The Biggest Mistake We're Making in Literacy Intervention

This is a bold claim, and we know that. But it’s one that’s been shaped by years of literacy intervention work, countless hours alongside educators, and a lot of honest reflection about what’s actually happening in classrooms and intervention settings right now.

The biggest mistake we’re making in literacy intervention isn’t that teachers aren’t working hard enough, aren’t trained enough, or aren’t committed enough.

It’s that our systems have trained us to think in binaries.

Right way or wrong way.

Fidelity or failure.

This program or that one.

That kind of thinking makes instruction feel safer on paper, but it quietly creates rigidity that doesn’t always serve real students.

The Rise of Structure

To be clear, the shift toward structured, systematic, evidence-based literacy instruction was essential.

For a long time, too many students were struggling without clear instructional routines, without explicit teaching, and without approaches grounded in research. The science of reading gave us language, direction, and structure. It gave us a shared understanding of what really matters in literacy instruction.

So we must start by saying:

• Explicit instruction matters.

• Systematic sequencing matters.

• Cumulative practice matters.

• Diagnostic, responsive teaching matters.

Those principles are not optional, and they are not trends. They are foundational and well-established in decades of research. But somewhere along the way, structure began to harden into rigidity.

When Structure Turns Into Rigidity

As evidence-based literacy instruction became more widely adopted, we saw something subtle begin to happen. Fidelity stopped being a guide and started to feel like a measure of worth.

We began to internalize the idea that if instruction wasn’t implemented perfectly, it wasn’t effective. That there was one “right” way to teach a concept, one gold-standard routine, one correct path to follow.

The problem is that research doesn’t live in classrooms. Students do.

Classrooms are not controlled environments. Students bring different strengths, histories, language backgrounds, and learning profiles. No two groups look exactly the same, even when the goal is the same.

When structure becomes inflexible, it leaves very little room for professional judgment, responsiveness, or creativity. And that’s often when instruction starts to feel stressful or disconnected from the students in front of us.

The Students Who Fall Through the Cracks

This rigidity shows up most clearly with a group of students many educators quietly worry about the most.

These are students who aren’t meeting classroom expectations, but also don’t clearly need, or no longer need, highly intensive literacy intervention. They may have skills, but struggle to apply them consistently. They may make progress, but not quite enough. They may perform well in structured lessons, but falter when reading real content in science or social studies.

These students fall into what we call the messy middle.

When our systems only allow for “all in” or “all out,” these students are often over-supported, under-supported, or left waiting. Not because teachers don’t see them, but because our models don’t always leave space for nuance.

Why Fidelity Without Judgment Is Not Evidence-Based

This is where an important distinction matters.

Evidence-based practice is not the same as rigid implementation.

Research tells us what matters. It does not dictate every decision in every context. Fidelity without professional judgment is not evidence-based practice; it’s compliance.

Effective literacy instruction requires educators to interpret, adapt, and respond. It requires noticing when a student needs more support, different support, or support applied in a new way. It requires flexibility within structure.

When we remove judgment from the equation, we also remove joy, curiosity, and responsiveness. Teaching becomes about getting it “right” instead of getting it right for these students.

We must recognize:

Literacy Is Both a Science and an Art

The science of reading gives us structure. The art of teaching allows us to use it well.

The art is where we connect skills to meaning. It’s where we decide how to support transfer and application. It’s where we notice when something isn’t quite working and adjust.

Honoring both the science and the art of literacy instruction doesn’t lower the bar. It raises it. It respects educators as professionals who are capable of making thoughtful decisions grounded in research and responsive to students.

When we allow ourselves to step out of binary thinking, we create space for students who don’t fit neatly into boxes. We create space for bridge support, for application, and for instruction that feels right deep down.

And often, that’s where clarity returns. That’s where confidence grows. And that’s where teaching starts to feel like teaching again. Where we can use our professional judgement and get into a place of exploration with our students. It’s where the fun returns and we get to search for those moments and opportunities where we get that “aha” moment from our students.

Lindsey and I dive deeper into this conversation on the Podcast - Episode 23: Why Effective Literacy Instruction Requires Both Science and Art.