We are living through an ‘everything, everywhere, all at once’ moment for American reading policy. Forty-plus states have passed Science of Reading laws. Yet, this urgency risks becoming a swirl of disconnected initiatives—more motion than progress. As 48 recent Fordham Institute Wonkathon entries affirm, improving literacy is a marathon, not a miracle. Mississippi’s success was a decade-long, disciplined effort—the laws were only the starting pistol. We have much of the what of reading science, but risk stumbling into the wrong system to deliver the how. 

Edmund W. Gordon and I argue the necessary backbone to turn isolated efforts into a continuously improving system is assessment in the service of learning. This piece makes explicit how federal resources, rights, and research infrastructures are connective tissue necessary for state-, district-, and school-level success. 

The Shared Emphasis of Wonk Proposals

The dozens of Wonkathon essays paint a remarkably consistent picture. States need clear, ambitious goals for reading achievement. Schools need high-quality materials aligned to the science of reading. Teachers need serious training, data-driven insights, coaching, and time. Students need early screening and instruction covering critical components of literacy—including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, writing, and oral language.

Unfortunately, the U.S. still relies on static, end-of-year assessments that tell us which students are struggling—long after the point when the information is useful or usable. This “autopsy model” of assessment leaves teachers flying blind, parents waiting until third grade for bad news, and policymakers relying on lagging indicators to judge whether reforms are “working.”

If Science of Reading 1.0 defined what students need to learn, then the next phase must define how we ensure they actually learn it, day by day, in real classrooms.

Science of Reading 2.0: Assessment as GPS

Science of Reading 2.0 builds on SoR 1.0’s clarity, adding the missing architecture: balanced assessment, practical measurement, and SAFE AI (Safe, Accountable, Fair, Effective). This clarifies information, turning single-score verdicts into dynamic, person-specific feedback and learning cycles. We must start treating them like GPS navigation—constantly recalculating to keep each child on the path. In this ‘reader positioning system,’ each signal (quick checks, screeners, exams) locates a student, anticipates challenges, and guides the next instructional step. Today’s tools—including AI, speech recognition, and adaptive technology—make this vision scalable. When used safely and responsibly, AI has the potential to help measure what matters most, personalize the pace and scaffolds of instruction, and give teachers real-time insight into each child’s progress.

As Edmund W. Gordon puts it, assessments must be “re-purposed to facilitate the cultivation of ability.”

A Glimpse Into a Science of Reading 2.0 Classroom

Picture a second-grade classroom operating under SoR 2.0 principles.

In one corner, a small group of students is laughing through a PBS KIDS phonics game. They’re playing, but the game is evaluating decoding accuracy and feeding results back to the teacher.

At another table, a student is chatting with Khanmigo about a story she just read. The AI nudges her to think about the text, stitching comprehension and motivation into a single interaction.

Across the room, five students gather for a targeted mini-lesson on vowel teams. The teacher didn’t guess who needed the lesson; the dashboard flagged it. A light-weight assessment on Friday revealed a shared gap, so the teacher reteaches on Monday—preventing a semester-long gulf.

Most beautifully, students can see their own learning: simple visuals showing growth in fluency or comprehension; overtime they become “assessment-capable learners.” They ask better questions. They set goals. They start to take ownership of reading—not just as a skill, but as part of who they are becoming.

In this class, no child can disappear in the back of the room. 

This vision only works if the tools and systems behind it are trustworthy. That requires a commitment to validity-in-use. This is also where SAFE AI comes in. We must demand that every AI-enabled literacy tool protect privacy, avoid bias, and demonstrate learning gains. We need a public learning infrastructure worthy of our ambitions. Education, like healthcare or national defense, deserves an R&D ecosystem that tests innovations, evaluates their effectiveness, and helps scale what works. 

Why Federal Resources, Rights, and Research Are the Connective Tissue of SoR 2.0

If SoR 2.0 defines the science for literacy improvement, its success hinges on whether America still has the federal connective tissue required to make those reforms real. Without federal resources, rights, and research, states lack the infrastructure for coherence and continuity. The urgency is immediate: the Department of Education’s just announced plan to parcel out core K-12 responsibilities (Title I, multilingual programs, etc.) across disconnected agencies (Labor, HHS, Interior) ruptures the national promise of a fair, evidence-based education. This reshuffling removes the only federal spine capable of supporting ambitious state reform. Without that, SoR 2.0 cannot stand. 

