It’s a scenario that probably feels familiar to many leaders and educators: A literacy intervention is selected through a careful, thoughtful process. It’s evidence based, gets positive reports from other districts, and is designed to address the literacy challenge everyone is eager to solve. Teachers are trained before the new school year begins, there is enthusiasm for the initiative, and the program is launched in classrooms.
Yet, by spring, literacy achievement data is disappointing—and no one is entirely sure what happened.
What went wrong?
A growing body of work in implementation science offers an explanation as well as a path forward. The research reminds us that the quality of a program and the quality of its implementation are two distinct things that are both necessary for the student outcomes everyone hopes to see. In the real-world conditions of most schools, achieving high-fidelity implementation is often far more challenging than many people expect.
When leaders and educators evaluate literacy interventions, much of the conversation focuses on key questions such as: Does the program align with the science of reading? Is there measurable evidence of positive outcomes? Will it address the literacy needs identified in our data? While these are critical questions, implementation science suggests there is an additional question that deserves equal attention:
Can we realistically implement this program well in our schools and classrooms?
Not all evidence-based interventions require the same implementation conditions. Some are designed with a specific, often ideal set of circumstances in mind: uninterrupted daily intervention blocks, extensive coaching support, specialized staffing, and significant leadership oversight. In many schools, however, those conditions are limited or are competing with other priorities. This is not because of weak leadership or a lack of commitment, it is simply the reality of K-12 public education.
Today's schools are complex systems where schedules are tight, resources are stretched, and unexpected needs arise on a daily basis. Programs that appear highly effective at first glance may prove difficult to sustain when those realities are not considered during the selection process.
This is where implementation science offers a useful perspective. Rather than viewing implementation challenges as something to solve after a program has been launched, leaders can incorporate the concept of implementation feasibility into the decision-making process from the start. After all, a program that cannot be delivered as designed—consistently and with fidelity—will not produce the hoped-for outcomes, regardless of how strong its evidence base may be.
For more than two decades, researchers have been studying why good, evidence-based practices and programs fail in real-world conditions—and the findings are remarkably consistent. Successful outcomes depend not only on the quality of a program, but also on the systems and supports around it. Structured implementation support—including clear expectations, ongoing coaching, leadership engagement, and systems for monitoring progress and responding to data—significantly increases the likelihood of meaningful, lasting outcomes (Fixsen et al., 2005).
“Sustainable school and district transformation isn’t about adopting the right curriculum—it's about implementing it with integrity and fidelity, monitoring its impact, and continuously refining practices. Without a strong implementation framework, even the best strategies will falter.”
—Julia James Carlson, EdD
Author, Implementation Science: A Playbook for Instructional Leaders
What often makes the difference is the work leaders do to create the conditions for success and support the people who are using the program with students.
A key component of implementation-science-based frameworks is the concept of enabling context—the conditions that must be intentionally created before implementation begins. This includes building strong implementation teams, establishing a clear vision with measurable goals, protecting time in the master schedule for consistent use, providing meaningful professional learning, and creating systems for ongoing monitoring and continuous improvement.
Enabling context is the foundational work that allows a program to take hold and reach its potential. Without it, even strong programs may struggle to produce the desired results. When an enabling context is in place, schools dramatically increase the likelihood that their intervention decisions translate into meaningful gains for students, positive experiences for teachers, and lasting, sustainable impact over time.
The good news is that summer is an ideal time to begin this work, in preparation for the fall. As leaders prepare, it may be helpful to ask two equally important questions about every program:
The resources below can help you assess implementation feasibility—whether you’re evaluating a new program or preparing for another year with one already in place: