Walk into almost any primary classroom and you will see careful attention paid to phonics and, increasingly, to fluency. Programmes are structured, time is protected, and progress is monitored closely. In the secondary phase however, these literacy elements are often a little less prominent. Most secondary schools now have a targeted phonics intervention programme, and some have even included fluency intervention work. Yet when it comes to the third element that underpins successful reading – background knowledge – the approach is often far less deliberate.

This imbalance is not trivial. If we are serious about developing confident, capable readers, then background knowledge must be treated not as an optional extra or a happy by-product of reading, but as a core component of instruction. It belongs alongside phonics and fluency in a true “golden trio” of support.

We are left with a situation where young people could quite easily be “fluent but failing”. Able to decode words on sight fluently and at pace and yet still not fully understand what they have read.

The Golden Trio: More Interdependent Than We Admit

Phonics enables pupils to decode the words on the page. Fluency ensures that this decoding becomes accurate, automatic, and expressive. Background knowledge, however, determines whether those words mean anything once they are read.

It is tempting to think of these as sequential: first phonics, then fluency, then comprehension. In reality, they operate simultaneously. A pupil may decode a sentence perfectly and read it fluently, yet still fail to understand it if they lack the knowledge the text assumes. Reading, in this sense, is not just a technical skill – it is an act of meaning-making grounded in what the reader already knows.

What the Evidence Tells Us

Decades of research in cognitive science and education point to a consistent conclusion: comprehension depends heavily on prior knowledge. When readers encounter a text on a familiar topic, they are better able to infer, summarise, and retain information—even if their decoding skills are relatively weaker. Conversely, strong decoders can struggle when faced with unfamiliar content.

This is not surprising when we consider how the mind works. Background knowledge forms mental frameworks—often described as schemas—that help us organise and interpret new information. Without these frameworks, every sentence becomes harder to process. Working memory, already limited, becomes overloaded. Comprehension breaks down.

Knowledge, then, is not just helpful—it is essential. It reduces cognitive load, allowing readers to focus on meaning rather than merely on processing words.

Why Background Knowledge Gets Neglected

If the evidence is so clear, why is background knowledge so often underemphasised?

Part of the answer lies in accountability. Phonics and fluency are relatively easy to assess. They produce clear, measurable outcomes that fit neatly into screening tools and progress data. Knowledge, by contrast, is broader, slower to develop, and harder to quantify.

There is also a persistent misconception that knowledge will develop naturally if pupils simply read more. While reading does contribute to knowledge, it is not a reliable or equitable mechanism. Pupils who already possess a broad base of knowledge benefit the most, while those with gaps fall further behind.

Finally, there has been an overemphasis on generic comprehension “skills”—such as predicting or summarising—often taught in isolation from meaningful content. These strategies have limited impact when readers lack the knowledge needed to engage with the text in the first place.

The Case for Deliberate Instruction

We would not expect pupils to “pick up” phonics incidentally. We teach it explicitly, systematically, and cumulatively. The same principle must apply to background knowledge.

Knowledge does not organise itself. It must be carefully selected, sequenced, and revisited. Pupils need repeated exposure to concepts, ideas, and vocabulary across time and contexts in order to build the rich mental networks that support comprehension. A well structured curriculum builds this knowledge over time.

Vocabulary plays a crucial role here. Words are the carriers of knowledge. Teaching vocabulary in isolation is insufficient; it must be embedded within meaningful content that gives those words substance and relevance.

But what of the knowledge that sits outside the curriculum framework? Knowledge of current affairs, cultural capital, and concepts relevant to adult life such as mortgages, taxes, and the law? What of the curiosities of the world around us such as why we have bank holidays, how birds navigate over long distances, or why it has been so long since humans last went to the moon?

A deliberate interventions and support strategy should include building broad background knowledge alongside the development of phonics and fluency.

What Deliberate Knowledge-Building Looks Like

In practice, treating background knowledge as a core component of reading requires a shift in how we design curriculum and instruction.

First, curricula should be content-rich and coherent. Rather than relying on disconnected texts, schools should organise learning around carefully sequenced topics that build knowledge over time.

Second, teachers should explicitly introduce key ideas and vocabulary before pupils encounter them in reading. This does not mean pre-empting all challenge, but rather ensuring that pupils are equipped to engage meaningfully with the text.

Third, knowledge must be revisited. Retrieval practice, discussion, and application across subjects help to secure learning and make it usable.

Finally, connections matter. When pupils see how knowledge links across disciplines—history, science, literature—they develop a more flexible and powerful understanding.

Implications for Classroom Practice

Repositioning background knowledge within the golden trio has practical consequences.

Reading lessons need to move beyond a narrow focus on skills and towards engagement with rich, substantive content. Text selection becomes critical -not just for readability, but for the knowledge it builds. Young people need access to great literary works that will develop their knowledge of how language can be used for effect but they also need access to texts that will broaden their knowledge of the world around them, introduce them to new concepts, and clarify misconceptions they may have developed through social media or mutated concepts from friends and family.

Classroom talk also plays a key role. Structured discussion allows pupils to articulate, refine, and extend their understanding. It is through language that knowledge is consolidated. Oracy is the perfect vehicle for exploring, connecting, enriching, and embedding background knowledge as it is encountered during reading. Carefully crafted oracy tasks can be the key to checking for understanding and engaging with recalled knowledge in an ongoing process of discovery and learning.

Addressing the Counterarguments

Some may argue that there is simply not enough time to prioritise knowledge-building. In reality, the opposite is true. When pupils possess the necessary background knowledge, comprehension becomes more efficient. Less time is spent struggling through texts, and more time can be devoted to deeper learning.

Others suggest that encouraging pupils to read widely is sufficient. While wide reading is valuable, it is not a substitute for structured knowledge-building. Without guidance, it can lead to patchy and uneven understanding.

There is also a concern that a knowledge-rich approach might limit creativity. Yet knowledge does not constrain thinking—it enables it. The more pupils know, the more connections they can make, and the more meaningfully they can engage with new ideas.

The Bottom Line

Reading is often framed as a set of skills to be mastered. But at its heart, it is about understanding. And understanding depends on knowledge.

Phonics gives pupils access to the words and fluency allows them to read those words with ease. Background knowledge gives those words meaning. If we continue to treat knowledge as secondary, we will continue to see pupils who can read but do not fully understand. The solution is not to diminish the importance of phonics or fluency, but to elevate background knowledge to the same level of deliberate, systematic attention.

Only then can the “golden trio” truly function as it should: not as three separate elements, but as a unified foundation for successful reading.