Evaluating State and Local Education Agency Literacy Policies and Programming

Using learning questions to evaluate literacy efforts

State and local education agencies have recently taken a number of steps to strengthen early literacy, including adopting new reading policies, building new literacy frameworks and plans, and refreshing standards. These larger-scale shifts often prompt action across other literacy components, such as:

• Investing in teacher professional learning.
• Expanding student screening.
• Adopting new literacy instructional materials.
• Building stronger intervention systems.
• Supporting family engagement in literacy.

These efforts naturally raise questions about how well they’re working. State and local education agency staff often have questions about how to evaluate and track progress. Leaders may know what has been launched, purchased, or required, but may still be unsure whether implementation is taking hold in schools, whether supports are strong enough to sustain change in classrooms, and whether changes in practice translate into improved student reading outcomes.

This post offers a practical way for state and local education agencies to develop learning questions to monitor and evaluate implementation and to guide improvement of literacy efforts, without assuming there is a single “right” evaluation model. These questions typically fall into three categories:

• Did the literacy-related activity happen? (Rollout and reach)
  What was adopted or delivered? Who received it? Where is it in place, and where is it not?
• How well is the literacy activity happening? (Implementation quality and enabling conditions)
  Is the activity happening consistently and credibly? Do educators have the time, tools, training, and leadership support to implement as intended?
• So what? (Teacher practice and student outcomes)
  What are the outcomes of the literacy activity? Are there early changes in instruction and student learning that align with what has been implemented? Where is further investigation needed?

Because literacy initiatives are often complex, multicomponent learning questions may be developed component by component. Leaders may also want to understand how components interact and reinforce one another. Questions also differ by level: state education agencies tend to focus on setting expectations, providing supports, and understanding patterns across local education agencies, while local education agencies tend to focus on adoption choices, school-level implementation, and day-to-day conditions for teachers and leaders. Finally, the right questions depend on how far implementation has progressed. Early on, leaders need rollout questions; later, they need quality questions. Over time, outcome questions become more informative.

Below are example learning questions by component. Literacy leaders can start by selecting a small number that match their goals, context, and current stage of implementation, whether they are focused on rollout and reach, implementation quality, or outcomes.

Component A. Student literacy screening and data use

Early identification of students at risk of reading difficulties, paired with timely intervention, is critical for improving reading outcomes. However, this depends on selecting psychometrically sound screening tools and implementing them consistently (Ozernov-Palchik et al., 2025; Solari et al., 2022; Tatel et al., 2025). State and local education agencies can support the selection and use of high-quality screeners by vetting and approving assessments, setting expectations for screener administration and data use, and aligning screening with broader multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) or other early literacy initiatives.

Component B. Literacy instructional materials 

The adoption and use of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) for literacy, particularly when paired with curriculum-aligned professional learning, is associated with improvements in student achievement (Jackson & Makarin, 2018; Steiner, 2017). Because the quality of HQIM use depends on adoption, teacher buy-in, and implementation supports, state and local education agencies can help create the conditions for effective use. State education agencies may vet and approve HQIM for reading and writing instruction, set adoption expectations, and provide curriculum-aligned professional learning and implementation guidance to local education agencies. Local education agencies make adoption decisions, build the supports teachers need to implement materials with fidelity, and monitor use and consistency across schools.

Component C. Intervention systems: Multi-tiered systems of support for reading

A substantial body of research supports key components of MTSS for reading (MTSS-R)—such as universal screening; data-based decision making; and increasingly intensive, small-group interventions—as effective for improving foundational reading skills. However, evidence on comprehensive MTSS models suggests that effectiveness depends on consistent implementation, instructional alignment, and sufficient intensity of intervention (Balu et al., 2015; Coyne et al., 2018; Fien, Chard, et al., 2021; Fien, Nelson, et al., 2021). State education agencies support MTSS-R by developing statewide frameworks, setting expectations for tier definitions and decision rules, and building local education agency capacity for data-based decision making. Local education agencies are responsible for establishing consistent school-level implementation, including scheduling, staffing, and intervention delivery at sufficient intensity.

Component D. Teacher preparation and professional learning

Research suggests teacher professional learning is most effective when it is sustained, content-focused, aligned with curriculum, and supported by coaching and school leadership (Didion et al., 2020; Piasta et al., 2017; Piasta et al., 2020). State education agencies shape teacher preparation by setting licensure requirements, approving educator preparation programs, and requiring structured literacy content. Local education agencies help ensure that educators and school leaders receive sustained, job-embedded professional learning aligned with state standards, adopted HQIM, and other evidence-based early literacy practices. 

Component E. Family engagement

Research consistently associates family engagement in literacy—including shared reading, home literacy practices, and building family knowledge of reading development—with stronger early literacy outcomes for children (Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002; Weigel et al., 2006). State education agencies support family engagement by developing statewide guidance and family-facing resources; they may also set expectations for how local education agencies and schools communicate with families about reading development and individual student improvement plans. Local education agencies implement family engagement by adapting and delivering resources locally and ensuring communication is accessible; they may also help schools and teachers promote approaches that build family capacity to support literacy at home.

How to use these questions

State and local education agencies don’t need to answer every question at once. Many start by selecting one or two components that are the highest priority, or where implementation is newer or most uneven, and then choose a small set of learning questions. In the next post, we’ll focus on how to turn learning questions into a practical measurement plan using data you likely already have.