10 Reasons to Pair Literacy Programs With Professional Development

Reading scores remain a stubborn challenge for schools and districts, even after years of new programs, mandates and reform efforts. Too many students move through the early grades without strong foundational skills, leaving teachers to address gaps that build over time. Everyone agrees improvement is needed, but not everyone agrees on why progress has been so uneven.

A big part of the answer lies in the classroom. Teaching reading is a complex instructional endeavor that requires deep expertise and many educators are not fully prepared for its full complexity when they enter the classroom. Educators are expected to identify skill gaps, deliver targeted instruction and adjust quickly when students struggle. Yet many enter the classroom without deep training in how reading and language develop in children or how to turn that knowledge into daily instruction.

District leaders see this challenge firsthand: curricula shift, professional learning is delivered, yet once classroom doors close, instruction often remains unchanged. Meaningful gains in reading achievement rarely come from adding one more program or offering another round of workshops alone. They emerge from a shared understanding of effective practice, sustained support for educators, and a clear, consistent vision of what strong reading instruction looks like in daily classroom practice.

These challenges highlight a core issue that districts can’t ignore: raising reading achievement comes down to what educators know and how they teach. Here are 10 reasons that gap persists and why addressing it matters: 

1. Prior coursework didn’t prepare teachers for effective literacy instruction. Higher education teacher preparation courses often teach only some of the essential components of reading recommended by major consensus reports like the National Reading Panel. Most teacher preparation programs don’t offer courses that thoroughly prepare teachers to build all of the essential skills involved in reading.
2. Teachers matter more than programs. Adopting a strong, research-based curriculum isn’t enough. If teachers don’t understand why they’re using it or how it’s meant to work, it won’t change what happens in the classroom. Programs succeed or fail based on how well educators understand the content and how to use it day to day. Simply adopting or requiring a curriculum doesn’t ensure strong implementation. Teachers are far more likely to teach foundational reading and writing skills alongside comprehension when they themselves have solid preparation in explicit, code-based instruction.
3. Teachers need compatible coaching and peer support. Even when educators understand research-based reading instruction, they’re more likely to use it in schools where teams, coaches and leaders share the same goals. Programs like Lexia’s Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) help establish a common language and shared understanding rooted in the science of reading, strengthening coherence across coaching, instructional practice, and the daily application of evidence-based literacy instruction.
4. Teaching reading is rocket science. Most students do not learn to read simply through exposure to books; reading develops through intentional, explicit instruction. Teaching a student who struggles with reading demands skill, precision, and a deep understanding of how language, cognition, and instruction interact to support literacy growth.
5. Language is the missing foundation. Language is a critical piece of reading instruction that’s often missing from teacher preparation. Many educators haven’t had coursework in language structure or development, even though reading and writing depend on both at every stage. Teachers need to understand how English spelling connects sounds, syllables and meaning, including how speech sounds differ, how letters and letter patterns represent those sounds and how words are built from meaningful parts. They also need to teach the language of text itself, from how sentence structure shapes meaning to how ideas are organized across a passage.
6. Phoneme awareness and phonics require deeper preparation. Concepts about speech sounds and spelling don’t come naturally to many adults, even though children are expected to learn them early. As a result, many educators enter reading instruction without a clear understanding of how sounds map to letters or why words are spelled the way they are. Those gaps show up in the classroom, where teachers who lack strong phonemic knowledge are more likely to struggle with accurate instruction.
7. Clarity doesn’t happen on its own. Because reading instruction is highly complex, educators do not always have a full view of where their preparation is strongest or where additional learning may be needed. Structured professional learning helps bring that into focus by building on existing strengths, clarifying areas for growth, and strengthening the knowledge base that supports consistent, research-aligned classroom practice.
8. There are no shortcuts. Building expertise in reading instruction takes time. Teachers need time to learn core components, practice new approaches and change habits and methods they’ve used for years. Short courses and one-off workshops don’t provide enough practice or feedback. Teachers bring varying levels of preparation to the classroom and develop expertise over time at different rates. Sustained professional learning, combined with targeted feedback, supports educators in refining their knowledge, strengthening instruction, and continuously improving practice over time.
9. Knowledge shows up in student results. When teachers have the preparation and support needed to deliver effective instruction, students make stronger gains and the results become evident. Reading achievement improves, fewer students struggle to keep pace, and classrooms become more focused, responsive, and productive learning environments. Those results matter to educators. Seeing students succeed reinforces effective instruction and gives teachers momentum to build on what works.
10. When reading instruction works, teachers stay. In multi-year work with low-performing schools, teachers helped students move from below basic to on-grade-level reading. As results improved, so did teacher morale. Absences dropped, interest in professional learning increased and burnout eased. Teachers who saw their instruction work stayed engaged and raised expectations for their students and themselves.

Making the Gains Stick

Reading improvement doesn’t hinge on one program or policy. It depends on how well educators understand reading, how consistently they apply that knowledge and how schools support them over time. The challenges outlined here point to a preparation gap that districts can no longer work around.

When teachers receive sustained, aligned learning and clear feedback, instruction improves, results show up and educators stay engaged. The districts seeing steadier gains didn’t rely on quick fixes. They focused on building teacher knowledge and supporting instruction over time, and the results followed.

Subscribe to edCircuit to stay up to date on all of our shows, podcasts, news, and thought leadership articles.