Effective Reading Goals for Students: An Evidence-Based Guide for Teachers and IEP Teams

A reading goal should tell a teacher more than whether a student reached a number.

It should identify which part of reading is developing, where the student is starting, what improvement should look like, and how the teacher will know whether instruction is working.

That distinction matters because reading is not one skill.

A student may read individual words accurately but struggle to understand a paragraph. Another may understand grade-level material when it is read aloud but have weak decoding. A third may decode accurately but so slowly that comprehension suffers. Another may read fluently yet lack the vocabulary and background knowledge needed to understand science or social studies text.

Those students should not receive the same “reading goal.”

Current What Works Clearinghouse guidance for kindergarten through third grade includes phonological awareness linked with letters, decoding and word analysis, academic language, and daily connected-text reading. For older struggling readers, the WWC grades 4–9 practice guide recommends explicit instruction in multisyllabic word reading, purposeful fluency-building activities, vocabulary and background knowledge, comprehension routines, and supported work with challenging text.

The strongest reading goals therefore follow a simple sequence:

assessment → specific reading need → baseline → instructional target → progress measure → review of response

For students with IEPs, this sequence also has a legal foundation. IDEA regulations require measurable annual academic and functional goals that address disability-related needs and specify that the IEP explain how progress toward those goals will be measured.

What Makes a Reading Goal Useful?

A technically measurable goal can still be weak.

Consider: The student will improve reading comprehension with 85% accuracy.

The percentage is measurable. The reading process is not.

Does the student struggle with main idea, inferencing, vocabulary, sentence comprehension, text structure, background knowledge, monitoring comprehension, or retaining details?

The intervention cannot be selected accurately until the problem is defined more precisely.

A stronger reading goal generally identifies:

The percentage should come after these decisions.

1. Reading Comprehension Goals: Target the Source of the Breakdown

Reading comprehension is often treated as a single ability. It is not.

Comprehension requires the reader to combine word recognition, vocabulary, syntax, background knowledge, inferencing, text structure, attention to important information, and comprehension monitoring.

This explains why two students with equally low comprehension scores may require very different interventions.

The WWC's grades 4–9 guidance recommends several specific comprehension-building practices: developing world and word knowledge, asking and answering questions, determining the gist of short sections, monitoring comprehension, and practicing with appropriately supported challenging text.

For younger students, the WWC kindergarten-through-third-grade comprehension guide also recommends explicit comprehension strategies, text-structure instruction, focused discussion, purposeful text selection, and motivating reading contexts.

A commonly used goal is: By the end of the semester, the student will identify the main idea and supporting details in a grade-level text with 85% accuracy.

This may be appropriate if assessment has actually identified main-idea extraction as the problem. It should not become a generic reading-comprehension goal.

Stronger Main-Idea Goal

After reading a grade-level informational passage, the student will state the central idea and identify at least two text details that support that idea in 4 of 5 probes, using no more than one organizational support.

Stronger Inferencing Goal

After reading a curriculum-based narrative or informational passage, the student will generate a reasonable inference and identify at least two details from the text that support the inference in 4 of 5 opportunities.

Stronger Comprehension-Monitoring Goal

When encountering a section of text that is confusing or inconsistent with prior information, the student will identify the comprehension breakdown and independently use an established strategy—such as rereading, examining context, asking a clarification question, or using a reference support—in 4 of 5 opportunities.

These goals address different processes. Calling all three “reading comprehension” would obscure the distinction.

Comprehension Goals Should Require Evidence From the Text

A student can occasionally answer a comprehension question correctly through background knowledge or guessing. That is why higher-quality goals often require the student to show how they reached the answer.

Instead of asking only what happened, ask what happened and what part of the text supports that conclusion. Instead of asking only how a character feels, ask for a reasonable interpretation and the evidence supporting it.

This structure also aligns reading goals with the increasingly evidence-based demands students encounter in the curriculum.

Foundational Reading Intervention Can Improve Comprehension Too

It is a mistake to assume that poor reading comprehension always requires more comprehension-strategy instruction.

For beginning readers, weak decoding itself may be the major barrier. A meta-analysis of 47 studies involving 7,446 kindergarten-through-third-grade students with or at risk for reading difficulties found a positive average effect of foundational and multicomponent reading intervention on norm-referenced reading-comprehension outcomes.

