Forty-two states have passed Science of Reading legislation, requiring aligned professional development, banning three-cueing, or setting standards for instructional materials. The policy infrastructure is largely in place and is a remarkable accomplishment for a field that spent decades debating how children learn to read. And yet, as the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's recent report makes clear, the harder work is still ahead.
What Fordham Found
From the Teacher's Desk: A Science of Reading Progress Report draws on a RAND survey of more than 1,200 K–3 teachers in fall 2025. Four findings stand out.
Progress is real but incomplete. Most teachers report having recently completed Science of Reading–aligned professional development and describe it as useful. Yet 22 percent of K–3 teachers still do not express a clear preference for phonics over cueing, and a majority continue to view comprehension as a generalizable skill rather than one built through knowledge and vocabulary.
An emerging knowledge gap mirrors the achievement gap. Teachers in low-poverty schools sit at the 54th percentile of Science of Reading knowledge; teachers in high-poverty schools rank 44th — a gap the report warns will have "dire consequences for poor students should it persist."
Preservice preparation is not pulling its weight. Only 2 percent of teachers said their teacher preparation program taught them the most about effective reading instruction. In-service training is doing the heavy lifting.
Adoption Is Not Implementation
State legislation creates the conditions for change. It does not deliver it. Strikingly, the Fordham report shows that teachers in high-poverty schools report greater exposure to aligned training than peers in low-poverty schools. Curriculum is not the differentiator. What's required is sustained, outcomes-driven execution — the work that turns a training session into changed practice, a curriculum on a shelf into one in active use, and an adopted policy into instructional reality.
That depends on three things working together: an evidence-based curriculum that reflects what the research actually says, a skilled and caring teacher who can watch a child struggle and know what to do next, and accountability that measures whether students are actually learning to read.
Literacy is the gateway skill. A child who cannot decode by third grade struggles to access science, history, and every domain that depends on text. The Fordham survey found teachers' Science of Reading knowledge actually declines as grade level rises — a concerning pattern given how many third graders still need decoding support. Implementation quality is the difference between a teacher who has heard of structured literacy and one who can diagnose a student's decoding gap on Tuesday and target it on Wednesday.
What Implementation Looks Like in Practice
Consider Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD in Texas — approximately 22,770 students, 63 percent economically disadvantaged, and nearly 10,000 emergent bilingual students speaking 63 languages.¹ The district piloted a structured literacy approach for older learners, then scaled across all secondary campuses with a dedicated intervention team and standardized grouping. By midyear of 2025–26, across four secondary cohorts, the share of strong decoders rose from 0–2 percent to 15–40 percent. One cohort moved from 0 to 25 percent in a single semester. Curriculum alone does not produce that. Those are implementation results, with caring teachers at the center.
What’s Next For District Leaders
Three practices distinguish districts translating policy into measurable student gains, and include the following:
Audit the gap between adoption and implementation. The question is not whether aligned materials and training have been adopted. It is whether they are in active, faithful use across every classroom — and whether teachers can articulate the science behind the practice. Walkthroughs, teacher surveys, and student work samples reveal where translation has stalled. Districts that audit honestly act faster.
Prioritize implementation support in the highest-need schools. Equal investment is not equity. The data shows that training exposure alone does not close the knowledge gap; coaching, time, and leadership attention do. Districts moving outcomes direct disproportionate implementation support — not just spending — to the schools where the need is greatest.
Choose partners willing to be measured on outcomes. Expect more than usage dashboards. Even independent evidence of effectiveness — ESSA evidence ratings, EdReports reviews, third-party validations — is no longer enough. Demand transparent data and expect providers to share accountability: paid when the work moves students forward, and a willingness to dig in together to make implementation right when it isn’t clear that outcomes are coming. That is what skin in the game looks like.
The Path Forward
Closing the implementation gap requires what every district leader already understands intuitively but has not always had the structural support to deliver: evidence-based curriculum, skilled and caring teachers for every child, and accountability for the outcomes that actually matter. Policy alone has not closed the gap. Sustained, outcomes-driven execution will. That work belongs to all of us — states, districts, providers, and the teachers and leaders doing it every day. Done with fidelity, it produces what every parent truly wants: a child who learns to read and never has to stop.
About the Author
Karl Rectanus serves on multiple boards and is the CEO of Really Great Reading (RGR), leading an outcomes-driven effort to ensure every child joyfully learns to read. An entrepreneur and former educator, he previously co-founded LearnPlatform, where he pioneered rapid-cycle evaluation and helped set the industry standard for evidence-based decision-making in K–12 education.
