Science of reading laws are passing in record numbers. But policy isn’t the finish line, it’s the starting gate. National literacy experts say the next phase requires a shift from compliance to capacity, from checklists to change management, and from fragmented systems to coherent, knowledge-rich instruction.
By the time the Thomas B. Fordham Institute opened submissions for its annual Wonkathon, education leaders across the country were already deep in a fierce conversation about reading — what works, what doesn’t, and what should happen next. But even in a polarized national climate, something unusual happened: participation surged. For 10 years, the Wonkathon typically drew 8-10 entries. This year, the science of reading (SoR) topic broke records with 48 submissions, including contributions from nationally recognized literacy experts.
Sign up for Early Bird, our newsletter on all things early childhood.
In response, Fordham President Michael J. Petrilli convened a webinar, “Implementation Is Where It’s At: What’s Next for the Science of Reading,” to discuss a timely and urgent conversation moving beyond legislation and into the reality of what educators’ experience in classrooms every day. The message was consistent across panelists: States are taking the right first step by passing science of reading laws, but without deep, sustained implementation planning, the promise of the body of research will not reach students.
From ‘We passed the law’ to ‘We changed the system’
Petrilli opened the webinar by emphasizing what many state leaders are learning in real time: Policy is necessary, but not sufficient. Mandates alone don’t transform reading outcomes. The panel instead called for clear, effective, actionable implementation plans that create observable change in districts, schools, and classrooms. This is where science of reading efforts risk stalling out.
States tend to assume a linear pathway that includes passing legislation, adopting curriculum, training teachers, and expecting results. But literacy change is not linear. It is layered, complex, and deeply involves human work. And if states want better reading outcomes, panelists argued, they must move beyond compliance and into capacity-building.
What the experts say states must do next
The panel represented a powerful mix of policy, research, implementation, and instructional expertise. Their perspectives varied — but together, they shaped a blueprint for “SoR 2.0.”
- Dr. Kymyona Burk, Senior Policy Fellow for Literacy, Excel in Ed
- David Steiner, Executive Director, Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy
- Emily Freitag, Co-Founder & CEO, Instruction Partners
- Dr. Louisa Moats, President, Moats Language Essentials
- Eric Tucker, CEO and President of The Study Group (and Wonkathon winner with co-author Edmund W. Gordon, age 104)
Implementation must be guidance-driven, not checklist-driven
Dr. Kymyona Burk challenged a common misstep observed that involves treating implementation like a finite to-do list. Implementation, she explained, requires clear guidance and expectations, not an “if we do X, then Y will happen” compliance mindset. And for states to succeed, they must balance local control with policy language that creates leverage and coherence. That kind of balance is difficult and demands ongoing collaboration between state legislatures and state education departments, with shared clarity about desired outcomes and required supports including funding, staffing, infrastructure, and strong feedback loops from educators.
Featured takeaway: Real implementation behaves like a living system, and states must build in data and educator input for course correction, not just monitor compliance.
Policymakers need a new learning posture
Emily Freitag highlighted a risk that remains at the center of many literacy discussions today. Policymakers assume policy leads directly to outcomes. But SoR efforts are not always anchored to meaningful achievement goals or absolute proficiency outcomes, she argued. This is creating a dangerous illusion where leaders expect results without grappling with the complexity of what it takes to move adult practice at scale. Her call was both practical and humble: Everyone involved must adopt a learning posture, acknowledging what they don’t know, building inquiry into the process, and resisting overconfidence.
Featured takeaway: Implementation requires research, development, and inquiry rather than a “plug and play” reform.
Granularity matters: States must get specific
David Steiner offered one of the most compelling warnings of the webinar: A vague plan creates chaos. He pointed to Mississippi’s 112-part implementation plan (once mocked for being too detailed) and Louisiana’s similarly structured plan. Both examples illustrate that real implementation requires granular, interlocking actions with shared responsibility across state agencies, districts, principals, teachers, and parents.
In other words, coherence is built, not hoped for. Steiner also pushed the conversation into an area too often ignored: assessment. He emphasized how background knowledge impacts reading tests and how disparities in knowledge between affluent and low-socioeconomic students skew outcomes. He pointed out that while many U.S. tests rely on cold, disconnected passages, other countries use assessments aligned to content areas like science and social studies, building a more level playing field and reinforcing long-term memory.