If a student cannot accurately identify the words on the page, improving word reading may be one of the most direct ways to improve access to meaning.

Assessment should therefore determine whether comprehension is limited primarily by word reading, language comprehension, or both.

2. Reading Fluency Goals: Fluency Is More Than Speed

Fluency is a major reading domain, but a goal such as increase oral reading fluency by 20 words per minute in 12 weeks is too arbitrary without baseline and normative data.

Fluency includes at least three related components:

• accuracy — reading the words correctly;
• automaticity — recognizing words efficiently without excessive effort; and
• prosody — appropriate phrasing, stress, pacing, and expression.

The WWC grades 4–9 intervention guide defines fluency in terms of accurate, relatively effortless, appropriately expressive reading and gives strong evidence to purposeful fluency-building intervention.

Words correct per minute can be highly useful. It should not become the definition of reading fluency.

Words Correct per Minute Is an Indicator, Not the Final Reading Outcome

Curriculum-based measures of oral reading fluency can provide efficient data about reading development. The National Center on Intensive Intervention describes curriculum-based reading measures as useful for screening and progress monitoring; words read correctly per minute can be sensitive to intervention effects.

But a student can increase reading rate while making too many errors, reading without phrasing, or understanding very little. Rate should therefore be interpreted with accuracy and comprehension.

Better Fluency Goal

Given equivalent grade-level oral-reading probes, the student will improve from a baseline median of [baseline] words correct per minute to an individually established end-of-period criterion of [goal], while maintaining at least the required accuracy criterion on three consecutive progress-monitoring probes.

The actual WCPM target should come from the student's baseline, the measure being used, grade and time of year, validated benchmarks or growth expectations, and the intervention period—not from a universal “20 more words” rule.

Accuracy Should Come Before Speed When Word Reading Is Weak

Rate becomes difficult to interpret if a student is reading inaccurately.

A student who rushes through a passage at 120 words per minute while misreading numerous words is not necessarily a stronger reader than a student reading more slowly but accurately.

Some progress-monitoring systems explicitly caution against interpreting rate without adequate accuracy. For a student with substantial decoding errors, the goal may first need to target accurate word reading.

Purposeful Repeated Reading Is Better Than “Read It Faster”

The WWC recommends repeated-reading routines in which students reread a passage several times for different purposes, rather than simply racing the clock.

A student might reread first for accurate word reading, again for phrasing, again to determine the gist, and again to answer a question. The grades 4–9 guide suggests approximately three to four purposeful readings in this type of fluency activity.

The instructional message should therefore be: read increasingly accurately and efficiently so more attention is available for understanding, rather than read as fast as possible.

3. Phonics and Decoding Goals: Be Specific About the Orthographic Skill

For beginning readers, explicit instruction connecting speech sounds with letters and letter patterns has one of the strongest evidence bases in literacy instruction.

The WWC K–3 foundational-skills guide gives strong evidence to developing awareness of speech-sound segments and their connections to letters and explicitly teaching students to decode words, analyze word parts, and recognize written words.

A CVC goal such as accurately decode and blend CVC words with 90% accuracy can be appropriate, but it needs to correspond with the student's actual instructional level.

Beginning Decoding Goal

Given untaught decodable CVC words containing previously taught consonant and short-vowel correspondences, the student will blend and read the words accurately in 18 of 20 opportunities across three probes.

The phrase untaught words is important. If the same ten words are drilled repeatedly, the student may memorize the word list without demonstrating generalization of the decoding pattern.

Decoding Goals Should Test Transfer

Suppose instruction teaches map, sat, and fin. The stronger assessment asks whether the student can then decode unfamiliar but structurally similar words.

That tells the teacher whether the student learned the orthographic pattern rather than the specific flashcards.

Phonics Does Not End in Second Grade for Every Student

Older struggling readers may still require direct decoding intervention. The WWC's 2022 practice guide gives strong evidence to teaching students in grades 4–9 how to decode complex multisyllabic words.

An upper-elementary goal might therefore target syllable patterns, vowel patterns, prefixes and suffixes, roots, or multisyllabic decoding.

Upper-Elementary Decoding Goal

Given unfamiliar curriculum-relevant multisyllabic words containing previously taught syllable types and affixes, the student will accurately identify meaningful word parts, divide the word using the taught decoding routine, and read the complete word in 8 of 10 opportunities across three probes.

