The problem with standards-based reading instruction
Every subject has standards that outline expectations for students by grade level. In reading, the standards do a decent job of outlining what students should be able to do when reading on grade level but a rotten job of outlining what needs to happen to improve reading. They articulate the destination, but teaching the standards one by one is not an effective path to get there. The problem is that educators are encouraged and, in cases, required to treat the standards as the path, and we have an entire marketplace of assessment and intervention products that reinforce this approach. This leads to a significant volume of instruction on the standards which has done very little to improve reading proficiency. Let me break this down.
According to the “simple view of reading,” reading comprehension is the product of word recognition and language comprehension. In more detail, reading comprehension sits at the intersection of the topic and complexity of text and the knowledge and skill the reader brings to the text and the task. Contrary to popular understanding, we don’t have a single reading level; our reading level changes depending on the text. Many factors influence comprehension. First, students need foundational skills to be able to lift the words from the page; not having these foundational skills trips up even older students. Vocabulary knowledge correlates with reading comprehension, and volume of reading matters. The complexity of the text has a big impact on comprehension. Student knowledge of the topic shapes understanding. Cultural understanding of language impacts comprehension. Motivation and belief in one’s ability to read matter.
Though the reading standards explain what students should be able to do when reading on grade level, they do not attend to all the factors that influence students’ comprehension of a text.
Example: When standards-based diagnosis falls short
Let me offer an example. Say a 7th-grade student is asked to determine two or more central ideas in JFK’s inaugural address (a question that aligns to the standard RI.7.2). A student might answer this question incorrectly for many reasons. The student could struggle to decode the words. The student could be missing context on the Cold War that is critical to making meaning of the speech. They could be tripped up by specific vocabulary. The student could find the complexity of Kennedy’s long sentences too much to track. The student could be disinterested in historical speeches. They might have a self-image as a poor reader that makes them less likely to give it a try. Or, the student might not understand what a central idea is or how to identify it.
If this question is tagged to the standard about central ideas, the educator will be compelled, and even required, to diagnose the problem as the student’s understanding of the concept of central idea. This practice is reinforced by an entire marketplace of assessment and intervention solutions and even grading practices that drive teachers back to the standards not just as the outcome but as the unit of instruction. And so, the teacher is likely to reteach the concept of the central idea. Again. As Tim Shanahan eloquently describes here, American students get many lessons on central idea throughout their schooling, without getting much better at identifying central ideas.
There have been efforts to shift reading instruction away from this march through the standards. When states shifted to new standards 10+ years ago, many leaders talked about “the shifts” to encourage a more text-based approach. The standards themselves explicitly stated that they were not intended to outline how teachers should teach. The publishers’ criteria detailed the factors that matter in instructional materials with care for the role of knowledge and text complexity. Rating systems like EdReports attend to these dimensions effectively; green-rated curricula tend to center on the text, not the standards in isolation.
But these efforts have not succeeded at flipping the switch away from standards-based instruction as the dominant mental model for what good reading instruction “should” look like. Standards-based pacing guides, standards-based report cards, and standards-based remediation practices still abound. All while reading results stay flat or decline.
So what can be done? I describe this problem as “gnarly” because I appreciate how hard it is to solve.
Let me state first what I do NOT think needs to change.
First, I do not think that the reading standards themselves require revision. The standards are doing the job they are asked to do. They outline the goal for student learning by grade. Revisiting the standards does not feel like a practical or necessary step to address this problem.
Second, I do not think that the design of the end-of-year state tests or NAEP assessments require wholesale revision. I do think that they need to be improved; states could immediately shift the topics of the informational passages to better moderate for background knowledge. But end-of-year, summative assessments do a specific job—they holistically capture a student’s performance relative to grade-level standards. The tests, in reading and in all subjects, are not designed to inform instruction—they cannot be efficient, holistic, and instructionally useful all at the same time. In my opinion, improving the state test design alone will not change the way educators think about standards-based instruction in practice.
What it will take to change reading instruction
To change reading instruction, I sense we need to do two simple things—both of which are hard.
1) We need to develop a replacement system that helps teachers pinpoint and address what is blocking students from understanding what they’re reading.
- Put another way, we need to develop a diagnostic system for language comprehension that is actually instructionally useful. Teachers and leaders will only stop using the standards to organize instruction or report on student progress when there is an alternative approach that makes sense and gets better outcomes. To improve reading outcomes, it will have to reflect the factors that matter to reading proficiency, which means it will have to be multidimensional—there is no chance it will be as simple as the standards currently seem. To scale, it has to be repeatable—it will have to be more systematic than “build teacher judgement to conduct thoughtful student work analysis.” Product developers are unlikely to change their designs unless they know there is a strong market for an alternative, so we will have to agree to one approach; we can’t have competing versions. But we are not starting with a blank page. Innovative researchers, educators, and assessment and intervention developers have been thinking about how to improve reading outcomes for years. Many good ideas are out there (and I hope to learn about more in replies to this post!).
2) We need to get everyone to understand it and agree to use it instead of the standards.
- Once the replacement system is clear, everyone needs to agree to use it. I actually think this will be the easier part, but I’ll save that for another post.
For now, all of us who see the problems that reductive standards-based thinking causes in reading instruction can make noise about them. There are things that can be done. But only if we try.
Emily Freitag, CEO
Before co-founding Instruction Partners, Emily Freitag was the assistant commissioner of curriculum and instruction for the Tennessee Department of Education. In this role, she oversaw K–12 core academics including standards, assessment design, instructional materials, and educator training and support. She led a collaborative effort to train more than 65,000 teachers and leaders during this time in a peer-led, content-based approach, and Tennessee saw increases in student achievement on both the NAEP and state tests. For five years before coming to Tennessee, Emily managed Teach For America’s DC and Connecticut regions. She fell in love with education teaching 7th-grade math in a rural community in Louisiana.
This post is adapted from an email originally shared with Emily’s email list on Friday, September 19, 2025. If you would like to receive her next email, subscribe below.
