The Literacy Trajectory

CEO Perspectives from Karl Rectanus

American education has always oscillated. For years, school boards and superintendents have managed a constant push-and-pull between state-level accountability mandates and local district control, with priorities shifting depending on the prevailing movement. But regardless of which way the policy pendulum swings, a fundamental question remains unanswered in most vendor contracts: Who is responsible when a product or program fails to produce measurable student progress?

Quietly in the background, classroom technology has improved, making more possible. Yet, for decades, our purchasing systems kept measuring the wrong thing. We measured inputs. We measured how many software licenses were bought, how many books were delivered, or how many professional development hours were logged—not what students actually learned.

That gap is why we recently convened an edLeader panel on Outcomes Based Contracting with three leaders who know this work from the ground up: Dr. Christina Grant, Executive Director of the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard; Dr. Sonja Brookins Santelises, Vice President and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former CEO of Baltimore City Public Schools for 10 years; and Brittney Johnson, Director of Programming for the Center for Outcomes Based Contracting.

During our session, we polled the audience on how their districts currently decide whether a curriculum or intervention contract is working and worth renewing. While interim or benchmark growth during the year led the responses (securing 43 percent of the votes), nearly a third of respondents (30 percent) admitted they do not have a consistent way to evaluate their contracts at all, and 13 percent rely solely on usage and implementation data. We know engagement is a leading indicator of learning, but it is not learning.

As Brittney explained during our conversation, Outcomes Based Contracting (OBC) is a model in which a meaningful portion of the total contract value is tied to achieving mutually agreed-upon student outcomes. In a traditional contract, we ask whether services or inputs were delivered. In an Outcomes Based Contract, the question shifts: Did students achieve the results we all committed to?

A common misconception is that OBC shifts all the risk and responsibility onto the provider—or that it all sits with the district. Neither is true. The risk is shared.

District commitments and provider commitments are spelled out side by side in the contract, along with the remedies for what to do if adjustments are needed during the year. A recent independent WestEd evaluation of the Center’s early adopters confirmed that OBC created stronger mutual commitment between districts and providers, driven by clear contracts, stronger communication, and stronger data use. As one provider in the WestEd study put it, it is a "two-way accountability street." Even more telling, WestEd found that districts started holding all of their providers—and themselves—to a higher standard, even outside of their Outcomes Based Contracts.

When we asked our audience what they would need most before bringing an Outcomes Based Contract to their school board, more than half, pointed to clear, agreed-upon outcome measures. When it comes to turning those contracts into actual results for students, 32% of our audience highlighted that support for teachers and school leaders is the single most critical driver, and 25% followed closely by clear goals and measures.

But to actually sign on the dotted line this year, the absolute priority for districts is clarity. Nearly three out of five respondents stated they need absolute clarity on how progress will be monitored and what happens if those student outcomes aren't met.

Dr. Santelises saw this firsthand in Baltimore City, where reading proficiency was in the single digits when she began in a state that was 45 percent proficient. Her team had a plethora of data, but when they looked in the mirror, they realized they had to press on a harder question: What is actually going to change for teachers and students in classrooms every day?

You cannot wait eight months between assessments to find out. It takes quick cycles of improvement in September and October—leaning into implementation data so coaches, principals, and district leaders are aligned on the exact same classroom practices rather than pulling in different directions.

Dr. Grant put it plainly: "Great policy dies at implementation." Too often, a system passes a policy, adopts an approach, delivers professional development, and then everyone goes home while schools are left alone to figure out implementation. Outcomes Based Contracting brings everyone to the table—and keeps them at the table—for the duration of the partnership.

In fact, because both parties are watching dosage and fidelity closely—down to what is happening on Tuesday and Thursday from 11 to 12—providers and districts actually step in when a tool isn’t being used. Dr. Santelises noted that pulling an unused program from one or two buildings is "the shot heard 'round the world" across a district. It shifts the culture around who is watching and proves that leadership respects educators' time and district resources too much to let a program sit on a shelf.

We are not suggesting that a district outcome-base contract its entire system overnight. As Dr. Grant noted from Harvard’s research with its bipartisan network of states, leaders should be discerning: start with one contract where you have clear metrics and clear partners.

In Indiana, where Harvard is evaluating adolescent literacy across early and middle schools, the state has set the conditions at the top—approving the vendor list, setting up model contracts, and giving districts the runway to opt in.

We are honored to be part of that work in Indiana. At Really Great Reading, holding ourselves accountable to student growth isn't a new strategy or a marketing shift; it has been our core mission for over twenty years. But as an organization leader, I can tell you that when a provider formally structures its business around this promise, it sharpens every operational focus. It changes how you build products, how you support implementation, and how you solve practical school challenges—like figuring out what actually works for teachers who only have 45 minutes once a month for professional learning.

It is why we developed RGR Nova™, the Literacy Outcomes System (LitOS™), launching for back-to-school 2027, to bring diagnostic content, curriculum, embedded coaching, and a real-time feedback loop together under a unified, outcomes-focused model.

Historically, districts were forced to buy disconnected physical materials and hope they translated into progress. By structuring our work around verified student learning gains, we put the focus back where it has always belonged: on what students actually learn.

We closed our session with a lightning round: What is one thing leaders can do in the next 90 days to move toward Outcomes Based Contracting?

• Audit one existing contract: As Brittney shared, you don’t need an OBC to start thinking about outcomes. Pick one intervention or tutoring contract and ask three questions: Who is it serving? What is it supposed to change? And is there a measure attached so we know if it’s being used as intended to effect that change?
• Check your internal alignment: Take Dr. Santelises’s advice from Baltimore City, where the motto was "everyone needs to lead from their seat." Assess your major goals across every department—from procurement to curriculum to school leadership—to see if the adults in your system are truly aligned.
• Stay curious and keep the conversation going: As Dr. Grant reminded us, you don’t have to build this alone. Reach out to peers, researchers, and technical assistance partners who are already operationalizing this work.

Align the system. Share the risk. Deliver the outcomes.

Karl Rectanus is CEO of Really Great Reading (RGR), an impact-centered leader driving measurable literacy outcomes for all students. An entrepreneur and advisor, he previously co-founded and led LearnPlatform, pioneering rapid-cycle evaluation and evidence-based decision-making in K-12 education.

He writes The Literacy Trajectory, a series exploring how educators and school systems can improve literacy outcomes at scale.