That is more useful than giving an older struggling reader additional “reading-level practice” without addressing the underlying word-reading difficulty.

Evidence for Explicit Reading Intervention Is Strongest for Foundational Skills

A 2023 meta-analysis of 53 studies involving 6,053 K–5 students with or at risk for dyslexia found a statistically significant average effect of reading intervention on norm-referenced outcomes.

Higher intervention dosage was associated with larger effects, and effects were stronger for word reading and spelling than for reading-comprehension outcomes.

A broader review of elementary literacy interventions similarly concluded that explicit and systematic instruction targeting both code-based and meaning-based reading components can improve outcomes for students with reading difficulties and disabilities.

For goal writing, this has a practical implication: do not write a broad comprehension goal for a student whose assessment shows that decoding remains the primary bottleneck.

4. Vocabulary Goals: Count Knowledge, Not Just Words Taught

A goal such as the student will learn and correctly use 50 new grade-level vocabulary words treats the word learn as though it were all-or-nothing.

A student may recognize a word, choose its definition, explain it, use it, identify synonyms, recognize its morphological relatives, or understand it across several contexts. These are different levels of lexical knowledge.

The WWC's grades 4–9 guidance gives strong support to developing world and word knowledge as part of reading-comprehension intervention. Teachers are encouraged to select a small number of conceptually important words, teach their meanings directly, and give students repeated opportunities to work with those words.

Vocabulary Goals Should Reflect Depth of Knowledge

Direct Vocabulary Goal

After explicit instruction in curriculum-relevant vocabulary, the student will explain the meaning of a target word and use it accurately in a novel oral or written context for 8 of 10 assessed words across three probes.

Morphology and Context Goal

When encountering an unfamiliar Tier 2 or curriculum-related word in text, the student will use relevant morphology, context, and available reference supports to generate and verify a reasonable definition in 4 of 5 opportunities.

The second goal is especially useful for older students because it teaches a word-learning process, not only a fixed list.

Vocabulary and Background Knowledge Work Together

A student may know every individual word in a paragraph and still struggle because they lack the background knowledge needed to integrate the ideas.

Current WWC guidance therefore explicitly combines world knowledge and word knowledge. Before reading a difficult passage, educators may provide a short introduction to essential concepts and teach several crucial words needed to understand the text.

This is why “vocabulary goal” and “comprehension goal” are often related but should not be confused.

5. Reading Strategy Goals: The Strategy Is the Tool, Not the Outcome

A goal such as the student will independently use at least three different reading strategies sounds comprehensive. But using three strategies is not necessarily better than using one strategy appropriately.

A student could predict, visualize, and ask a question without understanding the text.

Comprehension strategies are tools. The outcome is better comprehension.

The WWC recommends teaching specific comprehension routines but connects them directly with text understanding—for example, asking and answering questions, determining the gist, and monitoring comprehension.

Better Strategy Goal: Use a Strategy When It Is Needed

When the student recognizes that a section of text is not understood, they will independently select and use an appropriate repair strategy—such as rereading, slowing down, examining surrounding sentences, identifying an unknown word, or asking a focused question—and then state the meaning of the section in 4 of 5 opportunities.

This measures recognition of the problem, selection and application of a strategy, and successful comprehension. That is substantially more informative than checking whether three strategy names appeared during the lesson.

Predicting and Visualizing Should Not Become Goals by Default

Some strategies fit particular texts better than others.

Prediction may be useful in a narrative with several plausible outcomes. Text-structure analysis may be more useful for a cause-and-effect science passage. Summarization may fit a section containing several important details.

The WWC K–3 comprehension guide recommends matching the text to the purpose of the comprehension lesson rather than applying one strategy mechanically to every reading selection.

The goal should therefore reflect the student's identified need.

6. Independent Reading Goals: Practice Is Valuable, but Minutes and Book Counts Are Not Reading Skills

A goal such as the student will independently read for 30 minutes daily and complete at least 10 books from various genres may be a reasonable classroom routine. It is not, by itself, a reading-skill goal.

Reading 10 books does not demonstrate better decoding, stronger fluency, deeper comprehension, or vocabulary growth.

Reading volume and reading achievement are related, but the relationship is bidirectional: stronger readers tend to read more, and greater print exposure can in turn contribute to reading development. A large meta-analysis of print exposure found moderate-to-strong relationships between leisure reading and several literacy outcomes across development.

