There's a phrase that has followed many of us through classrooms, professional development sessions, and textbooks: "In the early grades, students are learning to read. After that, they are reading to learn." It's clean, memorable, and easy to explain. For a long time, it has functioned almost like shorthand for how reading develops. I always took it for granted but: Is this maxim true? If it's true, does it help us effectively teach reading?

A few weeks ago, I sent out a survey to educators consisting of six open-ended questions. By the time it closed, I had over 50 completed responses—which in qualitative inquiry is enough to move beyond isolated opinions and begin to see patterns. The respondents represented a range of roles and grade levels, including elementary teachers (K–5), middle school educators, upper-grade and secondary teachers, as well as interventionists and literacy specialists. While early grades were strongly represented, there was meaningful input across the spectrum. If this idea only held in primary classrooms, you would expect very different responses from secondary educators. That's not what happened.

Respondents by grade level: K–2 (38%), 3–5 (28%), 6–8 (18%), 9–12 (16%). By role: Teachers (62%), Specialists (22%), Coaches (10%), Admin (6%).

What I expected was disagreement—some people defending the phrase, others arguing it was outdated. Instead, what emerged was something much more consistent. Nearly every response followed a similar structure: "It's helpful… but…" Educators acknowledged that the phrase is useful because it is simple and communicates something real about the importance of reading. At the same time, they expressed concern about how it is interpreted in practice. The issue, it turns out, is not the phrase itself. It is what we assume it means.

The phrase isn't wrong, but it's widely misunderstood.

Where the Phrase Stops Helping

Embedded in that sentence is the idea of a sequence: first students learn to read, then they read to learn. It suggests a transition point—a moment when one phase ends and another begins. On paper, that progression feels logical. In classrooms, it doesn't hold up.

When educators described what reading actually looks like for their students, the neat two-stage model quickly unraveled. They talked about children sounding out words while simultaneously trying to make sense of a story, about students pausing mid-sentence to decode and then immediately returning to meaning, and about vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension developing together in real time.

In real classrooms, decoding and understanding are happening together. It's messy, imperfect, and constant.

What makes this finding even more compelling is that it held across grade levels. Primary teachers described integrating comprehension from the very beginning of instruction, while upper elementary teachers emphasized the continued importance of phonics and word study. Secondary educators noted that their students still encounter challenges with decoding complex words and navigating difficult texts. The specifics change, but the underlying process does not. Reading development continues.

We never stop learning to read. The texts just get harder.

Interestingly, while the phrase suggests a staged approach, the instructional practices described by respondents reflect something very different. Teachers reported embedding phonics within authentic reading experiences, building comprehension from the start, and continuing foundational skill work beyond the early grades. In other words, instruction in many classrooms has already moved beyond a phase-based model. Teachers are not operating in stages; they are working within a system of overlap and integration.

Instruction has moved on. The system hasn't.

At the same time, a second theme emerged that complicates this picture: tension. While teachers are adapting their practices, the systems around them often still reflect older assumptions. Respondents described pressure to "move on" from foundational skills, expectations tied to grade-level transitions, and disagreements among colleagues about what instruction should look like.

When we treat it like a timeline, we start teaching as if reading has an endpoint.

This disconnect matters because of how the phrase gets used. On its own, it is not harmful. But when it is treated as a literal timeline, it can shape decisions in ways that limit students. Teachers noted that foundational skills are sometimes cut off too early, meaningful reading experiences are delayed in the early grades, and students are expected to demonstrate independence before they are fully ready. Perhaps most concerning, students who do not meet these expectations are often labeled as behind—not because they are not learning, but because they have not reached an assumed transition point that may not actually exist.

What Educators Are Really Saying

In the final part of the survey, I asked educators how they would revise the phrase. No single replacement emerged, but the responses converged around a shared set of ideas. Reading development is continuous. Skill and meaning are interconnected. Understanding is not something that comes after decoding is mastered; it is part of how reading develops from the beginning.

So where does this leave us? The phrase itself may still have value as a simple way to communicate the importance of reading. But it becomes problematic when it is treated as a roadmap for instruction. The issue is not the wording; it is the pause we imagine between the two halves. That pause—the idea that there is a moment when learning to read ends and reading to learn begins—is not supported by what teachers see in their classrooms.

Students are always doing both. They are learning to read and reading to learn at the same time, across grade levels, across contexts, and across texts. Reading was never a phase we moved through. It is a process we continue to develop. And the more our language reflects that reality, the more aligned our instruction can become.

Reading was never something students finished learning. It was something they kept becoming. We never stop learning to read. We just stop calling it that.

Thanks to Melissa Gill for approaching this topic with a "things that make you go hmmmmm" attitude. You were the genesis of this project. Thanks to Melissa and Lori (Love Literacy) for helping with recruitment.