Summer reading programs have the power to do more than simply prevent learning loss. When designed intentionally, they can build confidence, strengthen literacy skills, and help students reconnect with the joy of reading. The challenge, of course, is making all of that happen within a short window of time while keeping students engaged enough to show up consistently.

The good news? A focused and engaging summer reading program can make a meaningful impact—even in just a few weeks.

Here are five key strategies educators can use to create a summer reading program that supports reading growth and keeps students excited to participate.

Start With Clear Goals

Every successful summer reading program begins with intentional planning. Before building schedules or choosing activities, it’s important to define what success will look like.

Start by asking:

• Who is the program designed for?
• Which reading skills need the most support?
• How will growth be measured?

Assessment data can help guide these decisions. End-of-year benchmark scores, progress monitoring tools, and classroom observations all provide valuable insight into the skills students need most.

For younger students in grades K–2, summer instruction often focuses on foundational literacy skills such as phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, and blending and segmenting sounds.

For students in grades 2–5, priority skills may shift toward decoding multisyllabic words, reading fluency, vocabulary development, and comprehension.

Programs are most effective when they focus on a manageable number of high-impact skills instead of trying to address everything at once.

A strong summer reading goal might look something like this:

Provide targeted literacy support for identified students to accelerate growth in key reading skill areas based on assessment data while increasing student engagement and participation in summer reading opportunities.

Clear goals help ensure instructional time is purposeful and measurable.

Prioritize High-Impact Reading Skills

Summer programs often operate within limited instructional time, which means every lesson matters.

Instead of attempting to cover too much content, focus on the reading skills that will create the greatest impact for students. Targeted instruction allows educators to maximize growth in a short timeframe.

Some of the most effective focus areas include:

• Phonics and Decoding
• Reading Fluency
• Vocabulary Development
• Reading Connected Text
• Comprehension

Taking time at the beginning of the program to conduct focused assessments can help educators pinpoint the exact subskills preventing student progress. For example, low phonemic awareness scores may signal a need for additional sound manipulation practice, while weak decoding performance can indicate the need for more targeted blending instruction. In some cases, fluency concerns may also emerge, calling for repeated reading and accuracy work to help students build confidence and automaticity.

The key is to narrow the focus and teach intentionally. In a short summer program, less is often more.

Use Small Groups to Differentiate Instruction

Summer reading programs often bring together students with a wide range of learning needs. Small-group instruction is one of the most effective ways to provide targeted support while maintaining student engagement. Within small groups, educators can deliver explicit instruction using an “I do, we do, you do” structure while tailoring instruction to student needs.

Effective small-group instructional practices include:

Make Learning Fun With Themed Weeks

One of the best ways to increase engagement during summer programs is by connecting reading instruction to high-interest themes.

Themed weeks transform reading into an experience that feels interactive, creative, and memorable.

Popular summer reading themes include:

A simple framework for organizing themed instruction is:

Read → Explore → Create → Share

Here is an example of an Animal Discovery Week.

Themed learning helps students build background knowledge, expand vocabulary, and make meaningful connections between reading and the world around them.

Most importantly, it makes reading feel exciting.

Design for Engagement and Attendance

Attendance is one of the biggest challenges summer programs face. Students cannot benefit from instruction if they are not present, so engagement must be built into the program design.

Successful programs create an environment students genuinely want to attend.

Here are several ways to boost motivation and participation:

When students are engaged, attendance improves—and learning accelerates.

Even a Short Summer Program Can Make a Big Impact

A well-designed summer reading program does not need to last all summer to be effective. Even within a few short weeks, educators can create meaningful opportunities for reading growth through intentional instruction, targeted intervention, and engaging learning experiences.

The most successful programs:

• Begin with clear goals.
• Prioritize high-impact literacy skills.
• Use small-group instruction to meet student needs.
• Build engagement through meaningful themes and activities.
• Create a learning environment students are excited to attend.

When reading becomes connected to creativity, exploration, and success, students are more likely to stay engaged—and more likely to continue growing as readers long after summer ends.

Additional Resources:

How to Run a Successful Summer Reading Program in 24 Days (or Less)
The 3 Essentials of an Effective Summer Reading Program: How to Choose the Right One
3 Tips to Avoid Summer Reading Loss: From Flipping Channels to Turning Pages

The post Smart Strategies for Summer Reading Program Success appeared first on Reading Horizons.

By Katie Shelton, Product Enablement Director 

Lately, as I’ve been in schools supporting implementation, I’ve been hearing the same thing come up again and again.

Districts aren’t just using one or two programs during their ELA block. In many cases, it’s five, six, sometimes even seven. 

There’s a program for foundational skills, another for comprehension, a separate one for writing, something for grammar, something for handwriting, and sometimes even a standalone program for phonemic awareness.