That does not mean assigning more pages automatically improves reading.

Independent Silent Reading Should Not Replace Explicit Instruction

For students who still have foundational reading difficulties, independent reading alone is not sufficient treatment.

The research base does not support using unsupervised silent reading as the sole method for developing fluency or foundational reading skills in struggling readers.

Independent reading works best as one part of a broader literacy program that also includes explicit teaching.

For a student with decoding weakness, teach decoding. For a student with fluency weakness, teach and practice fluency. For a student with vocabulary weakness, teach vocabulary and knowledge. Then provide opportunities to use those skills while reading.

Better Independent-Reading Goals

If the instructional target is stamina:

During independent reading of a self-selected accessible text, the student will sustain engaged reading for [individualized duration] with no more than [specified support], then provide a brief oral or written account demonstrating understanding of what was read.

If the goal is independent application of a comprehension routine:

During independent reading, the student will record the gist of each assigned section and identify one point of confusion or one relevant question in 4 of 5 reading samples.

Now the teacher is measuring a reading behavior connected with comprehension rather than only time spent holding a book.

7. “Advance Two Reading Levels” Is Usually Too Vague for a Strong Goal

In six months, the student will advance two reading levels is one of the most common reading goals in schools. It is also one of the least informative.

What is a “reading level”? A Lexile band, a guided-reading letter, a publisher's proprietary level, a benchmark-assessment category, or an instructional grade equivalent?

Those systems do not necessarily measure the same thing, and the distance between two levels is not necessarily equal across the scale.

A child can also move up a level while continuing to have a serious deficit in one component of reading.

Reading Levels Can Describe Performance Without Explaining It

Suppose two students are both described as reading “below grade level.” Student A has poor phonemic decoding but strong listening comprehension. Student B decodes accurately but lacks vocabulary and inferential comprehension.

Their instructional needs are nearly opposite.

One global level cannot explain that difference. A stronger assessment plan examines the components directly: word reading, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, language comprehension, and reading comprehension.

Do Not Keep Students Permanently Confined to Easy Text

Students need text they can read successfully. They also need supported access to grade-level ideas and language.

The WWC's grades 4–9 practice guide recommends stretch text—challenging material that students may not yet read independently—with substantial teacher support.

These texts expose students to sophisticated vocabulary, sentence structures, concepts, and grade-level content rather than restricting struggling readers exclusively to easier material.

The point is not to abandon accessible texts. It is to avoid converting a reading level into a ceiling.

Better Than a “Two-Level” Goal

Instead of targeting two reading levels, write the goal around the component limiting progress.

For example:

Given unfamiliar grade-level multisyllabic words, the student will apply the taught decoding routine with 85% accuracy across three probes.

Or:

Given a grade-level informational text with instructional support, the student will determine the gist of each section and answer text-dependent comprehension questions with 80% accuracy across three probes.

The student's broader reading level may improve as these component skills improve. The level becomes an outcome descriptor, not the treatment target.

8. Reading Motivation: You Cannot Force a Student to Love Reading

Motivation matters, but a goal such as participate in one book talk per month and celebrate milestones with class rewards does not necessarily measure motivation.

A student can complete every book talk and still dislike reading.

Reading motivation is multidimensional and can include interest, self-efficacy, perceived competence, choice, social aspects of reading, avoidance, and different forms of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

The goal should not be to manufacture enthusiasm. The classroom can instead create conditions that make engagement more likely.

What Helps Create a More Motivating Reading Environment?

Research-informed practices include helping students understand the purpose of reading, providing opportunities to experience success, allowing some choice, connecting texts with interests, supporting students in setting and monitoring their own goals, and using peer collaboration.

These practices support autonomy, not a quota system.

Be Careful With Rewards as the Main Reading-Motivation Strategy

External rewards can sometimes increase short-term participation. They should not become the central reason students read.

Tangible rewards may have less favorable effects on intrinsic motivation than informational feedback and encouragement.

A student who reads only to earn a pizza coupon has learned something about pizza. That does not necessarily tell us what they have learned about reading.

Better Motivation and Engagement Goal

If engagement itself is an instructional concern, a goal might focus on agency and self-monitoring:

Given a set of appropriately accessible texts, the student will select a text based on stated interest or purpose, establish a reading goal, monitor progress toward that goal, and reflect briefly on comprehension or engagement in 4 of 5 opportunities.

