Consistent with previous research, our results show that reading fluency and comprehension are positively and significantly correlated with each other. That is, fluent readers are more likely to understand what they read than non-fluent readers. However, results suggest that this relationship is discontinuous and non-linear. Advancing a new analytical approach, the authors find that the strength of this relationship depends on the level of fluency, the difficulty of the questions, and certain social characteristics such as first language of the child.

The study emphasizes the census test’s value in helping to establish a baseline over which to set short-term (e.g. annual) attainable goals for improving learning outcomes. In addition, the paper proposes models for reporting future census results at the individual, class, school, district, region and national level. These reports are designed to strengthen horizontal and upward accountability. The proposed models make sure that results are communicated to parents, teachers, principals and the general public in a way that is easy to understand and that facilitates: (a) tracking progress of students and schools relative to previous years; (b) comparing results from schools with similar characteristics or located in the same jurisdictions; (c) comparing results to specific reading goals or standards; and (d) identifying students or schools at risk of falling behind or already performing at a critical level.

The paper also shows that minimum fluency (e.g. 45 words read correctly per minute) is a good predictor of basic, literal comprehension of short passages; while higher levels of fluency are related to the ability to understand longer, more complex readings. Therefore, besides setting annual reading goals for the written test, the paper recommends the use of progress goals throughout the school year, which could be set in terms of fluency and recall comprehension (e.g. 45 words per minute and the child being able to tell what the story was about). At the early stages of learning to read, fluency is crucial and can only be developed by practicing. The test itself, more than a measure, is also an opportunity to practice and to keep the focus on results. It is relatively easy to administer and gives the teachers information on which students require more attention and which ones are making good progress. It also gives parents information on the progress of their children at school. Even an illiterate parent is able to discern whether his or her child can or cannot read fluently, as the sound of a non-fluent reader is unmistakable.

However, it is not advisable, that the test be used to only coach for fluency. First, because it could have an adverse effect in the children, creating too much pressure to read fast and taking away the pleasure of reading. And second, the evidence that coaching in fluency is _causally_ related to comprehension is not strong enough, either based on this study or the literature, to encourage fluency coaching as single-minded strategy in improving reading. However, and when used as a marker or proxy, it can help detecting forward movement and to focus attention on results.

In conclusion, it is not only possible but also desirable to use improved versions of both tests as tools to encourage, monitor and evaluate the development of reading skills in the early grades.

2