Science-of-reading adoption has spread rapidly, but early literacy gains are beginning to flatten. For district leaders, the next decision is not simply whether to replace the curriculum. It is whether weak results reflect the product, inconsistent implementation, staffing and attendance barriers, or fragmented intervention systems. This article examines how leaders can diagnose the problem and direct funding toward the supports most likely to improve outcomes.

This week’s Deep Dive covers

Forty-two states and Washington, D.C. have moved toward science-of-reading policies, but early literacy gains have begun to flatten. The slowdown is most visible in first and second grade, where students remain below pre-pandemic reading levels. For district leaders, the central question is no longer whether the adopted curriculum is evidence-aligned. It is whether the district built the conditions required to make it work.

Amplify’s 2025–26 data show that 57% of K–2 students were on track to learn to read at midyear, with year-over-year gains of only zero to two percentage points. Kindergarten outcomes were more stable, while first- and second-grade progress remained stalled. NWEA found a similar pattern: early-grade reading remained below pre-pandemic levels, even as mathematics continued to improve.

The problem is not that districts ignored literacy. It is that many