This does not claim to measure “love of reading.” It measures reading agency.

9. Progress Monitoring Should Be Built Into the Goal From the Beginning

A goal without a progress-monitoring plan is incomplete.

The National Center on Intensive Intervention's 2024 training recommends using academic progress-monitoring data to establish current performance, set ambitious goals, evaluate growth, and make instructional decisions.

A strong reading goal should therefore identify what data will actually be collected.

Decoding

Percentage of unfamiliar words decoded correctly.

Fluency

Words correct per minute plus accuracy and, when appropriate, prosody.

Vocabulary

Correct explanation or application of taught or unfamiliar words.

Comprehension

Text-dependent responses, inference probes, gist statements, or a defined rubric.

Narrative or Text Structure

Required components or structural features.

Strategy Use

Independent identification of a breakdown plus successful use of a repair strategy.

Different reading targets need different progress measures.

Monitor the Skill You Actually Wrote in the Goal

If the goal is to identify evidence supporting an inference, progress data about words read per minute do not measure the same skill.

Likewise, if the goal is to decode multisyllabic words, a broad benchmark reading level may provide useful information but does not directly tell the team whether the taught multisyllabic decoding routine improved.

Goal and data should correspond.

Progress Data Should Change Instruction

A progress-monitoring graph is not merely documentation. It should help the teacher decide:

• Is the student responding?
• Is growth adequate?
• Was instruction implemented consistently?
• Does intensity need to increase?
• Does the student need a different instructional routine?
• Has the target been mastered?
• Is the goal itself measuring the right problem?

NCII's data-based individualization framework explicitly uses repeated progress data to guide instructional decisions rather than simply record performance.

Classroom Reading Goals and IEP Reading Goals Are Not the Same Thing

Teachers can establish classroom goals for units, reading groups, intervention groups, or individual students.

An IEP goal operates under IDEA. IDEA requires the IEP to include:

• the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance;
• measurable annual academic and functional goals addressing disability-related needs;
• a method for measuring progress; and
• periodic reporting of that progress.

An IEP goal therefore should not be selected because it is “the third-grade reading goal.” It should follow the student's documented disability-related reading need.

SMART Can Help With Writing, but It Is Not the Legal Standard

Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound characteristics can be useful drafting checks.

But IDEA does not require the SMART acronym. It requires measurable annual goals that address the student's disability-related academic and functional needs.

SMART can therefore serve as a drafting check. It should not replace instructional reasoning.

A goal can satisfy every letter in SMART and still target the wrong skill.

Before Writing a Reading Goal, Ask What the Assessment Actually Shows

Can the Student Accurately Read the Words?

If not, examine phonemic decoding, orthographic patterns, morphology, and multisyllabic word reading.

Can the Student Read Accurately but Only With Substantial Effort?

Consider fluency and automaticity.

Can the Student Read the Text Fluently but Not Understand It?

Examine vocabulary, syntax, background knowledge, inference, text structure, and comprehension monitoring.

Can the Student Demonstrate the Skill With the Teacher but Not Independently?

Consider generalization and support fading.

Is the Student Capable of Reading but Avoiding the Task?

Examine interest, reading anxiety, text fit, self-efficacy, instructional history, and motivation rather than immediately lowering the academic target.

The student's experience of reading matters alongside performance.

Eight Reading Goal Areas at a Glance

The common improvement is specificity of the underlying reading process.

How Technology Can Support Reading Goal Tracking

Technology can reduce some of the administrative work involved in individualized goal management.

A clinician, interventionist, or educator may have baseline assessment data, annual or intervention goals, weekly progress measures, session notes, classroom observations, and progress reports stored in different places.

A platform such as iSpeax can support a more connected workflow by helping educators organize goals, record data, monitor progress over time, and use accumulated information when preparing reports.

The appropriate role of the software is to make the workflow easier to manage. It should not decide which reading skill a student needs to target.

The stronger sequence remains:

assessment → educator or team selects goal → instruction → data → progress analysis → instructional decision

Technology can make that sequence easier to see.

Frequently Asked Questions About Reading Goals

What Are Good Reading Goals for Elementary Students?

Common domains include phonemic awareness and phonics, decoding, oral reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, text structure, inferencing, and comprehension monitoring.

