Welcome to Adobe GoLive 6

Pithy Tidbits, Writings, and Comments on Reading and School Libraries

Stephen Krashen,. Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California
krashen@usc.edu

Updated March 10, 2004

For several years, Stephen Krashen has written comments, letters to editors, journal articles, and commentaries on research about reading and school libraries and posted these to the school library community. Her they are in chronological order. As new comments are posted by Dr. Krashen, they will be added here to the top of the list..

Sent to Reno Gazette Journal

Clark Countyís decision to ìphase out recessî (ìClark
County elementary schools phasing out recess,î March
9) for the sake of higher test scores is simply child
abuse.

Stephen Krashen

Reno gazette journal
Clark County elementary schools phasing out recess

LAS VEGAS ó Recess at Clark County School District
elementary schools is being phased out as school
officials try to wring as much teaching time as
possible out of the school day.

Facing the pressure to increase test scores under the
federal No Child Left Behind Act, school officials are
enforcing regulations that bar the traditional
elementary school ritual of recess.

That decision isnít sitting well with some parents,
teachers or students, the Las Vegas Sun reported.

ìWe used to run around outside and play with the big
orange classroom ball,î said Adrian Young, a Doris
Reed Elementary School second grader. ìI miss recess.î

Adrian and his schoolmates, who this year saw recess
stopped, are not alone. Throughout the district,
recess ó once a staple of daily schedules ó has been
phased out over the past few years to give teachers
more teaching time.

Schools in Clark County and the rest of the nation are
faced with the demands of the No Child Left Behind
Act, which calls for schools to show annual progress
on standardized tests or face sanctions.

But attempts during the last three legislative
sessions to lengthen Nevadaís school day have failed,
forcing educators to squeeze out additional
instructional minutes wherever possible.

ìYou end up blowing 30 minutes of potential
instructional time to gain the limited benefits of
having recess. Itís become a luxury we canít afford,î
said Agustin Orci, deputy superintendent of
instruction for the district.

The districtís elementary students still have a
30-minute lunch period that includes time on the
playground. There is also an allowed bathroom break in
the morning and afternoon.

The informal policy of allowing teachers the option of
a 15- to 20-minute morning or afternoon recess has
been eliminated at most campuses in favor of brief
trips to the restroom and water fountains.

The state requires elementary schools to offer a
minimum of three hours and 10 minutes of daily
instruction. The average elementary school day in
Clark County ó including lunch and special classes
such as physical education or art ó is seven hours and
11 minutes, according district officials.

Martha Young, associate dean of the College of
Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said
the length of the school day isnít as important as the
quality of instruction.

ìWeíve unfortunately bought into the idea that more is
better and that isnít always going to be the case,
particularly when youíre talking about elementary
school students,î Young said.

Studies have shown that students do benefit from a
break in instruction, Young said.

ìResearch suggests recess should be an essential
component of the school day,î Young said.
ìUnfortunately with the push of No Child Left Behind I
donít think weíre going to see it reintegrated.î

Matthew Young, president of Reedís PTA and Adrianís
father, said recess should not be eliminated.

ìI think at a young age they need to burn off the
energy and get outside,î Young said. ìThatís too long
to be cooped up in school.î

Copyright © 2002 The Reno Gazette-Journal

Sent to Newsday, March 9

Newsday reported that Diana Lam had "been criticized for choosing a reading program for the (New York) city curriculum that struck experts as out of step with the latest research, and with new federal standards." ("Klein fires top deputy," March 9). The reading program Lam recommended was indeed in conflict with the report of the National Reading Panel, which came down on the side of heavy, intensive phonics. But several highly regarded scholars have disagreed with the results of that report.

Critics have noted that in many studies the panel used as evidence, intensive phonics was compared to doing nothing (Gerald Coles), and reanalyses of the same studies examined by the panel showed a much weaker impact of intensive phonics than claimed (Gregory Camilli) and no significant impact of intensive phonics on reading comprehension tests after grade 1 (Elaine Garan).

There is agreement that including some phonics is helpful, but the federal standards require much more phonics than is necessary or useful. Ms. Lam's position is may be out of step with the federal government, but it is in agreement with the view of many respected scholars and experienced teachers.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California

Klein fires top deputy

Diana Lam brought down by nepotism scandal, a setback for mayor's efforts to reform schools
BY DAN JANISON AND ELLEN YAN
Newsday

March 9, 2004

Deputy Schools Chancellor Diana Lam, who last week was found to have used her influence to get her husband a job in the city's school system, was fired yesterday.
In a statement released last night, Chancellor Joel Klein said that "after much thought and in consultation with the mayor," he had determined that Lam would be terminated as deputy chancellor for teaching and learning.
"I have asked for Mrs. Lam's resignation, and she has agreed," Klein said.
Education officials said yesterday was Lam's last day on the job and that she was not given a severance package, unlike other school systems where she had worked. Lam was being paid $250,000, the same as Klein.
Klein said that Michele Cahill, the school system's senior counselor for educational policy, will temporarily take over Lam's responsibilities.
Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, said Lam "had little choice but to resign" and said her dismissal "will represent a turning point for the system."
"The issue here is not whether Diana Lam recommended her husband for a job," Weingarten said in a statement. "It is that she did not go through the regular process of checks and balances for such a potential conflict of interest ... "
Robin Brown, the head of the United Parent Assocations of New York City and chairwoman of Klein's parent advisory council, said she feared Lam's firing "will further destabilize our school system."
At City Hall yesterday, nobody was spinning the affair as anything but a setback for a mayor who won control of the school system in 2002 and who challenged voters to re-elect him only if he achieved reforms.
Bloomberg yesterday commented for the first time, noting, "There are some things in there that I found very troubling."
The report Friday by the schools investigations commissioner said Lam's husband, Peter Plattes, began working as a $102,000-a-year administrator on July 1 with a superintendent appointed by Lam.
Special Commissioner Richard Condon, a Bloomberg appointee, called for referring the matter to the Conflicts of Interest Board, which could have ruled it a violation punishable by firing.
Lam had also been criticized for choosing a reading program for the city curriculum that struck experts as out of step with the latest research, and with new federal standards.
It is not the first time she has attracted controversy. In 1998, she received a buyout of $800,000 from San Antonio officials who asked her to leave as school chancellor there.

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

Sent to the New York Times, March 9

The Times feels that Diane Lam's disagreement with Bush's "top advisor on reading" was "embarrassing"
("Top deputy resigns post over effort to get husband a job," March 9). The reading program Lam
recommended included a substantial amount of phonics. Bush's advisor, Reid Lyon, has been relentlessly pushing"intensive, systematic phonics," an extreme approach that is in conflict with the conclusions of a number of highly respected scholars as well as the experience of a vast number of teachers. Lam's position on reading education was reasonable and her stance was admirable.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor
University of Southern California

March 9, 2004
NY Times
Top Deputy Resigns Schools Post Over Effort to Get Husband a Job
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ELISSA GOOTMAN

eputy Chancellor Diana Lam, the New York City school system's top instructional leader, resigned yesterday, three days after city investigators issued a report saying she tried to get her husband a job in the schools without the required conflict-of-interest clearance.

The resignation is an embarrassment for Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as they seek to overhaul the nation's largest school system. Ms. Lam has been an instrumental force behind many of Mr. Klein's most significant innovations, including new citywide reading and math curriculums, more rigorous instruction for third graders in danger of being left back, and improved programs for non-English-speaking students.

The resignation came after Mr. Bloomberg called a report into Ms. Lam's actions "troubling" and then met with the schools chancellor at City Hall to discuss her fate.

In a statement last night announcing her resignation, Ms. Lam pointedly said that Mr. Klein had been fully informed about her husband's efforts to obtain a job, and that she had been in close contact with the Education Department's top lawyer, Chad Vignola, about the matter. "I was given a green light to proceed," she said.

Ms. Lam said she had been drawn to the deputy chancellor post out of a desire to help New York City's schoolchildren, but she added: "Recognizing that I am a team member, not the team leader, though, this evening I have with sadness given my resignation to Chancellor Klein."

About an hour after Ms. Lam's statement, Mr. Klein issued his own, saying he had asked for her resignation and had appointed Michele Cahill, his senior counselor for education policy, acting deputy chancellor for teaching and learning.

"After much thought and in consultation with the Mayor, I have determined that it is in the best interests of the Department of Education that Diana Lam no longer serve as deputy chancellor for teaching and learning," Mr. Klein said. "I have asked for Ms. Lam's resignation and she has agreed."

Ms. Cahill, 55, joined the Education Department in September 2002 from the Carnegie Corporation, where she had worked closely with the city school system, particularly on efforts to improve high schools.

In 18 months on the job, Ms. Lam, 56, formerly the schools superintendent in Providence, R.I., has been the most controversial figure in the Department of Education, newly remade under Mr. Bloomberg's control.

The new citywide literacy curriculum that she chose drew criticism from President Bush's top adviser on reading education, an embarrassing episode that led Mr. Klein to quickly adopt a stricter phonics component that met Washington's approval.

She also came under fire for remarks criticizing programs for gifted and talented students and stirred controversy over her choices of 10 superintendents to oversee the city's 1,200 schools.

The investigators' report, released Friday by Richard J. Condon, the special commissioner of investigation for the New York City schools, concluded Ms. Lam had helped her husband, Peter Plattes, get a $102,000 supervisory job in the Bronx.

After school officials decided it was inappropriate for him to hold that position, the report said, Mr. Plattes got a a teaching position in a small Bronx high school. At no time, the investigators found, did Ms. Lam seek clearance from the city's Conflicts of Interest Board. Although he was briefly hired in both positions, Mr. Plattes never received a paycheck.

The report said that Mr. Vignola, in response to inquiries by reporters, sought to cover up the hiring of Mr. Plattes, by saying that he had been a "volunteer."

Ms. Lam earned $250,000 a year, a salary identical to Chancellor Klein's. The salary, which made them the city's highest paid public officials, was intended to symbolize Ms. Lam's importance as the school system's highest-ranking career educator.

On Friday, several hours after Mr. Condon's report was released, Chancellor Klein issued a statement supporting Ms. Lam, saying, "I have full confidence in Deputy Chancellor Lam's abilities and her continued efforts to provide New York City's 1.1 million public school children with the education that they need and deserve."

But in a sign of how tightly Mr. Bloomberg controls the school system, the mayor gave the first hint of Ms. Lam's departure at news conference yesterday afternoon at City Hall, at which he described Mr. Condon's report as "very troubling."

When a reporter asked the mayor if he had confidence in Ms. Lam, Mr. Bloomberg did not answer, saying instead that he would not comment until after meeting later in the day with Mr. Klein.

But the mayor quickly added that he himself had sought and received the clearance of the city's Conflicts of Interest Board before hiring his daughter Emma and sister, Marjorie Tiven, for city jobs, even though neither receives a city salary.

"I read the Condon report, and there are some things in there that I found very troubling," Mr. Bloomberg said. "The report didn't quite go in the direction that I would have liked."

Ms. Lam's statement gave little hint of the bitterness that she has described to friends in recent days, a feeling that she was betrayed by Mr. Klein and Mr. Vignola and the victim of what one close friend called "a witch-hunt."

Her statement did offer a blunt defense of her actions in regard to her husband. "I would like to set the record straight," Ms. Lam said. "I never asked for special consideration for Peter and on at least three separate occasions I made a point of consulting with general counsel for the New York City Department of Education, Chad Vignola, both in advance of Peter ever applying and once his application had been made."

She continued: " I was given a green light to proceed. I also notified Chancellor Klein when Peter was offered a position of administrator. Chancellor Klein, through his then Chief of Staff, informed me that Peter should only consider being a teacher. Later on, this position was reversed.

Indeed, Mr. Condon's report stated that Chancellor Klein had approved the hiring of Ms. Lam's husband as a regional instruction specialist by Laura Rodriguez, a superintendent in the Bronx.

Jill S. Levy, president of the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, said Ms. Lam's resignation would not undo the damage to the school system.

"I think it's unfortunate for the mayor and I think it's unfortunate for Joel Klein that one of their key people on which they pinned so many hopes would have to leave because of at a minimum inappropriate behavior," she said.

Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, said the problem went beyond Ms. Lam's own actions.

"The issue here is not whether Diana Lam recommended her husband for a job," Ms. Weingarten said in a statement. "It is that she did not go through the regular process of checks and balances." She added, "Other administrators, fearing for their jobs, did not insist that proper procedures be followed."

Councilwoman Eva S. Moskowitz, the chairwoman of the education committee, said she was most troubled by the cover-up. "I would hope that Klein and Mayor Bloomberg would also focus on who at the D.O.E. wasn't straightforward," she said. "It's one thing to make a mistake,.and another thing to not be able to admit and come clean about what happened."

After the brouhaha over the citywide curriculum, Ms. Lam largely dropped out of the public eye, though she remained crucial to hiring and policy formation.

She was instrumental in developing plans to strengthen the city's programs for non-English speaking students, and even persuaded Mr. Bloomberg to revise his position on the issue, an area of great concern to Hispanic voters and consequently to any elected official.

Some school system insiders regarded Ms. Lam as something of a wild card, a reputation that was cemented three months ago, when she responded to a question at a forum at the Steinhardt School of Education at New York University by saying the city planned to "expand the definition of what it means to be gifted and talented."

The remark set off a wave of confusion and outrage among parents whose children are in gifted programs, and prompted Mr. Klein to disavow Ms. Lam's remarks. The chancellor is still regularly asked for assurances that gifted programs will not be dismantled.

Throughout her career, Ms. Lam has attracted both praise and criticism.

Ms. Lam built her reputation as an educator over two decades in the Boston area, where she started as a bilingual teacher in Framingham, Mass., and rose to become superintendent of schools in Chelsea, Mass. Mr. Plattes stayed at home to care for the couple's two children.

She quit the Chelsea job in 1991 to run for mayor of Boston but ended her candidacy three days after announcing it after reports that she had filed late tax returns.

In Providence, Ms. Lam also developed both supporters and detractors. During her time there, almost all of the city's 23 elementary schools improved academically, but middle school scores were mostly stagnant and the teachers' union gave her a vote of no confidence.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

NOW available on http://www.sdkrashen.com

Let's Tell the Public the Truth about Bilingual Education
Presented at the NABE Conference, Keynote Plenary Address, Albuquerque, Feburary, 7 2004

Abstract

Despite strong empirical support, a reasonable rationale, and mildly positive public opinion, bilingual education was dismantled in three states. There is little evidence that xenophobic attitudes were to blame. Rather, the voting public was ignorant of the nature and effectiveness of bilingual education, and the profession made no organized effort to inform the public about bilingual education or to respond to attacks during the campaigns. This has resulted in more negative views of bilingual education. The cure is better communication with the public, more focused research efforts, and continued improvement of existing programs.

Sent to the Taipei Times, March 8, 2004

Julie Barff (March 8, "English teaching: Check the theory") has some harsh words for Chen Shu-chin ("English is a blight on young kids," Feb 17) and Jonathan Chandler ("Chomsky would frown," Feb. 20) and urges them to check the theory. Among the research she asks others to check on is mine. Without joining in the name-calling, let me briefly point out that Ms. Barff has not represented my work correctly: Contrary to Ms. Barff's statement, I do not maintain that language acquisition ability declines after age six (although some scholars do).

As for the issue of early English, I agree with Chen Shu-Chin: Starting English too early and emphasizing "English-only" education for very young children can crowd out other valuable learning experiences.

But there is another very good reason to reduce emphasis on English in the very early years. Starting later and doing less is actually more efficient for acquiring English: Studies consistently show that older children are significantly faster than younger children in second language acquisition. In addition, a solid foundation in the first language makes a strong contribution to second language development: Those who are more literate in their first language acquire literacy in the second language more quickly, and those who know more, thanks to a good education in their first language, understand more of what they read and hear in their second language, which speeds acquisition.

Ironically, "less in more" in this situation. Starting English later and devoting more time to developing a strong foundation in Chinese will actually promote English language development. It will also ensure quality education for Taiwanese children and the development of the first language. It is a win-win situation. Premature and excessive English is lose-lose, bad for both English and academic development.

An important additional point: In situations in which English is crucial for daily life, as in the US, non-English speaking children should begin English as a second language (ESL) classes the first day they enter school. But the most effective programs also include a great deal of education in the child's primary language. Research shows that these programs teach English at least as well, and usually better than, all-day English programs.

Ms. Barff is correct in her reporting of the results of Canadian French immersion: It is true that these programs produce very good results, and in the original version, early total immersion, instruction is primarily in the second language in the early years. Research over the last three decades, however, has shown us that there are more efficient models. In fact, studies show that given an equal number of hours of exposure, children who begin immersion programs later make more progress than those who begin younger, confirming that older children acquire faster. In my view the research supports the desirability of a strong foundation in the primary language for all students.

I also agree with Ms. Barff that our attention should be directed at whether our EFL classes are as effective as they could be. Use of the most efficient methods (which also happen to be the most pleasant), combined with wide recreational reading in English, will easily produce adequate levels of English language competence, without starting too early and without crowding other important subjects out of the curriculum. The problem is not lack of time devoted to English, it is methodology and a failure to encourage wide reading.