States cannot implement SoR 2.0 without the stable, predictable, efficacy-anchored federal architecture that has, for half a century, guaranteed that opportunity depends on law, not luck. Winning on literacy today requires both state leadership on the science of reading and a strong federal backbone of resources, rights, and research. Without all three, the metaphorical literacy multiverse collapses into incoherence, fragmentation, and widening inequity.

Resources: A Federal Floor, Not a Patchwork

Fully funding IDEA and protecting Title I is not an expense—it is an investment in America’s future. The research is unambiguous: every dollar invested in special education or early intervention yields substantial returns, with economists estimating $7 to $12 saved for every dollar invested in early intervention. But when federal funding falters or blurs, states and districts must backfill federal obligations from their general funds, hollowing out the reading supports that SoR 2.0 depends upon.

Fragmenting these investments across disconnected agencies only magnifies the problem. Funds like Title I and English Learner support are core levers for childhood literacy; coherence is possible only when they operate under one roof. Spreading them across agencies with no K-12 mission, coherence evaporates.

This volatility and incoherence derail progress. For rural districts, where 10 million students depend heavily on federal aid, fragmentation is devastating. You cannot remove half the support beams from a house and expect it to remain standing. Nor can you strip away the federal literacy infrastructure and expect states to carry the burden alone.

Rights: Families in the Driver’s Seat—Not Agencies in Disarray

No one knows what a child needs better than their families. That is why federal IDEA protections place families, not bureaucrats, in the driver’s seat. Federal protections prevent a “race to the bottom”, ensuring a child who is multilingual, dyslexic, or highly mobile receives coordinated, legally protected services—not a scavenger hunt across five agencies. They guarantee a military family’s IEP is honored across state-lines and that local cost-cutting cannot override a student’s right to learn.

But rights without capacity are aspirations. When responsibilities scatter across agencies lacking educational expertise, families lose the clarity and enforcement power a single federal anchor provides. A parent navigating dyslexia screening should not need a map to find which federal agency now holds their child’s rights. 

IDEA and civil rights protections are family empowerment—a national commitment that parents, not bureaucracies, shape their child’s future.

Research: The Engine Behind Science of Reading 2.0

The breakthroughs powering Science of Reading 2.0 (Al-enabled progress monitoring, UDL frameworks, practical measurement) did not appear by accident. They exist because the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) invested in rigorous, long-term research.

IES is America’s R&D engine for literacy. Cutting IES contracts, halting NAEP collections, or dismantling NCES is not bureaucratic minimalism; it is flying blind in an era when literacy outcomes are already at historic lows.

Without federal research, ineffective practices fester in the dark, achievement gaps widen unnoticed, and policymakers lose the ability to evaluate whether investments are working.

The stakes are significant: undercutting IES is unilateral disarmament in the innovation arms race, as Education R&D is essential to competitiveness and national security.

Science of Reading 2.0 depends on a robust national research infrastructure. Without it, the next generation of literacy tools, models, and interventions simply will not exist.

A Moment of Choosing

The federal role in education is the architecture that protects children, empowers parents, and anchors national progress. Dismantling the Department of Education does not return power to families. It returns vulnerability. It fractures the very infrastructure—resources, rights, and research—that help ensure literacy reforms are coherent and grounded in evidence.

The reading marathon is far from over. But we now know how to run it smarter. We can have everything—strong phonics, rich texts, expert teachers, high-dosage tutoring, engaging digital tools—everywhere, all at once. But the promise of Science of Reading 2.0 requires that assessment is repurposed to serve learning, not merely audit it. 

If America wants to win on literacy—if we want SoR 2.0 to succeed at scale—we need a strong federal backbone. States cannot do this alone.

We stand at a crossroads: invest in opportunity today—or pay the price of neglect tomorrow. The Science of Reading revolution will succeed only if the nation defends the resources, rights, and research that make literacy possible—for every child, in every community, everywhere, all at once.