We know that when children are still struggling with reading at the end of year 2, catching up becomes harder. As the curriculum moves on, they’re expected to read more independently across every subject, so early support is vital. National Literacy Trust figures show reading enjoyment among five to eight-year-olds has fallen from 75.3 per cent in 2023 to 61.6 per cent this year. Separate EPI and EEF research puts the disadvantage gap at 17.9 months by GCSE, with reading attainment at key stage 2 accounting for 1.8 months of that gap. Doing well by age seven also appears to protect against further widening later on. A new EEF trial found that pupils using Lexia Core5 Reading made two months’ additional progress in reading. At our school we have trialled and implemented several other reading interventions. We have found that reading interventions generally work well in trials, but can then be difficult to sustain over time, especially if they require lots of adult support, resources and time. Ed tech can be a really useful tool to address some of these barriers to implementation. What the EEF’s effectiveness trial tells me, across 224 primary schools and nearly 2,500 children including our own, is that struggling year 2 readers using the programme made two months’ additional progress, with the same result for pupils eligible for free school meals. I’m delighted with those results, but I think the more useful part of the evaluation is the implementation evidence that goes with it. The RAND Europe evaluators found schools where senior leaders made the programme a visible priority and gave it dedicated time and protected space achieved stronger outcomes for both staff and pupils. I don’t doubt that finding, but it’s also designed in a way that makes it considerably easier to stick to than most interventions we’ve tried. What made the difference The programme doesn’t require heavy adult intervention, and we could run it with a whole class at the same time, which is a logistical difference that’s enormously important for a class teacher managing a packed morning. It sets children according to their own level so the activities are pitched at the right challenge, and children can have success without standing out for being lower or higher than their peers. Staff took to it quickly, and more of our children are now working in the appropriate year group band, with a number who’d been reluctant readers becoming noticeably more motivated in class. We’ve since continued using it, running four classes on the programme and 30 children using it as a daily intervention. What the evidence can’t confirm The EEF findings aren’t uniformly positive, and the evaluation is upfront about that. Around half of headteachers in the trial reported that their own school’s hardware or digital infrastructure created real barriers to delivery. The report also found no additional progress in oral reading fluency compared with the control group. That remains an important limitation. The evaluators are also honest that schools joining a two-year randomised controlled trial were likely more positively disposed towards educational technology, and perhaps better equipped, than many schools would be. In our experience, the technology demand itself has been relatively low, with basic devices, headphones and a reliable internet connection sufficient to run the programme. That does not remove the infrastructure issue for schools where even those basics are stretched, and it is still important for headteachers to consider what resources they have before committing. For me, the significance of this trial goes beyond whether one programme works. It shows how much implementation matters when an intervention meets the realities of school life. The real question for any headteacher considering a reading intervention is whether their school is prepared to give it the committed, protected time the implementation data shows is what actually makes the difference.