I presented a paper on this topic ("Dealing with English Fever") at the International Symposium sponsored by the English Teachers' Association/ROC last November in Taipei. It can be found on my website, http://www.sdkrashen.com and in the conference proceedings, published by the Crane Publishing Company in Taipei.

Stephen Krashen

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published on TaipeiTimes
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/03/08/2003101676

English teaching: check the theory!
By Julie Barff

Monday, Mar 08, 2004,Page 8

`Many kindergartens do provide a linguistically low-pressure, low-anxiety environment in which to learn the fundamentals of English through natural interaction.'

Recent libellous articles have claimed that the early teaching of English in kindergartens has a detrimental effect on young children. Two such articles include one by Chen Shu-chin ("English is a blight on young kids," Feb. 17, p. 8) and Jonathan Chandler ("Chomsky would frown," Feb. 20, p. 8), who attempts to explain the famous linguist Noam Chomsky's theory of language acquisition in hypothesizing that "When exposed to two languages with dissimilar sentence structures, such as Mandarin and English, a child's mind may well become confused and even impeded in its natural advancement."

While I highly doubt the seriousness of Chandler's teaching qualification, based on his misinterpretation of Chomsky's theory, he does make one important point, and that is the necessity for policies to be based on valid theory and research and not on the personal concerns of politicians and business owners.

First, it has long been believed that there is a critical or at least "sensitive" period for the acquisition of both first and second languages (Lenneberg, Chomsky, Krashen). In other words, the optimal time for language acquisition is before the age of six, after which the ability declines, meaning complete acquisition of a language will not be possible.

This explains why older children and adult learners always have a degree of difficulty with grammar and word usage in a foreign language (not to mention pronunciation!) no matter how long they learn it.

Chomsky proposes this is due to what he calls a "language acquisition device" and "Universal Grammar" which simply means that as humans we are born with an innate linguistic knowledge base and set of language learning procedures. Acquiring a new language then is as easy as setting the parameters and deducting the grammatical principals of the new language. Only when people begin to learn a language as a young child are they able to learn in this way.

This statement has been supported by Ping Li of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who says that given a linguistic environment for a limited number of years, children are able to learn their target language (first, second or third language) without much trouble.

This is difficult to apply to adult second-language learners because they approach the language learning task using different learning methods (ie, general problem-solving strategies) and most adult learners, if not all, fail to achieve perfect competence in the language, no matter how hard they try and for how long.

A great deal of research has also been conducted over the last five decades to determine the effect of bilingualism on cognitive development, an example of which are evaluations conducted over the last 30 years of Canada's French immersion programs.

Through this study, Cummins has shown that students in these programs who were educated through 100 percent French instruction in kindergarten and grade one, with only one period of English introduced in grade two, and equal instruction time introduced only in grade five, were able to add a second language to their repertory of skills at no cost to the development of their first language, English. There was also no cost to their English academic skills, due to the transfer of cognitive and literacy-related skills across languages, possible under Cummins's "Linguistic Interdependence Principle."

This is especially possible in Taiwan, where the Chinese language and culture is so strong and alive in the community and at home. As has been said by Hoffman and Krashen, where English immersion programs are a danger to children, it is in places like the US, where the community language is also English, it means that children are deprived of their native language. As long as exposure to both languages is rich, there is no problem.

Evidence such as this has prompted the following comment by Susan Curtiss, professor of linguistics at UCLA (in 1996): "?the power to learn language is so great in the young child that it doesn't seem to matter how many languages you throw their way ? They are able to learn as many spoken languages as you can allow them to ? there doesn't seem to be any detriment to develop[ing] several languages at the same time."

In fact, far from being detrimental, studies have repeatedly shown that bilingualism in children actually enhances cognitive development. For example, Hakuta & Diaz found in 1986 that bilingual preschoolers tested on measures of analogical reasoning, metalinguistic awareness, visual-spacial skills, classification and story-sequencing and block designs, actually performed better than monolingual children. Why? The fact that bilingual children have two words for the same referent, allows their mental concepts to have a greater degree of symbolism, abstraction and flexibility (Diaz & Klinger 1991, Peal & Lambert 1962, Cummins 1978).

As Genessee affirms:

"Children who are exposed to two linguistic systems from a very early age demonstrate a capacity to keep their two languages separate. Far from being a handicap, the process of acquiring two languages from a very early age is now seen to have cognitive as well as social benefits" (Educating Second Language Children, Genessee, F., Cambridge University Press, 1990).

With a Masters degree in Education specializing in second-language acquisition and bilingual education, and eight years teaching experience in early childhood education, I have both researched and personally experienced results such as these. The same results have also been experienced by many other teachers, eg, at the bilingual program at Yu-Tsai Elementary School.

Children who come from English immersion-style kindergartens have shown only a mild lag in Chinese proficiency, which is well and truly made up after 6 months, and much sooner if they have attended Chinese classes after school while in kindergarten. In addition, they are equally adept in both linguistic and cognitive tasks as the previously monolingual children, if not more so. There has been no evidence of "frustration in learning," "hampered development" or "hatred of the English language" in these children due to premature and overexposure to English, as some "educational experts" have been cited as warning in Chinese-language media. Nor do they show signs that their early-childhood development has been violated or sacrificed, as Chen Shu-chin has argued in his article.

My final argument for the early learning of English is the environment that kindergarten provides. Many kindergartens do provide a linguistically low-pressure, low-anxiety environment in which to learn the fundamentals of English through natural interaction.

This kind of low-anxiety environment is exactly what Krashen says is necessary for success in language acquisition. Krashen's "Affective Filter Hypothesis" states that there are a number of affective variables at play in acquisition of a second language, namely, motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Conversely, children in Taiwan's elementary schools face a heavy workload from their regular subjects alone, even without the addition of English, where the only motivation lies in the pressure to attain a high score in the upcoming test. Moreover, the amount of time available to be spent on English in the regular elementary-school curriculum simply isn't enough to produce fluency and literacy in English.

With the English standards children are expected to achieve by junior and senior-high school, where does that leave the children? Forcing children to spend countless hours in expensive, business-run after-school cram schools, geared to making the children and parents happy, with little emphasis on producing proficient speakers, readers and writers of English, is hardly a favorable option!

The issue therefore should not be whether or not kindergartens should be allowed to provide English immersion or bilingual programs, nor should it be about the shrinking business in "bona fide" preschools, but rather what guidelines should be put in place to guarantee the overall quality and professionalism of English programs. These guidelines should address issues such as teacher training, curriculum content, discipline policies and access to instruction in the students' first language as an on-going after-school program.

Now available at http://www.sdkrashen.com

"The case for narrow reading," Published in Language
Magazine, 2004.

Note to members of mailing list: For information on
Language Magazine, see
http://www.languagemagazine.com. It is a unique
publication, focusing on language in general, and is
likely to include articles on dialects, bilingualism,
and educational issues, aimed at a wide audience. I
have published several papers there and intend to
submit more.

Sent to the Detroit Free Press, March 5

The US Dept. of Education just announced a
ìrelaxationî in NCLB (No Child Left Behind)
requirements: Children acquiring English as a second
language no longer have to be tested in English their
first year in school. Michigan educators interviewed
by the Fee Press feel that this is not enough time and
recommend waiting three years (ìTeachers: Year to
learn English isnít enough, ìMarch 4).

The research is on their side. Study after study shows
that one year is nowhere near enough time to acquire
enough English to do regular class-work and to show
competence on standardized tests. Children acquire
some ìconversationalî language in one year, but
academic language, the language of story problems and
social studies texts, is much more complex.

Most children starting in kindergarten generally take
about three years to acquire enough academic language
to join the mainstream, using bilingual or ìimmersionî
methods. For those entering later, it takes longer,
because the curriculum is more demanding. ìLooseningî
the requirement sends the false message that NCLB
officials now understand the situation and are being
more realistic. In reality, the more ìflexibleî
one-year requirement sets children up for failure and
wastes time and money on tests that tell us nothing.

Stephen Krashen

Published in Education Week, March 3, 2004

Calif. Reading Scores
Show 'Test Inflation'
To the Editor:

In my Dec. 10, 2003, letter to the editor ("New NAEP Results Show Need for Library Funds"), I pointed out that National Assessment of Educational Progress scores in California had not changed since 1992, despite the eradication of whole language and a rush to skill-building. In a letter of response ("'Data Speaks for Itself' on Reading Reforms' Impact," Letters, Feb. 18, 2004), Rick Nelson notes that 4th graders taking the NAEP reading test in 2003 would not yet have had the benefit of systematic phonics because most districts didn't begin intensive systematic phonics until 1999. Mr. Nelson also maintains that the Los Angeles Unified School District has supplied evidence in favor of systematic phonics with spectacular grade 1 scores, and notes that increases in scores since 1998 on the Stanford Achievement Test-9th Edition in California as a whole also support the systematic-phonics position.

I commented on the 2003 NAEP scores because California's low performance on the NAEP in 1992 was blamed on whole language. I am unaware of documentation showing exactly which districts moved to systematic intensive phonics and when they did it, but whole language has been gone for quite a while. The purge began in 1995. The NAEP scores haven't changed.

I also read about Los Angeles Unified's grade 1 scores in the newspapers. I was unable to find any information about the tests given and the actual numbers anywhere on the Internet. I wrote the district testing office three times, to no avail. The only time officials there responded, they sent me the grade 2 data, which are available on the Internet. One cannot reach serious conclusions based on press releases.

Mr. Nelson is correct in pointing out that Stanford-9 scores have gone up in California since 1998, but systematic phonics does not deserve the credit. The Stanford-9 was given for the first time in California in 1998. Robert Linn and others have shown that the first time a standardized test is given, scores appear low, and then they rise each year, until the test needs to be recalibrated. California experienced "test inflation," and had a particularly severe case because of the intense pressure to increase test scores.

But uncontrolled standardized-test scores are a lousy way to judge the efficacy of a treatment or teaching method. Despite the claims of the National Reading Panel, controlled studies have not demonstrated the superiority of intensive phonics instruction. (See my previous letters to Education Week, "Report on Reading Was 'Bad Science,'" June 11, 2003; "'Whole Language': Attack and Counter," Oct. 30, 2002.)

Stephen Krashen
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, Calif.

Joanne Yatvi's powerful letter to the NY Times editorial, in
which they badly misunderstand the problem with NCLB

Letter to the editor of the NY Times, by Joanne Yatvin

Although I disagree with your opinion (Editorial, 3/2/04) of the
motives of both the Bush administration in pushing the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) and the National Education Association (NEA) in opposing it,
motives are not the issue. Results are. So far, NCLB has, proportionally,
done the most harm to the poor and minority students it purports to help, by
denying so many of them graduation, holding them back in grade, pushing them
out of school, and offering them test prep instead of good teaching. So
far, instead of putting a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, NCLB
has driven the best teachers toward affluent suburban schools or premature
retirement, offered early career teachers "training" in how to parrot
scripted programs, tarnished the reputations of experienced teachers who are
teaching courses in addition to the ones they are certified for, and
facilitated the issuance of "quickie" licenses to those who think they
"might like" to teach. What new wonders does this deceitful and vicious law
have in store?

Democrats are talking about the under-funding of NCLB because
that is what members of the public who do not have children in school can
most easily understand. Many politicians of both parties know-as Howard
Dean was not afraid to say-that money alone can't transform this sow's ear
into a silk purse. The repeal of NCLB, with all its ugliness and stupidity,
and replacing it with true education reform should be the goal off all
Americans who sincerely care about education.

Sincerely yours,

Joanne Yatvin
(Former public school teacher and administrator;
member of the National Reading Panel)

New York Times editorial
Rescuing Education Reform
2004-03-02

Democratic presidential candidates have discovered that there's no more surefire applause line than an attack on the No Child Left Behind Act. The law was meant to deliver on President Bush's promise to improve public school education. But many teachers and school districts resent being forced to meet the law's tough standards. Some of the strongest resistance has come from Republican states like Utah, which are considering laws that would limit their compliance.

The Bush administration has the high ground here. Although the program needs more funds and better administration, No Child Left Behind is tackling one of the nation's most critical problems: the substandard educational opportunities offered to poor and minority children.

Fifty years have sped by since the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that the practice of confining black children to segregated and often inferior schools violated the Constitution and generally consigned African-Americans to second-class citizenship. Nevertheless, all around the country, poor children are still trapped in failing schools, which poison their futures from the very start.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was intended to fix this problem. It requires the states to adopt high standards for all children and to place a qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006 in exchange for federal dollars. The new law will need tinkering here and there. But its goal and its general road map for getting there are the right ones. For the effort to truly equalize education to succeed, Congress will need to fight off destructive schemes by lobbyists and bureaucrats of both parties who are working hard to undermine the new initiative and to preserve the bad old status quo.

No Child Left Behind was the result of one of George Bush's most famous campaign promises. But the Bush administration has sadly turned out to be part of the problem.

The Department of Education, under the inept leadership of Rod Paige, has been painfully slow in adopting regulations on how the states can comply with the law. The administration was forced by Congress to accept the most crucial provision, which requires the states to hire only qualified teachers, and it has failed to enforce that provision adequately.

One of the most serious complaints about the law is that the federal government is asking states for big improvements in local schools but is not providing the money to pay for such changes. The Bush administration is correct when it says that school financing went up sharply under the new law. The money for Title I, which is aimed at the poorest students, went up by nearly a third - with proportionately more of the money going to the poorest districts. But the Title I allotment is also $6 billion short of what Congress authorized when it passed the law, and the amount states are getting is certainly not adequate to meet the tough standards the law sets.

A retrograde faction of Democrats wants to use the financing gap as an excuse for backing away from the law. Last year, for example, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois floated an amendment that would have exempted the states from complying at all until the federal government had paid out all of the money it had promised. The bill was morally indefensible and deserved to fail. Students are already entitled under law to quality education, no matter how poor the neighborhood in which they live. The fact that the federal government should be giving more aid does not exempt the states from their fundamental responsibilities.

Democratic legislators are also fearful of the National Education Association, the country's largest and most powerful teachers' union. The union has a history of vigorously resisting standards-based change and is dead set against making teachers subject to federally dictated qualification and performance standards. While Mr. Paige made an egregious error in referring to the union as a "terrorist organization," the N.E.A. has not served the cause of quality education well in this fight, particularly when it attempts to turn suburban parents against the new law.

Instead of pandering to the law's opponents, whoever wins the Democratic nomination needs to seize what may be the country's last opportunity to achieve basic fairness in public education. That means standing up to wavering Democrats who are eager for a chance to jump ship.

Sent to the Los Angeles Daily News

ìSun may set on English languageî (Feb 27) was
excellent, but the headline was wrong. The percentage
of native speakers of English in the world is
declining, but the dominance of English as an
international language is growing. In 1997 95% of
scientific papers cited in the Science Citation Index
were written in English, up from 83% in 1977. English
is the international language of aviation. Seventyfive
percent of all websites are in English. When Israel
talks to Japan, when Korea talks to Brazil, when
Germany talks to Ethiopia, it is in English. The sun
is not setting on English.

Stephen Krashen

Los Angeles Daily News
Sun may set on English language, experts say
By Randolph E. Schmid
Associated Press

Friday, February 27, 2004 -

WASHINGTON -- The world faces a future of people
speaking more than one language, with English no
longer seen as likely to become dominant, a British
language expert says in a new analysis.

"English is likely to remain one of the world's most
important languages for the foreseeable future, but
its future is more problematic -- and complex -- than
most people appreciate," said language researcher
David Graddol.

He sees English as likely to become the "first among
equals" rather than having the global field to itself.

"Monolingual speakers of any variety of English --
American or British -- will experience increasing
difficulty in employment and political life, and are
likely to become bewildered by many aspects of society
and culture around them," Graddol said.

The share of the world's population that speaks
English as a native language is falling, Graddol
reports in a paper in Friday's issue of the journal
Science.

The idea of English becoming the world language to the
exclusion of others "is past its sell-by date,"
Graddol says. Instead, the language's major
contribution will be in creating new generations of
bilingual and multilingual speakers, he reports.

A multilingual population is already the case in much
of the world and is becoming more common in the United
States. Indeed, the Census Bureau reported last year
that nearly one American in five speaks a language
other than English at home, with Spanish leading, and
the number of Chinese speakers increasing quickly.

And that linguistic diversity, in turn, has helped
spark calls to make English the nation's official
language.

Yale linguist Stephen Anderson noted that
multilingualism is "more or less the natural state. In
most of the world multilingualism is the normal
condition of people."

"The notion that English shouldn't, needn't and
probably won't displace local languages seems natural
to me," he said in a telephone interview.

While it is important to learn English, he added,
politicians and educators need to realize that doesn't
mean abandoning the native language.

Graddol, of the British consulting and publishing
business The English Company, anticipates a world
where the share of people who are native English
speakers slips from 9 percent in the mid-20th century
to 5 percent in 2050.

As of 1995, he reports, English was the second
most-common native tongue in the world, trailing only
Chinese.

By 2050, he says, Chinese will continue its
predominance, with Hindi-Urdu of India and Arabic
climbing past English, and Spanish nearly equal to it.

Swarthmore College linguist K. David Harrison noted,
however, that "the global share of English is much
larger if you count second-language speakers, and will
continue to rise, even as the proportion of native
speakers declines."

