In short
- Ready-made material wins on staff time, levelling and the number of texts; school-made material wins on fit to your curriculum, your pupils and your calendar.
- The hidden cost of school-made texts is not the writing but the levelling, checking, try-outs and upkeep that follow.
- We know of no study that compares bought and school-made reading texts directly, so the choice rests on your staff time and on what is known about levelling and reading amount.
- Most schools mix the two: ready-made texts for the volume of reading, and a few school-made units each term where local fit matters.
The question sounds like a budget question. Mostly it is about staff hours. A reading program needs many texts at each level, and each text needs a level check, a word list and questions. Someone has to do that work: a publisher or your own teachers. This article compares the two routes on staff time, quality control, levelling, fit to the curriculum, cost and upkeep. It does not explain how to build your own units. How to Turn Your Curriculum Texts Into Reading Units does that.
Should schools buy reading material or make their own?
Most schools should buy the bulk of their reading material and make a small part themselves. Ready-made material is quicker to start, already levelled and available in volume. School-made material fits your curriculum and pupils better. But every school-made text costs staff hours to write, level, test and maintain. The right mix depends on who has time to write.
Be clear about the evidence. We know of no study that compares bought reading texts with school-made ones for the same pupils. Tomlinson (2012) reviewed the literature on materials development for language teaching. He describes it as a relatively new field and identifies gaps in its research.
So the comparison below rests on research about reading amount and levelling, plus practice. Three ideas from that research shape it. Pupils need texts in which they know nearly every word. They need a lot of them. And a level label is only as good as the checking behind it.
Ready-made or school-made: the comparison at a glance
The table compares the two routes on the points schools ask about most. Neither column wins every row.
| Factor | Ready-made material | School-made material |
|---|---|---|
| Staff time | Time to choose, sample and schedule. Little or no writing. | Hours for every text: writing or adapting, a level check, a word list, questions and a try-out. |
| Quality control | Professional writers and editors. Claridge (2012) found that publishers do not regularly research learners' opinions. | Depends on your team. Needs a second reader and a try-out with pupils. |
| Levelling | Levelled to the publisher's own scheme. Check that the label matches your pupils. | Levelled by your staff. Accurate only if checked against real pupils. |
| Fit to the curriculum | General topics. Cannot follow your syllabus, your town or your calendar. | Can follow this term's science or history unit, local places and the school's values. |
| Cost | A purchase or licence, visible in the budget. | No licence, but staff hours that rarely appear in the budget. |
| Upkeep | Updated and corrected by the supplier. | Updated by your staff. Texts date, and knowledge leaves with the teacher who wrote them. |
| Amount | Many texts at each level, available now. | A few texts a term, unless someone writes full time. |
Two rows decide most cases: staff time and amount. A program needs many texts at every level, and writing them is slow. Fit is the strongest reason to write, and it matters for some units far more than others. Before you buy, What Should a Reading Pack Contain? gives a checklist for judging any pack.
Staff time and amount: why most schools buy the bulk
Start with how much reading a program needs. Day and Bamford (2002) suggest that a book a week is probably the minimum to gain the benefits of extensive reading and build a reading habit. They also call for a variety of material on a wide range of topics. A 12-week term therefore needs at least 12 texts at each level, and more if pupils are to choose.
Day and Bamford (2002) add that all but advanced learners probably need texts written or adapted for language learners. Such texts are specialist work. They also observe that a great variety of language learner literature is published for every level.
Now count the work behind one school-made text. Time each step for your first text, then multiply by the number you need:
- Choose or write the text.
- Check the level with a few pupils, and revise.
- Write a short word list.
- Write the questions.
- Record audio, if you offer it.
- Try it with one class and fix what trips them up.
- Store it where the next teacher can find it.
Multiply that by a dozen texts per level and the total is rarely small. That is the case for buying the bulk. It is an argument from arithmetic, not from a study.
Levelling and quality control
Whatever the source, a text works only if pupils can read it without help. Hu and Nation (2000) tested 66 adult learners on a fiction text with different shares of unknown words. They concluded that reading without help needs about 98% of the words to be known. That is one unknown word in fifty.
Hitting that target for a class is skilled work. Claridge (2012) interviewed editors at four major publishers of graded readers. All four divided their series into levels by headwords and structures. The editors treated their level lists as a guide for writers, not as fixed rules.
Claridge (2012) also found wide differences between publishers. One series classed books with 400 headwords as A1/A2. Another placed books with 1,100 headwords in its A2 list. A level label on a bought pack is a starting point. Check it against your pupils with a sample page.
School-made texts face the same test with less support. A teacher who knows the class can judge the level well, but a judgement is not a check. Build two steps into every text: a second reader on your staff, and a try-out with a few pupils. How Is a Story Levelled to the CEFR? explains what goes into a level.
Fit: where your own stories win
Fit is the strongest case for school-made material. A ready-made pack is written for many schools at once. It cannot supply a story set in your town, a text that follows this term's science unit, or a story built around your school's values.
Fit is also where course design starts. Macalister and Nation (2020) set out language curriculum design in parts. Their handbook takes environment analysis and needs analysis first, before goals, content and format. It also has a chapter on adopting and adapting an existing course book.
