Measuring for a content-rich education beyond basic skills

Our indicators of success influence the nature of education programming. If we measure only basic literacy skills, we will deprive children of opportunities to become critical thinkers and lifelong learners.

June 19, 2019 by Christabel Pinto, Room to Read
5 minutes read
A teacher supporting children’s independent reading in Tanzania.
A teacher supporting children’s independent reading in Tanzania.
Room to Read

The success of reading programs for the early grades is often determined by how well children do on oral tests of basic skills: letter naming, word and non-word reading, paragraph reading, and questions on the text.

This focus on basic skills aligns with our knowledge that foundational literacy skills are crucial for later school success. However, the choices we make about what to measure and what to leave unmeasured can have implications for the nature of education programming.

Clinical approaches to education

Given finite resources to increase children’s outcomes on oral tests of reading skills, there is a tendency to take a clinical view to educating children, one that seeks the minimum inputs that will increase children’s basic literacy skills.

While these inputs might indeed have this result, are we paying enough attention to the holistic needs of our stakeholders and to long-term systemic change? The danger to taking an expedient approach to education is that it does not account for the complexity of meaningful learning and sustained change.

For teachers, learning to teach is more than implementing a program

In many literacy programs, training and support efforts tend to be geared toward enabling teachers to implement a particular program with fidelity, often involving scripted lessons.

It is possible, however, to learn how to implement a program without developing the sustained knowledge and skills that can outlive any project cycle or shifting government policies. I have spoken to teachers in early grade reading programs who knew what to do but could not explain why they were doing it; they could implement the reading program they were trained on but were not developing general skills like lesson planning and classroom management.

For students, learning to read is more than skills and strategies

To increase children’s scores on tests of basic skills in the most efficient way, the complex, creative act of teaching is commonly reduced to simple, systematic routines focused on basic skills and strategies.

While routines certainly have a place in classrooms, instructional routines that are overly simplistic and strictly followed do little to move away from the call-and-response interaction between teachers and students that is prevalent in low-resourced contexts.

There is more to learning how to read than skills and strategies. Motivation, engagement, self-efficacy, and metacognition are all important (Afflerbach, 2018). We want children to develop positive reading habits as enthusiastic, lifelong learners, and this goal is forgotten by programs that narrowly focus on drilling skills.

The argument that children need to learn the basics of decoding before they can engage in rich content and higher order thinking incorrectly assumes a linear progression that most adversely affects disadvantaged children. The comprehension of text, which is the goal of reading, requires knowledge and critical thinking in addition to decoding skills, and both kinds of learning can and should happen in parallel.

Children from economically disadvantaged communities start school with fewer experiences and a more limited knowledge base than their more affluent peers. To reduce this knowledge gap, children need to be engaged in knowledge-building activities (Neuman, 2006) while simultaneously learning basic skills.

Expanding indicators of success

Assessments of basic skills are easy to administer reliably, even by people who may not have expertise in education. However, assessments that are easy to administer tend to be limited in what they can tell us (Afflerbach, 2018) and drive equally limiting programmatic interventions.

Expanding our indicators of success so that improvements in basic literacy skills, while necessary, are not considered sufficient, would deepen and extend education programming to enrich the learning of children and educators.

This is more challenging, of course, and would require a much larger investment. Imagine what a literacy program would look like if, to be considered successful, it needed to demonstrate increases in the following sample of indicators in addition to improving children’s basic skills:

For teachers:

  • Number of teachers who independently plan a lesson in which meaningful activities and assessments support a learning objective
  • Number of teachers who effectively manage a classroom (children, materials, activities and time)
  • Number of teachers who skillfully engage a class with an interactive read aloud of a book
  • Number of teachers who ask questions that invite ideas, opinions, and critical thought from children
  • Number of teachers who engage children in knowledge-building activities (to help them understand the world around them and grow their vocabularies).

For children:

  • Number of diverse, high quality, appropriate books children have access to
  • Number of books children borrow to read
  • Number of opportunities children have to choose what they read
  • Number of opportunities children have to express independent thoughts in a lesson (in contrast to copying, dictation exercises, reciting or mimicking the teacher)
  • Number of questions asked by children in a lesson that other children and/or the teacher respond to.

These types of indicators can be difficult to even define, let alone measure reliably, but they express a vision of a classroom that aspires for more than the rote drilling of basic literacy skills.

Teachers are at the heart of bringing this vision to life, and a higher investment in teachers would lead to sustained, long-term changes to improve the learning of children in schools.

Toward content-rich education programs

What we choose to measure is ultimately a reflection of what we value most. I value children learning basic literacy skills. I equally value children developing a love of reading and having a voice that matters in the classroom, and teachers developing core skills that make them stronger professionals for the long term.

We have a choice to make: “Exposed to a language-rich, content-rich setting, children begin to acquire the broad array of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that build a foundation for literacy. Exposed to a literacy curriculum reduced to a set of narrow, largely procedural skills, children learn to please others by mimicking, reciting, and repeating. They learn how to react, not how to think” (Neuman, 2006).

Let us support a new generation of thinkers and, while doing so, inject a dose of joy into the learning process.


Afflerbach, P. (2018). Teaching Readers, Not Reading. Annual Jeanne Chall lecture at Harvard University. Retrieved from

Neuman, S. (2006). N is for Nonsensical. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 28-31

Post a comment or

Latest blogs


Who are these teachers? Are there coming to schools from villages, where they have their own added responsibility with family, a second job, other than teaching a 'Holistic ' reading program? Could it be that time may be a definite factor?

Are children, not already engaged, especially the marginalized group, when given a mere opportunity with a 'rich' reading program?

Are 'reading' resources readily available to both teachers and children?

Reading by rote means to repeat word for word (after the educator). Is that what what is happening in the schools, , instead of learning to decod words, sentences from their books?

In reply to by Alice

Thank you for your comments and questions, Alice. Learning how to decode is certainly an important component of reading with comprehension since it leads to effortless word recognition, but it is not sufficient. Scarborough’s (2001) reading rope is a nice visual for some of the strands that need to be developed for skilled reading. Afflerbach (2018) makes the point that things like motivation and self-efficacy are also important (cited in references). In response to the point you raise on the difficulties teachers face, the increased investment in teachers that I am advocating for (which would include how teachers are prepared, supported on an ongoing basis, and paid a living wage) should help to alleviate them.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. All fields are required.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Global and entity tokens are replaced with their values. Browse available tokens.