Summary
An independent review found strong evidence of Into Reading's alignment with literacy research while reinforcing the importance of ongoing evaluation.
When people hear about curriculum reviews, it’s easy to assume the goal is to determine whether a program passes or fails. But after spending years working alongside educators, researchers, and school leaders, I’ve come to believe that the greatest value of independent reviews isn’t the scorecard, but the conversations they spark.
The Reading League recently released its latest review of HMH's Into Reading, and I spent time carefully reading both the strengths and opportunities identified by reviewers. It is worth celebrating that Into Reading received many scores of 1—the strongest evidence of alignment with the science of reading under The Reading League’s rubric—in overall design and delivery practices.
The review identified a number of notable strengths that have been central to our approach from the beginning: a comprehensive approach to literacy, clear scope-and-sequence pathways, integrated reading and writing instruction, strong support for teachers, and a robust assessment system designed to provide actionable data for instructional planning.
Overall, the Reading League's expert evaluators gave the program scores of 1 in 71 out of 75 practices across five key areas: word recognition, language comprehension, reading comprehension, writing, and assessment. It was particularly validating to see recognition of the teacher-facing resources and implementation supports that educators tell us are critical to success.
These findings matter because they reflect years of work informed by literacy research, classroom observation, educator feedback, and a commitment to helping teachers deliver evidence-aligned instruction that supports student growth.
But what struck me most was what the review process itself represents for our field.
Why evidence matters
Over the past decade, the science of reading has transformed expectations for literacy instruction. Today, educators and district leaders rightly expect curriculum materials to be grounded in evidence. They want to know that instructional practices are supported by research and that programs are designed to help students develop the knowledge and skills necessary for reading success. Independent reviews help support that goal by creating a shared framework for evaluating materials against research-based criteria.
One of the strengths identified in the review was Into Reading’s comprehensive literacy framework and systematic progression of skills. The Reading League’s review also noted the program’s integration of reading and writing, strong differentiation supports, and assessment tools that help educators make instructional decisions based on student needs.
For me, those findings reinforce an important lesson: when curriculum development is grounded in evidence and informed by educator feedback, it creates stronger learning experiences for students.
A great curriculum supports teachers
The review recognized the support Into Reading provides educators, which is especially meaningful at a time when teachers are asked to do more than ever. They are expected to deliver rigorous instruction, respond to diverse student needs, analyze data, differentiate learning, and create engaging classroom experiences every day. Curricula should help make that work easier.
The review noted Into Reading’s implementation supports, embedded teacher guidance, differentiated resources, and usability. We intentionally designed these features to help teachers focus less on navigating materials and more on supporting students.
Throughout my career, I’ve learned that even the most research-aligned curriculum is only as effective as its implementation. That’s why providing teachers with clear instructional pathways, curriculum-embedded professional learning, and actionable data remains just as important as the content itself.
...the strongest instructional programs are never static.
President of Core and Supplemental Solutions, HMH
Continuous improvement is part of the process
One point The Reading League makes in its review framework particularly resonated with me: there is no perfect curriculum. I think that’s an important perspective because the reality is that research advances, student needs change, and classrooms evolve. That’s why the strongest instructional programs are never static. They are continuously refined through research, classroom experience, educator feedback, and ongoing evaluation.
The Reading League’s review highlighted many strengths within Into Reading, but it also identified areas for continued reflection and improvement. That’s exactly what independent reviews should do.
The goal should never be to declare a curriculum finished. The goal should be to create a cycle of continuous learning that helps all of us—publishers, educators, district leaders, and policymakers—better support all students. And at a time when literacy outcomes remain a national priority, that’s the kind of accountability and transparency our field needs more of.
Key takeaways
- Research-based curriculum and educator feedback work together to create stronger, more effective learning experiences for students.
- Curriculum quality depends not only on evidence-based content but also on the supports that help teachers implement it effectively in the classroom.
- The strongest instructional programs continue to evolve as research advances and student and classroom needs change.
***
For more articles on trends in education from experts, subscribe to HMH's LinkedIn newsletter, Policy in Motion.
Get actionable strategies to guide instruction with a free Science of Reading eBook.