For a long time, there really wasn’t one program that could fully support everything within an ELA block, so districts did what they needed to do. They supplemented, and over time, they started supplementing the supplement.

No one made a wrong decision along the way. Every addition was made with students in mind.

But without integrated literacy instruction, it’s becoming overwhelming for teachers to juggle. It adds to prep time, increases planning demands, and creates constant transitions throughout the ELA block. And while that’s a real challenge, we also have to consider the impact on students.

What Happens When a Lesson Isn’t Connected

When you look at a typical lesson built across multiple programs, it often ends up feeling disjointed. A phonics lesson focuses on one skill, then students shift into a comprehension lesson with a completely different text. Writing may be based on an unrelated prompt, grammar is pulled from another source, and process writing lives on its own timeline.

Each part might be strong on its own, but they’re not working together. Students are constantly shifting between texts, topics, and expectations, and that lack of connection makes it harder for learning to build.

Instead of reinforcing what they’ve just learned, each part of the lesson can feel like a reset.

We know students have a limited amount of working memory. When too many disconnected elements are introduced, it increases cognitive load and makes it harder for them to focus on the actual learning. Instead of going deeper, they’re often just trying to keep up.

Why Connection Matters

Students need the opportunity to build on their learning across the lesson, not just within isolated blocks. They need multiple exposures to the same skills, chances to practice in different ways, and opportunities to apply what they’ve learned beyond the moment it was taught.

That’s what helps learning stick.

When instruction is connected, students are more likely to carry their understanding from one part of the instruction to another. When it’s siloed, they may be successful in the moment but struggle to apply those skills anywhere else.

What Integrated Literacy Instruction Looks Like

Now compare that to a lesson where everything is intentionally connected.

At Reading Horizons, that’s what we are building with Ascend Mastery. One lesson where domains are overlapping, content is connected, and students are building a deep understanding of literacy concepts.

In this kind of cadence, the phonics pattern shows up in the fluency passage, and that passage connects directly to the unit topic. The comprehension text builds on that same topic, allowing students to deepen their background knowledge instead of starting over. Vocabulary is introduced before reading and immediately applied, while grammar is pulled directly from the text students are already working with.

Writing isn’t separate from reading. It’s connected to it. Students respond to the text, extend their thinking, and carry those ideas into process writing over time.

Nothing is random, and nothing is isolated.

Students aren’t starting over each time the block shifts. They’re building, revisiting, and applying what they’ve learned in a way that leads to deeper understanding.

From What I’m Seeing in Schools

This is the part I keep coming back to in my work.

We can have strong programs, thoughtful plans, and teachers who are working incredibly hard to make it all happen. But when the lesson itself isn’t connected, we’re making the work harder than it needs to be for everyone involved.

Teachers are constantly switching gears, managing multiple resources, and trying to hold it all together.

Students feel that too.

When instruction is aligned, teachers can stay in the flow of the lesson and go deeper. Students aren’t just completing tasks or moving from one thing to the next. They’re actually building understanding in a way that makes sense.

A Shift Worth Thinking About

I’m not saying districts got it wrong. For a long time, this was the only way to cover everything within an ELA block.

But it’s worth asking whether we’re still supplementing because we truly need to, or because that’s how the system has always been built.

At a certain point, adding more doesn’t lead to better instruction. It just creates more to manage.

And what our students really need isn’t more. They need connection.

One Small Place to Start

If you’re thinking about integrated literacy instruction in your own context, a simple place to start is by looking at one day of instruction.

Lay out everything happening during your ELA block and ask:

• Where are students building on the same content or skill?
• Where are they starting over?
• Are the pieces reinforcing each other, or competing for attention?

You don’t have to overhaul all of it at once.

But even small shifts toward connection can make a noticeable difference for both teachers and students.

This blog is part of a series exploring the importance of coherence and the need for unified literacy frameworks. Read Part 1 in the series, Instructional Alignment Across Tiers: The Foundation for Lasting Literacy Growth by Trisha Thomas, President of Reading Horizons.

In Part 3, we’ll explore what national research and district leaders reveal about the growing demand for unified literacy systems—and why alignment across tiers may represent the next frontier in literacy reform.

The post When “Supplementing the Supplement” Breaks Down Instruction appeared first on Reading Horizons.

If you’ve spent any time in classrooms—or even just reflecting on your own experience learning to read—you’ve probably heard (or said) something like:

“English spelling is complicated.”
“You just have to memorize it.”

But what if that’s not true? What if English isn’t broken at all—but instead, follows a system we simply haven’t been taught to see? English spelling is complex, but it is systematic and can be taught.

The Hidden Logic of English

English is not purely phonetic. It’s morphophonemic—a system that represents both sound and meaning.

That distinction matters.

When we look at words like heal and health, they may seem inconsistent from a sound-based perspective. But when we consider meaning, the spelling is actually doing important work. The shared base heal signals a connection between the words, even though the pronunciation shifts.

