How One Ivrit B’Ivrit School Addressed Kriah
February 20, 2026
Solving Regressing Kriah Scores and Memory Reading
February 20, 2026
Mrs. Tzippy Warshaw
Walking through the early childhood wing of the Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy, one is greeted by the excited voices of our youngest learners deeply immersed in their kriah lessons. Children confidently use terms such as “beats,” “bodies,” and “codas” alongside Hebrew vocabulary like מִשְׁכָּן ,קָרְבָּן, and בַּרְוָז, words so atypically heard in a kindergarten classroom that visitors are drawn into the classrooms to observe with curiosity. Once inside, the sounds of tefillot and berachot, typically heard in older grades, further spark the curiosity of passersby. Teachers lead small-group instruction, purposefully setting aside technology in favor of hands-on manipulatives, small squares, and triangles that support the development of phonological awareness in our emerging readers.
Our school, like many others, used to employ a whole-language approach, which was popular, engaging, and well-received by teachers and students alike. Nevertheless, ongoing results from the MaDYK standardized assessment revealed that student, class, and school performance did not always meet benchmark expectations. It became increasingly clear that the slower progress stemmed from a lack of explicit, systematic instruction in Hebrew reading.
After the principles of the Science of Reading were successfully applied to English reading instruction at our school, resulting in gains in student literacy performance, we took a closer look at our kriah curriculum. Motivated by this realization, we began seeking a structured approach to Hebrew literacy that paralleled its English program, grounded not only in the Science of Reading but also in the Science of Hebrew Reading. This emerging field applies the same cognitive and linguistic principles that underlie all skilled reading while considering the unique features of Hebrew orthography and the needs of second-language learners.
We selected a program that draws on the five pillars of literacy identified by the National Reading Panel[1]: phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. It is designed to integrate best practices in how the brain learns to read with the distinctive phonological and orthographic characteristics of Hebrew. It is systematically sequenced and supported by sound-symbol cards, decodable texts, vocabulary instruction, spelling tiles, and hands-on activities to build accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Each unit provides detailed lesson guidance to ensure fidelity and consistency, while still allowing for flexibility to meet individual learner needs.
One important piece of implementing the new program, and implementing any new instructional model, is coaching. New ideas can be challenging for teachers, whether they are seasoned instructors or fresh to the field. In our experience, establishing embedded coaching and professional learning structures to support teachers every step of the way was a key element of our success. Coaching meetings brought together previously parallel teaching paths: morning and afternoon teachers, and veteran and new educators who had not regularly collaborated. Teachers initially challenged the changes, questioning grammatical explanations or instructional pacing. Through dialogue, modeling, and feedback, however, coaching became one of the most valuable components of the initiative. It drove us to think deeply about “what” we were teaching rather than just “how.” During this time, we collaborated on lesson preparation, modeled instruction, and targeted feedback. Brainstorming classroom groupings and refining pacing became a regular part of these sessions together.
In the process of shifting our approach, we encountered four key challenge areas that we believe other schools considering a similar rollout may encounter: the timing required for targeting all five pillars of literacy, the challenge of the language of instruction, the shift to teaching vocabulary according to phonological and orthographic patterns and not thematic patterns, and incorporating the latest research on encoding and its effect on handwriting. Our experience and advice are presented with the aim of supporting other schools in their planning and implementation.
The Amount of Time Needed for Instruction
Though 60 minutes a day for efficient kriah instruction is considered optimal to target all five pillars of literacy, finding that time felt daunting, especially in kindergarten, where we try to balance academics and social-emotional development. Scheduling adjustments were necessary to provide sufficient time for kriah. Through collaborative thinking, an administration willing to embrace scheduling flexibility, and teachers open to rethinking their day, we came remarkably close to meeting the target. By taking a close look at our classroom schedules, we discovered opportunities to increase classroom efficiency and to rethink transitions. Small changes like this allowed us to get very close to the recommended time. Other schools embarking on this curriculum rollout would do well to anticipate this challenge, develop a concrete plan for structuring time realistically, and prepare staff and students for the shift in routines.
Here are some takeaways:
- Don’t assume you lack the time. Before you make any schedule overhauls, map out your current time allocations. Start thinking about where you can make small changes, shorten transitions, and reduce movement and waiting time. Small changes can make a big difference.
- It’s OK to build toward the full target incrementally. Although our goal was 60 minutes, we recognized that attaining full fidelity might take several weeks. We monitored progress, met frequently, and gradually extended the kriah block as routines solidified.
