Key points:
When people hear about the literacy gains we’ve seen in our middle schools, they often ask a simple question: What program did you use?
I understand why. In education, we’re always looking for the lever, the thing that will move outcomes quickly and at scale. But what changed outcomes for our students wasn’t a single tool. It was a set of deliberate decisions about time, instruction, data, and, most importantly, people.
And none of it started with a solution. It started with an uncomfortable realization.
Facing the gap we could no longer ignore
Like many districts, we had invested deeply in elementary literacy. But when we looked closely at our middle school data, we also found that students were arriving with gaps in foundational skills, from decoding and spelling to fluency, which were quietly undermining everything else.
These weren’t new gaps. But our secondary system wasn’t designed to address them. Our teachers are highly skilled English instructional content experts. They don’t typically see themselves as teachers of foundational reading. What we had was a mismatch: students who still needed explicit literacy instruction, and a system not built to provide it. Once we acknowledged that, the work became clearer.
Making literacy a structural commitment
One of the most important shifts we made was moving literacy out of the category of “initiative” and into “structure.”
That meant creating time, not just squeezing literacy into the margins but building it into schedules. Our schools each approached this differently: intervention blocks, repurposed advisory periods, even “all hands on deck” models where every adult supported literacy instruction. There was no single model. But there was a shared expectation: Literacy work would happen consistently.
To support this work, we implemented Lexia PowerUp Literacy as part of a broader, blended approach that combined online learning with explicit, teacher-led instruction. Tools alone don’t drive change, but when paired with strong instruction and clear expectations, they can accelerate it. Just as important, it gave teachers visibility into where students were struggling in real time, so they could target instruction more precisely.
Measuring what actually matters
Early on, we focused on engagement, including time on task and progression through levels. But we realized we were asking the wrong question. Students were completing content. Not all were mastering it. That distinction mattered. It’s also a pattern we’ve seen echoed in recent national conversations, including a webinar with district leaders focused on adolescent literacy implementation. Completion and mastery are not the same thing, and confusing the two can lead to overestimating impact.
That had us shift our focus and ask: Were students demonstrating understanding? Were teachers using data to adjust instruction? Were we prioritizing depth over pace? That shift changed our results. It also pushed us to look more closely at student-level data, helping us understand not just whether students were progressing, but where they were getting stuck and what to do next instructionally.
Keeping the work visible and centering the people who make it work
Even strong efforts lose momentum if they aren’t revisited. We built a cadence into the work: planning at the start of the year, structured data conversations throughout, ongoing professional learning, and end-of-year reflection tied to next steps. Those touchpoints kept the work visible and honest—but more importantly, they kept teachers and students at the center of it.
Teachers are the linchpin.
We cannot expect teachers to deliver instruction they haven’t been prepared to deliver, especially in secondary settings where foundational literacy training is often limited. Teachers often understand the “why” behind effective literacy instruction, but they need support with the “how”—how to apply those practices within the constraints of their classrooms.
That’s why we focused on job-embedded professional learning that connected research to daily practice and built internal leadership across schools. Access to clear, actionable data helped bridge that gap, turning insight into day-to-day instructional decisions teachers could make with confidence.
Over time, we saw a shift not just in instruction, but in student ownership. Students began to name what they didn’t understand. They asked for help with specific skills. That level of engagement doesn’t happen by accident.
Letting momentum build
It’s also important to note that we didn’t mandate this work across every school. We invited schools in. We were clear about expectations and support. Some joined immediately. Others waited. What drove expansion wasn’t compliance, it was actual results. When school leaders saw improvements and heard from peers, momentum grew organically.
Using data to go deeper
Keep in mind, data wasn’t the goal. It was a tool. With the help of our literacy partner’s evaluation team, we analyzed student progress, instructional patterns, and outcomes across groups to go deeper. That level of visibility helped us move beyond surface trends and pinpoint the specific skills holding students back, giving teachers clearer direction for instruction. That work also confirmed true impact and helped us refine our approach, particularly for multilingual learners and students with disabilities.
For example, when we examined outcomes for students who consistently engaged with the program and in-person learning, we saw meaningful gains across multiple literacy domains. From the beginning to end of year, Loudoun students in grades 6–8 with consistent participation demonstrated substantial growth:
- +36 percentage points in Word Study, strengthening decoding and vocabulary needed for deeper comprehension
- +10 percentage points in Grammar, supporting clearer writing and reading fluency
- +28 percentage points in Comprehension, critical for success with complex, grade-level texts across subjects
These gains reinforced what we were seeing in classrooms: When implementation is strong, students don’t just engage they make measurable progress.
This also aligns with broader research showing that implementation matters. In a randomized controlled study meeting ESSA Tier 1 (Strong Evidence), the program demonstrated significantly greater reading gains—reported as up to five times the impact of the average middle school intervention. But those results only happen when systems support strong use.
A final reflection
If I could offer one takeaway, it’s this: Accelerating adolescent literacy isn’t about finding the right program. It’s about building the right system.
A system that creates time.
A system that is based on research-based instructional practices.
A system that supports teachers.
A system that uses data to inform decisions.
And a system willing to learn and adapt.
This work is complex. It takes persistence. But it is possible. And when students begin to see themselves as readers, that’s when you know the system is working.
Discussion about this post