In other words, English spelling isn’t random—it’s purposeful. It preserves meaning across related words, helping readers recognize connections within the language.

The challenge is that many of us were taught to approach reading primarily through phonics, if taught the system at all. Some of us have not been taught orthographic conventions, leaving us with little to no awareness of the alphabetic principle. And while phonics is essential, it’s only part of the system.

When we bring morphology into the picture, patterns begin to emerge. Words become more predictable. And once the system makes sense to us, we can help it make sense for our students.

Why Morphology Belongs in Literacy Instruction

At its core, morphology is the study of the structure and meaning of words—how words are built from meaningful parts.

This matters because the way we’ve traditionally approached word learning—memorizing thousands of individual words—for many learners this is inefficient and unsustainable.

Morphology offers a better way.

It is generative, meaning a relatively small number of morphemes (bases, prefixes, and suffixes) can unlock thousands of words. For example, understanding the base struct (to build) supports words like construct, structure, instruction, and destruction.

It reduces cognitive load, meaning instead of holding entire words in memory, students learn meaningful parts they can recombine. This shifts the work from memorization to pattern recognition, freeing up mental energy for comprehension.

---

It builds connections, meaning students begin to see how words relate to one another, strengthening vocabulary and deepening understanding across contexts.

From Decoding to Understanding

Morphological instruction doesn’t replace phonics—it builds directly on it.

Phonics gives students the tools to map sounds to letters and decode words. Morphology extends that work by helping students make sense of what those words mean and how they are constructed. This becomes even more important in upper grades when Tier 2 vocabulary words come more from Latin origin and the domain specific vocabulary from Greek combining word forms. Morphology helps us understand how words are built from morphemes, the smallest meaningful units of language, and explains spelling beyond basic patterns (Hegland, 2021). We spell English words by systematically combining one or more structural units. 

For example, a student might decode the word replaying using phonics. But morphology helps them break it into meaningful parts:

Now the word is pronounceable and understandable.

When we explicitly teach the meanings, pronunciations, and spellings of bases and affixes, we give students tools to:

• Decode unfamiliar words more efficiently
• Understand complex, multisyllabic vocabulary
• Recognize patterns across subjects like science, math, and social studies

Research consistently shows that morphological awareness plays a significant role in vocabulary growth and reading comprehension—especially beyond the early grades. It also strengthens spelling and supports students as they transition from foundational skills to more advanced literacy demands.

In this way, morphology acts as a bridge—connecting early decoding skills to deeper language comprehension.

Incorporating Morphology in Literacy Instruction

If morphology is so powerful, the question becomes: what needs to change in instruction?

Traditionally, word learning has focused heavily on phonics in early grades, followed by increasing emphasis on memorizing vocabulary. Morphology shifts that trajectory by making word structure an explicit, ongoing part of instruction.

This starts with being intentional.

Students need direct instruction in:

Equally important is when we teach these concepts.

Instruction should follow a developmental sequence. Students often begin with inflectional endings (like -s, -ed, -ing), which are more concrete and familiar. From there, instruction expands to include derivational suffixes and prefixes that change meaning and word class (Moats, 2009).

This progression ensures that students are not just exposed to morphology—they are prepared to understand and apply it.

A New Way to Think About Words

When we shift from viewing English as chaotic to seeing it as structured, we fundamentally change the learning experience.

Students stop asking:
“How do I memorize this?”

And start asking:
“How is this word built?”

That shift empowers them.

It transforms reading from a task of recall into a process of reasoning. It gives them access to academic language. And it equips them with tools they can apply across subjects, grade levels, and contexts.

The Opportunity in Front of Us

As educators, we have an opportunity to move beyond the idea that English is unpredictable.

Because it’s not.

It’s a system—one that reflects both sound and meaning, one that rewards curiosity, and one that becomes increasingly logical the deeper you go.

Morphology helps us reveal that system. And when we do, we’re teaching students how to read words and how to understand language itself.

The post Teaching Morphology: The Missing Link in Literacy Instruction appeared first on Reading Horizons.

Across many districts, literacy systems are built with strong intentions–but without clear instructional alignment across tiers.

A Tier 1 core program is selected to strengthen literacy instruction for all students. A separate intervention program is added for Tier 2 support. A different solution is introduced for Tier 3, with supplemental resources layered in to address specific needs.

Each component is research-based, thoughtfully designed, and supported by meaningful data. And yet, the system is operating in parallel rather than in concert.

What begins as a series of thoughtful decisions quickly becomes a system where district leaders, coaches, and teachers are managing three, four, or five different programs for English Language Arts alone.

As students move across tiers, they encounter different instructional routines, terminology, and expectations. A student may approach decoding one way in core instruction, another in intervention, and yet another in more intensive support.

