and understand who are the characters and what happens to them.” This is equivalent to reaching the second level showed in figures 10 and 11, still far from the curricular standard but ambitious enough (53 percent of students in our sample scored below level two).

**_Using reading tests to mobilize the community towards a common goal._** Standards cannot be reached if there are no changes in strategies in the pedagogy and the use of instruction time: more hours of actual class work; culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and methods to teach reading; extracurricular activities such as “the reading hour,” reading groups or pairs, etc. Some of these strategies can be implemented by the schools themselves, with participation and collaboration of the parents, others can be promoted at the local level, and others need to be part of regional or national policies. But in any case, even when the school community commits to implementing a series of activities to improve the students’ reading skills the enthusiasm will fade away eventually if results are not seen fast enough.

**_Using reading tests to track progress and keep the focus._** A standard that is evaluated only once a year will hardly mobilize the education community throughout the year. With any luck, it will stir things up right before the test and right after results are returned to the schools, but the “cooloff” period lasts for more than half of the school year. So it is important to also set progress goals that can be measured by the teachers and parents, and that provide quick feedback on the impact of specific measures that are being implemented. This will help them adjust strategies and also keep focused on the task.

This paper has shown that fluency is a good predictor of reading comprehension. Thus, if this were to be the goal to be reached at the end of the year –when the next census evaluation comes along– progress goals could be set in terms of fluency and recall comprehension: 45 words per minute and the child being able to identify the characters and events in the stoy. After reaching that goal, the standard can be raised to 60 words per minute and the child being able to tell what the story was about (the main topic and purpose of the text). And after that, it could be 90 words per minute and the child being able to give a critical opinion about the passage. And so on and so forth.

The measurement of fluency is relatively easy to do and somewhat mechanical, so anyone with minimum training and a watch can do it. 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. In addition, it 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, especially in comparison to the sound of a fluent reader. The typical sound of fluent readers can easily be disseminated by radio, for example, along with messages meant to encourage appropriate fluency and intonation, rather than speed at all cost. Once the child reaches a minimum level of fluency, an illiterate parent can also ask the child to explain the reading or to tell the story again, which is more in line with the oral story-telling tradition shared by most indigenous groups. Parents with low levels of education would not be able to produce closed questions in the spot but can simply ask “so, what was it about?” and “did you like it? Why?” Measuring comprehension is trickier than measuring fluency, but even if there is no objective standard for it yet, oral reading tests like EGRA can contribute to improving comprehension and keeping the interest in reading. 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 53