t just travel the world going to conferences for the craic. I actually attend the presentations, take notes, ask questions, read the books and papers and never assume I know it all. Thank heaven for second and third editions, in that I get to correct and refine my thinking, and I’m committed to doing that whenever I can.
Why Lists Don’t Fix the Real Problem
The reason so many schools struggle beyond phonics is not because they haven’t found the right scope and sequence document yet. It’s because writing development is not linear in the way phonics instruction can often frame it.
Much of what children learn about spelling, morphology and word structure happens through:
• cumulative exposure,
• structured word families,
• writing,
• revisiting concepts across time, and
• building orthographic memory.
We can’t simply “introduce” a concept one week and expect mastery. We can’t slide-deck our way to deep linguistic knowledge. And we can’t replace teacher understanding with a progression chart. Documents support good instruction; they do not create it.
The hidden pattern: free labour
There’s another layer to this that’s worth naming.
In education especially, women are disproportionately expected to:
- share their intellectual work freely,
- review materials “just quickly”,
- give expert advice casually, and/or
- fix systemic problems unpaid.
We would never email a consultant in another field with:
“Here are two reports and a framework. Can you just quickly, and for no pay, review them and redesign our approach?”
Yet in education, it happens constantly, often politely, often enthusiastically, but still as unpaid labour.
Expertise is treated as something to be “picked”, not respected.
Formal training and consulting is the answer
This is why my work has always focused on building teacher knowledge first.
When educators understand:
• how literacy actually develops,
• why certain routines work,
• how morphology fits within orthography, and
• why weekly test cycles fail retention,
they no longer need endless lists. They can make informed instructional decisions themselves. That’s what proper professional learning does. It doesn’t hand them another resource, it equips them to teach.
A sustainable way forward
If you’re looking to:
- strengthen literacy instruction beyond (and I daresay alongside) phonics,
• build coherent progression across year levels,
• align resources thoughtfully,
• develop teacher knowledge, and/or
• move away from superficial routines,
there are two appropriate pathways:
- Engage in structured professional learning (such as the Spelling for Life, Language for Life and Morphology Masterclass training).
- Engage Lifelong Literacy formally as a consultants to support your school or system.
Both respect the complexity of the work. Both respect professional expertise. Both lead to far better outcomes than another scope and sequence document ever will. If we want education to be treated as a profession, we have to start treating professional expertise as valuable.
And if you’re a consultant in the field and you’re saying “yes” to such requests for your free labour to try to get a foothold, my advice is to cease doing that. You create a rod for your own back, risking the very real possibility of burnout, and you do a disservice to your fellow consultants who understand the true value of labour. No one should support the expectation that working without pay is normal.
Ready to work together?
If you'd like to:
• build strong literacy instruction across your school,
• deepen teacher knowledge of orthography and morphology,
• move beyond phonics thoughtfully and effectively,
• receive tailored professional support,
you’re very welcome to join an ever-expanding, happily engaged, international community of practice who have studied our courses and hired us as consultants. As you would see from the reams of positive feedback left on our courses, this is a smart move.