Teachers shift between programs throughout the day. Leaders manage multiple vendors, contracts, and data systems, with information spread across platforms and difficult to reconcile. No one is doing anything wrong. But the system is not aligned.

When Systems Grow Without Instructional Alignment Across Tiers

Most districts do not design fragmented systems. They build them over time. A core program is adopted. An intervention is added. Additional supports follow. Each step is taken to better serve students.

Over time, the system becomes harder to manage. Each program brings its own training requirements. Professional learning is split. Data systems do not connect. Renewal cycles and pricing vary.

District leaders are left managing multiple vendors, overlapping professional learning plans, and competing pricing structures, all within a system that was never designed to work as one.

The Cost of Fragmentation for Students

When programs shift across tiers, complexity increases at the moment students need clarity.

This is where instructional coherence breaks down.

Students who need the most consistency often experience the least. Students who need less cognitive load are given more.

As they move across tiers, students are asked to adjust to new routines, new language, and new expectations. Instead of reinforcing what they already know, each level of support can feel like a new starting point.

Districts often ask why students are not making the expected progress, despite the amount of time spent in intervention. It is worth pausing to consider whether instruction is truly coherent across tiers, or if students are being asked to start over each time they receive additional support.

What Instructional Alignment Across Tiers Requires

Addressing fragmentation starts with instructional coherence.

Instructional coherence means that the difference between tiers is not a change in program, but a change in intensity.

Students should not encounter a new system when they need more help. They should receive more time, more individualized support, and more opportunities to practice within a system they already understand.

That requires consistency in instructional language, routines, skill progression, and assessment.

When those elements are aligned, support becomes an extension of core instruction rather than a replacement for it. Students build on what they already know, and each layer of support strengthens, rather than disrupts, their learning.

One System, That Enables Instructional Alignment Across All Tiers

For years, districts have relied on multiple programs across tiers for a reason. There hasn’t been a single solution that could effectively support all levels of instruction. Until now.

With Ascend, instruction scales across tiers without introducing new systems. It is built on more than 40 years of a proven methodology for developing foundational literacy skills, an area where many students require the most intervention support.

Ascend Mastery supports grade-level instruction and targeted intervention within the same framework. Ascend Focus supports targeted intervention and special education by addressing specific learner needs with increased intensity, not a different approach, supported by diagnostic and progress monitoring assessments that guide instruction within the same platform.

The language stays consistent. The routines stay consistent. The instructional model stays consistent.

Why This Matters

Not only do students and teachers benefit from alignment across tiers, but district leaders do as well.

When systems are unified, data is no longer scattered across platforms. Assessment, progress monitoring, and instruction live in one place, making it easier to see what is working and where support is needed. Students are not over-assessed, and progress can be measured and tracked with greater clarity.

Professional learning, coaching, and ongoing support are no longer split across multiple providers. Instead, they are aligned within one system and supported by a single, trusted partner.

With Reading Horizons, that partnership is built to last. Districts are supported not just at implementation, but year after year, with a focus on sustained literacy success.

What was once a system of competing programs becomes a connected approach, where instruction, support, and data all work together.

A Leadership Imperative

National reading data continues to show uneven growth and persistent gaps, even amid significant investment in literacy reform.

This should prompt more than program evaluation. It should prompt systems reflection.

The next phase of improvement will not be defined by adding more initiatives. It will be defined by how intentionally systems connect across grades, domains, and tiers, and in the daily decisions teachers make.

Leaders who design for coherence ask: 

• Are our tiers reinforcing one another or creating additional complexity? 
• Are students building on what they know or starting over at each level of support? 
• Can we clearly track progress across our system?

Alignment across tiers is not accidental. It is designed.

When curriculum, intervention, assessment, and professional learning operate as a unified system, something shifts. Teachers experience clarity. Students experience consistency. Leaders gain visibility into what is working and where to adjust.

Lasting literacy growth does not come from adding more.

It comes from aligning what matters most.

In Part 2 of this blog series, we’ll explore how coherence reduces cognitive load for teachers and students — and why that shift transforms the daily experience of teaching and learning. Stay tuned!

The post Instructional Alignment Across Tiers: The Foundation for Lasting Literacy Growth appeared first on Reading Horizons.

If you are a North Carolina educator, district leader, or literacy specialist, you likely have questions about what these new standards entail, how they align with the Science of Reading, and when you are expected to implement them. Here is a breakdown of what you need to know to prepare for the transition.

What is Changing in the 2026 ELA SCOS?

The primary purpose of the state’s Crosswalk document is to provide a general comparison of the 2017 ELA SCOS and the new 2026 ELA SCOS. It provides initial insight into the similarities and differences between the two sets of standards.