Harrison disputed listing Arabic in the top three
languages "because varieties of Arabic spoken in, say,
Egypt and Morocco are mutually incomprehensible."

Even as it grows as a second language, English may
still not ever be the most widely spoken language in
the world, according to Graddol, since so many people
are native Chinese speakers and many more are learning
it as a second language.

English has become the dominant language of science,
with an estimated 80 percent to 90 percent of papers
in scientific journals written in English, notes Scott
Montgomery in a separate paper in the same issue of
Science. That's up from about 60 percent in the 1980s,
he observes.

"There is a distinct consciousness in many countries,
both developed and developing, about this dominance of
English. There is some evidence of resistance to it, a
desire to change it," Montgomery said in a telephone
interview.

For example, he said, the Internet was dominated by
sites in English in its early years, but in recent
years there has been a proliferation of non-English
sites, especially in Spanish, German, French and
Japanese.

Nonetheless, English is strong as a second language,
and teaching it has become a growth industry, said
Montgomery, a Seattle-based geologist and energy
consultant.

Graddol noted, though, that employers in parts of Asia
are already looking beyond English. "In the next
decade the new 'must learn' language is likely to be
Mandarin."

"The world's language system, having evolved over
centuries, has reached a point of crisis and is
rapidly restructuring," Graddol says. In this process
as many as 90 percent of the 6,000 or so languages
spoken around the world may be doomed to extinction,
he estimated.

Graddol does have words of consolation for those who
struggle to master the intricacies of other languages.

"The expectation that someone should always aspire to
native speaker competence when learning a foreign
language is under challenge," he said.

Sent to Senator Diane Feinstein, February 27, 2004

The US Dept of Education just announced a ìrelaxationî
in NCLB (No Child Left Behind) requirements: Children
who are acquiring English as a second language no
longer have to be tested their first year in school;
we can wait until they are in school for one year. I
wonder if the public is aware of the research on this
issue: Study after study shows that one year is
nowhere near long enough to acquire enough English to
do regular classwork, which means it is nowhere near
long enough to acquire enough English to show their
competence on demanding standardized tests. Yes,
children do acquire some social or ìconversationalî
language in a year, but academic language is much more
complex ñ it is the language of story problems, the
language of written reports, the language of social
studies texts.

For those who start in kindergarten, it generally
takes about three years for most children to acquire
enough academic language to join the mainstream,
regardless of whether bilingual or ìimmersionî methods
are used. For those entering later, it can take
longer, because the curriculum is so much more
demanding. ìLooseningî the requirement sends the false
message that the Dept. of Education now understands
the situation and is being more realistic. In
reality, the more ìflexibleî one year requirement
continues to set children up for failure and wastes
time and money on tests that tell us nothing.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Press release from KATESOL/BE (see also Dodge City
Daily Globe,
http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/022504/sta_0225040051.shtml)

I need to comment on a press release sent out by
KATESOL/BE, related to my upcoming appearing at their
conference in March.

ìBilingual education advocates will be buoyed by an
appearance at the KATESOL opening ceremony by Dr.
Stephen Krashen, Ö. Largely through the efforts of Dr.
Krashen, a recent English-only initiative was defeated
in Colorado.î

Actually I had little to do with the Colorado
campaign. I gave several talks in Colorado early in
the campaign and was interviewed by two Denver
newspapers, but I was barred from participation as the
campaign proceeded.

It all began when I was invited by the organizers to
debate Ron Unz in Denver. I assumed that I would focus
on the research and rationale supporting bilingual
education, but the PR team running the campaign
insisted that I not do this: They had decided to not
to attempt to defend or even explain bilingual
education, but to focus on other aspects of the
anti-bilingual education proposal. They insisted that
campaigners ìstay on the messageî which meant: donít
try to defend bilingual education. It was a good idea
to respond to some of the other issues, other aspects
of the anti-bilingual education initiative that were
wrong (e.g. law suits against teachers, allowing one
year only in special classes), but not to the
exclusion of defending bilingual education.

I was not invited to participate in the campaign after
I objected to these tactics. When I posted my
objections on a listserv set up by the PR staff, the
listserv was effectively shut down the next day, with
all posts screened by the PR staff. None of my
attempts to post were accepted.

Their major focus, eventually, was ìchaos in the
classroom,î the idea that if the initiative passed we
would see lots of unprepared children in regular
classrooms. Their campaign was admittedly aimed at
appealing to those majority language children who were
fearful of having ìthose childrenî in the same class
as their children.

This is not speculation. The Colorado PR team actually
described their tactics in full detail in the media.
For the full story, see Jim Crawfordís insightful and
detailed paper: ìHard sell; Why is bilingual education
so unpopular with the American public?î Arizona State
University: Language Policy Research Unit.
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/features/brief8.htm.

We won in Colorado, but I am not proud of it. For more
extensive discussion of why it is important to defend
and explain bilingual education, see my paper ìLetís
tell the truth about bilingual education,î presented
as a keynote plenary at NABE, and soon to appear on
http://www.sdkrashen.com.

An important footnote: Many of my colleagues in
Colorado argued forcefully for bilingual education and
did not avoid the issue at all. This was, however, not
the official policy of the campaign.

Sent to the Washington Post

Sec. Paige apologized for calling the Natational
Education Association a terrorist group, but still
feels that they are obstructionist because of their
objections to No Child Left Behind ("Paige calls LEA
a terrorist group," Feb. 24). I am also critical of
the NEAís position on NCLB: Their criticisms don't go
deep enough.

The NEA feels that ìs chools and students should not be
judged solely on reading and math test scores,
teachers should not have to pay for supplementary
training required by the law, NCLB is underfunded, and
does not reach enough students. I don't think the
federal government should be judging schools at all,
teachers should not have to get the kind of "training"
that NCLB entails, I am relieved that NCLB is
underfunded, and that it does not reach all students.

NCLBís real flaws have been ignored: While all
educators agree that assessment is necessary and
important, recent surveys show that a significant
percentage of school administrators and parents agree
that NCLB imposes excessive and unnecessary testing on
children. All reading specialists agree that teaching
basic phonics is helpful, but NCLB imposes far more
phonics teaching than research and common sense
support. NCLB does nothing to provide real help for
children. The only group that appears to be profiting
from NCLB is the testing and textbook publishing
industry.

Stephen Krashen

Sent to the Star-Telegram (Fort Worth), February 24

The Fort Worth school district is getting federal money to purchase the Imagination Station, software that "educators say" can improve reading ("Schools get money for reading," Feb. 24). It is described as using "dragons, rainbows and games."

Not all educators are enthusiastic. The Imagination Station, despite the dragons and rainbows, is intensive phonics. A close look at the research shows that this approach results in higher test scores only on tests in which children read words out loud, in lists. It has only a microscopic impact on reading comprehension tests given after grade one.

Educators agree that some phonics is helpful, but there are severe limits on how much can be taught and absorbed. Many rules are complex, with numerous exceptions, and different phonics systems teach different rules. Nearly all reading materials for young children contain the basic phonics rules that are really useful, and nearly all children learn them.

What does impact performance on tests of reading comprehension is reading itself: Research consistently shows that those who read more read better. They also write better, spell better, and have larger vocabularies.

The problem is access to books. Children from low-income families have little access to books at home, live in communities with inferior public libraries, and attend schools with inferior school libraries. The Imagination Station costs $100 per child, and the total investment is $500,000. That money should be spent on school libraries.

Stephen Krashen

Sent to the Taipei Times, Feb 23.

Chen Shu-Chin ("English is a blight on young kids," February 17) is correct: Starting English too early and emphasizing "English-only" education for very young children can crowd out other valuable learning experiences.

But there is another very good reason to reduce emphasis on English in the very early years. Starting later and doing less is actually more efficient for acquiring English: Studies consistently show that older children are significantly faster than younger children in second language acquisition. In addition, a solid foundation in the first language makes a strong contribution to second language development: Those who are more literate in their first language acquire literacy in the second language more quickly, and those who know more, thanks to a good education in their first language, understand more of what they read and hear in their second language, which speeds acquisition.

Ironically, "less in more" in this situation. Starting later and devoting more time to developing a strong foundation in Chinese is the best thing Taiwan can do to promote English language development. It is also the best thing Taiwan can do ton ensure quality education for Taiwanese children and the development of the first language. It is a win-win situation. Premature and excessive English is lose-lose, bad for both English and academic development.

An important additional point: In situations in which English is crucial for daily life, as in the US, non-English speaking children should begin English as a second language (ESL) classes the first day they enter school. But the most effective programs also include a great deal of education in the child's primary language. Research shows that these programs teach English at least as well, and usually better than, all-day English programs.

I presented a paper on this topic ("Dealing with English Fever") at the International Symposium sponsored by the English Teachers' Association/ROC last November in Taipei. It can be found on my website, http://www.sdkrashen.com and in the conference proceedings, published by the Crane Publishing Company in Taipei.

Stephen Krashen

Published in the Los Angeles Times, Feb 21, 2004
Letter to the editor

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-le-
fluency21feb21,1,7403601.story

February 21, 2004

The legislative analyst's office reported that, according to projections, English learners in California schools take 3.6 to 7.4 years to become fluent in English. This analysis is based on tests administered in 2001 and 2002, long after California voted to dismantle bilingual education and require English immersion by passing Proposition 227.

Today, nearly all English learners in school are in all-English programs. Proposition 227 stated that English immersion instruction should "not normally" exceed one year. The report shows conclusively that this didn't happen. Proposition 227 did not keep its promise. Not even close.

Stephen Krashen
School of Education
USC

Houston Chronicle
Feb 21

Written in response to Houston School District's "Pre-AP" sixth grade English class idea

A hunger for learning

Regarding the Feb. 18 Page One article, " 'School will be harder' in HISD / Sixth-graders face pre-AP English class next year": "Harder" and "difficult" are no substitutes for stimulating and thought-provoking experiences with literature, grammar, writing and publishing. Successful and struggling students, alike, know the difference and respond to intriguing intellectual challenges by wanting to know more and do more. This is how effective advanced-placement programs are built and sustained.

Pre-AP classes are a silly idea and are not offered in other good schools across the country because those districts are busy concentrating on curriculum that builds an appetite for rigor and complexity in all children of every background. This is not an easy task, but it can be done when adults step out from behind hyped-up headlines and standardized test scoreboards to imagine and design instructional programs for hungry minds.

Houston Independent School District, please use what is available right now to electrify and enliven.

Kathy Irwin, Houston

Sent to Education Week, Dec 19

In my letter to Ed Week of Dec 10, I pointed out that
NAEP scores in California had not changed since 1992,
despite the eradication of whole language and rush to
skill-building. Rick Nelson (Dec 18) notes that fourth
graders taking the NAEP reading test in 2003 would not
yet have had the benefit of systematic phonics because
most districts didnít begin intensive systematic
phonics until 1999. Nelson also maintains that LAUSD
has supplied evidence in favor of systematic phonics
with spectacular grade 1 scores and notes that
increases in SAT9 scores since 1998 in California as a
whole also supports the systematic phonics position.

I commented on the 2003 NAEP scores because
Californiaís low performance on the NAEP in 1992 was
blamed on whole language. I am unaware of
documentation showing exactly which districts moved to
systematic intensive phonics and when they did it, but
whole language has been gone for quite a while. The
purge began in 1995. The NAEP scores havenít changed.

I also read about LAUSDís grade 1 scores in the
newspapers. I was unable to find any information about
the tests given and the actual numbers anywhere on the
internet. I wrote the LAUSD testing office three times
to no avail. The only time they responded they sent
me the grade 2 data, which is available on the
internet. One cannot reach serious conclusions based
on press releases.

Mr. Nelson is correct in pointing out that SAT9 scores
have gone up in California since 1998, but systematic
phonics does not deserve the credit. The SAT9 was
given for the first time in California in 1998. Robert
Linn and others have shown that the first time a
standardized test is given, scores appear low, and
then they rise each year, until the test needs to be
recalibrated. California experienced ìtest
inflation,î and had a particularly severe case because
of the intense pressure to increase test scores.

But uncontrolled standardized test scores are a lousy
way to judge the efficacy of a treatment or teaching
method. Despite the claims of the National Reading
Panel, controlled studies have not demonstrated the
superiority of intensive phonics instruction (see
previous letters to Education Week from me and my
colleagues, e.g. 6/11/03, 10/30/02).

Stephen Krashen

Sent to Language Magazine

In a recent editorial, (ìLeave your wallet behind,î
January 2004), Language Magazine executive editor
Daniel Ward noted that according to a recent study 75%
of principals did not agree with the testing
provisions of NCLB (No Child Left Behind). A poll of
699 parents done by Results for America (available on
resultsforamerica.com) shows that parents are not
enthusiastic either.

Of the 78% of parents polled who had heard of NCLB,
69% said they supported it, but closer questioning
revealed much less agreement with important aspects:
Of those who said they supported NCLB, only 59% said
they agreed with the idea of high stakes testing and
only 19% ìstronglyî supported it. When asked if
federal funds should be withheld from their own
childís school if it failed to meet federal standards,
over 70% said no, regardless of whether or not they
supported NCLB. When asked about the most appropriate
role of the federal government in education, only 13%
felt that ìit should only give funds to local school
districts that meet federal government standards.î

There was, as Results for America phrased it, support
for the idea of NCLB, but much less support for the
specific components of the plan. Apparently, few
supporters knew what they were supporting,

What does this mean? Principals, professional
educators who deal with the realities of school every
day, do not approve of the stringent testing
requirements and punitive nature of NCLB. Parents,
when they informed about these details, also disagree
with them. These are the groups who should be in
control of education.

Stephen Krashen

note to members of mailing list: For information on
Language Magazine, see
http://www.languagemagazine.com. It is a unique
publication, focusing on language in general, and is
likely to include articles on dialects, bilingualism,
and educational issues, aimed at a wide audience. I
have published several papers there and intend to
submit more.

Sent to the Houston Chronicle

Re: ìSchool will be harderî in HISD (Feb. 18, 2004)

HISDís decision to make ìpre-advanced placementî
classes in English mandatory for sixth graders will
undoubtedly result in reports that sixth graders are
unprepared for this course, and we need to start even
earlier: How about pre-AP third grade? Kindergarten?
Pre-school?

HISD Assistant Principal Robert Kimball is right: We
need to first ensure that all children achieve basic
literacy. Research and common-sense both conclude that
the best way to insure adequate literacy development
for all children is to make sure they have the
opportunity to do a great deal of recreational,
self-selected reading. And the best way to make sure
this happens is to have excellent school libraries,
with lots of good books and with credentialed
librarians. It is well-established that libraries are
the only source of books for children of poverty.

Ironically, providing a print-rich environment is also
the best way to prepare students for AP exams. Those
who have read widely on their own are very well
prepared for the ìseriousî study of literature.

Stephen Krashen

Sent to the Los Angeles Times

All-English Did Not Keep its Promise

The State of California legislative analyst office
reported that according to their projections, English
learners in California schools take 3.6 to 7.4 years
to become fluent in English („Report details long road
to English-language fluency,‰ Feb. 14).

This analysis is based on tests administered in 2001
and 2002, long after California voted to dismantle
bilingual education and require English immersion by
passing Prop. 227. Today, nearly all English learners
in school in California are in all-English programs.

Prop. 227 stated that English immersion instruction
should „not normally‰ exceed one year, that is, it
should only take one year of English immersion for
students to acquire enough English to follow regular
instruction. The State of California report shows
conclusively that this didn‚t happen. Proposition 227
did not keep its promise. Not even close.

Stephen Krashen

Sent to the Los Angeles Times

Incorrect Conclusions on Reading

Teachers College President Levine notes that the
federal Reading First program is based on the National
Reading Panel report, which recommended training in
phonemic awareness and phonics, and cast doubt on the
role of recreational reading in school („The
Education-School Alchemists,‰ Feb 14). Levine might
also have noted that the conclusions of the Reading
Panel have been thoroughly discredited. Several
published books and papers show that there is very
little research directly linking phonemic awareness
training and improvement in reading comprehension, the
report itself concludes that intensive phonics
training has only a tiny impact on performance on
reading comprehension tests given after grade 1, and
the panel ignored most of the relevant research in
coming to its conclusions on recreational reading:
There is, in fact, overwhelming research showing that
the time children spend reading for pleasure in school
is very well spent. Contrary to claims, Reading First
is not based on „scientific‰ research. It is based on
incorrect conclusions drawn from an incomplete set of
studies.

Stephen Krashen

Sent to the LA Times.

According to the LA Times ("A small problem growing,"
Feb. 12) because of nutritional deficiencies, North
Koreans are not as tall as South Koreans. The North
Korean prime minister has recommended stretching
exercises for children as a means of making them
taller. He must have been inspired by No Child Left
Behind and the National Reading Panel. Their approach
is also to stretch children by artificial (and
painful) means. Children of poverty read less well
than children of high-income families because they
have less access to print. Instead of providing more
print (e.g. better school and public libraries in
high-poverty areas), No Child Left Hehind prescribes
(and demands) skill-building: e.g. phonics,
vocabulary, and reading comprehension exercises. Just
like stretching, it is painful, and just like
stretching, it doesn‚t work. Korean children need
better nutrition. Children of poverty with little
access to books need better access to books. There is
no substitute.