Featured takeaway: Science of Reading must also become science of knowledge-building, and assessment must evolve accordingly.
Treat the work like change management, not a program rollout
Eric Tucker framed SoR as a systems change effort that requires change management and continuous improvement. He used a Netflix analogy to make powerful point. Netflix’s 2007 DVD model was once relevant, but it evolved into a personalized streaming system without abandoning what worked. Likewise, states must pursue “Science of Reading 2.0” not by replacing the core, but by improving and modernizing implementation based on feedback and data. This requires shifting away from what he described as a “single score verdict” mentality and moving toward balanced assessment and practical measures that support continuous improvement.
Featured takeaway: Literacy reform must evolve like strong organizations do iteratively, responsively, and strategically.
The deepest gap is still in classrooms and teacher preparation
Dr. Louisa Moats delivered perhaps the clearest reminder of why SoR implementation is so fragile. Even as policy moves forward, the alignment between reading research and classroom practice remains deeply uneven. Moats pointed to ongoing patterns that undermine the intent of science of reading reforms, such as:
- Decontextualized comprehension lessons (“identify the main idea”) with no meaningful knowledge-building context
- Continued use of ineffective practices such as memorizing spelling lists and “sight words” in isolation
- Treating standards as checklists rather than integrated learning targets grounded in text and knowledge
She emphasized that language processing and language for learning must be integrated, not taught as isolated skills. Yet many higher education preparation programs still devote only one or two courses to the content, leaving new teachers underprepared for the sophistication that reading instruction demands. As a result, Moats noted that even when curriculum quality improves, implementation fidelity often declines, especially when teachers revert to older practices or supplement with non-research-based materials to fill knowledge gaps.
Featured takeaway: The next phase of SoR will rise or fall on teacher expertise, which requires a deep investment in teacher preparation programs and classroom resources.
The hard truth: Our literacy systems are fragmented
One key topic of concern relates to how fragmented the reading ecosystem remains in most, if not all states:
- Curriculum from numerous vendors
- Preparation from various instructors/adjunct models
- Outdated multiple choice assessments designed by test developers who do not claim to be reading experts
- Limited alignment or communication among any of them
This fragmentation isn’t just inconvenient; it is a structural barrier to lasting improvement. Educators, schools, districts, and states continue to use the one-shot approach to compare and label reading performance through end of grade assessments and national tests such as The Nation’s Report Card (NAEP). Meanwhile, teachers are asked to carry the full weight of reform while juggling everything else schools demand daily. The panel argues that states must shift their focus: not simply demanding more from teachers, but simplifying, streamlining, and strengthening the system around them.
Technology can help but only if we redefine what success looks like
Technology offers more support than ever, yet it is too often used for low-impact worksheets and independent seatwork. AI, however, may offer a more powerful use case, supporting lesson planning, aligned materials, and teacher toolkits. But even that promise is limited by a larger problem, the “psychometric machinery” of outdated testing systems that rely on multiple-choice tests and delayed results. The conclusion is bold and clear. If we want joyful learning and ambitious instruction, we must move from a coroner’s report to a systems approach, one that gives teachers actionable insight and students meaningful learning pathways.
What should states prioritize now?
It is essential that states understand the need to simplify and sharpen next steps:
- Prepare educators accurately through stronger higher education programs
- Invest in the faculty, staff, and adjuncts delivering teacher preparation
- Narrow curriculum options to build coherence and aligned support systems
- Shift assessment toward what students learn — language, knowledge, and growth — not checkbox-type standards/skills mastery
- Trust teachers and build implementation based on their lived experience and
feedback
The moment we’re in
The most powerful thread across the Wonkathon and the webinar is this: We are in a rare moment where big goals are possible. States are moving. Districts are shifting. Curriculum quality is improving.
But reform cannot run on momentum alone. If implementation is truly “where it’s at,” then states must act accordingly with specificity, humility, investment, and sustained partnership with the educators closest to students. Because in the end, science of reading doesn’t succeed because a law is passed. It succeeds when a child can read and a teacher has the tools, knowledge, and system support to make that possible.
Recommended reading
