This review dissects the structure, utility, limitations, and real-world application of Resource List 5.3. At its core, Resource 5.3 is a refined operationalization of Beck, McKeown, and Kucan’s (2002) Three Tiers of Vocabulary . However, LETRS adapts it with a sharper clinical lens.
This is an excellent request, as it touches on the core practical application of the LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) framework. A thorough review of requires situating it within the broader LETRS context, specifically Volume 1, Unit 5, which focuses on "The Mighty Word: Oral Language and Vocabulary."
is arguably the single most practical tool in the entire LETRS manual for improving reading comprehension. It moves vocabulary instruction from "look it up" to strategic, cognitive science-based triage. If every teacher in America used this list to select their weekly vocabulary words, the gap in academic language between advantaged and disadvantaged students would narrow significantly. resource list 5.3 of the letrs manual
A subtle but powerful section of 5.3 addresses ELLs. It notes that Tier 1 words for a native speaker may be Tier 2 for an ELL. The list includes a fourth, unspoken tier: Tier 1.5 – common words that are not pictorial (e.g., bring, carry, follow ). This prevents the tragic error of ignoring basic prepositions for ELLs. Part 3: Where the List Falls Short (Critical Limitations) No resource is perfect. In the four years I have facilitated LETRS training, the most common teacher complaints about Resource 5.3 are these:
ESL specialists (who need to modify the Tier 1 assumptions), and kindergarten teachers (where almost all words are Tier 1, making the list less relevant until late first grade). This is an excellent request, as it touches
The list assumes that if a word is Tier 3 (e.g., monarchy ), students can learn it via context. But a student who has no schema for kings, queens, or succession will flounder. Resource 5.3 needs a stronger caution: Tier 3 words that are conceptually dense should be pre-taught explicitly, even if they are low frequency. The list is slightly too rigid.
The list includes guidance on text density. It states that in a given text, no more than 5-10% of words should be unknown for a student reading at grade level. If a passage has 20% unknown words, Resource 5.3 instructs you to change the text , not teach all 20%. This is a revolutionary concept for teachers raised on "just look it up in the dictionary." If every teacher in America used this list
—often titled "Considerations for Selecting Words for Explicit Instruction" or a similar variation depending on the LETRS edition (1st vs. 2nd)—is the Rosetta Stone between research and reality. It answers the dreaded teacher question: "Which words do I actually have time to teach?"
The list typically breaks down into three columns:
Resource 5.3 is not just a list; it’s a process. It explicitly reminds teachers to check for morphemes (roots, prefixes, suffixes). For example, before teaching unfortunate , the list prompts: Can students use 'un-' (not) + 'fortunate' (lucky)? If yes, move that word to incidental instruction and save explicit time for absurd .
Two teachers can look at the same word ( compromise, consequence, tradition ) and disagree violently on whether it is Tier 2 or Tier 3. Resource 5.3 provides criteria, but not a definitive dictionary. I have watched entire PLC meetings derail over atmosphere – is it Tier 2 (academic, figurative: "classroom atmosphere") or Tier 3 (science: "Earth's atmosphere")? The answer, per 5.3, is both , but the list doesn't resolve the ambiguity.