Deep Dives

The Issue

One aspect of literacy that remains largely absent from many professional developments and discussions surrounding the science of reading (SOR) is what effective literacy instruction and intervention look like for secondary students. Much of the recent attention of structured literacy principles have focused on the curricular and instructional shifts needed in primary classrooms in order to ensure that young students acquire foundational reading skills. In contrast, less attention has been paid to the literacy needs of older students, largely leaving middle and high school teachers outside of these conversations, policies, and instructional reform. As a result, early literacy principles are sometimes inappropriately overgeneralized into middle and high school instruction. But secondary literacy is not simply primary school instruction applied to more complex phonics principles, words, and texts. Middle and high schools have schedules and demands that are absent from elementary schools. Engagement strategies for young children are likely inappropriate for adolescents and teenagers. And isolated phonics and blending practice may no longer move the needle for these struggling readers. These raise practical challenges for secondary educators: not whether structured literacy applies, but how to determine which aspects remain central throughout schooling, which require adaptation, and which areas demand additional learning beyond what is typically emphasized in primary-focused training.

How can secondary teachers tease apart what aspects of structured literacy apply to their students, and which they need to leave in the playground?

The Research

A common refrain in discussions around structured literacy intervention is the need to individualize this instruction based on the needs of each student. Conceptual frameworks like the Simple View of Reading (Hoover & Gough, 1990) and Scarborough’s Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001) have helped provide educators with a framework for understanding that providing the same prescription of reading practice to all struggling students isn’t always appropriate. This guiding principle remains consistent across ages and grades. But research has consistently found patterns of what this tends to look like for different populations of student ages.

When students are first learning to read in their early elementary years, struggling readers are often most impacted by word-reading challenges, if using the Simple View of Reading as a diagnostic framework (Oakhill et al., 2014). While younger students may certainly demonstrate language challenges such as Developmental Language Disorder (DLD), the texts that these students read are usually simplistic enough as to not to tax their relatively developed language abilities nearly as much as their brand-new word-reading skills (Oakhill et al., 2014).

This shift has important implications for what secondary educators should prioritize, and what may no longer require the same instructional emphasis. Most upper elementary students have adequate proficiency in phonological/phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principle, and word-learning strategies (Nippold, 2017), reducing the relevance of these skills in secondary classrooms. The paradigm of what skills contribute to reading comprehension shifts in later years as texts become increasingly complex (Oakhill et al., 2014). Studies have consistently demonstrated this developmental shift, showing that language comprehension plays a larger role in reading outcomes for adolescents than word-reading. (Duncan et al., 2016; Garcia & Cain, 2014; Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2012; Tosto et al., 2017)

Word Reading

The research on this has clear implications for instruction. In practical terms, this suggests that some instructional routines commonly emphasized in SOR trainings may need to be deprioritized in secondary classrooms, while others- particularly those related to language- should be expanded. As the primary constraints on comprehension shift from decoding to language and knowledge, Tier 1 instruction in secondary classrooms must reflect that change. When Tier 1 instruction prioritizes word-level skills as the central focus, it risks misaligning the main sources of difficulty for most secondary students. Applying early-grade instructional priorities without adjustment does not reflect the needs of most older readers. Foorman et al. (2018) found that while struggling elementary students’ instruction should target both decoding and language skills, this pattern does not hold for older students. In middle and high school, instruction should more strongly emphasize language, while integrating it with word knowledge (including, in part, the word’s spelling).

Framing language comprehension as simply one contributing factor may actually understate its role in secondary reading outcomes. In fact, studies have found that difficulties with word reading skills alone is a relatively rare profile for struggling students. For example, Foorman et al. (2018) investigated almost 3000 students across grades 1-10 and found that after the fourth grade, students’ decoding ability had almost no unique contribution to reading comprehension after controlling for language comprehension. This does not mean that decoding ability isn’t important; rather, it means that word recognition is but one aspect of word knowledge that students must know in order to have efficient word identification and comprehension.

