The Word and World Reading programme aimed to improve the reading comprehension and wider literacy skills of children aged 7-9 from low income families. The programme focused on improving the vocabulary and background knowledge (sometimes labelled "core knowledge") of pupils, through the use of specially designed "knowledge rich" reading material, vocabulary word lists, a read-aloud approach, and resources such as atlases and globes. The programme is based on the rationale that children need background knowledge to be able to comprehend what they read, and that improving background knowledge is an effective way to help struggling readers. This pilot evaluation involved 17 primary schools from across England. Participating schools received training that emphasised the consistent and sequenced use of vocabulary, direct instruction, and teacher questioning. Year 3 and 4 classes in participating schools followed the approach for the whole 2013-14 academic year. The programme was developed and delivered by The Curriculum Centre, a charitable organisation which is part of Future Academies. The project was co-funded by the Greater London Authority (GLA). The evaluation had three aims. First, to assess the feasibility of the approach and its reception by schools. Second, to assess the promise of the approach and provide recommendations that could be used to improve the approach in the future. Third, to provide recommendations that could be used to design any future trial, including an assessment of the appropriate size of any future trial. Key conclusions include: (1) The Word and World Reading programme was introduced as intended, and was well received by the majority of primary schools participating in the project; (2) Some teachers felt that the programme had a positive impact on pupil learning, including improved vocabulary and writing skills; (3) In some lessons, teachers' subject knowledge did not appear to be sufficient to support an in-depth discussion with pupils about some of the topics within the programme curriculum. This suggests that additional training or support materials may have been beneficial; (4) The programme appeared to be more successful for older, higher attaining students, and less successful for Year 3 students or low attaining students. Greater differentiation, for example adapted vocabulary lists, may have made it easier for lower attaining students to engage with the programme; (5) The study did not seek to assess impact on attainment in a robust way, however the attainment data which was collected did not indicate a large positive effect. This suggests that any future trial of the programme should involve a large number of schools in order to provide a precise assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the programme. It may also be valuable to test the approach over a longer period of time.