Many years ago I was also THRASS trainined. Yes, THRASS has its benefits, but it is not identified as an evidence-based program. Here is the list compiled by the SPELD's around Australia: When schools have invested (like yours) in a whole school approach, it is not possible to select your own preference. Whole school programs and processes have been researched, invested in and established in the school's plan. It is known that consistent implementation (across year levels and across classes) of evidence-based programs produces results. Application of different programs across and throughout schools is one of the factors that has shown to plunge literacy levels.

So, although I STRONGLY advise you not to use your THRASS chart, (for the reasons outlined in point 2) you can use some of the learning you have gained through THRASS. Inside the Phonic Sight Word Sequence - there is a THRASS type chart, in which students are not exposed to the whole system, but that they build up their phonic knowledge over time. Please also refer to these phonic charts. These charts outline how you would progress through stages 1 and 2, and should many of your students be requiring this level of instruction, the worst thing is exposing them to the whole system of spelling patterns as they relate to phonemes. Students in stages 1 and 2 require repeated targeted practice with the range of concepts they are working to master.

The other factor you need to appreciate is that most evidence-based  'synthetic phonic programs' progress from the phoneme level in middle and upper primary. In the tackling of advanced code and lengthy words, breaking into phonemes becomes less relevant.
Was this article helpful?
Thank you!