What’s in and out in literacy instruction for 2026

Key points:

The conversation around literacy instruction has reached a turning point. After decades of debate, we’re finally seeing a broad consensus around evidence-based practices–but the challenge now is moving from understanding what works to actually implementing it in classrooms.

As we enter 2026, educators are shifting from superficial adoption of buzzwords to deeper, more integrated approaches that reflect the complexity of how children actually learn to read. The “Science of Reading” has never been just about phonics–it’s about building comprehensive literacy through strategic, research-backed instruction that addresses the whole child.

Here’s what’s in and out in literacy instruction in 2026.

Out: Phonemic awareness in isolation
For years, teachers conducted oral-only drills–clapping syllables, manipulating sounds–without ever showing students how those sounds connect to print. While phonemic awareness matters, doing it in isolation misses a critical opportunity.
In: Phonemic awareness with print
Research shows that connecting sounds to letters immediately leads to better retention and faster progress. When students see the letter ‘b’ while practicing the /b/ sound, they’re building the bridge to actual reading, not just abstract sound manipulation.

Out: The “wait and see” approach
Too many students have been allowed to struggle through first and second grade under the assumption they’ll “catch up eventually.” By the time intervention happens, these children are years behind–and the emotional toll has already been paid.
In: Early screening and immediate action
Universal screening identifies at-risk readers before failure becomes identity. Early intervention isn’t about labeling children; it’s about preventing the cascading effects of reading failure that impact every other academic area.

Out: Three-cueing/MSV
The practice of teaching children to guess at words using pictures, first letters, or context has been thoroughly debunked by cognitive science. Yet it persists in many classrooms, often unknowingly embedded in curriculum materials and teacher habits.
In: Structured literacy and explicit decoding
Students deserve direct, systematic instruction in how to sound out words. This isn’t about stripping joy from reading–it’s about giving every child the foundational tools they need to access text independently.

Out: Oversimplifying the Science of Reading as “just phonics”
The science of reading isn’t about swinging from one instructional extreme to another. Emphasizing phonics matters, but not at the expense of language and vocabulary development, background knowledge, and comprehension, which are equally critical.
In: Integrated literacy instruction
Effective literacy instruction weaves together all components of Scarborough’s Reading Rope. Students need strong word recognition skills and rich language comprehension working together. One without the other leaves children stuck.

Out: Writing as a separate skill
Teaching grammar worksheets on Monday and creative writing on Friday–with no connection between them or to what students are reading–wastes instructional time and confuses learners.
In: Writing to learn
When students write about what they’re reading, using similar text structures and vocabulary, both skills reinforce each other. Writing becomes a tool for deeper comprehension and knowledge retention.

Out: Skill-and-drill disconnected from text
Spending entire class periods on phonics worksheets without ever reading connected text creates students who can decode individual words but struggle to read actual books.
In: More reading time
Students need opportunities to apply their developing reading skills by engaging with a wide range of texts, with support when needed. Authentic reading experiences build background knowledge, and volume matters. Children become better readers by reading.

Out: Subjective observation
“I feel like they’re getting it” isn’t enough. Gut feelings, while informed by experience, can miss struggling students who’ve learned to mask difficulties or overlook patterns that data would reveal.
In: Data-driven instruction
Using concrete assessment data to inform instructional decisions ensures that intervention is timely, targeted, and effective. This doesn’t mean over-testing–it means using meaningful measures to track progress and adjust teaching.

Out: Viewing reading struggles in isolation
Treating only the reading deficit ignores the reality that many struggling readers also face attention challenges, processing difficulties, or emotional responses to academic failure.
In: Looking at the whole student
Recognizing that conditions like ADHD, anxiety, or language processing disorders often co-occur with dyslexia allows for more comprehensive support. Reading intervention works best when it’s part of a broader approach to student success.

These shifts represent more than changing tactics–they reflect a maturation in how we understand language and literacy development. We’re moving from either/or thinking to both/and approaches: explicit instruction and authentic reading experiences; data and teacher expertise; foundational skills and knowledge building.

The literacy crisis won’t be solved by simply swapping old practices for new ones. It requires sustained commitment to implementation, ongoing professional development, and the courage to let go of familiar approaches that aren’t serving our students.