Saying that we must insist on skills because children
just won‚t read is like saying hungry children just
won‚t eat. But studies clearly show that given
interesting and comprehensible reading material,
nearly all children find reading pleasant and
eventually read.

Stephen Krashen

Lesley Morrow responded to my note (recently posted). I don't have permission to post her response, but here is my answer to her. You can get a good idea of what she said from what I wrote back.

Lesley, thanks for your prompt response. Let me clarify.

1. I am happy to learn that Lyon is now willing to learn from the IRA. That quote I sent you suggests otherwise. And it is from a very recent interview.

2. I agree that IRA is a place for all voices. As I said in my note, I have no objection to Lyon speaking at IRA. But he is being showcased and honored in this presentation, a very important event that honors past presidents as well. Again, Lyon has called for the dismantling of schools of education and says that the whole language movement is stupid, while displaying little grasp of what whole language is.

3. I am happy to learn that future panels will consider qualitative research. For the record, I am not one of those who says that the National Reading Panel is invalid because they only looked at quantitative studies. It is invalid, in my opinion, because it did not analyze the quantitative research correctly. I assume you are familiar with my published analyses, as well as those of Coles and Garan. (I am not asking you to agree with us, but simply recognize that our criticisms are not simply a call for including qualitative research.)

Thanks again for writing. I really appreciate it. I will be sharing my part of our discussion with colleagues, but not yours, unless you say it is ok.

Sincerely,

Steve Krashen

I sent this to the director and current president of the International Reading Association today.

Dear Colleagues,

I just received my copy of the IRA program for the Reno conference and noted that Reid Lyon will be presenting at a special research award session (page 91 of the program). I am in favor of encouraging open discussion and a free exchange of all ideas, but this is very disturbing.

Lyon is the one who has called for blowing up schools of education, and in a very recent interview, posted today on educationnews.org, he included an ad hominum attack on a wide segment of the reading community (see below, interview from Children of the Code).

In his statements, it is clear that Lyon has not considered counterarguments at all (his description of whole language is a serious distortion), and in his position of great power, Lyon has not been particularly eager to allow all sides to state their views.

I understand that there are others on the program who do represent other positions (I was very happy to see that Kenneth Goodman will be a featured speaker and that Shelley Harwayne and Marie Clay will be giving major presentations), and I am not opposed at all to including Lyon at IRA, but I think that granting him this very high honor ("distinguished educator") could be interpreted as the IRA's approval of his unprofessional behavior, if not his position on reading.

I know that Lyon has apologized for the "blowing up" remark, but he only said it was "a bad choice of words" (Reading Today, Aug/Sept 2003): His attitude and disdain for opposing views is clear.

Quote:
Dr. Reid Lyon: I don't know why education and in particular reading, within the field of education, has been so wimpy with respect to building on evidence rather than on heart. Of course you have to have both, but…. The way we went down the road to whole language is really a story of stupidity.

Sincerely,

Stephen Krashen

The National Education Association devoted an issue of NEA Today to reading. They encouraged linking to public libraries, but failed to even mention school libraries. Below is a wonderful letter to the editor sent to the NEA, written by David Loertscher, wonderful not because he mentions me, but because he includes a number of great suggestions in addition to the research.

I am constantly amazed at how reading experts (and the field of education in general) can ignore the role of the school library and the solid research showing that the school library can contribute so much (eg Keith Curry Lance, Jeff McQuillan).

Letters, NEA Today
1201 16th Street, NW
Washington DC 20036

Jan 29, 2004

Woops! You goofed, NEA Today. In your issue devoted to reading, you forgot the very best source any teacher has to help build the love of reading. Are you ready for this announcement? [trumpet fanfare] It's the SCHOOL LIBRARY! Oh my gosh, think of it. It's just down the hall, has been promoting reading for half a century, has a stockpile of thousands of carefully selected books awaiting your eyes and ears. And, best of all, Krashen's review of 100 years of reading research says that students who read those library books score the highest. Now we can ignore this secret place down the hall, we can isolate ourselves in our classrooms, but we do so at our own peril. Here are ten suggestions to propel your students to higher reading scores through the library:
1. Have a rotating classroom collection from the library - the books will always be fresh and applicable to whatever topic is going on (p.s., have the students take care of the collection)
2. See that students have unlimited checkout privileges from the library. The more they have available, the more likely they are to read. (p.s. students who are at-risk need this the most)
3. For students who can't read the textbook - the materials in the library are their only hope of understanding what's going on.
4. See that every child or teen has a bed lamp and a pile of books awaiting attention - just like your bedside stand.
5. Participate in the many library programs to promote reading - reading aloud, reading initiatives, celebrations, author visits, book talks, book discussions and many other fun things.
6. For many units you teach, promote the reading of library books as a part of your assignment. The more your students read, the more they will know….. and you know the result.
7. Let your students know that you are a reader yourself. Recommend the best books to them.
8. If you are a K-2 teacher, try book bags from the library. Check out a book bag with two books for each student once a month. Students rotate the books each night and read one book to someone and someone reads a book to them.
9. Reward students on rubrics for additional reading on beyond the textbook.
10. Make the librarian your confidant in reading. They know lots about good books, the best books, books to read aloud to your class, motivational strategies - all in all, your best reading friend.

David V. Loertscher
Professor, School of Library and Information Science
San Jose State University
A past president of the American Association of School Librarians

Sent to the Orange County (CA) Register, January 30

Re: "No loss for words," January 28

According to the Register, nine-year-old Meadow Park vocabulary champion Sam Girvin has had several kinds of experiences that could be the reason for his magnificent vocabulary: He has lived in Japan, where he acquired some Japanese, he has played scrabble with his uncle, a scrabble champion, his parents use "longer words" in talking to him and he is a voracious reader, reading 100 pages per day during the week and 200 pages on the weekend. Register readers might be interested in knowing that scientific research points to reading as the major source of vocabulary knowledge beyond the basics. Cornell University researchers Donald Hayes and Margaret Ahrens, for example, have concluded that development of a large vocabulary "requires literacy and extensive reading across a broad range of subjects." A great deal of research also confirms that reading is more effective and efficient than direct vocabulary instruction; it is of great interest that Sam Girvin does not do vocabulary exercises and flash cards. Educators have much to learn from Sam.

Stephen Krashen

(Thanks to Richard Moore for finding this article.)
FOOD & WINE
No loss for words here
Jan 28. Orange County Register
Sam Girvin, 9, of Meadow Park Elementary School has qualified to compete against 99 other Californians for the Reader's Digest Word Power Challenge's state championship Feb. 27.

By KUBESHINI NAICKER
Irvine World News

Nine-year-old Sam Girvin of Meadow Park Elementary School hasn't yet decided what career he'd like to pursue. But he has decided that he wants to win a $25,000 college scholarship.

And he's already accomplished half of the four competitive steps toward that goal.

The $25,000 will go to the winner of the Second Annual Reader's Digest Word Power Challenge for more than 1.5 million contestants from grades 4 through 8 in thousands of schools across the nation.

In step one, Sam last fall placed first among his fourth-grade classmates in the vocabulary tests.

Now, in competition with eight other winners in Meadow Park's fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade classes, he has been chosen in the magazine's qualifying exam to compete against 99 other Californians for the state championship that would make him a candidate for the national title.

Each of the nation's 50 states will be holding statewide competitions Feb. 27, with the winner from each state being offered a chance to compete for the national championship in late March at an all-expense-paid visit to Colonial Williamsburg in Williamsburg, Va.

On Tuesday, Sam was asked what he was doing to prepare for step three, the Feb.27 California face-off in Bakersfield.

"I haven't done anything special for the competition, and I won't be doing anything special now," he replied nonchalantly.

But there is something special about his routine relationship with words.

To begin with, his architect father, Patrick, and his transportation scientist mother, Raquel, enrolled him in an international school in Japan, where the father was then working.

"I picked up a little Japanese when I attended that school from kindergarten through the grade two," he says. And he heard other languages when his parents took him on visits to Bali, Canada, Mexico, France and his mother's native land, the Philippines.

For a time, he had a chance to play Scrabble with his mother's brother, who happened to be a Philippine Scrabble champion.

"I never won. But I guess I learned a lot of words."

He also credits his parents for enriching his vocabulary by "talking to me while using longer words."

Nowadays, in addition to working on homework assignments, he reads for pleasure "about 100 pages of fantasy and other things a day, and about 200 pages on weekends."

Sam emphasizes that he feels no pressure from his parents to maintain such a reading routine.

"They give me books for presents. But that's because they know that reading is my hobby. That, and collecting bird feathers."

Though Sam has his eye on the top prize of $25,000, he says he'll be happy to win the $15,000 for second place or $10,000 for placing third.

Considering the stiff national competition he's facing, will he be satisfied with the T-shirt he's been awarded for being chosen to compete for the championship of his state?

For that question, Sam Girvin was not able to find any appropriate vocabulary.

Some comments on Slavin and Cheung
Stephen Krashen (http://www.sdkrashen.com)

Slavin and Cheung's recent report "Effective reading programs for English language learners" is a survey of the professional literature that concludes that bilingual education is effective, that bilingual students are better off learning to read in both languages at the same time, that systematic phonics will help English learners learn to read, and that direct vocabulary instruction is helpful.

In my view, their data does not support (or disconfirm) the last three claims.

1. Paired bilingual approach to reading

Slavin and Cheung conclude that "many of the studies with the strongest positive effects for English language learners used a 'paired bilingual approach,' in which children were taught reading in both English and the native language at different times each day from the beginning of their schooling" (p. 19). They list only two studies in which the paired bilingual approach is compared to first teaching reading in the first language: The El Paso study (Gersten and Woodward, 1995) and the McAllen study (Pena-Hughes and Solis, 1980). The problem is that there were a lot of other differences between the two programs in each of these studies: Paired reading was only one of them.

The El Paso bilingual immersion program had used whole language and sheltered subject matter teaching, and provided L1 instruction were it counted the most, in areas that were the most cognitively demanding. The "regular" bilingual program was phonics-based (see below) and did not have sheltered classes. The McAllen "paired reading" program was compared to a terrible bilingual program that featured concurrent translation and inconsistent bilingual instruction.

It is doubtful that paired bilingual reading was the crucial element in these studies, and these are the only direct comparisons of paired versus sequential reading instruction. The research does not help us decide between these options.

2. Slavin and Cheung conclude that programs emphasizing systematic phonics are best for English learners, a result they say parallels the research results for native speakers.

The evidence supporting systematic phonics for native speakers is faulty, and has been criticized several times. None of these criticisms is mentioned in Slavin and Cheung. They do not consider, for example, Elaine Garan's analysis of the National Reading Panel report, in which she shows that studies claiming to show the superiority of intensive phonics only show a superiority for tests in which children read words in isolation. The impact of intensive phonics on reading comprehension tests given after grade 1 is microscopic.

Slavin and Cheung present several sets of studies that, they claim, show that systematic intensive phonics is effective for second language acquirers. One set consists of studies of Success for All. There are two problems with their conclusions: Success for All consists of much more than phonics. It also includes real reading, a more likely cause, in my opinion, of reading success. In addition, one must ask what Success for All was compared to. All we know is that it was compared to something. Nearly all of the studies of Success for All presented by Slavin and Cheung are unpublished.

Another set of studies consists of comparisons of Direct Instruction with "regular" instruction. In these studies, children who experience Direct Instruction in reading do very well on tests of reading words in isolation, but do not do nearly as well on tests that involve actual texts. There is, in other words, a "large discrepancy between decoding skills . . . and reading comprehension scores . . . ." (Direct Instruction advocates Wes Becker and Russell Gersten, in an article published originally in 1982 in the American Educational Research Journal and reprinted in the Journal of Direct Instruction in 2001). This pattern of high scores on decoding tests and lower scores on reading tests also appears quite a bit in the Success for All research literature.)

Also, Direct Instruction has only been compared to other skill-based approaches. A number of studies show that students in programs that emphasize free voluntary reading outperform those in traditional skill-based instruction on tests of reading comprehension if the free reading program is allowed to run for a sufficient length of time (an academic year). Readers do at least as well as traditionally taught students in shorter-term programs. Direct Instruction has never been compared to these kinds of "book flood"

Slavin and Cheung regard Stuart's Jolly Phonics study as evidence for the superiority of phonics. This study was actually a comparison between BIg Books and Jolly Phonics for kindergarten children, most of whom spoke English as a second language. The latter was a phonic awareness/phonics program. Big Books involved the use of large size books, but it is not clear that much real reading was included in this program, or that there was a great deal of focus on meaning. Here is the description of the advice given to teachers of the Big Books sections:

"Teachers were asked to spend time on word level work, that is, to emphasize words and letters, by drawing children's attention to written words in the text, and talking about the letters in words. Work with letters should involve introduction to their names and sounds, and children should be encouraged to notice and learn words and letters in the classroom environment. Activities to foster word and letter learning were discussed: the teachers were already using many imaginative and fun activities to these ends, such as having a collection of handbags, each with a different letter, containing small interesting objects whose names began with the sound of the letter" (590).

There was very little additional description of the Big Books program.

Jolly Phonics children were indeed better on tests of phonemic awareness and reading words in isolation and did somewhat better on a test of reading comprehension. As usual the advantage for tests of decoding was much larger than the effect on the test of reading. But this is apparently a comparison of more versus less skills, not more versus less reading.

3. Slavin and Cheung found only two studies of vocabulary instruction, and concluded that "direct teaching of English vocabulary can help the reading performance of ELLs, " (p. 41), even though in one study after two years experimental students did not make significant gains on the Peabody Vocabulary test. Slavin and Cheung do not mention the extensive research showing supporting the hypothesis that vocabulary is acquired by reading (Krashen, 1993).

To summarize: Slavin and Cheung's conclusions in favor of paired reading and systematic phonics are based on studies in which many other factors were present, and in which comparison group treatments are unclear. Their conclusions on the direct teaching of vocabulary are based on two studies, one of which produced one important negative result. In my opinion, their review provides no evidence supporting paired reading, systematic phonics or the direct teaching of vocabulary, nor does it provide counterevidence. Others have reviewed the professional literature and have concluded that the phonics instruction is highly limited, and that vocabulary emerges as a result of reading. These reviews are not mentioned.

References not available in Slavin and Cheung:

Garen, E. 2002. Resisting Reading Mandates. Heinemann.
Krashen, S. 1993. The Power of Reading. Libraries Unlimited.

Slavin and Cheung's paper: "Effective Reading Programs for English Language Learners: A Best-Evidence Synthesis:" http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report66.pdf

Sent to the San Franicisco Chronicle, January 30

Re: "CSU remedial plan falling shy of goal
Many new students still lack proficiency in English, math," January 29

The Chronicle suggests that the number of "unprepared" freshman at CSU is linked to new approaches to teaching reading, and these approaches were responsible for a drop in test scores. The Chronicle is misinformed. California's fourth-graders placed last in reading in the US in 1992, but this was not because of new methodology: Language arts became "literature-based" in California in 1987: there was not enough time to significantly impact tests given in 1992. Also, Jeff McQuillan's analysis shows that reading levels in California were low long before 1987. Finally, even though the new approach has been long purged, replaced by intensive skills program, there has been no increase in California's reading scores.

We have ignored the likely cause of California's problem. Studies show that when children have more access to books, they read more, and when children read more they read better. Studies also show that school library quality is related to reading scores. California has the worst school libraries in the US, and our public libraries rank near the bottom. The new state budget allots 70 cents per child for school libraries; the national average is $20. Our children read poorly because they have little access to reading material.

Stephen Krashen

Excerpt from Chronicle article. Complete article is at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/29/BAG624KEDI1.DTL

"Then, during the 1980s and early 1990s, a mismatch developed between what schools were teaching and what universities expected students to know. Elementary schools had latched on to "creative" new approaches to reading instruction that placed little emphasis on spelling and grammar, while allowing children to guess at the meaning of words through context and pictures. When California's reading scores plummeted on national exams in 1994, the state did a turnabout and withheld all funding for instruction of that kind.

By the late 1990s, the state had set rigorous academic goals in most subjects that were intended to prepare students for college. But today's college freshmen were past elementary school by that time, and many now lack a solid foundation in the basics."

Sent to the Christian Science Monitor, January 30, 2003

The Monitor ("Reading choices narrow for schools with federal aid," January 29) reported that the National Reading Panel concluded that intensive phonics instruction has "a clear edge." Critics have noted that in many studies the panel used as evidence, intensive phonics was compared to doing nothing (Gerald Coles), research shows a much weaker impact of intensive phonics than claimed (Gregory Camilli) and shows no significant impact of intensive phonics on reading comprehension tests after grade 1 (Elaine Garan).

There is agreement that including some phonics is helpful. There are, however, severe limits on how much phonics can be learned: many rules are highly complex and don't work very well. Also, different programs teach different rules. Kenneth Good man and Frank Smith have argued that most of our knowledge of phonics is the result of reading, not the cause.

The Monitor also noted that "a dismal 37 percent of fourth-graders are reading below grade level." "Grade level" in this case is an arbitrary standard decided on by committee. Students in the US do well in international comparisons of reading. In 1992 our nine-year olds placed second among 32 countries. Only three countries outscored our 15-year-olds in the most recent comparisons.