Applied to reading, the order is: know your pupils and your syllabus first, then decide which texts to buy, adapt or write. Adapting sits between the two routes, and it is often the cheapest way to get fit.
Ready-made material should face a fit test too. Sharples, Albers, Fraser and Kime (2019) advise schools to examine the fit and feasibility of any program before adopting it. Two of their questions apply directly. Does it fully address the problem you defined? Is it likely to lead to better outcomes in your school?
- Suits school-made: a unit tied to a local event, a topic shared with another subject, or one of the school's own values.
- Suits ready-made: the weekly volume of easy reading, levels that only a few pupils need, and genres your staff do not write well.
- Suits adapting: a curriculum text you already teach and have the right to change.
Cost and upkeep over several years
Ready-made material costs money that appears in the budget. School-made material costs staff time that usually does not. Compare both in hours as well as money. What Should a School Reading Program Cost? A Budgeting Guide shows how to count staff time.
Upkeep is where schools most often underestimate their own material. Texts date. Syllabuses change. The teacher who wrote a set of units may leave. Sharples and colleagues (2019) advise planning from the outset for what keeps a change going, including contingency plans for staff turnover. A library that lives in one teacher's folders is exposed to exactly that risk.
Copyright adds a condition. Only adapt texts the school has the right to change. A coursebook passage belongs to its publisher or author. Texts written by your own staff, texts out of copyright and texts under a licence that allows adaptation are safer. This is general guidance, not legal advice.
Why most schools mix both, and how to split the work
Most schools end up with a mix, because each route solves a different problem. Ready-made packs supply the volume. School-made units supply the fit. The work lies in deciding which unit is which.
- List the units for the term, level by level.
- Mark the units where local fit really matters. Expect only a few.
- Fill every other unit with ready-made material.
- For each marked unit, look for a text you can adapt before you write a new one.
- Give the writer fixed time and a deadline, not a request to write when there is time.
- Try each new unit with one class, fix it, and store it with its word list and questions.
Classroom example (invented for illustration)
A Grade 7 class reads at A2 through a 12-week term. Ten weeks use stories from a ready-made A2 pack. Two weeks use school-made units. One follows the science unit on the local river, adapted from a text the science teacher wrote. The other tells how the school was founded. The English coordinator wrote it in two planning sessions. Both units were tried with one class the term before, then stored with their word lists and questions.
This split is advice from practice, not a research finding. Start with a small share of school-made units, and grow it only when the writing time is real.
How iRead handles this
In iRead, global packs come from the iRead library and are ready to teach: levelled stories, word lists, the four games and quizzes ship together, for A1 to C2. School packs are written by the school's own teachers or content team in iRead's story editor, around the school's annual or termly curriculum. The same games and quizzes are attached automatically. Most schools run both kinds.
The core principle: Buy for volume, build for fit. Write your own texts only where local fit matters and someone has real time to write, check and maintain them.
See it in iRead: Global packs ship ready to teach. School packs are written by your own teachers in iRead's story editor, with the same games and quizzes attached automatically. Most schools run both.
Compare pack typesKey takeaway
Decide unit by unit, not once for the whole program. Count staff hours as a cost, check every level label against real pupils, and keep school-made writing for the units where fit matters most.
Frequently asked questions
Is it cheaper for a school to make its own reading materials?
Not always. School-made texts carry no licence fee, but each one costs staff hours to write, level, check, try out and update. Count those hours before you compare. Once staff time is counted, buying the bulk of weekly reading is often the cheaper route, provided the texts fit your levels.
Can teachers level their own stories accurately?
Yes, with checks. A teacher's judgement is a start, not a test. Give a sample to a few pupils and count the unknown words. Hu and Nation (2000) found, with adult learners, that reading without help needs about 98% of words known. Add a second reader on your staff.
How much of our reading material should we write ourselves?
No study gives a ratio. In practice, keep school-made units to the few where local fit matters, such as a topic shared with another subject or a local event. Use ready-made texts for the weekly volume. Grow the share only when writing time is protected and every text is tried with pupils.
Can we adapt coursebook texts instead of writing new ones?
Adapting is often quicker than writing, but only for texts you have the right to change. A coursebook passage normally belongs to its publisher, so ask first. Texts by your own staff, texts out of copyright and openly licensed texts are safer starting points.
Are the levels on bought readers reliable?
They are a useful start, not a guarantee. Claridge (2012) found wide differences between publishers in the number of headwords allowed at each level. Check any bought pack with a sample page and a few pupils before you commit a class to it.
Sources
- Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143-179. doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000528
- Macalister, J., & Nation, I. S. P. (2020). Language Curriculum Design (2nd ed.). Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780429203763
- Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(2), 136-141. doi.org/10.64152/10125/66761
- Hu, M. H.-C., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403-430. doi.org/10.64152/10125/66973
- Claridge, G. (2012). Graded readers: How the publishers make the grade. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(1), 106-119. doi.org/10.64152/10125/66668
- Sharples, J., Albers, B., Fraser, S., & Kime, S. (2019). Putting Evidence to Work: A School's Guide to Implementation. Guidance Report (2nd ed.). Education Endowment Foundation, London. d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/eef-guidance-reports/implementation/EEF_Implementation_Guidance_Report_2019.pdf