Several major structural changes have been introduced:

• New Standard-Objective Format: The standards have been reorganized to make them more actionable.
• Streamlined Strands: Skills that were previously repeated or contained multiple facets in the 2017 standards have been integrated across new, streamlined strands. These new strands include Complex Texts, Comprehension Development, and Communication & Writing.
• K-12 Foundational Skills: Perhaps the most groundbreaking shift is the extension of the Foundational Skills substrand through the 12th grade.

Is the New SCOS Aligned with the Science of Reading?

Yes! The 2026 SCOS is deeply aligned with and informed by the Science of Reading.

Traditionally, foundational reading skills—like phonics, word recognition, and fluency—were primarily relegated to early elementary education. North Carolina’s 2026 standards break this mold by outlining a broad scope and sequence for foundational skills that extends all the way to Grade 12. For example, high school students (Grades 11-12) will be expected to explicitly apply K-12 word recognition and word knowledge skills to comprehend complex texts. This includes applying knowledge of syllabication to support word recognition and applying knowledge of morphology to support word knowledge. Students in high school will also continue to practice reading texts orally with fluency, appropriate rate, and prosody to support comprehension.

This K-12 extension ensures that older students who may have foundational gaps—or who are tackling increasingly complex domain-specific vocabulary—continue to receive the structured literacy support they need to decode and comprehend advanced texts.

What is the Implementation Timeline?

State leaders have designed a phased rollout to give Public School Units (PSUs) ample time to prepare:

• 2025–2026 & 2026–2027 School Years: The current 2017 ELA SCOS will remain in place.
• 2027–2028 School Year: Full implementation of the 2026 ELA SCOS is required across the state. State assessments (EOG/EOCs) will also be fully aligned to the new 2026 standards starting in this school year.

It is important to note that the standards themselves are designed to serve as a framework; they do not dictate the specific curriculum, which will be chosen and written by local PSUs or individual schools.

What Resources and Professional Learning Are Available?

North Carolina is already rolling out support for educators. Professional development has begun and will continue throughout the implementation window.Additionally, the state is providing a robust suite of resources to help educators transition smoothly. While the Crosswalk document provides an initial look at the changes, future resources will include detailed Unpacking documents, Glossaries, and Progressions to clarify exactly what students are expected to know and do at each grade level.

Moving Forward

The shift to the 2026 ELA SCOS represents a massive opportunity to improve literacy outcomes for North Carolina’s students. By embedding the Science of Reading into the fabric of the state’s standards—and recognizing that foundational skills do not stop in elementary school—North Carolina is equipping its educators to build stronger, more confident readers at every grade level.

What’s Next for Your District? The 2027–28 school year is when the 2026 ELA SCOS is required across the state. Connect with the Reading Horizons team to plan your next steps.

The post Preparing for North Carolina’s 2026 ELA Standard Course of Study: A Shift Towards the Science of Reading appeared first on Reading Horizons.

Michigan’s new literacy dyslexia laws (Public Acts 146 & 147) mark the most significant shift in reading policy in more than two decades. But for those in the trenches, it’s not just about a new mandate—it’s a fundamental shift in how we teach children to read. And most importantly, it’s about improving literacy achievement and outcomes for K–12 learners.

Before diving into the mandates, it’s crucial to understand the why behind this legislative push. For years, Michigan’s reading scores have remained stagnant; as of 2024, the state ranked 43rd nationally in 4th-grade reading proficiency. While previous efforts, such as the “Read by Grade Three” law, focused on retention, they didn’t fully address the root cause of the 15–20% of students with characteristics of dyslexia.

The “Why” Beyond the Scores: Cognitive Science & Oral Language

This legislative push is grounded in the science of reading and the science of learning. We now understand that literacy isn’t a natural process like speaking; it is a neurological feat that requires explicit instruction. At its core, oral language is the foundation for literacy development. These laws acknowledge that a child’s ability to understand and use spoken language is the precursor to decoding the written word.

Furthermore, Public Act 147 addresses the source of the teacher pipeline: Educator Preparation Providers. Our higher ed programs must make these shifts so that teachers in colleges of education enter the classroom with this foundational knowledge—the Science of Reading (SoR)—of how we learn to read and how we, as educators, teach reading and writing! By ensuring new teachers are equipped with cognitive science before day one, we stop the cycle of “learning on the fly.”

These new laws shift the focus from consequence to prevention. By codifying the Science of Reading, Michigan is moving away from practices that relied heavily on cueing and leveled-text guessing strategies—approaches that research has shown are insufficient for students with decoding difficulties. The goal is simple but ambitious: to ensure every child—regardless of neurodiversity—receives the explicit, evidence-based instruction they need before they fall behind.

Based on the latest guidance and expert insights, here’s what you need to know about the goals, shifts, and high-stakes curriculum decisions ahead.

