What Makes Stronger Literacy Growth Possible?

If you walk into any elementary classroom, you will see, on average, dozens of unique students—not dozens of versions of the same learner. They arrive with different experiences, languages, levels of background knowledge, reading histories, strengths, and needs. Yet we sometimes talk about reading instruction as though the central challenge is simply finding the “right” text and putting it in front of every student. 

It’s just not that simple. 

That is why a comprehensive ELA program must do two things at once: 

• First, it must provide a strong Tier 1 foundation for the whole class aligned to the science of reading: knowledge-rich texts, systematic foundational-skills instruction, vocabulary, comprehension, grammar, and writing.
• Second, it must also give teachers coherent ways to help students access and succeed within that foundation. That includes small-group instruction, language development for multilingual learners, additional foundational-skills practice, strategic scaffolds, and differentiated pathways for students who need additional support to access grade-level content.

The Reading League’s recent review of Into Reading reinforces the strength of this approach, recognizing the program’s strong foundation in the science of reading and the supports it includes throughout its overall design and delivery. These supports are not separate from the work of helping students reach grade level; they are often how students reach it.

Look at New York City Public Schools for an example 

In the nation’s largest school district, the percentage of students in grades 3–8 scoring proficient or above in English language arts rose by 7.2 percentage points. Schools using Into Reading saw stronger literacy gains in grades 3–5 than schools using the other programs participating in the NYC Reads initiative.

Those outcomes do not mean the work is finished—but it does beg an important question: how is growth like this possible? 

The answer lies in a comprehensive, coherent program with a strong foundation in the science of reading, paired with strong implementation and educator support. That’s how instructional materials help a diverse school system move more students forward. 

Here’s the bottom line

A high-quality program should include substantial support while still providing teachers with a clear path through it. The real question is not how many resources a curriculum contains, but whether educators can understand: what belongs in core instruction, what support a particular student needs, when that support should be used, and how it connects back to grade-level learning. 

Into Reading and Into Literature were designed to make those distinctions clear. Whole-class and small-group instruction are part of one connected system. Foundational skills, reading, vocabulary, grammar, and writing reinforce one another every day. Important standards and skills are revisited through multiple exposures so students can build toward growth and mastery. 

That is very different from asking teachers to search for separate interventions, language supports, decodable texts, writing materials, and assessments—and then somehow assemble them into a coherent instructional experience.

In other words, when strategically varied optional resources are excluded from the core program in the name of essentialism, the need for these differentiated supports does not disappear. The responsibility for providing them simply shifts to teachers and districts. 

Piecemealing puts quality at risk

Teachers are remarkably resourceful. But that doesn’t mean they should have to become curriculum designers on top of everything else their jobs demand.

When educators must piece together materials from different publishers and platforms, they have to determine whether the content follows a logical sequence, whether vocabulary and background knowledge are aligned, whether interventions connect to core instruction, and whether students are receiving consistent expectations. 

That creates real risks. The good intentions of offering a text-centered, knowledge-rich curriculum can unravel into a patchwork of incoherent resources.

An external supplemental resource may use a different instructional approach from the core curriculum. A Tier 2 lesson may not reinforce the skills students are learning during whole-class instruction. Multilingual learners may receive disconnected language practice rather than support that helps them participate in the same knowledge-building work as their peers. 

The result can be more materials but less coherence—and what begins as streamlined in theory, becomes unusable and a burden in practice. A comprehensive program should reduce that burden by giving teachers a dependable instructional foundation while preserving their ability to exercise professional judgment and respond to individual students. 

Quality must account for the students actually in the room

This is where I believe a narrowly defined view of high-quality instructional materials can fall short. 

If quality is measured only by the shortest core instructional sequence, then supports for multilingual learners, students with learning difficulties, and students below grade level can appear optional or extraneous. 

But those students are not optional and a definition that treats differentiated instructional pathways as excess risks evaluating curriculum for an idealized, nostalgic classroom rather than the classroom educators actually lead. 

That especially matters in school systems where students represent a wide range of languages, cultures, learning profiles, and prior educational experiences. A curriculum cannot succeed at that scale by serving only students who can immediately access every grade-level task without additional support. It needs to preserve ambitious expectations while creating a proven path for many kinds of learners to become confident readers and writers. This is not a paradox or tension to manage. This is the day-to-day work that we do at HMH to support educators and help students reach their potential. 

Rigor and engagement belong together

Another choice we should reject is the idea that educators must decide between knowledge-rich, text-centered instruction and material that captures students’ interest. 

Students certainly need complex ideas, but they also need stories, questions, characters, and subjects that awaken curiosity. Engagement is not about making every moment entertaining or lowering the level of work. It is about giving students a reason to enter the learning and persist when that learning becomes difficult. 

Think of it this way. A compelling story can build vocabulary. A science text can inspire a student to ask a new question. A discussion can help students connect unfamiliar content to something they already understand. Writing can require them to organize and deepen the knowledge they have gained. 

None of these elements distract from rigorous literacy instruction. And when thoughtfully sequenced, they help make that instruction possible. 

That is why curriculum evaluation must look beyond whether a program conforms to a narrowly prescribed model and consider the questions educators ultimately have to confront: 

Does the curriculum give teachers a clear and usable instructional path? Is that path guided by the science of reading and evidence-based literacy practices? Does it help a diverse group of students access meaningful, grade-level learning? Does it provide the tools to respond when students require something different? And, when paired with strong implementation and support, is it helping all students grow?

Those are the questions we must keep asking because the real test of any HQIM program is not how it looks on a list. It is what teachers and students are able to accomplish with it.