Stephen Krashen

from the January 29, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0129/p12s02-legn.html

Reading choices narrow for schools with federal aid
By Teresa Méndez | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

The start of the school year brought a radical new reading curriculum to schools across New York City. Teachers carved out pockets of time so their students could curl up with well-loved children's books slipped off the shelves of their classroom libraries.

And phonics lessons that relied on simple texts - "Nat and the rat sat on the mat" - to teach children how sounds correspond with letters, were balanced with a focus on teasing out meaning from complex sentences.

Then, earlier this month, the city's education department abruptly decided to abandon its nascent curriculum in 49 struggling elementary schools. In its place - a more traditional phonics program. By doing this, the city hopes to qualify for $34 million in federal funding.

In a letter to the New York Post, Joel Klein, New York City's schools chancellor, wrote: "Officials in the federal and state governments have been putting pressure on districts to adopt a scripted approach to teaching literacy in the early grades. While we disagree with that approach ... we did not want to lose these potential resources."

New York is not alone. Districts from Boston to San Diego have had to weigh whether winning a chunk of the $900 million set aside through Reading First - President Bush's national literacy initiative and part of the 2001 education reform act No Child Left Behind - is worth ceding local control of reading curricula.

To qualify for Reading First dollars, a district must use a reading program supported by "scientifically based research." The catch: The science, according to Washington, points to phonics.

In a time when a dismal 37 percent of fourth-graders are reading below grade level, the Bush administration has pinned its hopes on phonics. But not everyone is hooked.

The use of science to support phonics has rekindled the "reading wars," a long smoldering debate that pits explicit phonics against "whole language" - reading for meaning and context. And the swirl of ensuing questions range from what "scientifically based research" actually means to questions about links between the publishers of commercial phonics programs and the Bush administration.

In 1997, the National Reading Panel was convened at the request of Congress. The panel conducted a meta-study - a survey of all the reading research in the academic ether. They hoped to find a common thread leading to the best method for teaching children to read, and the findings of its 14 members became the basis for the Reading First initiative.

While the panel did not study or endorse any commercial reading programs, its findings have given a clear edge to those that include explicit phonics. And many publishers of programs that include explicit phonics on the market today advertise their products as science-based.

"What they mean is that there's a little vocabulary instruction. There's a little phonics instruction. There's some comprehension instruction, and so on," explains Michael Kamil, an education professor at Stanford University in California, who was a National Reading Panel member. "It doesn't mean that they've tested this program to see that it works better than other programs."

Still, he says, many of these programs are effective because they provide teachers with structure, and they incorporate the five elements the panel found to improve a child's chance of learning to read: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

Few would argue with the finding that science supports phonics instruction for young readers.

Yet those who argue for a more balanced approach to reading instruction are troubled by the way Washington has sided with explicit phonics, which may not be appropriate for all children.

Critics also worry about the studies left out of the reading panel's scope. Of 100,000 studies first culled by the panel, all but experimental research that adhered to the scientific method were eliminated. That left around 40.

"It's raising quantifiable data to the equivalent of a truth and saying nothing else is true," says Kenneth Goodman, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona's College of Education in Tucson.

Shortly before the release of the National Reading Panel's findings in 2000, one member, Joanne Yatvin, decided to pen a dissent.

She worried that the report might be misunderstood and misused by the government and phonics promoters to dictate reading instruction. "And that is in fact what happened," she says today.

Other observers have questioned the widespread use of McGraw-Hill's phonics products in schools throughout the country. They point to the close ties between the McGraw and Bush families. Furthermore, the Widmeyer-Baker Group, the public relations company hired to promote the panel's findings, has counted McGraw-Hill among its clients.

Some educators say that reducing reading to phonics instruction with a script turns teachers into automatons with little room to tailor lessons to the individual needs of their pupils. And it doesn't account for the important role teachers play in the education process.

"Even if you could prove that all these top-down mandates had science behind them, the human spirit would deny and resist that," says Thomas Newkirk, director of the New Hampshire Literacy Institute in Durham.

Professor Kamil at Stanford disagrees. He acknowledges that there may be a "mystery" and "art" to teaching. "But there's a heck of a lot of science," he says. "And we can deal with science."

Sent to the Los Angeles Daily News (100 word limit)

Studies consistently show that better school libraries are related to higher reading scores. California has the lowest reading scores in the nation and also has the worst school libraries. The next state budget includes $4.2 million for school libraries, dead last in the country and 3% of what other states spend (the national average is $20 per child, we will spend 70 cents).

The amount children read is the biggest factor in improving reading, but children need access to books in order to read a lot, and the only place many children can find books is the school library.

Stephen Krashen

Now available at http://www.sdkrashen.com: Krashen, S. (2001) The testing movement and delayed gratification. 2 pages

California's 3% Solution: To the editor:

The next state budget includes $4.2 million for school libraries, 3% of what other states spend (.70 per student compared to the national average of $20), and half of last year's allotment. Also, there is no assurance that the money will go to libraries: Next year, library funds can be spent on other things.

Why is this important? A great deal of research supports the common-sense ideas that more access to books means more reading and more reading means better reading. Studies on the impact of libraries confirm this: better libraries are related to higher reading scores.

California has the lowest reading scores in the nation, has the worst school libraries, and its public libraries rank near the bottom of the country. California also has a high percentage of children living in poverty: It is well-established that children of poverty have little access to books at home or in their communities. It is highly likely that reading scores are low because our children have little access to books.

It would take $120 million a year just to match the national average in library spending, to keep California from falling farther behind. This is approximately what California spends on standardized testing. The amount children read is the best predictor of performance on reading tests, but children need access to books in order to read a lot, and the only place many children will find books is the school library. We are spending money weighing the animal instead of feeding it.

Stephen Krashen

Sent to the Times-Pacayune (New Orleans), January 21

The Times-Pacayune reported that 90% of St. Tammany Parish third graders read at or above grade level ("90% of 3rd-graders read on par ," January 21). St. Tammany generally scores at the top of all districts in Louisiana; there have only been small variations in its scores over the last five years. It is also a wealthy district: In 2000, the average household income in St. Tammany was $61,500, compared to the state average of $45,000. Statewide, 27% of school age children live in poverty, but only 11% do in St. Tammany. Studies show that children from higher-income families have far more access to books and other reading material than children from low-income families. They have more books at home, have access to better school and public libraries, and live closer to good bookstores. This means they read more, and hence read better.

In addition, St. Tammany also offers "transitional first grade" - one must ask how many children tested have had the benefit of an extra year of schooling?

These factors need to be considered before attributing these high test scores to a particular reading program.

Stephen Krashen

90% of 3rd-graders read on par
Tammany schools note successes
Wednesday January 21, 2004

By Trey Iles St. Tammany bureau

Ninety percent of the third-grade class of 2002-03 in St. Tammany Parish public schools was reading at or above grade level when the students advanced to the fourth grade, according to statistics released by the school system.

Based on numbers from the Developmental Reading Assessment program, 51 percent of St. Tammany third-graders who entered the fourth grade this school year were reading above level and 39 percent were on level.

The news also was good for second-graders, as they continued to make impressive gains from the spring of their first-grade school year to the spring of their second-grade year.

However, statistics for parish third-graders reading below level have stagnated after posting impressive improvement in the first two years of the program.

The DRA program, mandated by the state Department of Education since the fall of 1998, measures the reading comprehension of public school students in the first, second and third grades. Most St. Tammany students have reached on-level or above-level reading comprehension by the time they leave the third grade. That is the primary goal of DRA.

"I am pleased that we continue to maintain and improve the reading levels of our students in the early grades, which is where the rubber hits the road in reading instruction," Superintendent Gayle Sloan said.

Phyllis Morgan, a supervisor of instruction for elementary schools who oversees the DRA program, said the statistics show good gains from the school system despite St. Tammany losing 30 percent of the program's state money since last year.

"In spite of a decrease in funding, we have maintained the number of students who are below level," Morgan said. "On-level and above-level (students) are getting better.

"In the past, we have emphasized tutoring for second- and third-graders so that we can get them reading on level by the end of the third grade. This year, we've started the emphasis toward first grade. Hopefully, we'll see some gains because of that switch."

First-graders are tested only in the spring semester, unlike second- and third-graders, who go through the assessment early in the fall and late in the spring. Statistics from the past five years have shown that about 25 percent of first-graders in the parish are reading below level in the spring assessment. That number was 23 percent in the spring of 2003.

The scores of students who are in transitional first grade, which is for children not ready for first-grade work, are included in those statistics.

By the time first-graders reach the spring of their second- grade school year, the numbers have improved significantly through the past four years. For example, in the spring of 2002, 25 percent of first-graders were reading below level. That number dropped to 11 percent of second-graders by the spring of 2003.

The only stagnant statistic came in the third grade with below-level readers. In the fall of 2002 and the spring of 2003, the number of students reading below level remained at 10 percent. In the fall of 2001 it was 10 percent but grew to 12 percent in the spring of 2002.

That reverses a trend early in the program when numbers fell dramatically. In the fall of 1998, 19 percent of third-graders were reading below level. That fell to 14 percent in the spring of 1999.

The DRA program is designed to intervene for students reading below level. They are given tutorial help from certified teachers before, during and after school. Students receive help one to three days a week. Portfolios also are kept on at-risk students to chart their progress.

Sent to the Chicago Sun-Times, January 20

Sun-Times reporter Cheryl Reed understood what James Watson was saying to Sho Yano ("One child genius to another: study," January 20) but the headline writer didn't. Watson did not advise Yano to study hard. He advised him to get involved in interesting problems, associate with people he could learn from, and read a lot.

Watson is right. School assumes a delayed gratification model: we first learn facts, and then "apply" them, first to artificial problems and much later to problems that we are interested in. But there is strong evidence that we learn facts and concepts far more efficiently as a result of trying to solve problems that we find compelling. This generally entails wide reading, discussion, and writing. Some of those who have accomplished great things were "good students" and some were not. But all mastered their field by years of trying to solve problems that they were very interested in.

Stephen Krashen

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-prodigy20.html
One child genius to another: Study

January 20, 2004
BY CHERYL L. REED Staff Reporter

Wearing a sweatshirt and sneakers, 13-year-old University of Chicago medical student Sho Yano, listened intently Monday as Nobel Prize laureate and former genetics prodigy Dr. James Watson offered him advice.

"You should concentrate on making a big discovery and not getting a girlfriend," proffered Watson, 75, as he stood next to Yano, the University of Chicago's youngest prodigy, amid a swarm of television cameras Monday. Dressed in a tawny tweed jacket, Watson spoke in a measured meter, laughing after he extolled each of his life's musings while Yano nodded his head and occasionally said: "OK."

"The main thing is to have dreams. You should concentrate on something that no one has solved," Watson said. "Forget about being a prodigy and just try and find people you can learn from."

Sixty years ago, Watson carried the title of child prodigy when at 15 years old he became one of the first students admitted to the U. of C. under a new early admission policy, having just finished two years at South Side High School. Six years after graduating from the U. of C., Watson, with Francis Crick, discovered the DNA double helix.

"I never felt I was a prodigy. I just thought I was lucky to be getting a good education," Watson said looking back. "We weren't the curiosity cases that these kids are today. They were more concerned about winning the war back then."

The Nobel laureate applauded the U. of C.'s acceptance of someone as young as Sho, who graduated last year from Loyola University at age 12. But Watson believes the pressure on Yano is far greater than he experienced in 1943.

"Everyone's wanting him to become a genius. It's a hard life," he said. "I don't really care about what he is so far. I'm only concerned whether he will do something important later on in his life."

Watson suggested Yano, who just finished his first semester at the U. of C. as a medical student, should focus on discovering how the brain functions. And above all, read as many books as he can.

"Don't prepare yourself for a career in cancer research, because it's too late," Watson said. "A lot of the basic facts are known."

"You should have fun and you shouldn't try to please other people," Watson continued. "That's a big mistake. And never do something to please your parents."

Amid the crowd of reporters and photographers gathered in a university library boardroom, Yano's mother, Kyung Yano, strained to get a clear shot with her 35mm camera. Next to her at thigh-high stood Yano's 7-year-old sister, Sayuri, who watched as her brother quietly answered reporters questions, seemingly calm amid the intense glare of television lights. Yano arrived at the meeting with his mother and sister who both live with him in graduate student housing. Yano, who was home-schooled by his mother, is now helping his mother home-school his sister, who just finished the eighth grade.

"I am so proud of him," Kyung Yano said as she helped her son with his coat. Ranked at the top of his genetics class, Yano is adjusting well to life at medical school, she said. Everyone, though, seems to be concerned about Yano's social and romantic life.

"His professors have asked me if I want them to set him up on a date!" she gasped. "I said: 'No! He's too young.' I'm not letting him date until he's 16."

" If 2003 represented the cold reality that indeed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is here to stay,then 2004 will be the year librarians learn how to become effective, frontline players in the President's plan to improve literacy skills among our nation's children." (Evan St. Lifer, Editor, SLJ).

Sent to the School Library Journal, January 20

Before cozying up to No Child Left Behind (""What's in store for 2004," "A Golden Opportunity,"SLJ, January 2004), I suggest that school librarians take a closer look at what some critics of NCLB are saying, especially concerning those aspects related to reading instruction. NCLB insists that all children follow a rigid, intensive phonics program that many respected scholars feel is not supported by the research, it proclaims that recreational reading in school is unimportant, and forces schools and districts to engage in inappropriate and excessive testing. I invite readers of the School Library Journal to look at both sides: To see what some of the critics are saying, start with books by Gerald Coles (Reading the Naked Truth: Literacy, Legislation and Lies), Frank Smith (Unspeakable Acts, Unnatural Processes), Elaine Garon (Resisting Reading Mandates), and Susan Ohanian (Whatever Happened to Recess and Why are our Children Struggling in Kindergarten?). I also suggest Susan Ohanian's website (http//www.susanohanian.org) and of course my website: http://www.sdkrashen.com.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California

Sent to the Contra Costa Times, January 19

Renne Mazer's attempts to make vocabulary exercises more interesting by making them more relevant to teenager's daily lives and by occasionally including some soft-core porno ("SAT prep tool brings a blush," January 19) has met with some objection by critics, who point out that it may "expand the student's lexicon" but is crass and degrading. It is also ineffective. Study after study has been published showing that the only effective way of building vocabulary is by extensive recreational reading. Our students need better libraries, not more exciting exercise books.

What is truly obscene is California's continuing neglect of school libraries.

Stephen Krashen

Posted on Mon, Jan. 19, 2004
STRAIGHT A'S
SAT prep tool brings a blush

DOES A WELL-ENDOWED MALE LIFEGUARD have any relationship to better SAT scores?

In Renee Mazer's latest work, he does.

Mazer is the creator of "Not Too Scary Vocabulary," a set of compact discs and audio tapes accompanied with a booklet that tries to expand vocabulary knowledge by using words in a humorous context. There are more than 500 words to learn over the course of the nine-hour lesson, which is intended to raise scores on the SAT and other standardized tests.

"The problem with vocabulary (exercises) was no one was doing it because it was boring," said Mazer, a suburban Philadelphia resident who has been tutoring for almost 20 years. The work's first edition came out in 2001, with a third edition completed last month.

One example in the latest edition is about a lifeguard Mazer met the summer before college. She prefaced the story with various words to learn, including "diminutive."

"When he took off his underwear all I could do was stare. You know where ... and I'll tell you, he wasn't diminutive, if you know what I mean," Mazer says in the lesson.

In another story she uses "chaste" (adjective, "morally pure"); "chastise" (verb, to severely criticize); and "chasten" (verb, to punish with the intention of correcting). She tells of a chaste woman in a relationship with a knight who went out to fight. She has a chastity belt removed by a locksmith and is "chastened" by the knight for her infidelity.

Not all of it is sexual, however, and Mazer said potentially controversial pieces such as the "diminutive" poem are only in the latest edition, wherein she thought spicing up was needed. Mazer also has a poem about comedian Adam Sandler: "Suffice it to say that my love for him is profuse. You see, creatively, he is my muse."

However, not everyone likes her style.

"While that may very well help students, the implied behavior is not one I would promote," said Pleasanton schools spokeswoman Jerri Long, a former English teacher, after hearing a sample.

Dublin school board President Randy Shumway felt the same. "Using crass entertainment to teach vocabulary might expand a student's lexicon, but that benefit does not compensate for the degradation of character," he said.

Michelle Mascote, an English-learner teacher at San Ramon's California High School, objected to Mazer's use of slang such as "ya know," "um," and "He was like." She called it "un-pedagogically sound."

"Pedagogically," by the way, is the adverb form of the adjective pedagogical, according to the 10th edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. It means relating to or befitting a teacher or education.

Katie Lombardi, 19, who graduated from Pleasanton's Foothill High School last year, said Mazer's approach will get students' attention. She also liked how Mazer added pop culture to the lessons. But she thinks sexual subjects should be kept out of the SAT.

"Overall, I thought it was a nice try," she said.

Mazer, 40, a mother of boys ages 5 and 9, has heard the criticism before. Once, five minutes before a phone interview on a New Orleans radio show, a former publicist called and said she was canceled because of her content.