1. Identification, Not Just Diagnosis

The driving force behind this new legislation is prevention through early identification. Rather than waiting for students to fail and qualify for services or a diagnosis, the law prioritizes recognizing dyslexia characteristics early, when evidence-based intervention can have the greatest impact.

The Shift: We aren’t asking teachers to become clinical diagnosticians. Instead, the law requires screening for characteristics and markers of dyslexia (such as decoding and word recognition difficulties).

The Timeline: Screening begins 3 times per year for K-3 students, and assessments/screeners must be in place for K-12 students who show “red flags” (such as escape behaviors or laborious reading) by the 2027-28 school year.

The “Screening Gap” (Grades 4-12): While the MDE has published an approved list of K-3 screeners, there has been no further clarification on 4-12 screeners. However, the law specifies characteristics that, if present in grades 4-12, trigger a screening. It’s important to note that the MDE is maintaining an “open window” policy, allowing additional opportunities for vendors to submit both screeners and curricula for approval.

2. The Instructional Pivot

Perhaps the most significant change is the move away from Balanced Literacy and the “Three-Cueing” method. These laws effectively mark the end of “guessing” as a reading strategy in Michigan classrooms, and signal a shift toward structured literacy—an explicit, systematic, and cumulative approach to teaching decoding, spelling, and language comprehension.

• Code Emphasis: Instruction must now prioritize “code-based” learning—direct, explicit instruction on sounds, syllables, and morphemes. This requires a systematic scope and sequence for teaching sound-spelling correspondences.
• Knowledge-Building: The shift isn’t just about phonics. Grounded in the science of reading, the new law recognizes that skilled reading is both word recognition and language comprehension. Structured literacy addresses the word recognition strand through explicit and systematic instruction. High-quality, knowledge-building curricula develop language comprehension through rich vocabulary, syntax, and background knowledge.
• Reading & Writing Reciprocity: Writing shouldn’t happen in isolation. The new laws encourage writing that is integrated and reciprocal to reading instruction. Evidence-based literacy practices grounded in the Science of Reading include explicit instruction in both word recognition and written expression. Structured literacy supports this reciprocity: as students learn sound-spelling correspondences and morphology for decoding, they apply that same knowledge in encoding and composition. Writing is embedded to support reading and comprehension, incorporating both transcription (the “how” of writing) and composition (the “what”) through explicit instruction.

3. Evaluating the “Approved” List

The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) has released an approved list of Tier 1 curricula and screening tools. However, a “stamp of approval” is the beginning of the process, not the end. Districts must ensure their chosen tools actually fit their specific MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support) framework.

When evaluating a curriculum, don’t just ask if it’s “approved.” Ask:

• Does the Scope and Sequence make sense? Is it systematic and cumulative?
• Is encoding part of the daily routine? If students are decoding (reading), they should be encoding (writing/spelling) the same patterns simultaneously to reinforce the neural pathways.
• Does it pass the “Rope” test? Use tools like The Reading League (TRL) Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines to see if the curriculum addresses all strands of Scarborough’s Reading Rope—from phonological awareness to verbal reasoning.

4. Moving Beyond Compliance

It’s easy to get lost in the “must-dos,” but the real goal is meaningful support. Compliance keeps the lawyers away; instruction keeps the students growing.

• Classroom Decision-Making: Universal screening should drive both instructional grouping decisions and the intentional allocation of small-group intervention time aligned to targeted skills. It’s about using data to drive instruction now, not waiting for state test results in the spring.
• Professional Learning & The “Why”: We must provide educators with high-quality professional learning alongside new curriculum implementation. Teachers need to understand the alignment to SoR and evidence-based instruction to move from implementing with “fidelity” (rigidly following a script) to implementing with integrity. This means teachers use professional judgment to modify instruction based on their class’s needs, without removing or replacing core evidence-based components.
• Preserving Professional Judgment: Use the approved lists as a floor, not a ceiling. Teachers should be empowered to use their judgment within an MTSS framework to intensify support for students who aren’t responding to Tier 1 instruction.

5. Managing Expectations

The data won’t change overnight. Decades of instructional habits and systemic gaps take time to bridge. While we all want to see “the needle move” on state testing (M-STEP), the first signs of success will be local.

• Look for “Transfer”: Are students applying their phonics knowledge to their independent writing?
• Monitor Growth Locally: Use your local data—including screeners, diagnostic assessments, and progress monitoring (like NWEA or STEP)—to track progress month to month. If the needle is moving locally, the state scores will eventually follow.

What’s Next for Your District? The 2026–27 school year is the bridge year. Connect with the Reading Horizons team to plan your next steps.

The post 5 Things to Know: Navigating Michigan’s New K–12 Literacy Dyslexia Laws appeared first on Reading Horizons.