The appropriate goal depends on the student's current reading profile.

What Is a Good Reading-Comprehension Goal?

A strong comprehension goal identifies the specific process that is difficult.

For example: After reading a grade-level informational passage, the student will generate an inference and cite two details that support it in 4 of 5 opportunities.

That provides more instructional information than improve comprehension to 80%.

What Is a Good Fluency Goal?

A fluency goal should use the student's baseline and a validated progress-monitoring system rather than an arbitrary increase.

Words correct per minute can be useful, but accuracy and comprehension should also be monitored.

Should a Fluency Goal Always Include WPM?

No. WCPM is useful for many students and is sensitive to growth. But fluency also includes accuracy and prosody, and for some students a word-reading, phrasing, or accuracy target may be more instructionally appropriate.

What Is a Good Decoding Goal?

A good decoding goal tests unfamiliar words containing taught patterns, rather than only practiced words.

For example: Given unfamiliar one-syllable words containing taught vowel-consonant patterns, the student will decode 18 of 20 accurately across three probes.

Should Older Elementary Students Still Have Phonics or Decoding Goals?

Yes, when assessment shows persistent word-reading difficulty. The WWC gives strong evidence to explicit multisyllabic decoding intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–9.

Is “Advance Two Reading Levels” a Good Goal?

Usually not by itself. Reading levels can summarize performance within a particular assessment system but do not identify whether the student improved in decoding, fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension.

Component measures are generally more useful for instructional planning.

Should Struggling Readers Read Only Texts at Their Level?

No. Students need opportunities to read accessible text independently, but current WWC guidance also recommends supported work with stretch text so struggling readers encounter grade-level ideas, vocabulary, and sentence structures.

Is Independent Reading Enough to Improve Reading?

Not for students who need explicit instruction in foundational reading skills.

Independent reading can provide valuable print exposure and practice, but it should complement rather than replace direct decoding, fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension instruction when those skills are weak.

Should Teachers Set Book-Count Goals?

Book counts can encourage reading activity, but the number of completed books does not directly measure reading proficiency.

A student can read ten very easy books without developing the skill currently limiting reading achievement.

How Can Teachers Support Reading Motivation?

Research-informed practices include choice, a clear purpose for reading, texts connected to student interests, opportunities for success, peer collaboration, and student involvement in setting and monitoring goals.

Do IEP Reading Goals Have to Be SMART?

No. SMART can be useful for drafting, but IDEA requires measurable annual academic and functional goals based on the student's disability-related educational needs.

Do IEP Reading Goals Need 80% Accuracy?

No federal IDEA rule requires 80%.

The criterion should fit the skill, baseline, assessment tool, instructional period, and required level of independence.

How Often Should Reading Progress Be Monitored?

There is no single frequency appropriate for every reading goal.

Students receiving more intensive intervention generally need sufficiently frequent data to determine whether the intervention trajectory is adequate. NCII recommends choosing a progress-monitoring system that can support goal setting and repeated instructional decisions.

The Bottom Line: Reading Goals Should Tell You What to Teach Next

A strong reading goal is not simply a target number. It is an instructional hypothesis.

The teacher is saying:

• This is the reading process currently limiting the student's performance.
• This is what the student can do now.
• This is the change we expect from instruction.
• This is how we will measure that change.
• And this is what we will do with the data.

For one student, that may mean learning to connect phonemes with graphemes and decode unfamiliar words.

For another, it may mean reading connected text more accurately and efficiently. Another may need morphological strategies for complex vocabulary. Another may need explicit instruction in inference. Another may need to recognize when comprehension has broken down and know how to repair it. Another may already possess adequate reading skills but need greater autonomy, text choice, and successful reading experiences to re-engage with reading.

The current evidence base supports explicit, systematic instruction across both code-based skills and meaning-based skills, with the specific emphasis determined by the reader's profile. Reviews of elementary intervention research show particularly reliable improvements in foundational reading outcomes, while comprehension remains a more complex outcome influenced by word reading, language, knowledge, and text demands.

That leads to a stronger goal-setting sequence:

identify the reading process → establish a baseline → select evidence-based instruction → choose a matching progress measure → set an ambitious but defensible criterion → monitor the trajectory → change instruction when the data require it

Reading levels, book counts, minutes read, and percentages may all provide useful information.

None should substitute for understanding what the student is actually learning to do as a reader.