Summary for educators of the article “Don’t Confuse Reading Comprehension and Learning to Read (and to Reread)” by Timothy Shanahan, republished October 25, 2025, on his blog Shanahan on Literacy.

In this article, Shanahan draws a critical distinction between two overlapping goals in literacy instruction: ensuring student comprehension of a given text, and building students’ underlying ability to read—and to reread—with increasing independence and sophistication. He argues that much instructional practice and research blur these two goals, leading to the instructional-level doctrine (selecting texts that students can already comprehend at a high rate) being misapplied. He contends the true objective of reading instruction should be building reading capacity, not merely guaranteeing immediate comprehension of instructional texts.

Shanahan opens with a teacher’s question: “My professor says putting struggling readers into grade-level texts is a big mistake because of fluency/comprehension decline—so shouldn’t we give them easier texts?” He explains that if we aim to have students perform well on the given text, then yes, it may make sense to select simpler texts. But if we aim to improve students’ reading ability so they can tackle texts they currently struggle with, the answer is different. He summarises it clearly: “Your professor is confusing reading comprehension and learning to read.” 

The article revisits the origin of the “instructional level” concept (Betts, 1946), which assumed the best text for instruction can be read with ~75-89 % comprehension and high fluency. However, Shanahan notes that this assumption was an ideological one, not rooted in strong experimental evidence. He underscores that students can indeed read easier texts more fluently with high comprehension, but that doesn’t offer enough challenge to learn to read better. When texts are too easy, they become “opportunity deserts” with little stretch for growth. 

Instead, Shanahan argues, the selection of instructional texts should prioritize learnability—texts that present just enough challenge, invite rereading, prompt reflection, scaffolded support—and thereby build students’ reading skill. Rereading, he emphasizes, is a central but often overlooked tool: returning to a text enables students to consolidate understanding, track complex syntax, expand vocabulary, and internalize comprehension strategies. Without opportunities to revisit and decode complex layers of meaning, reading instruction becomes shallow. 

For educators, several practical implications emerge:

• Text selection: Rather than exclusively focusing on texts students can already read fluently, include texts that push them—provided you scaffold and support them appropriately. The aim is growth, not just immediate success.

• Support rereading: Build in opportunities for students to read texts more than once, and with varying supports (teacher modeling, peer discussion, guided questions) so they deepen their comprehension and reading skills.

• Monitor purpose: Distinguish between “Did students comprehend this text today?” and “Are students improving their reading ability over time?” Instruction should track both, but emphasize the latter.

• Instructional design: Use texts intentionally for development—not just for reading practice. Include tasks that require students to notice structure, infer deeper meaning, track complex syntax, and engage in metacognitive reflection.

Shanahan warns that when teachers misdiagnose their goal as solely comprehension of today’s text, they inadvertently short-change reading development. Students may succeed on easier texts but not grow in capacity to tackle unfamiliar, complex ones. He argues for a reading program that balances access to comprehension with growth into greater independence and skill via strategic text choice and rereading.

In conclusion, reading instruction isn’t just about students being able to understand a text once. It is equally—and perhaps more importantly—about developing their capacity to read better, reread, and grapple with complexity. For educational leaders and literacy coaches, Shanahan’s distinction invites a recalibration of lesson design, text selection policies, and assessment practices toward building reading growth, not just reading performance.

Original Article

“Don’t Confuse Reading Comprehension and Learning to Read (and to Reread)” by Timothy Shanahan, republished October 25, 2025, on his blog Shanahan on Literacy. 

------------------------------

Prepared with the assistance of AI software

OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (4) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com