By Shantell Berrett Blake, Vice President of Education and Outreach

In education, terms meant to bring clarity often multiply—and many are shortened into acronyms that blur their meaning, making it understandable if educators feel weary of literacy buzzwords. But Structured Literacy is not a passing trend. It is a research-based approach to reading educators need to understand—and, more importantly, put into practice.

The term Structured Literacy was first coined by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) in 2014 to describe “instruction based on accumulated and substantial research” (Wilson, 2024). Structured Literacy is not a program. It is an umbrella term for evidence-based reading instruction approaches that consistently improve literacy outcomes for all students.

Why Structured Literacy Is Essential for Reading Proficiency

Decades of research clearly outline what and how we should teach to ensure students learn to read. Researchers estimate that 95 percent of children can be taught to read by the end of first grade (Moats, 2020). Yet the 2024 NAEP results show that nearly 70 percent of fourth- and eighth-grade students read below proficiency.

This gap raises an urgent question: If the research is clear, why are so many students still struggling?

One major challenge is the persistent research-to-practice gap. Evidence-based literacy instruction does not consistently reach teachers through preservice preparation or professional learning. In fact, as few as 25 percent of teacher preparation programs adequately address all components of the science of reading (Ellis et al., 2023).

When educators are left to translate complex research on their own—often without sufficient training, resources, or systemic support—the burden is significant. Programs cannot replace teacher knowledge. However, research-based literacy curricula grounded in Structured Literacy can reduce instructional guesswork and provide clear, usable structures for effective teaching.

What Researched-Backed Literacy Teaches: The Content of Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction

To support a shared understanding of evidence-based literacy instruction, the International Dyslexia Association developed the Structured Literacy InfoMap (Wilson & Hamman, 2024), which emphasizes both what we teach and how we teach it.

Structured Literacy addresses all domains of language across two primary areas:

• Word recognition, handwriting, and spelling
• Comprehension and composition

Instruction for word recognition begins with explicit teaching of phonemes and graphemes, including:

• Phoneme awareness (blending and segmenting)
• Explicit phonics instruction
• Syllable patterns, stress, and morphology
• Orthographic conventions, including irregular spellings
  

This instruction strengthens both reading and spelling by helping students understand how written language works(Ehri, 2024).

Structured Literacy also provides explicit instruction in:

• Vocabulary and background knowledge
• Sentence structure and grammar
• Text structure
• Critical thinking
  

Through direct instruction and exposure to varied texts, students build deeper understanding and develop the ability to make inferences and integrate ideas across texts (Cain, 2024).

How It’s Taught: Principles of Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction

Research consistently shows that explicit, systematic instruction is more effective than less structured approaches (Watkins, 1997). Structured Literacy instruction is:

• Explicit
• Systematic
• Cumulative
• Multimodal
• Mastery-oriented

Instruction is interactive and scaffolded through the gradual release of responsibility, described as the I do, we do, you do model with frequent feedback that supports student growth and independence (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). For more information about teaching Structured Literacy, listen to the Literacy Talks podcast “How to Teach Structured Literacy Effectively“.

Who Benefits From Structured Literacy Instruction—and Why It Matters

Structured Literacy benefits all students and is especially critical for students with dyslexia or those requiring additional support (Wilson, 2024). For this reason, it should be implemented within a schoolwide MTSS framework, with aligned instruction across:

• General education teachers
• Reading specialists and interventionists
• Special education and dyslexia specialists
  

When schools align instruction across tiers, students receive consistent practice and support—maximizing opportunities for reading success.

Structured Literacy offers educators clear, evidence-based guidance for improving reading proficiency. When paired with strong instructional knowledge and supportive systems, it creates a path toward literacy success for every learner.

I’d like to suggest you read the “Why Ascend, Why Now” blog, authored by our CEO Tyson Smith. Tyson highlights the needs we’re hearing from educators and districts, and why we’re building Ascend to support consistent, research-based literacy growth across tiers and grades.

The post Structured Literacy Explained: Why Evidence-Based Reading Instruction Matters appeared first on Reading Horizons.

Phonemic awareness in isolation. Doing oral-only drills without connecting sounds to letters.	Phonemic awareness with print. Connecting sounds to letters immediately for better retention.
The “Wait and See” approach. Delaying help when a child struggles.	Early screening and immediate action. Identifying risk early and intervening before gaps develop.
Three-cueing / MSV. Teaching kids to guess words based on pictures or context.	Structured literacy / decoding. Teaching kids to sound out words explicitly.
Oversimplifying the Science of Reading as “just phonics.” Ignoring the other strands of the reading rope.	Integrated literacy instruction. Weaving together phonics, vocabulary, and background knowledge.
Writing as a separate skill. Teaching grammar or writing completely apart from what students read.	Writing to learn. Teaching writing structures that reinforce what students are reading.
Skill-and-drill is distinct from text. Spending all class time on worksheets with no actual reading.	More reading time. Applying skills by reading connected text and building knowledge.
Subjective observation. Thinking, “I feel like they are getting it.”	Data-driven instruction. Using concrete data to decide what to teach next.
Viewing reading struggles in isolation. Treating only the reading deficit.	Looking at the whole student. Recognizing comorbid conditions like ADHD or anxiety alongside dyslexia.

