Seems like when schools discuss comprehension, they are talking about three things:
* The ability to articulate an emotional or connective understanding of the text (how does it make you feel? how it is similar to your life? do you know anyone like that character?).
* The ability to articulate a functional understanding of the text (what happened? who did what? what is the climax? what viewpoint is it in?)
* The ability to articulate a thematic understanding of the text (what are the themes and subtexts? what is the author trying to tell us about politics/human nature/relationships/etc.? what are the prominent symbols? how to we relate to the text through the lens of ...?)
Each of these is really a different skill set. Note too that the key is the articulation of the information. You can comprehend it, but what schools are looking at is whether you can explain or discuss what you understand. This is the way you get graded of course, but there's no way for schools to measure a very deep or personally philosophical understanding.
As a former English Major myself, I can summarize plots easily and go on all day about a feminist or deconstructionist or postmodern reading of the text. But I'll be less able to clearly articulate my emotional response to the text.
My daughter will respond to any question about what happened in a book with "I don't know!" (book reports are the bane of her existence) but if you start a conversation about the roles of boys and girls in the book or historical context or plot devices that the author used and whether or not it worked for her and so on, she can articulate that quite well.