Language Used for Kriah Instruction
Our school strives to maintain an Ivrit B’Ivrit approach whenever possible, especially in first grade. The decision of whether to deliver Hebrew literacy instruction in Hebrew or in the learner’s dominant language carried significant cognitive and pedagogical implications. Learning to read in Hebrew means learning both a new language and a new writing system, at the same time. Because many students begin with limited Hebrew oral language, it can be difficult for them to follow detailed explanations or instructions given entirely in Hebrew.
We decided to use English when teaching kriah. This approach does not replace Hebrew; rather, it ensures that students have access to the metalinguistic understanding needed to make sense of Hebrew’s unfamiliar structure. Research supports this practice. David Share (2021)[2] highlights that second-language learners of Hebrew face particular challenges, including limited oral proficiency, less familiarity with Hebrew sounds, and reduced exposure to print. Using a student’s stronger language (English) to explain how reading works allows them to focus on decoding and recognizing patterns, the essential foundations of fluent reading.
Shifting from Vocabulary Instruction to Phonologically/Orthographically Based Word Learning
Before the shift, our students would learn basic classroom Hebrew vocabulary (e.g., “pencil,” “marker,” “chair”), as well as common household items and body parts. In the new program, vocabulary is introduced according to the phonological and orthographic demands of the instructional sequence. Our teachers initially expressed concern that moving away from a thematic-based vocabulary list might hinder practical language development. Despite our apprehension, our experience showed that not only were our concerns unfounded, but we also came to appreciate the underlying rationale when viewed through the lens of the Science of Reading. This alignment means that new vocabulary is learned in conjunction with the decoding and orthographic skills students are concurrently developing, supporting automatic word recognition while simultaneously building meaning. This cohesive approach, therefore, aligns with current research showing that reading development is strongest when decoding skills and vocabulary instruction are integrated rather than taught separately.
Here is the takeaway:
Recognize upfront that the vocabulary sequence may differ from what you have used historically. Prepare teachers for that shift so they don’t feel the curriculum is “missing” the familiar everyday words—it is simply reorganized. While the vocabulary was initially a concern for us, in practice, it did not impair student growth. Instead, it opened up rich opportunities for meaningful language application.
Encoding, Orthographic Mapping, and Handwriting
One of the most unexpected (yet research-supported) elements of the new program was the integration of encoding, the process of segmenting and spelling words, into kriah instruction. Encoding practice (for example, with spelling tiles) plays a more direct role in developing fluent reading than early handwriting practice. This understanding is well-supported by literacy research conducted by Linda Diamond[3], who explains that encoding strengthens the brain’s connections between sounds and symbols, enabling students to store words in long-term memory for fluent retrieval during reading. Spelling and reading work together, sharing the same sound–symbol foundations that build fluency. Working with spelling tiles, our students developed cognitive processes that support both decoding and encoding. Research on orthographic mapping similarly supports the idea that proficiency in connecting phonemes, graphemes, and word meaning is critical to automatic word recognition and fluent reading. Prioritizing encoding and orthographic mapping, rather than spending time on handwriting drills, helps students build the cognitive foundation for later fluency. Over time, the projects that once featured traced letter shapes and fill-in-the-blank exercises evolved to include meaningful vocabulary. Entering first grade, our students could accurately encode their names using letter tiles, demonstrating true sound-symbol mastery. When the time came for them to learn script, they were better prepared and learned more quickly without the interference of unlearning printed letter forms first.
Our Results
Because the MaDYK benchmark is administered three times a year, we anxiously awaited the final benchmark. While scores improved steadily throughout the year, nothing prepared us for the dramatic leap in our first-grade class at the end of the year. For the first time, we surpassed national benchmarks for both reading fluency and accuracy, and the proportion of students below benchmark dropped significantly to under 2%, highlighting the strong impact of implementing this approach. What had begun as an experiment became a profound success story. Now, we find ourselves facing a new and welcome opportunity to determine how best to challenge a growing cohort of skilled, confident Hebrew readers as they continue their literacy journey.
Tzippy Warshaw is an ASHA-certified speech-language pathologist and literacy specialist with expertise in dyslexia and language-based learning differences. She is the literacy coordinator and a learning specialist at the Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy, an adjunct professor at Stern College for Women of Yeshiva University, and a Hebrew reading coach at Scott Goldberg Consulting.
[1] National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000).
[2] ¹ David L. Share, “Acquiring Hebrew Literacy: Toward a Universal Theory of Reading,” Written Language & Literacy 24, no. 1 (2021): 1–34.
[3] Linda Diamond and Linda Gutlohn, Teaching Reading Sourcebook, 3rd ed. (Novato, CA: Arena Press, 2016), 63.