But Mazer said the terms she uses are no more outrageous than what teens see on television.

"They always make fun of penis size on 'Friends,'" she said. "I want to make it so kids love it, not to make it so whitewashed and G-rated that people would get bored."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Straight A's appears weekly. Send questions about education to the Contra Costa Times, attention Education Team, P.O. Box 8099, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, or to elouie@cctimes.com.

Posted below is (1) my original letter; (2) some additional material that was included in the original version of this letter, that I had to delete because of space limitations imposed on me.

Beginning English instruction 'super-early' not really necessary
January 20, 2004
Stephen Krashen / Special to The Daily Yomiuri

In my letter of Dec. 2 in The Daily Yomiuri, I argued that parental use of English with their children in Japan was unnecessary, that there could be drawbacks, and that there were easier ways of ensuring high levels of English development. I respond here to several responses to my letter.

I stated that parents' use of a foreign language with their children can backfire when parents do not speak the language well and communication is imperfect. Imperfect parent-child communication can cripple emotional and intellectual development. Marshall R. Childs (Dec. 7) asked if I was saying that language must be grammatically perfect to be effective for communication. No. My concern is the quality of communication. I agree with Mr. Childs that language that others may judge as "imperfect" does not, by itself, cause bad communication.

There are, however, cases in professional literature in which parents who did not speak another language well decided to use that language with their children, in order to encourage second-language development; it resulted in the end of significant parent-child communication. Mr. Childs points out that in the cases he has studied, parents spoke English well and communication was effective. But why take the chance, especially when there are easier ways developing competence in English?

I devoted much of my letter to discussing ways of making school programs more efficient and pleasant, using methods that emphasize comprehensible language use, and that introduce students to a great deal of interesting reading. I noted that research shows that these methods are more efficient than traditional grammar-based approaches; students in classes that emphasize "comprehensible input" do much better than traditional students on communicative tests and do at least as well, and often better, on tests of grammar.

In my opinion, recreational reading is the most powerful tool available for language and literacy development. It is especially important for helping second- and foreign-language acquirers develop the ability to use the language for more than simple conversation. The amount of pleasure reading done in the second-foreign language is a strong predictor of performance on tests of writing, reading, grammar, and vocabulary. Of great interest is the finding that the amount of recreational reading students do is a significant predictor of scores on the Test of English as a Foreign Language, but the amount of speaking they do is not.

In his letter, Chris Clancy (Dec. 6) notes that Japanese students of English have insufficient input in English. Recreational reading (and recreational listening) is a wonderful way to solve this problem. It requires, however, that interesting and comprehensible books and tapes be easily available. An easily accessible source of books and tapes will ensure continuing progress in English long after coursework is over.

I argued that there was no need to begin English instruction "super-early" and that starting later was actually more efficient. Mike Bostwick (Dec. 23) noted that those who begin the Katoh Gakuen immersion program in middle school struggle and those who begin at kindergarten typically do well. I have no doubt that this is true, but programs set up specifically for children who start in middle school can be very successful. In fact, research shows that those who begin foreign-language programs later (e.g. at age 11) eventually catch up to those who began early (e.g. at age 8), accomplishing just as much but in less total class time.

One reason starting later is more efficient is that older children know more than younger children do. Thus, the input they hear and read in the second language is more comprehensible. Providing solid subject matter instruction in the primary language is an excellent way to guarantee students have this important background knowledge.

I understand the importance of English and bilingualism. My point is that there are obvious and easy ways to go about developing it that we have not yet taken advantage of.

Krashen is a professor emeritus at the University of Southern California. He specializes in language acquisition, literacy development and bilingualism. (www.sdkrashen.com)

Copyright 2004 The Yomiuri Shimbun

(1) My letter published on December 2

I understand parents' desires to "raise tots to be multilingual" (The Practical Linguist, Nov. 29), but there is no need for Japanese-speaking parents to talk their children in English. The advantages are slight and can be had elsewhere, and there are dangers.

By far the easiest way to make sure children master other languages are good programs in school, programs that fill the classroom hour with interesting projects, games, and discussions, and that provide children with lots of interesting reading, including comics, magazines and good novels. The research strongly supports this approach, but most foreign language programs hold on to painful and inefficient methods that overemphasize grammar and memorization of vocabulary. Those who do a great deal of pleasure reading in a second language automatically develop a large vocabulary and as well as high levels of grammatical accuracy. Research also tells us that there is no need to begin super-early; in fact, those who begin second languages later progress faster. It is more efficient to start at age ten than at age five.

Parents' use of a foreign language with their children can backfire when parents do not speak the language well and communication is imperfect. Imperfect parent-child communication can cripple emotional and intellectual development. It isn't worth taking the chance.

Stephen Krashen

(2) Material deleted from my original letter

Loss of First Language?

Several critics worry that early English education can impair first language development and result in a loss of national identity. I am not among these critics.

My understanding of the research is as follows: In situations in which the first language and culture are strongly supported, "immersion" type programs do not result in first language loss or in less identification with the primary cultural group. In these cases, middle class majority language children are schooled in a minority language. The most extensively studied has been the case of English-speaking children in French immersion in Canada.

Mike Bostwick has published papers showing that this is true of Japanese-speaking children at the Katoh Gakuen school; children in this English immersion program do quite well in Japanese language. It should be noted that Katoh Gakuen takes special pains to make sure that the first language is not neglected: 1/3 to 50% of the curriculum is in Japanese and Japanese terminology is taught in Japanese language arts classes for those subjects taught in English (math and science).

In all these cases, the primary language was well-supported in school and outside of school; the immersion programs provided strong instruction in the primary language, and children lived in a print-rich environment, with easy access to books in the primary language.

When the second language is a majority language, however, there is a threat to the first language. There are well-attested cases of primary language loss as well as what Lucy Tse has referred to as "ethnic ambivalence" or "ethnic evasion" among immigrant children in the United States. The drive to acquire English is very powerful, and the loss of the first language and the loss of identification with the culture of origin can begin soon after arrival. Limited first language development is especially likely when there is limited access to reading material in the primary language.

This is not the case with English in Japan. I am, in other words, not guilty of inappropriately generalizing research findings from one area into another. With growing worldwide "English fever," however, it is possible that we will see neglect of the first language in the future.

The Daily Telegraph published my letter responsing to Nicholas Oulton's call for a return to the basics in language teaching. They also published another letter, strongly agreeing with Oulton.
Note that they added "Learning and Instruction" to my title. I didn't send this in. Apparently they investigated to see if I was legit.
Oultin's original article re-posted below.

Re: Tongue tied
Date: 17 January 2004
Sir - Nicholas Oulton (Education, Jan 14) feels we should reject the current approach to language teaching "that relies essentially on osmosis" and return to the basics: grammar and translation. Because my name is often connected to the new approach, I feel an obligation to comment.
Oulton does not clearly describe what the new approach is. It is not simply "osmosis", but rests on the idea that we acquire language when we understand it, when we understand what people tell us and what we read. Good language classes are thus classes in which teachers help students understand what is said and what they read; they are full of "comprehensible input".
Contrary to Oulton's description, the new approach does not require memorisation of phrases, nor does it operate by trial and error. It operates through comprehension of messages.
Oulton is concerned that there is not enough time to acquire significant amounts of language using the "natural" approaches. Children are exposed to language for many hours, but students have only a few hours in the classroom.
So far, the published research indicates that the comprehension approach is more efficient than the traditional approach. In studies in which both groups have the same amount of time in class, students in comprehension-based classes have been shown to acquire more than those in grammar-based classes; they do much better on tests of communication, and do at least as well, and often better, on tests of grammar.
Also contrary to Oulton's description is the fact that the comprehension approach does not exclude the use of the first language: some explanation and background knowledge provided in the first language can often help make input in the second language more comprehensible. The comprehension approach also does not exclude the study of grammar. Research has shown, however, that there are very severe limits on how much grammar students can learn and use.
Oulton insists that we teach language "the way it used to be taught". Research suggests that we should teach language in a way that is in harmony with the way the brain naturally learns.
From:
Stephen Krashen, Professor Emeritus, Learning and Instruction, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

Re: Language barrier
Date: 17 January 2004
Sir - Nicholas Oulton deserves the praise and support of every serious language teacher in the country for his assault on the modish and ultimately quite fruitless methods used in far too many schools and universities.
As a university teacher of German for the best part of 30 years, I had to deal with some students who could barely speak or write English, let alone German, who could leave university with an upper second degree (or better), able perhaps to parrot a few Pavlovian phrases, but who had no Latin, could not transcribe a simple dictation passage, did not know the difference between a conjunction and a preposition, and could barely put two written coherent sentences in German together.
Almost alone in my department, I had to fight to retain and insist on translation into German (far harder than into English) as an essential component of my course. This was regarded by colleagues as outmoded.
From:
David Heald, Canterbury, Kent

This is no way to teach languages
Nicholas Oulton
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2004/01/14/teflang14.xml&sSheet=/education/2004/01/14/ixtetop.html

Grammar and translations are being ignored - but not everything can be learnt aurally, says Nicholas Oulton

Much has changed in the world of language learning, as many a frustrated parent and bemused university tutor will know. When I was at school, French was taught in much the same way that maths and Latin were.

The teacher told us, in English, what to do, and how well we had done it. We learned grammatical tables and vocabulary lists by heart and were tested on them. We chanted verb forms (-e, -es, -e, -ons, -ez, -ent, etc) around the class until they stuck in our memories, and were told how to use them. We wrote sentences in French and we took down dictations, requiring us to write accurately a paragraph or two of French that had been read by our teacher.

The criticism levelled against this method of teaching was that, while giving pupils an excellent understanding of the grammatical structures on which the language was based, it left them with a very limited ability to speak the language. And so a new method was introduced that relies essentially on osmosis.

Now, lessons are conducted entirely or predominantly in the target language. Pupils learn words and phrases in the way that a child learns its mother tongue.

Grammatical structures, syntactical rules, even the ability to make simple changes from, "I am eating my sandwich," to, "We are eating our sandwiches," are all gleaned by experience, by trial and error. Communication is all.

The rationale for this, placed at the heart of the national curriculum for modern foreign languages in 1990 on the recommendation of Sir Martin Harris, the Government's principal adviser, is that children learn their mother tongues aurally, without the need for formal grammar teaching, and should be able to learn a foreign language in much the same way.

But, of course, a very young child is totally immersed in his language for as many hours as he is awake, seven days a week. A pupil of 11, with perhaps three lessons of 40 minutes each per week, and rather less incentive to learn, is in a rather different position.

A second major difference between language teaching now and then is that pupils are no longer expected to translate with any degree of accuracy. Indeed, as Sir Martin's report stated: "Attempts to correct mistakes or bring out underlying principles can easily interrupt the flow and inhibit further production."

Furthermore, translation itself is considered an antiquated, if not elitist, concept, not to be uttered in the modern classroom, where pupils learn instead to communicate. Goodness knows where our next generation of professional interpreters is going to come from.

As a result, in too many of our French, German and Spanish lessons, children sit in a state of confused paralysis while the teacher dutifully follows "good teaching practice" by talking to them in the target language and then handing them a worksheet in which they match single words to (often unidentifiable) clip-art images.

Phrases are learnt by heart to allow the pupils to have a staged conversation with their partner in role play - so long as the partner says exactly what the situation demands.

Don't, for goodness sake, expect them to change, "The train to Paris leaves from platform four in five minutes," to, "The train to Paris left from platform three five minutes ago"; the sad truth is that most pupils would not know which bits of the sentence to change, let alone how to change them.

So as we stumble towards a situation in which the learning of a modern foreign language is no longer to be compulsory in secondary schools but is, however, to be encouraged in primary schools (where there are very few teachers qualified to teach these languages), what is the future of language teaching and learning in the 21st century? And will the Government's national languages strategy provide the answer?

My answer is unequivocal: let us get back to basics before it is too late. I publish courses that teach language the way it used to be taught.

Our Latin course, So You Really Want to Learn Latin?, has become a bestseller in independent schools because it concentrates on grammar and on translating from English into Latin, both very unfashionable skills today.

Our Spanish course sets out verbs in clear, tabular form, and asks pupils to translate sentence after sentence into the language to ensure they have grasped the rules.

Grammatical rules are given in English, and vocabulary lists are given in dictionary format, with definite articles and genders for nouns and present infinitives for verbs. Our French and German courses, due out later this year, will do the same.

And while the reading material is contemporary and geared to the topics that candidates will be expected to cope with in exams, pupils have to translate the passages into accurate English rather than simply tick a few boxes or guess from a list of alternatives.

It may not be fashionable, but it certainly works. And after all this, when we wish to polish our speaking skills, which are far and away the hardest part of a language to master, a period spent in the country concerned is the only real answer.
* The author is managing director of Galore Park Publishing; call 01580 241025 or visit www.galorepark.co.uk

Sent to USA Today, January 16

Jinny Gudmundsen's review of interactive children's books ("There's a showdown over interactive book readers," Tech Reviews, January 14) failed to include one important point: Despite the use of software that adds sound effects, voices, and music, there is no evidence that interactive books are any more interesting than ordinary books. There appears to be a brief novelty effect that soon wears off: Texas A & M researcher Meei-Ling Liaw Chu reported that first graders reading interactive books for the first time liked the books (they were good stories), but the children stopped using all the extra features by the time they reached their fifth interactive book. In other words, it's the story that counts, not the special effects.

Stephen Krashen

PS to colleagues: reference is
Chu, Meei-Ling Liaw (1995) Reader response to interactive computer books: Examining literary responses in a non-traditional reading setting. Reading Research and Instruction 34(4): 352-366.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/products/2004-01-14-bookreaders_x.htm
January 14
Tech Reviews
There's a showdown over interactive book readers
By Jinny Gudmundsen, Gannett News Service
Interactive book readers combine two older platforms - books-on-tape and animated computer storybooks - to engage children in learning.

Interactive book readers first appeared in 1999 when Leapfrog introduced LeapPad. In 2003, competitors Fisher-Price and Publications International entered the market by intro ducing PowerTouch and ActivePAD, respectively.

As kids "read" the books, software produces voice, sound and music. The book-software combinations encourage learning through games that let kids revisit concepts presented on the pages in fun ways.

LeapPad is designed for ages 4 to 10, whereas PowerTouch and Active Pad are for 3- to 8-year-olds. The age appropriateness relates to the content found in the add-on books/software, not on the ability to use the products.

All three systems look like oversized books made of plastic.

When you open them, you find an indented space in which to place a book specially created for that system. Each book comes with a special software cartridge that is inserted into the unit to provide the interactivity for that book. The interactive books are not interchangeable between systems - you must buy add-on books that are made specifically for a given system. All three systems have a headphone jack.

LeapPad Learning System

The LeapPad system ($50, www.leapfrog.com) uses "Near Touch" technology to create interactivity with its books. By pushing a stylus down on the page, the underlying unit is able to detect where the stylus is on the page. Before playing on a page, kids need to alert the unit as to which page they are on by touching the green "Go" sign found on every two-page spread. The unit then offers an appropriate interactive response.

The LeapPad Learning Library offers more than 60 books to use on the LeapPad. The books are broken into age-appropriate series.

The "LeapStart" books for preschool-kindergartners tell stories and focus on early learning skills. The Phonics program provides sequential instruction on phonics. There are also grade-specific titles from kindergarten through fifth grade (the ones for third through fifth grade are labeled "Quantum Pad" but will play on this system.)

The strength of this system is the diversity of titles available and the depth each title offers. The system not only reads words, but it can help children sound them out.

One standout book is Hit it Maestro! a title that teaches children about classical music by having 13 famous composers talk to them.

A weakness of this system is the need to remind the unit what page you are on before you begin.

PowerTouch Learning System

The PowerTouch Learning System ($50, www.fisher-price.com) makes its magic occur by using "Capacitive" technology. When a finger touches the page of a book, it disturbs the electrical field produced by the unit, and thus allows the unit to detect where the finger is. Of the three interactive book readers reviewed, this is the only unit that uses the finger to create the interactivity. Young children love it.

Automatic page detection is another feature that sets this unit apart from the LeapPad and the ActivePAD. With holes and reflective spots located on the top of the books, the PowerTouch unit can automatically detect what page is presented.

The system comes with two books, and there are 10 add-on books available, with 16 more coming in 2004. These books are categorized into Beginner Readers and Intermediate Readers, and feature branded characters including Clifford, Dora, Blue, Sesame Street Muppets, Arthur, Rescue Heroes and others. A new series called School Skills is coming this year.

The strength of this system is its ease of use for preschoolers and kindergartners - they can insert a book, flip it open and start playing.

The weakness of this system is that the library does not yet have the depth of the Leapfrog system.

Because the books do not go beyond second grade, they will not grow with the child for as long as the LeapPad system will.

ActivePAD

The ActivePAD ($25, www.myactiveminds.com) uses "Microgrid" technology to make its system interactive. Underneath the plastic housing is a grid, which uses radio-frequency technology to identify where the stylus is touched against the surface of the book.

The ActivePAD's 16 add-on books feature their own characters and stories. For older children, there is a set of classic stories and tales. In March, four new books featuring Sesame Street will be published. During 2004, Publications International plans to introduce approximately 24 new titles for the ActivePAD.

