The Literacy Trajectory

CEO Perspectives from Karl Rectanus

Districts have made meaningful progress aligning to the Science of Reading and recent national research is reinforcing the success that many district leaders are already seeing. Districts have invested in higher-quality curriculum, expanded professional learning, and built a stronger shared understanding of how reading develops. That work has moved the field forward in important ways. State policy and district alignment have created the conditions for change. They have not delivered the outcomes. What happens next depends on how that work translates into daily instruction.

At the same time, outcomes remain uneven. Not in isolated cases, but consistently enough to require a more direct conversation about what is happening inside systems. We are no longer asking whether the Science of Reading works. The research base is clear, and the results, when implemented well, are equally clear.

The question now is why those results are not being realized consistently across classrooms within the same district, the same school, and often the same grade level.

In many districts, the core components are in place. There is stronger alignment to structured literacy, better materials, and deeper teacher knowledge than we have seen in years. And yet, when you walk classrooms, the student experience is not consistent.

Instruction unfolds differently from room to room. Pacing varies. Routines shift. Expectations for modeling, practice, and feedback are not always aligned. These are not dramatic differences, but they are persistent.

Over time, these inconsistencies create very different learning conditions for students. Some students build momentum because instruction is clear and connected. Others spend time adjusting to changes in routine and expectations. That difference affects how quickly and how securely students build skill.

For the past several years, the focus has been clear: adopt a stronger curriculum, align to research, and invest in professional learning. That work was necessary, and it created real progress.

But adoption happens at the system level. Learning happens in classrooms. What matters is not only what was selected, but how it is delivered. Curriculum is not the differentiator at this stage. Most systems have access to stronger materials than ever before. The difference is how those materials are used—whether they are actively shaping instruction in every classroom, every day.

Instruction needs to be clear enough for students to understand, connected enough for skills to build, and consistent enough for learning to hold.

When that happens, students gain accuracy, confidence, and independence. When it does not, progress becomes uneven—even inside well-designed systems.

Execution requires more than alignment to research. It requires that instruction is delivered with enough clarity and stability for students to develop accurate and automatic reading skills over time. It requires that expectations for instruction are shared, reinforced, and sustained across classrooms. Without that level of execution, variability persists. With it, outcomes begin to stabilize.

The central question has shifted. It is no longer, “Do we have the right program?” 
It is, “Are we implementing it in a way that produces reliable results for students?”

The next phase of literacy improvement will not be defined by new programs or new frameworks. It will be defined by execution, how well systems translate what they have adopted into instruction that produces results for students.

That is where the real work begins.

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.