Are we assessing reading, readers, or something else entirely?

Newsletter

Photo by Guy Basabose on Unsplash

“Oral reading fluency is the ability to read connected text quickly, accurately, and with expression. It involves reading aloud smoothly, with proper pronunciation and appropriate prosody (pitch, stress, and timing). Fluent readers can decode words automatically, allowing them to focus on the meaning of the text rather than struggling with individual words.

It's important to note that while oral reading fluency is a critical component of reading proficiency, it does not guarantee comprehension. A student may read fluently but still struggle to understand the text's meaning.”

-Source: Perplexity.ai

At the 2025 WSRA conference, an educator shared about her daughter’s experience in receiving a personal reading plan.

She described her daughter as curious and with a good vocabulary. Having her daughter flagged as a struggling reader countered this identity. The letter that was sent to the parents asked a question about the quality and frequency of literacy experiences at home.

What triggered this plan and subsequent letter?

An oral reading fluency score below the 25th percentile.

This is the measure that matters in Wisconsin, as well as other states. If a student doesn’t read with enough speed and accuracy, they are identified as struggling. It doesn’t take into account:

• whether a student is a slow processor, but an effective reader,

• how a student performs on other reading assessments, and

• if a student understands what they read (which I noted in my last post as the whole point of reading).

Time to Teach: Will New Reading Legislation Help or Hinder Instruction?

Beyond the additional amount of time put upon educators and parents to manage this additional administrative work, a bigger concern looms: what are we actually measuring here: reading, or readers?

One could reasonably argue “neither”. Historically, oral reading fluency has not been a standalone measure for determining proficiency. At the primary level, benchmark books and running records, both of which incorporate comprehension with decoding and fluency, were a primary method of determining how students were progressing toward goals. Oral reading fluency is an indicator of whether or not students were successful as readers, but not a true assessment.

But that horse has left the gate. Oral reading fluency is part of the reading law. So it’s hard to argue that it’s not measuring reading, despite its limitations. That’s how it is being defined in Wisconsin and other states.

Where we can differentiate is whether it is measuring readers.

The simple response is “no”. Of course not - how can we truly assess a reader, even with the best tools? There are so many factors that influence this outcome, including but not limited to skill and strategy application, reading habits, motivation and engagement with reading, identity as a reader, depth of understanding, and the ability to think critically about a topic based on a variety of texts. And these conversations too rarely delve into the relationship between reading and writing, or how speaking and listening work at the core of being literate.

Based on what I just noted, my answer is still no: this law is not measuring readers.

A more important question to ask is, how are students viewing themselves as readers?

If a student is informed they have been identified as struggling based on one simple measure, how do they now view themselves? Does the assessment motivate them to want to get better at reading, or do they feel despair or “othered”?

Related, how do other students view that student who now has to engage in a reading intervention they may not need? I learned that students assigned to a computer-based support tool are referred to as “Lexia kids” by their peers. How is that helping students improve?

Taking another step back, who does a simple measure serve: students, or someone else? If this law serves the former, shouldn’t we expect to see students come out of the process as both more effective in reading and greater confidence as a reader?

My suspicion is this law is not actually designed to serve students, but rather the businesses that have developed the curriculum and assessment products. Companies such as Amplify (CKLA) and Great Minds (Wit & Wisdom) are making millions of dollars when states commit to their products and services.

Here’s how it seems to work:

1. A reading crisis is created. In our current situation, a main provocateur is Emily Hanford, aided by education news outlets including Education Week and the 74 Million. They have created a narrative that students are failing at reading.

2. All of these media sources are funded by organizations that have a philosophical and/or financial interest in a more narrow learning experience. For example, the conservative American Enterprise Institute has connections with the Knowledge Matters Campaign and the Core Knowledge Foundation, which promote a singular approach to knowledge building.

3. Money flows in to create resources such as curriculum resource selection tools, which are then promoted to the state-level government, specifically departments of education. These tools are biased toward the curriculum resources.

4. Approved curriculum resource lists show uncanny similarities. For example, CKLA is on 23 of 28 state lists for districts to choose from when selecting ELA instructional materials. (Source: Paraphrased from notes from a session by Dr. Elena Aydarova, University of Wisconsin-Madison, at the WSRA Conference 2025)

Since implementation of these materials have occurred, concerns have been raised. For example, a study found that Wit & Wisdom (Great Minds) perpetuates a Western Euro-centric point of view in the texts students read. Stereotypes are perpetuated. White authors predominate the source of these texts.¹

Coming back to the concern around oral reading fluency, in this context it makes sense that this indicator of successful readers would be used as a primary measure for reading proficiency. These materials teach skills. The measure matters. For a student to do well on oral reading fluency means the teacher likely taught the program well at the expense of teaching the readers. The tail wags the dog.

Conversely, these resources apparently don’t teach students how to think critically, or to construct meaning beyond the content presented in the resource. This seems to be the point: the more conservative leaning organizations would prefer future citizens not exercise critical thought. To build that capacity would continue to put some of our country’s systems in jeopardy.

Simple measures leave little room for divergent and creative learners to be seen as successful. Does a reader take their time to read a text, maybe reread parts to ensure they understand? They are going to be dinged for their thoughtfulness.

Assessing readers is messy work. There are many factors and influences that lead to reading success or failure. Authentic, comprehensive assessment processes can be challenging to implement. The siren call of a simple measure is tempting for educators to settle in, even when beliefs push back. These mandates create even more work for already overworked teachers and leaders, likely by design. Still, the trade-off is a masking of our students as readers.

What can we do?

• Share your stories with administration and your representatives about how these mandates are impacting your students and families. Stories sometimes have more influence than numbers.

• Look for ways to celebrate your readers (and writers) on a regular basis. For example, leverage conferring to let your students know how they are progressing.

• Build a community of readers. Use the classroom library as a tool for liberation from the single stories that some mandated instructional materials perpetuate.

• Take care of yourself. These are difficult times. One teacher I know takes long walks in the evenings, hiking trails in nature with her dog. You can only give what you have.

1. Here is a link to the study that is primary cited: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358740523_Overwhelming_whiteness_a_critical_analysis_of_race_in_a_scripted_reading_curriculum