The strength of the ActivePAD is its price. Whereas LeapPad and PowerTouch cost $50, ActivePAD is $25.

Add-on books for the LeapPad and PowerTouch are $15; the ActivePAD sells them for $10.

ActivePAD is the only system that offers Bible stories, but overall, its books aren't as interactive or deep as those for the LeapPad and the PowerTouch.

The bottom line

Both LeapPad and PowerTouch are excellent interactive book reading systems. Because the PowerTouch system is easier to use, it is the best choice for kids ages 3 to 5. The LeapPad system, with its robust content and extensive library, is the best choice for families with children ages 6 and up. ActivePAD is an inexpensive alternative. While it costs less, it also offers less content in its library.

Sent to the Daily Telegraph (telegraph.co.uk), January 16, 2003

Nicholas Oulton ("This is no way to teach languages," January 16, Education) feels we should reject the current approach to language teaching "that relies essentially on osmosis" and return to the basics: grammar and translation. Because my name is often connected to the new approach, I feel an obligation to comment.

Oulton does not clearly describe what the new approach is. It is not simply "osmosis" but rests on the idea that we acquire language when we understand it, when we understand what people tell us and what we read. Good language classes are thus classes in which teachers help students understand what is said and what they read; they are full of "comprehensible input." Contrary to Oulton's description, the new approach does not require memorization of phrases, not does it operate by trial and error. It operates through comprehension of messages.

Oulton is concerned that there is not enough time to acquire significant amounts of language using the "natural" approaches. Children are exposed to language for many hours, but students only have a few hours in the classroom. So far, the published research indicates that the comprehension approach is more efficient than the traditional approach. In studies in which both groups have the same amount of time in class, students in comprehension-based classes have been shown to acquire more than those in grammar-based classes; they do much better on tests of communication, and do at least as well, and often better, on tests of grammar.

Also contrary to Oulton's description is the fact that the comprehension approach does not exclude the use of the first language: some explanation and background knowledge provided in the first language can often help make input in the second language more comprehensible. The comprehension approach also does not exclude the study of grammar. Research has shown, however, that there are very severe limits on how much grammar students can learn and use.

Oulton insists that we teach language "the way it used to be taught." Research suggests that we should teach language in a way that is in harmony with the way the brain naturally learns.

Stephen Krashen

This is no way to teach languages
Nicholas Oulton
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2004/01/14/teflang14.xml&sSheet=/education/2004/01/14/ixtetop.html

Grammar and translations are being ignored - but not everything can be learnt aurally, says Nicholas Oulton

Much has changed in the world of language learning, as many a frustrated parent and bemused university tutor will know. When I was at school, French was taught in much the same way that maths and Latin were.

The teacher told us, in English, what to do, and how well we had done it. We learned grammatical tables and vocabulary lists by heart and were tested on them. We chanted verb forms (-e, -es, -e, -ons, -ez, -ent, etc) around the class until they stuck in our memories, and were told how to use them. We wrote sentences in French and we took down dictations, requiring us to write accurately a paragraph or two of French that had been read by our teacher.

The criticism levelled against this method of teaching was that, while giving pupils an excellent understanding of the grammatical structures on which the language was based, it left them with a very limited ability to speak the language. And so a new method was introduced that relies essentially on osmosis.

Now, lessons are conducted entirely or predominantly in the target language. Pupils learn words and phrases in the way that a child learns its mother tongue.

Grammatical structures, syntactical rules, even the ability to make simple changes from, "I am eating my sandwich," to, "We are eating our sandwiches," are all gleaned by experience, by trial and error. Communication is all.

The rationale for this, placed at the heart of the national curriculum for modern foreign languages in 1990 on the recommendation of Sir Martin Harris, the Government's principal adviser, is that children learn their mother tongues aurally, without the need for formal grammar teaching, and should be able to learn a foreign language in much the same way.

But, of course, a very young child is totally immersed in his language for as many hours as he is awake, seven days a week. A pupil of 11, with perhaps three lessons of 40 minutes each per week, and rather less incentive to learn, is in a rather different position.

A second major difference between language teaching now and then is that pupils are no longer expected to translate with any degree of accuracy. Indeed, as Sir Martin's report stated: "Attempts to correct mistakes or bring out underlying principles can easily interrupt the flow and inhibit further production."

Furthermore, translation itself is considered an antiquated, if not elitist, concept, not to be uttered in the modern classroom, where pupils learn instead to communicate. Goodness knows where our next generation of professional interpreters is going to come from.

As a result, in too many of our French, German and Spanish lessons, children sit in a state of confused paralysis while the teacher dutifully follows "good teaching practice" by talking to them in the target language and then handing them a worksheet in which they match single words to (often unidentifiable) clip-art images.

Phrases are learnt by heart to allow the pupils to have a staged conversation with their partner in role play - so long as the partner says exactly what the situation demands.

Don't, for goodness sake, expect them to change, "The train to Paris leaves from platform four in five minutes," to, "The train to Paris left from platform three five minutes ago"; the sad truth is that most pupils would not know which bits of the sentence to change, let alone how to change them.

So as we stumble towards a situation in which the learning of a modern foreign language is no longer to be compulsory in secondary schools but is, however, to be encouraged in primary schools (where there are very few teachers qualified to teach these languages), what is the future of language teaching and learning in the 21st century? And will the Government's national languages strategy provide the answer?

My answer is unequivocal: let us get back to basics before it is too late. I publish courses that teach language the way it used to be taught.

Our Latin course, So You Really Want to Learn Latin?, has become a bestseller in independent schools because it concentrates on grammar and on translating from English into Latin, both very unfashionable skills today.

Our Spanish course sets out verbs in clear, tabular form, and asks pupils to translate sentence after sentence into the language to ensure they have grasped the rules.

Grammatical rules are given in English, and vocabulary lists are given in dictionary format, with definite articles and genders for nouns and present infinitives for verbs. Our French and German courses, due out later this year, will do the same.

And while the reading material is contemporary and geared to the topics that candidates will be expected to cope with in exams, pupils have to translate the passages into accurate English rather than simply tick a few boxes or guess from a list of alternatives.

It may not be fashionable, but it certainly works. And after all this, when we wish to polish our speaking skills, which are far and away the hardest part of a language to master, a period spent in the country concerned is the only real answer.
* The author is managing director of Galore Park Publishing; call 01580 241025 or visit www.galorepark.co.uk

Letters published today in the New York Post on the intensive phonics issue. It includes one from me, somewhat different from what I sent in. My original letter and the Post's editorial are included below.

READING, WRITING AND RECRIMINATION

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

January 15, 2004 -- The Post's editorial ("Phonics: $34 Million-Diana Lam: 0," Jan. 10) overestimates Diana Lam by setting the financial backing for her reading reforms at zero. She's actually created for New York City a rather large deficit.

Quite aside from the inestimable cost to many New York City students' reading education in the critical formative years, Lam and her reading reforms have cost the city quite a large sum of money: her annual salary, plus the millions for professional development aligned with her just-ditched whole language reading reforms.

And she will cost the system more. For we can assume her contract includes a "buyout" clause affording handsomely for her early exit. In San Antonio, her dismissal cost the district $750,000. I shudder to anticipate how much she stands to receive, this time around.
Elizabeth Carson
Manhattan

****

The Post is uninformed about phonics and teaching reading. The facts are not "with the feds." The feds came out in favor of intensive, heavy phonics in the National Reading Panel report, but this report has been heavily criticized.

The critics, noted reading specialists, have pointed out that in many studies used as evidence by phonics advocates, systematic intensive phonics was compared to doing nothing at all.

Contrary to The Post's assertion, there is plenty of research supporting whole language, an approach in which teachers use a variety of means - including phonics - of helping children understand texts.
Stephen Krashen
Malibu, Calif.

****

Phonics has been the Bible of the school system since Rudolph Flesch wrote his bestseller "Why Johnny Can't Read" in the 1950s. Reading scores have been going down relentlessly ever since.

The '50s and '60s were the years during which the New York City public school system's half-century golden age came to an end.

Johnny had stopped learning to read when Flesch wrote, but not because the methods of teaching reading were wrong. Rather, it was because the methods for maintaining school discipline were wrong. Unfortunately, it became politically incorrect to say as much.

We will never get schools that work if we don't get politics out of the schools - and the schools out of politics - by using a free-market approach.
Julius Gordon
Douglaston

****

In response to your editorial, may I say that I have taught elementary school for 41 years, 35 of which were spent in the first grade.

I was able to successfully combine the whole language method, and the rich repertoire of children's literature it encompasses, with phonic skills - which are essentially the cornerstones to reading proficiency.

I never found that the two philosophies were at odds with each other. The more proficient my students became in the phonics approach to the decoding and analyzing of words, the more they were able to successfully enjoy the whole language aspects of childhood literature.
Gloria Montesano
Dix Hills

The letter I sent:

Sent to the New York Post, January 11, 2004

The Post is uninformed about phonics and teaching reading ("Phonics: $34 million, Diana Lam: 0"). The facts are not "with the feds." The "feds" came out in favor of intensive, heavy phonics in the National Reading Panel report, but this report has been heavily criticized.

The critics, noted reading specialists, have pointed out that in many studies used as evidence by phonics advocates, systematic intensive phonics was compared to doing nothing at all (Dr. Gerald Coles), that the research, even if valid, shows a much weaker impact of intensive phonics than that claimed by the reading panel, (Dr. Gregory Camilli), and actually shows no significant impact of intensive phonics instruction on tests of reading comprehension after grade 1 (Dr. Elaine Garan).

Contrary to the Post's assertion, there is plenty of research supporting whole language, an approach in which teachers use a variety of means (including phonics) of helping children understand texts. In my analysis of the research, I concluded that children in whole language classes, when compared to those in heavy "skills" classes, read better, like reading more, and do just as well on tests of phonics.

Stephen Krashen

PHONICS: $34 MILLION -
DIANA LAM: 0

NEW YORK POST EDITORIAL
January 10, 2004 -- Well, everyone has a price.

But who knew that New York City's was so low?

The city Department of Education's faddish new reading curriculum is being tossed out of 49 schools in favor of a more traditional syllabus.

Why?
Has the noble experiment failed?
Not officially.
But it's debatable whether the curriculum previously backed by Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein would have worked.
Its principal proponent in the city is Deputy Schools Chancellor Diana Lam, a firm believer in "progressive" education.
Lam has vigorously defended the program for months - despite a near-total lack of evidence that it works.
So why was it abandoned now?
Cold, hard cash.
The feds told Klein that New York would be eligible for an extra $34 million in federal funds - but only if it agreed to Washington's more traditional approach in 49 of the city's worst schools.
Now, relative to the department's $13 billion budget, $34 million isn't much.
And other urban areas have rejected the federal handout precisely because it came with strings attached.
It would have been best if Bloomberg and Klein had never signed on to the Lam scam in the first place.
Washington's way - the "phonics" method - is in essence the only way reading has ever been taught effectively on a large scale, in any country that uses a phonetic alphabet.
Lam's approach - the "whole language" technique - has a passionate following among educrats, but no record of classroom success anywhere. (Which may be why her curriculum was named "Month-by-Month Phonics.")
The facts are entirely with the feds. And it's their money.
But if Bloomberg and Klein feel Lam's way is the best way, they ought to stick by her - and send the federal check back.
Their failure to do so represents an unmistakable vote of no-confidence in the deputy chancellor.
Lam, having been sold out, needs to quit. Her usefulness, never great, is over.

January 12, 2004
Ways to Teach Reading

Re "For U.S. Aid, City Switches Reading Plan in 49 Schools" (news article,
Jan. 7):

New York's schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, is right to ask, "Where's the
science?" supporting President Bush's "scientifically proven" Reading First
mandates. Several analyses of the data, including my own, have revealed the
vacuousness of the research offered to justify the legislation.

The instruction is not superior for teaching skills and comprehension. It
provides no advantages for poor children, at-risk children or disabled
readers. It is one more fiction undercutting public schools, driven by a
political ideology that substitutes simplistic bootstrap answers for
comprehensive social policy.

Most grievously, it creates false expectations in parents whose children
will never achieve the academic success the Bush administration assures
them will be theirs.

GERALD COLES

Ithaca, N.Y., Jan. 8, 2004

The writer is the author of several books about reading education.

Whenever people ask me "what they should do" in the current war against children, teachers and schools, I suggest that they do two things first:

1. Check out Susanohanian.org and subscribe to her service, providing the latest news on the struggle.
2. Read "What happened to recess ..." (see below)

Here is a recent review of "What Happened to Rrecess .." My only disagreement with this review is that in my opinion the book clearly does provide direction and guidance toward genuine educational improvements.

REVIEW by American School Board Journal

What Happened to Recess and Why Are Our Children Struggling in
Kindergarten? By Susan Ohanian
McGraw-Hill, 2002

American School Board Journal's Noteable Books for 2002

This has certainly been a good year for books bemoaning the effects
of standardized tests. Our favorite bemoaner is Susan Ohanian, the
teacher-writer who coined the term Standardistas for the politicians
and media types who have supported the widespread use of standardized
tests.

On the very first page of What Happened to Recess and Why Are Our
Children Struggling in Kindergarten? Ohanian declares that apes and
maggots appearing in Hollywood films are better protected from stress
than are children in public schools today. The book races on, with
breathless accounts of misery, frustration, and outrage. Tension is
running so high in schools these days, Ohanian says, that some
principals schedule extra janitors on test days just to clean up all
the vomit.

The stress of tests is getting to parents, too. While some are
organizing parties with games designed to raise guests' scores on
standardized tests, others are yanking their kids out of school or at
least boycotting school on test days. Several parents warn that their
protests have moved beyond a backlash against testing into a genuine
political movement. ("They want 'world class'?" one mother fumes.
"We'll give them a 'world-class' fight!")

This book doesn't pretend to help you raise test scores in your
district. Nor does it offer guidance toward any genuine educational
improvements. But if you're just a wee bit tired of the tyranny of
the Standardistas, you'll surely enjoy the comeuppance they get.

--the Editors

Sent to the New York Post, January 11, 2004

The Post is uninformed about phonics and teaching reading ("Phonics: $34 million, Diana Lam: 0"). The facts are not "with the feds." The "feds" came out in favor of intensive, heavy phonics in the National Reading Panel report, but this report has been heavily criticized.

The critics, noted reading specialists, have pointed out that in many studies used as evidence by phonics advocates, systematic intensive phonics was compared to doing nothing at all (Dr. Gerald Coles), that the research, even if valid, shows a much weaker impact of intensive phonics than that claimed by the reading panel, (Dr. Gregory Camilli), and actually shows no significant impact of intensive phonics instruction on tests of reading comprehension after grade 1 (Dr. Elaine Garan).

Contrary to the Post's assertion, there is plenty of research supporting whole language, an approach in which teachers use a variety of means (including phonics) of helping children understand texts. In my analysis of the research, I concluded that children in whole language classes, when compared to those in heavy "skills" classes, read better, like reading more, and do just as well on tests of phonics.

Stephen Krashen

PHONICS: $34 MILLION -
DIANA LAM: 0

NEW YORK POST EDITORIAL
January 10, 2004 -- Well, everyone has a price.

But who knew that New York City's was so low?

The city Department of Education's faddish new reading curriculum is being tossed out of 49 schools in favor of a more traditional syllabus.

Why?
Has the noble experiment failed?
Not officially.
But it's debatable whether the curriculum previously backed by Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein would have worked.
Its principal proponent in the city is Deputy Schools Chancellor Diana Lam, a firm believer in "progressive" education.
Lam has vigorously defended the program for months - despite a near-total lack of evidence that it works.
So why was it abandoned now?
Cold, hard cash.
The feds told Klein that New York would be eligible for an extra $34 million in federal funds - but only if it agreed to Washington's more traditional approach in 49 of the city's worst schools.
Now, relative to the department's $13 billion budget, $34 million isn't much.
And other urban areas have rejected the federal handout precisely because it came with strings attached.
It would have been best if Bloomberg and Klein had never signed on to the Lam scam in the first place.
Washington's way - the "phonics" method - is in essence the only way reading has ever been taught effectively on a large scale, in any country that uses a phonetic alphabet.
Lam's approach - the "whole language" technique - has a passionate following among educrats, but no record of classroom success anywhere. (Which may be why her curriculum was named "Month-by-Month Phonics.")
The facts are entirely with the feds. And it's their money.
But if Bloomberg and Klein feel Lam's way is the best way, they ought to stick by her - and send the federal check back.
Their failure to do so represents an unmistakable vote of no-confidence in the deputy chancellor.
Lam, having been sold out, needs to quit. Her usefulness, never great, is over.

Regarding Letters to the Editor and other short items I send out on the mailing list.
Permission granted, in advance, to
1. Share anything I post on this list with others.
2. Post items from the mailing list on other listservs.
3. Tell others about the mailing list and website.

Regarding articles and books (just one book so far) posted for download on the listserv:
Permission granted in advance to
1. Share with others.
2. Use in classes.
3. Cite in publications.

Permission NOT granted to include articles or letters to the editor in collections for publication without my consent.

Sent to the City Journal, January 10

No scientific evidence for intensive phonics

Sol Stern ("Joel Klein's figleaf," January 9) faults Chancellor Klein for "denying the existence" of the "robust scientific evidence" in favor of intensive phonics reading instruction.

