By Michelle Robinette
Not long ago at Midlakes Schools, our approach to teaching literacy relied heavily on individual teachers’ backgrounds and classroom practices. While teachers within the same grade often aligned well, consistent vertical alignment from kindergarten through high school was more difficult to achieve.
We are a rural district of roughly 1,500 students, with nearly half qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch and a growing number of English language learners. The disruptions of COVID-19 made it clear that students would benefit from a cohesive, district-wide literacy curriculum—one grounded in evidence and supported by teachers across grade levels. Though refreshing our literacy program during a pandemic was daunting, the process has delivered strong results. Below are four keys to our success in building an aligned, research-based reading and writing program.
1) Getting the Team on Board Early
We started by forming a literacy skills committee that took a deliberate, two-pronged approach. Over the summer, committee members examined alignment strategies and best practices so every teacher—regardless of role—would be working from the same framework. We focused first on foundational skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics, and decoding fluency.
Many staff had prior training in programs like Wilson Reading, but practices had drifted into piecemeal approaches over time. To create faster and clearer alignment among classroom teachers and interventionists, we selected Reading Horizons for targeted student groups. We also emphasized explicit phonics instruction beginning in kindergarten, ensuring that letter-sound instruction and scope-and-sequence were consistent year to year. Consistency matters because catching students up often requires multiple years of coordinated instruction, particularly for those who start several grade levels behind.
2) Aligning Reading and Writing Language Across Content Areas
When we reviewed why achievement in math and English language arts wasn’t meeting expectations, one clear recommendation emerged: standardize the language we use to teach writing across all subjects. Students were hearing equivalent terms used differently in each class. For example, a science teacher might ask students to “make a claim and support it with evidence,” while a math teacher could ask them to “make an argument and back it up with reasoning.” The concepts were essentially the same, but students didn’t always make the connection.
Bringing a shared academic vocabulary into every classroom helps students transfer skills between subjects. This work is most critical in grades 7–12 but also benefits younger students by reinforcing the same reading and writing expectations across the district.
We’ve also standardized specific instructional sequences. For instance, kindergarten teachers and reading interventionists agreed on a single order for introducing letters. Previously, interventionists adjusted the sequence based on the class they visited; now every student encounters letters in the same progression no matter their classroom. That sequence-level consistency prevents gaps and repetition and speeds student progress.
3) Growing with the Research
As we evaluated curricula, advances in the science of reading were accelerating. Providers updated products, and the field’s evidence base continued to expand. We prioritized instructional materials with demonstrated effectiveness grounded in that science—programs that promote systematic phonics, phonemic awareness, and structured decoding practice—because fidelity to evidence-based strategies matters more than brand or convenience.
Choosing curricula that evolve with the research is important, but continual updates can carry costs in time and materials as teachers learn new approaches. Still, investing in evidence-based resources is worthwhile: instructional improvements based on sound research produce measurable gains for students. We reminded one another that as educators, continual learning is part of the job; our goal was to adopt products and practices that will serve students now and adapt as best practices continue to develop.
4) Using Flexible Technology to Address Diverse Needs
Before the pandemic, Midlakes was already a 1:1 district, which made the transition to hybrid and remote learning far more manageable than in many rural districts. While we did distribute Wi‑Fi hotspots to some families, most students had devices and could access online instruction when needed.
Although nothing replaces the in-person craft of great teaching, digital components of our literacy program have proven invaluable for targeted practice and parent support. During remote and hybrid phases, online lessons enabled consistent practice; after returning to in-person instruction, those same tools allowed interventionists to personalize practice for individual students or small groups. For example, in a small-group setting where two students need the same skill and a third needs something different, the first two can work independently on tablets while the teacher gives focused one-on-one support to the third.
By aligning instruction across grades and content areas and by choosing curricula grounded in the science of reading—supported by flexible technology—we have observed meaningful growth among our students. That improvement has impressed experienced reading specialists, including those with decades in the classroom.
About the author
Michelle Robinette is the director of curriculum and instruction at Midlakes Schools in New York. She can be reached at [email protected].
This article was originally published by The Learning Counsel, a research institute and news media hub focused on providing context for the shift in education to digital curriculum.