Early in my teaching career, I assumed that most curricula were more alike than different. If the standards were covered and the materials looked well organized, I believed student outcomes would follow.

Experience - and a deep dive into the science of reading and the science of learning - has since taught me otherwise.

In my first year teaching middle school reading, I had a class of more than 20 students. Years later, three of them still stay with me.

Alejandra was outgoing and confident. She raised her hand eagerly to read aloud and completed her work with a smile. Huey was quiet and compliant. He completed assignments but, when asked to read, could only decode every other word. And Elsa, when she came to class at all, often slumped in her seat, eyes down, distant.

At the time, I saw these students as individuals with very different needs. Years later, after transitioning from classroom teacher to instructional coach to district administrator, and after observing hundreds of middle school classrooms, I understand that my early experience was not unusual. It was the norm.

Across the country, secondary educators are supporting growing numbers of students like Alejandra, Huey, and Elsa, students expected to navigate increasingly complex texts without the instructional support they need to fully engage, understand, and participate. And for too long, the tools available to teachers at the middle and high school level have not kept pace with what we know about how adolescents learn to read.

A Growing National Challenge - and a Statewide Response

Policymakers are beginning to respond. In recent years, many states have taken steps to legislate a focus on research-based, high-quality instructional materials. In Minnesota, this effort took shape in 2023 with the passage of the Reading to Ensure Academic Development (READ) Act, which set a clear statewide goal: ensuring every child reads at or above grade level, every year.

The urgency behind this law reflects educators' daily reality and statewide data show that fewer than half of Minnesota students meet grade-level reading benchmarks. For adolescents, these gaps compound quickly, affecting not only English language arts classes, but also science labs, social studies discussions, and career-focused coursework that relies on complex texts.

Recognizing that legislation alone is not enough, the Minnesota Department of Education partnered with the University of Minnesota’s Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI) to tackle a critical question: What literacy interventions are actually supported by strong evidence, and for whom do they work?

Responding to Students’ Needs with Evidence

For students who have spent years struggling to make sense of text, well-intentioned but unproven interventions can feel like yet another missed opportunity. What they need are instructional approaches designed specifically for adolescent readers, approaches grounded in rigorous evidence and responsive to the realities of middle and high school classrooms.

This is the challenge CAREI took on.

Under the READ Act, CAREI conducted a comprehensive scoping and evidence review of more than 1700 literacy interventions, examining not just whether programs claimed to be “research-based,” but whether their evidence met strong scientific standards, including alignment with ESSA Tier I and Tier II criteria. Rather than producing a simple list, CAREI analyzed the quality, design, and relevance of studies, asking whether the research demonstrated meaningful outcomes for students like Huey and Elsa.

This level of rigor matters. By middle and high school, students bring widely varied reading histories, academic identities, and confidence levels into the classroom. Effective interventions must account for this complexity, supporting decoding and fluency, while also fostering comprehension, discussion, and engagement with ideas.

By grounding decisions in the science of reading, not assumptions or trends, CAREI’s work offers educators a clearer path forward: one rooted in evidence, transparency, and student need.

From Research to Classrooms, and Why STARI Matters

From Evidence to Opportunity