What’s always in? Effective phonics instruction. Download our free ultimate guide to phonics here!

The post The Literacy List: 2026 appeared first on Reading Horizons.

2025 Literacy Highlights

This year brought meaningful shifts in literacy education, starting with broader adoption of structured literacy principles. Many educators moved past just focusing on phonics and embraced a fuller view of the science of reading. We saw richer conversations around language, syntax, writing, and comprehension.

Another milestone: the International Dyslexia Association’s new definition of dyslexia now updated on their website, which includes deeper consideration of the social, emotional, and lifelong impacts of dyslexia.

In higher ed, we’re seeing tangible progress. Stacy reported a 93% pass rate on the Foundations of Reading Test for her students—evidence that change is taking root where future teachers are trained.

What’s Out in 2025

We didn’t hold back when it came to what’s officially out. Here’s our collective “goodbye” list:

• Three cueing systems: No more guessing strategies—decode first.
• Oversized phonemic awareness instruction: Especially when taught in isolation.
• Treating the science of reading like a trend or label: It’s a body of research, not a buzzword.
• Teacher-proof curricula: No program replaces deep professional knowledge.
• The “wait and see” approach: Intervention must start early.
• Disjointed instruction: It’s time to integrate, not isolate.

What’s In for 2026

Looking forward, here’s what we’re excited to see gaining traction:

• Writing instruction: It’s the pinnacle of literacy and deserves a central role.
• Tier 1 instruction: Solid, preventive first-line instruction in an MTSS framework.
• Integration across literacy strands: Language, comprehension, vocabulary, and writing working together.
• More actual reading: Students need more time with meaningful texts.
• Data-driven decisions: Assessments that inform, not overwhelm.
• Explicit instruction: Inspired by Dr. Anita Archer’s timeless principles.

Our Predictions

We’re predicting smarter implementation, increased clarity around instruction and intervention, and better use of AI as a teaching “sparring partner.” But we’re also seeing early signs of a pendulum swing away from screen-heavy instruction in early grades.

Our 2026 Wish List

We wrapped with some heartfelt hopes:

• Better support for teachers through materials, training, and time.
• Stronger commitment from districts to reflect priorities in budgets.
• Rigorous teacher preparation programs with demonstrated competencies.
• More access to rich, varied texts in every subject and every grade level.

Resources and Mentions

• IDA’s New Definition of Dyslexia
• Rock Your Literacy Block by Lindsay Kemeny
• Seven Mighty Moves by Lindsay Kemeny
• The Reading League Higher Ed Conference
• Dr. Anita Archer’s work on Explicit Instruction

The post Reflecting on Literacy in 2025: Trends, Shifts, and What’s Coming Next appeared first on Reading Horizons.

We each brought a list of things we’ve heard that made us go, “Wait, seriously?” From comments about foundational reading models being “outdated” to assumptions about IEPs, 504s, or even the value of the ABC song, we dig into the statements we just can’t get behind.

Some of what we unpack includes:

• Why the Simple View of Reading still matters
• Misconceptions about NAEP scores and the impact of COVID
• Ongoing confusion between IEPs and 504 plans
• The role of alphabet knowledge and whether the ABC song still belongs
• The false idea that reading might become obsolete (yes, someone actually said that!)
• And a few pet peeves we just had to include (looking at you, “wait and see”…)

But don’t worry—it’s not all ranting. We also share why these myths stick around, how they might be unintentionally reinforced, and how we as educators can respond.

Why These Literacy Myths Matter

At first, some of these statements might sound harmless. But when myths go unchecked, they influence decisions—what teachers teach, how students are supported, and what parents expect. That’s why it’s worth pausing and saying, “Hold on… is that actually true?”

As literacy educators, we believe it’s our job to stay curious, keep learning, and question ideas that don’t match what we know from research and real classroom experience.

Want to Learn More?

If you’re curious about some of the big ideas we reference in this episode, here are a few helpful links:

• Simple View of Reading (Wikipedia)
• Understanding IEPs and 504 Plans
• The Role of Alphabet Knowledge in Early Reading

Final Thought: What Have You Heard?

We’re sure this list is just the tip of the iceberg. Whether you’re a teacher, parent, or literacy leader, we’d love to know: What common literacy myths have you heard? What made you stop and question them?

Share with us on social media or email us at literacytalks@readinghorizons.com—or better yet, bring your list to your next team meeting. Let’s keep the conversation going.

The post We’ve Heard It All: The Literacy Myths That Just Won’t Quit appeared first on Reading Horizons.