Building Better Readers: Turning Information into Transformation

Data vs. Instruction: Are We Tracking Progress—or Driving It?

Across the country, school districts are pouring millions of dollars into diagnostic tools and data platforms—believing they’re buying clarity, precision, and accountability. But here’s the real question: Are we using this data to drive student growth, or are we just collecting it and hoping for the best?

Recently, someone asked me what I thought about schools’ growing use of digital platforms and online diagnostics. I think they expected a simple answer—but when it comes to reading, there isn’t one.

I’ve worked in several districts, each using different data systems, and I’ve seen the same pattern repeat: more graphs, more dashboards... and little actual change in reading outcomes.

Let me be clear: I am not anti-data. In fact, I believe deeply in the power of data. But I am wary of the belief that diagnostics alone will solve our literacy crisis. Because—to put it simply—they won’t.

What Are We Really Buying?

When schools invest in diagnostic tools, they believe they’re getting insight—data that tells them exactly where students are and what they need. But too often, what they’re really buying is a false sense of certainty.

Take my current middle school. Out of 408 eighth graders, 168 were flagged by our online diagnostic as reading three or more grade levels below. That’s alarming. That same diagnostic only identified 39 of those students with phonics deficits.

That discrepancy matters.

How can 168 students be significantly below grade level, yet only 39 struggle with decoding words? It didn’t make sense—until we looked closer.

Here’s the problem: Most diagnostic platforms don’t assess automaticity, the ability to read words quickly and effortlessly. A student might decode accurately but slowly. Since they “pass” the phonics portion, the system jumps to comprehension work, completely missing the real issue: fluency.

And so, the school doubles down on comprehension strategies—often using simplified texts—without ever addressing the actual barrier. Meanwhile, the student’s vocabulary, content knowledge, and confidence begin to erode. The gap between them and their peers only widens.

Let’s be clear: You cannot remediate comprehension with easier texts and multiple-choice questions. If students cannot read the words accurately and automatically, they will not comprehend complex texts, no matter how many graphic organizers we hand them.

What Happens When We Focus on the Right Thing?

Back to the student from earlier. He joined our summer literacy program and received just one month of explicit, systematic instruction in phonics and fluency. His words correct per minute (WCPM) jumped from 107 to 142. The end-of-year benchmark for eighth grade? 158. And we still have a week left!

That kind of growth in such a short time tells us something powerful: This student wasn’t unable to learn—he wasn’t getting the instruction he needed.

So Where Should Schools Spend Their Money?

On people.

On knowledge.

On instruction.

Every district—and ideally, every school—needs educators who deeply understand reading development. Teachers who know how to interpret data, analyze patterns, and deliver instruction aligned to student needs.

Louisa Moats famously said, “Teaching reading is rocket science.” Yet we continue to expect results without investing in the expertise it requires.

Not every educator needs to be a literacy specialist—but every district needs a core group of trained experts who can guide teachers, support instruction, and ensure that data leads to real, effective teaching.

We’ve become too reliant on digital platforms that, while helpful, are inherently limited. Instead of outsourcing our thinking to diagnostics, let’s build our internal capacity. Let’s train teachers. Train them well. Empower them with the science of reading and the tools to make informed instructional decisions.

Because the best kind of data isn’t a dashboard.

It’s a student who’s finally reading.

If your district is looking to strengthen teacher knowledge and align instruction with the science of reading, check out the SUNY New Paltz Microcredential on the Science of Reading —a professional learning experience designed to deepen expertise and drive results.

See you next Sunday!

Want articles like this delivered right to your inbox? Click our icon below to join our mailing list!

References

Moats, L. C. (2020). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (3rd ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/smallbook

Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., & Francis, D. J. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521069.pdf

University of Oregon. (2020). DIBELS 8th Edition Technical Manual. https://dibels.uoregon.edu/