Everyone is a reading teacher

One of my favorite parts of being a middle school leader was sitting down with teachers to plan instruction. We would spread out novels, wrestle with challenging passages, and imagine the conversations those books might spark.

But some students struggled to read the very texts we were excited to teach. A student might have fascinating ideas about a story yet stumble over the words on the page. They could think at grade level even when they couldn't read at grade level. And those reading challenges affected their learning across subjects.

We knew we had to do two things at once: maintain challenging, grade-level work while strengthening students' decoding and fluency. Easier assignments would not solve the problem, and handing students complex books without additional support would not either.

Our staff came together. With needs so great and capacity stretched, even physical education teachers helped provide reading intervention. “Everyone is a reading teacher” became more than a saying for us. It reinforced something I have carried throughout my career. Strong literacy instruction requires shared responsibility, and teachers need high-quality materials that help them meet students where they are without lowering expectations.

That experience continues to shape how I think about instructional materials and the evidence educators need to evaluate them. It's also at the heart of why EdReports has evolved its English language arts (ELA) review tools to look more closely at the quality of instruction materials support, not simply whether important components are present.

I carried that perspective into a district academic leadership role in Texas, where I helped choose curricula and discovered EdReports' independent reviews. Rather than telling me what to buy, the evidence helped me ask better questions, identify strengths and gaps, and consider what would work for our teachers and students.
Years later, I found myself on the other side of those reports. EdReports published its updated 2.0 ELA review criteria in 2024, and I joined the ELA team that December, as the organization prepared to publish its first core reviews in 2025.

Looking back on nearly two years of this work, I am proud of how we've raised the bar for what our reviews examine and the evidence we provide educators. The evolution was deliberate. Research has deepened our understanding of how children learn to read. Educators have shown us where materials help or hinder instruction, and years of reviews have revealed where more specific evidence could support decisions. The 2.0+ criteria build on that learning and the work that came before.

Raising the bar for instructional quality

One important evolution is how closely our reviews examine the quality of instruction and guidance, not just whether important components are included. As a school leader, I needed to know whether a program taught the skills students needed. But I also needed to know what that instruction would actually look like in a classroom. Consider what that means in practice: 

• Instructional Quality: Consider a program that includes a student research project. Our reviews can look more closely at whether students investigate meaningful questions, work with sources, and build understanding or simply complete an activity called “research.”
• Multilingual Learner Supports: Multilingual learner supports should be integrated into everyday instruction in ways teachers can use rather than appearing as afterthoughts or add-ons that teachers must incorporate on their own.
• Teacher Guidance: A lesson may tell a teacher what to cover, but does it explain how the learning builds over time, what students should practice, and how to respond when an assessment reveals a gap? These details help leaders see where teachers may need additional resources.
  

What has changed in our literacy reviews and why

Some of the most consequential changes in our tools address the reading needs I saw in middle school, beginning with the instruction students receive long before they arrive there

Research on how children learn to read, often called the science of reading, has informed more specific expectations for foundational skills. 

• Our current K-5 reviews examine explicit, systematic teaching of how letters and sounds work together and opportunities to apply those skills. They also look for practices such as three-cueing, which can encourage students to guess words from pictures or context instead of decoding.
• In grades 3-5, we look more deeply at how materials help students read longer words, understand word parts, and develop fluency with grade-level texts. These are crucial skills that help prepare students for the demands of middle school.

The updated tools also place greater emphasis on how the pieces of instruction fit together, including:

• Connections among reading, writing, and knowledge building about topics 
• A coherent instructional path that teachers can realistically follow
• Guidance that connects assessment results to specific instructional next steps

These expectations reflect what I learned alongside my middle school team. Even deeply committed teachers need materials that make strong instruction easier to deliver consistently. Stronger evidence about a program’s design helps leaders see where teachers will be supported and where they may need more help.

What this means for educators 

For educators and leaders using EdReports to make curriculum decisions, understanding which review tool was used matters. Earlier EdReports reviews remain valuable records of the materials and criteria evaluated at the time. However, a program that met expectations under an earlier tool may or may not meet expectations under today's criteria. This distinction is increasingly important as states and districts consider how instructional materials align with current literacy policies and priorities.

Because many existing reports were completed using earlier tools, ratings across versions should not be interpreted as interchangeable. That's why we're making these distinctions more visible on our website, including notices when viewing older reports. I encourage educators to explore current ELA review criteria, check which tool version was used, and examine the evidence in our curriculum reviews to make informed decisions about materials that meet their students' needs and local priorities.

Continuing to learn alongside educators

I still picture those middle school teachers gathered around a novel, determined to bring challenging ideas within every student’s reach. I also think about the students whose ideas were ahead of their reading skills. They deserved instruction that honored both their thinking and the reading support they needed.

I take pride in what our educator reviewers have accomplished since the 2.0 criteria were published. The updated tools and reports give educators more detailed, independent evidence about instructional quality so that they make local curriculum decisions with greater confidence. 

As EdReports looks toward its next decade, we will keep learning from research and educators and make that learning useful in classrooms. Better evidence about materials can support better student experiences and outcomes. I learned long ago that everyone is a reading teacher. I am proud this work can help more teachers give every student a stronger chance to become a confident reader.