Garcia and Cain’s (2014) meta-analysis helps clarify this pattern. Across 110 studies, they found a strong overall relationship between decoding and reading comprehension, but age significantly moderated that relationship: decoding was more strongly associated with comprehension for younger readers than for older readers. In other words, as students become older, differences in reading comprehension are increasingly explained by other factors, including listening comprehension and broader language skills. By 10th grade, research suggests that language, or the effect of both language and decoding abilities, explains the majority of variance in reading comprehension (Foorman et al., 2018). Again, this does not suggest that decoding is unimportant in secondary grades; rather, it indicates that for most students, decoding difficulties co-occur with or are even overshadowed by broader language comprehension challenges.

Even when students do have word-reading difficulties that need to be addressed in small-group or individual intervention, instruction in this domain can’t mirror that of younger students. Practice with phonics skills in early elementary years often occurs in isolated contexts, with minimal or no language embedment. Secondary students who continue to experience difficulty with decoding, fluency, and multisyllabic word reading must be taught these skills in an integrated way. In practice, this means embedding word-reading instruction within connected text and meaning-making tasks, rather than relying on isolated phonics drills or decontextualized practice removed from comprehension. Effective interventions for older readers combine word recognition with vocabulary and comprehension components (Edmonds et al., 2009; Scammacca et al., 2015).

So while educators can’t assume that students’ foundational reading skills are intact, they must ensure that their instruction aligns with the needs of their students and the complexity of the texts they are expected to not only read but also learn from across disciplines. As students encounter dense syntax, unfamiliar vocabulary, and content-specific language, successful comprehension depends on their ability to coordinate multiple language systems simultaneously. Instruction that isolates these components risks oversimplifying the demands of reading, while integrated instruction better prepares students to navigate authentic academic texts (Catts et al., 2012; Kamil et al., 2008).

Knowledge

So while educators can’t assume that students’ foundational reading skills are intact, they must ensure that their instruction aligns with the needs of their students and the complexity of the texts they are expected to not only read but also learn from across disciplines. As students encounter dense syntax, unfamiliar vocabulary, and content-specific language, successful comprehension depends on their ability to coordinate multiple language systems simultaneously. Instruction that isolates these components risks oversimplifying the demands of reading, while integrated instruction better prepares students to navigate authentic academic texts (Catts et al., 2012; Kamil et al., 2008).

With this increase in text complexity and academic vocabulary, the factors of the Simple View of Reading contributing to reading comprehension can no longer be viewed as independent. So while it’s important to understand that listening comprehension plays an increasingly important role relative to word-reading abilities as students progress from elementary to middle and then to high school (Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2012), educators must also understand that these skills work together to support understanding for adolescents, rather than functioning as separate factors (Nippold, 2017). This has important implications for secondary instruction: building knowledge through content-rich reading and discussion becomes a central component of literacy instruction, not a separate goal.

Language

Consistent with this, language-related skills such as vocabulary breadth and depth (Binder et al., 2017) and syntactic awareness (Mokhtari & Thompson, 2006) are strongly associated with both reading comprehension and fluency in older students. In primary grades, incidental vocabulary exposure through oral language, read-alouds, and wide reading plays a substantial role in building general vocabulary (Kindle, 2009; Nagy et al., 1985). This is another important departure for secondary instruction, however: while incidental vocabulary exposure remains valuable, reliance on incidental learning alone is insufficient for the academic, abstract, and discipline-specific vocabulary demands older students encounter. This is especially for struggling secondary students (Lawrence et al., 2021). Struggling secondary readers tend to have broad vocabulary gaps- not just difficulty with rare or technical terms (Lawrence et al., 2021). These students need intentional, systematic vocabulary and morphology instruction embedded in meaningful reading, writing, and discussion (Kamil et al., 2008).

While explicit vocabulary routines from primary grades remain relevant, their application in secondary classrooms should increasingly emphasize routines that analyze the morphological structure of words (Baumann et al., 2002; Pacheco & Goodwin, 2013), especially as the vocabulary in all of their content areas increases in complexity. These analyses help students transfer learning to unfamiliar words, can be embedded into texts outside of an ELA curriculum, and equip students to independently analyze and infer the meanings of unfamiliar words across content areas (Pacheco & Goodwin, 2013).

Instructional practices that incorporate systematic, explicit instruction in language concepts extending beyond vocabulary are also relevant to secondary students. These practices represent an extension of typical SOR-aligned instruction, moving beyond word-level skills to support more complex language processing demands in secondary texts. As much of the texts they are expected to read incorporate lengthy, complex sentence structures, secondary teachers should include syntax and sentence-level comprehension instruction, such as helping students learn about clauses and sentence types to build their metalinguistic knowledge of complex syntax (Kamil et al., 2008; Nippold, 2017). In addition, instruction should support students in actively monitoring their understanding as they read. Comprehension monitoring (such as recognizing when meaning breaks down and applying strategies such as rereading, paraphrasing, or questioning) can help students navigate complex sentences and extended texts more effectively (Kamil et al., 2008). When embedded within content-area reading, these practices reinforce students’ ability to construct meaning from these increasing demands.

Additional Factors

There are additional considerations that are often underemphasized in elementary-focused SOR trainings but are critical for secondary implementation. It is important to recognize that the contexts of middle and high schools, and the developmental profiles of the students themselves, introduce additional layers of complexity. Foundational frameworks such as the Simple View of Reading provide a useful starting point, but they do not fully account for all of the contributors to reading comprehension, particularly for older students (Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2012). Increasingly, research suggests that cognitive processes such as executive function, including working memory and cognitive flexibility, play a meaningful role in adolescents’ reading development. For example, Spencer et al. (2020) found relationships between executive function and oral language in students ages 9 to 14, suggesting that interventions targeting decoding and language comprehension may be strengthened when cognitive processes are integrated into their instruction. This work again points to the importance of embedding these supports within meaningful reading and language tasks, rather than providing isolated training or practice.

In addition to cognitive factors, secondary educators must also contend with motivational and contextual influences that are often not considered from an elementary-focused lens. Many adolescents with continued reading difficulties have experienced years of academic frustration, which may shape both their self-perception as readers and their willingness to engage in intervention. Anderson et al. (2023) note that student engagement in reading interventions remains an under-researched area, particularly for older students. This gap is significant, as disengagement may stem not only from skill deficits, but also from internalized beliefs (e.g., “I’m not good at reading”) and skepticism that intervention will lead to meaningful improvement, based on prior history. Practitioners also need to consider whether these challenges may be exacerbated by instructional materials that may feel misaligned with students’ age and maturity, including texts and visuals that are perceived as infantilizing. As a result, the field would benefit from both the development of more age-appropriate instructional materials as well as a stronger research base on how to align adolescents’ developmental needs with gaps in foundational skills. Additional research is also needed to better understand how to balance the demands of intervention with the structural constraints of secondary schools, including complex schedules (Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012) and the opportunity costs associated with missing core instructional time.

Part of this broader conversation also involves acknowledging the limitations of secondary intervention. While students with reading difficulties can continue to benefit from explicit, systematic instruction, the magnitude of these gains is often smaller and more difficult to achieve than in the early grades (Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012). This does not diminish the importance of providing high-quality intervention in secondary settings, but it does underscore the need for realistic expectations, sustained support, and instructional approaches that are responsive to the complex academic, cognitive, and motivational profiles of adolescent learners.

In Sum

Effective literacy instruction in middle and high school neither abandons nor simply replicates the foundational skills instruction emphasized in primary grades.

Instead, it reflects a shift in the primary constraints on reading: for older students, language and knowledge play a central role in comprehension and must be prioritized accordingly in core instruction, reflecting the increasing complexity of literacy expectations for these grades. At the same time, educators cannot assume that foundational skills have been fully established for all students. For students who continue to struggle with decoding and fluency, these skills must be addressed within an integrated approach that connects word recognition, meaning, and language, rather than treating them as separate domains in isolation. For secondary educators, the task is not to adopt or reject structured literacy principles that may feel largely geared towards younger students, but to discern which practices to maintain, which to adapt, and where additional expertise is needed to meet the distinct demands of adolescent readers.