Stern, however, is unaware that several major criticisms of this position have been published in professional journals and books in the last two years. The critics, noted reading specialists, have pointed out that in many studies used as evidence by phonics advocates, systematic intensive phonics was compared to doing nothing at all (Dr. Gerald Coles), that the research, even if valid, shows a much weaker impact of intensive phonics (Dr. Gregory Camilli), and actually shows no significant impact of intensive phonics instruction on tests of reading comprehension after grade 1 (Dr. Elaine Garan). Nobody in the field of reading is opposed to including some explicit phonics instruction, but the policy of heavy, intensive phonics is not supported by scientific evidence. There is, however, a great deal of evidence that those who read more also read better, spell better, write better, have larger vocabularies, and know more.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

NOTE: The City Journal is published by the Manhattan Institute.
City Journal
Joel Klein's Figleaf
Chancellor Klein's begrudging nod to phonics
Sol Stern
9 January 2004

In the past six months, New York Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has
drawn a line in the sand regarding the "whole language" or "balanced
literacy" reading curriculum he imposed on virtually all city
schools. He vowed that no amount of federal money could get him to
drop this "progressive" approach to reading and adopt instead one of
the rigorous, scientifically proven phonics programs approved for
federal funding under President Bush's No Child Left Behind
legislation. In public and private meetings, Klein repeatedly derided
phonics as outmoded pedagogy that subjects children to boring and
counter-productive "drill and kill" instruction. Yet even as Klein
was defending the progressive-ed party line in end-of-the-year press
interviews, his own Department of Education team was writing a grant
proposal for a "drill and kill" program that might bring almost $40
million in No Child Left Behind money to the city.

Klein's team chose a traditional phonics-based program called
Harcourt Trophies to use in 49 low-performing city schools. (Under
the federal legislation, a number of participating private and
parochial schools will also get some of the money.) The application
submitted to the state education department (which administers the
federal grant) carries Klein's signature, pledging that in the
designated schools the city will now use instructional materials
"that have been validated by scientifically based reading research."

It must stick in Klein's craw to have to admit that the phonics
programs he hates actually have scientific validation. It must make
him madder still that, under the state guidelines for the reading
grants, he had to include UFT President Randi Weingarten on his
design team and get her to sign off on the city's proposal. Besides
representing a humiliating retreat for Klein, the phonics grant
proposal is something of a vindication for his arch-nemesis
Weingarten. After all, the union president has been blasting Klein
for abandoning successful phonics programs in the city's neediest
schools.

Even so, Klein might have salvaged something positive for himself and
Mayor Bloomberg merely by remaining statesmanlike-for example, saying
that there was now a chance to see which reading approach produces
the best results for the city's children. Instead, Klein went out of
his way to bite the hand that he was asking to feed the schools. In
justifying his 180-degree turnaround to the New York Times, Klein
gratuitously attacked the Bush administration for its lack of
"flexibility." In fact, the federal education department offers
school districts a wide choice of reading programs. The only thing
the feds are inflexible about is their refusal to fund a program that
has no scientifically valid research behind it. In any case,
flexibility is hardly something Klein has offered to the schools he
commands.

"Where's the science" in support of phonics? Klein churlishly asked
in the Times story. Chancellor Klein knows exactly where it is. He
benefited from a two-hour personal briefing on the science of reading
from Sally Shaywitz, a professor of pediatrics at Yale Medical School
and one of the nation's leading neuroscientists. Shaywitz, who served
on the National Reading Panel created by Congress in 2000, explained
to Klein that a broad consensus now exists among medical researchers,
linguists, and cognitive psychologists that systematic phonics is the
most effective approach for getting most kids to learn to read. I
personally gave Chancellor Klein a study, commissioned by the
American Psychological Association and published in Scientific
American, which concluded that "teaching that makes the rules of
phonics clear will ultimately be more successful than teaching that
does not."

Why Klein, a highly intelligent man, denies the existence of this
robust scientific evidence only he can answer. Previously, it was
possible to assume that Klein's questionable pedagogical decisions
resulted from his being a neophyte in education theory and practice
and, of necessity, having to put too much trust in his deputy
chancellor for teaching and learning, Diana Lam, a partisan of
progressive pedagogy. But Klein is a quick study. He has now made an
informed decision to follow the progressive-ed party line on reading.

Yet Klein is also trying to have his cake and eat it too-holding on
to the progressive reading curriculum while not creating a political
firestorm by turning down $34 million from Washington for a
cash-strapped city. Unfortunately, he has done this in the most inept
and graceless manner by badmouthing the Bush education department.

This approach is bound to leave the White House fuming, which cannot
be good news for Mayor Bloomberg. Moreover, it comes on top of two
other recent Department of Education fiascoes that have embarrassed
the mayor. First, Bloomberg had to admit that Klein and company were
so busy with their brave new progressive curricular reforms that they
forgot to pay attention to the little matter of school safety. Then,
Deputy Chancellor Lam, afflicted with one of her regular bouts of
foot-in-mouth disease, blabbed to reporters that the education
department was considering eliminating or dumbing down the city's
gifted-and-talented programs. Both events outraged the mayor's
middle-class outer-borough supporters.

Someone who speaks for those outer-borough constituents, State
Senator Frank Padovan, has now called for the firing of Diana Lam.
Surely, for reasons big and small, Padovan is right-and Mayor
Bloomberg should take his advice. But beyond this, the mayor has a
bigger problem: to accomplish his signature mayoral initiative,
school reform, he has chained himself to a "progressive" reading
curriculum in most schools that is sure to torpedo all his other
courageous and sensible changes.

Sent to the Christian Science Monitor, January 8.

Listen to the experts.

The finding that three out of four principals in one survey felt that No Child Left Behind relies too much on testing was buried deep in the Monitor's article ("Bush education law transforming the schools," January 8). It should have been the headline.

When 75% of experienced professionals in any field oppose a practice that has been imposed on them, we should pay careful attention.

Stephen Krashen

A letter to the editor in the Washington Post suggests that teachers be tested annually on the same standardized tests the students take. This is necessary, the writer argues, because teachers "stumble through the English language when interviewed on TV." I am sure that the testing industry would love the extra business. But Susan Ohanian takes the next step: Let's ask the President of the United States, somebody who has certainly stumbled with the English language a lot on TV and elsewhere, to take the tests.

See her remarkable comments at: http://susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=195

Published in Rethinking Schools, Winter, 2003. Vol 18(2): 2
Christensen's paper can be found at: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/18_01/corr181.shtml

The Impact of Reading, the Limits of Grammar and Correction

Linda Christensen recommends some excellent practices in "The politics of correction" (vol 18,3, 2003). Informing students about the highly structured and complex grammar and the history of African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) is an excellent means of increasing appreciation and respect for this language.

I have, however, a suggestion that should make the job of adding "standard English" to the students' repertoire much easier: Massive free voluntary reading. There is consistent evidence that those who read more have a better writing style and better control of grammar and the conventions of writing. Studies also show that they do better on tests of science, history, literature and even "practical knowledge."

In addition, research over the last hundred years confirms that formal grammar study and correction, whether done by teachers or peers, has limited impact on writing accuracy. Massive reading is the only way writers can absorb (or acquire) the vast number of rules of the standard, rules that are sometimes very complex and that have only recently been discovered by grammarians. Also, many rules of AAVE have only recently been discovered, and are very subtle and complicated. Many speakers of AAVE have managed to acquire standard English to high levels without this knowledge. They did not do this through study and correction, but through voracious reading.

Richard Wright, for example, specifically gives reading the credit for the development of his writing ability: "I bought English grammars and found them dull. I felt that I was getting a better sense of the language from novels than from grammars," (Black Boy, p. 275). Malcolm X became a dedicated reader in prison: "In every free moment I had, if I wasn't reading in the library, I was reading on my bunk. You couldn't have gotten me out of books with a wedge ... " (The Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 173). Like Richard Wright, Malcolm X gives reading the credit: "Not long ago, an English writer telephoned me from London, asking questions. One was, 'What's your alma mater?' I told him, 'Books'" (p. 179).

Stephen Krashen

I added the following notes to my letter, they were not included in the published version:

I have reviewed the research on the impact of reading, the limits of grammar, and the weak effects of correction in several places, including
Krashen, S. 1984. Writing: Research, Theory and Applications. Beverly Hills: Laredo Publishing Company.
Krashen, S. 1993. The Power of Reading. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Krashen, S. 2003. Explorations in Language Acquisition and Language Use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

The only published study claiming that study of grammar and contrastive analysis of AAVE and standard English impacts accuracy in writing is Hanni Taylor's book, Standard English, Black English, and Bidialectalism (Lang, 1989). Taylor used pattern practice drills and peer correction activities that focused on "errors" in African-American students' writing, eg third person singular, plurals, word-final consonant clusters, aspects of grammar in which there is a difference between standard English and AAVE. Taylor claimed that total occurrences of AAVE features in essays was reduced 59%, but a closer look at her data shows an obvious change for only two items of the ten items tested; according to my calculations, the improvement in one of these items was not statistically significant. Also, only ten students participated in the experimental group and ten in a comparison group and the total number of instances of AAVE studied was very small.

22 Dec 2003

Sent to the New York Times, December 22

The Times reported that Los Angeles increased its reading score on the NAEP reading test, given to fourth and eighth graders ("Charlotte, N.C. Students Lead in National 4th-Grade Math Test," Dec. 18). That's what the press release from the State of California said, but that's not what the National Center for Educational Statistics reported. Differences between 2002 and 2003 in Los Angeles Unified School District were not statistically significant, with fourth graders increasing from 191 to 194 and eighth graders decreasing from 257 to 254. Both scores are well below the California state average (206 in 2003 for grade 4), which in turn is well below the national average (216). LA's scores were truly dismal and have changed very little.

Stephen Krashen
press release: http://www.cde.ca.gov/news/releases2003/rel87.asp
actual date: http://www.nces.ed/gov

"Last year, New York and Houston fourth graders led in reading and writing. This year, New York, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles saw improvements in those scores, but none of those cities exceeded the national average."

21 Dec 2003

Published in the Washington Post, Dec, 18, 2003

I have read the published research on the impact of Direct Instruction, and am not as enthusiastic about it as you are. The usual result is that children who experience Direct Instruction in reading do very well on tests of reading words in isolation, but do not do nearly as well on tests that involve actual texts. There is, in other words, a "large discrepancy between decoding skills . . . and reading comprehension scores . . . ." (Direct Instruction advocates Wes Becker and Russell Gersten, in an article published originally in 1982 in the American Educational Research Journal and reprinted in the Journal of Direct Instruction in 2001).

Also, Direct Instruction has only been compared to other skill-based approaches. A number of studies show that students in programs that emphasize free, voluntary reading outperform those in traditional skill-based instruction on tests of reading comprehension if the free reading program is allowed to run for a sufficient length of time (an academic year). Readers do at least as well as traditionally taught students in shorter-term programs. Direct Instruction has never been compared to these kinds of "book flood" programs.

21 Dec 2003

Sent to the San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 20, 2003

The Chronicle's report on a study of 32 Bay Area schools by Bay Area School Reform Collaborative gives frequent diagnostic testing the credit for test score increases ("Testament to testing," December 18). A look at the Collaborative's website gives a different impression. First, there is no hard data, at least not yet. The website only supplies press releases (the full report, according to the website, is "coming soon.") Second, even from the press releases, it is clear that other changes took place in these schools, changes that clearly affect reading test scores, such as more time devoted to recreational reading. A proper statistical analysis can reveal which factors actually contributed to the improvement. Both the Collaborative and the Chronicle need to wait until a scientific analysis of the data is made before jumping to conclusions.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus of Education, USC
www.sfgate.com Testament to testing
Schools close 'achievement gap' by pinpointing trouble spots with frequent assessments
Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, December 18, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/18/BAG1N3PD7D23.DTL

December 18, 2003

Charlotte, N.C., Students Lead in National 4th-Grade Math Test
By KIMETRIS N. BALTRIP

Fourth and eighth graders in the Charlotte, N.C., metropolitan region led the nation this year in the first test to compare mathematics achievement in 10 of the largest urban school districts, according to results released yesterday. New York City students came in second.

But even in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg district, just 41 percent of fourth graders and 32 percent of eighth graders scored at or above the proficiency goal in math. The national averages for fourth- and eighth-grade students who performed at that level were 31 percent and 27 percent, respectively.

In New York, 21 percent of fourth graders and 20 percent of eighth graders were at or above proficiency in math.

The results are from the 2003 Trial Urban District Assessment, part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress that is called the "nation's report card." A representative sample of 72,266 fourth and eighth graders from 1,159 schools was tested in January, February and March in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego and Washington.

Reading scores among fourth and eighth graders were included in the results, which showed that Charlotte students in both grades outperformed their peers and surpassed the national average in proficiency by small margins. For fourth graders, New York and San Diego tied for second in the percentage of students proficient in reading. Among eighth graders, New York and Boston tied for second.

The New York schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, said, "These results confirm that New York has the best system of public education of any major city in the United States."

Education Secretary Rod Paige commended the districts, but said, "Average scores for all but one of the cities are below the national average in mathematics and reading, reflecting the tough road ahead."

Last year, New York and Houston fourth graders led in reading and writing. This year, New York, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles saw improvements in those scores, but none of those cities exceeded the national average.

Eighth graders in Charlotte were the only students to match the national average in reading this year.

Darvin M. Winick, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for the tests, said: "If you look at the schools and you look at comparison groups, these urban districts do just about as well as anybody else. I would say that the general perception that urban students perform less well than other students is not supported by these data."

18 Dec. 2003

Whole language was not the problem, phonics was not the cure
Published in Reading Today, December 2003/January 2004. vol 21 (3), p. 15

Reading Today's report on the 2002 NAEP scores ("Good news, bad news," August, September 2003) did not mention an important event in the history of literacy education: California still ranks at the bottom of the country and its scores have not improved since 1992. California's poor performance in 1992 was blamed on whole language. The obvious interpretation of the 2002 results is that California's fanatic rush to phonics and skill-building had no effect.

This is a stunning confirmation of Jeff McQuillan's arguments (The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions, 1998): Whole language never was the problem. More likely, the low scores are due to the fact that California children have little access to books, a problem that is just as serious today as it was ten years ago.

Stephen Krashen

Published in the Washington Post, Dec, 18, 2003

I have read the published research on the impact of Direct Instruction, and am not as enthusiastic about it as you are. The usual result is that children who experience Direct Instruction in reading do very well on tests of reading words in isolation, but do not do nearly as well on tests that involve actual texts. There is, in other words, a "large discrepancy between decoding skills . . . and reading comprehension scores . . . ." (Direct Instruction advocates Wes Becker and Russell Gersten, in an article published originally in 1982 in the American Educational Research Journal and reprinted in the Journal of Direct Instruction in 2001).

Also, Direct Instruction has only been compared to other skill-based approaches. A number of studies show that students in programs that emphasize free, voluntary reading outperform those in traditional skill-based instruction on tests of reading comprehension if the free reading program is allowed to run for a sufficient length of time (an academic year). Readers do at least as well as traditionally taught students in shorter-term programs. Direct Instruction has never been compared to these kinds of "book flood" programs.

Stephen Krashen

Professor emeritus
University of Southern California

This letter appeared in Karen Chenoweth's column, Dec. 18, 2003 ("Reading program isn't letter-perfect, some say"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8598-2003Dec17.html). It is a reaction to her previous columns:("Steps in the right direction for all students," Dec. 11, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53444-2003Dec10.html, "Direct instruction gets direct results," December 4, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32026-2003Dec3&notFound=true, and "New reading program is proven, but county's support is not," November 27, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32026-2003Dec3&notFound=true).

12 Dec 2003

Sent to USA Today, written by Marcia Zorn, posted here with her permission.

May I please offer an answer to Greg Toppo's question "Why won't Johnny read?" (USA Today: November 19, 2003) From the perspective of an elementary school teacher/library media specialist who is enjoying her 32nd year of service to young people, I would suggest that it MIGHT be because Johnny's school library media center might not be well-stocked with books that he wishes to read, or that his school library media center is not adequately staffed with a full-time library media specialist who is supported by adequate clerical assistance.

During my 32 years of experience, I have received many hours of training in selecting great books to promote to my students. I have read thousands of those books, and my years of experience with my students have helped me to develop a keen ability to promote "the right book for the right child at the right time," the goal of all library media specialists.

HOWEVER, during my eleven years at my present elementary school in Texas, I have been faced daily with a woefully inadequate budget for purchasing those books, and I find that I am unable to assist my students as I feel they deserve to receive assistance in choosing books, because I must use my time with them to check books in and out and to reshelve them, because my school does not have the clerical staffing recommended in our state's library media center standards.

If we want our children to develop the ability to read, as well as a love of reading, I would suggest looking very closely at our elementary school library media programs to ensure that they are budgeted and staffed as recommended. Research in many states proves that a well-stocked and well-staffed library media center will help increase both reading test scores, and a love of reading.

Oh, just a few more ideas: turn off the televisions and computers for awhile each day, and trek your family to your public library weekly!

Marcia Garman Zorn
Library Media Specialist
Grapevine, Texas

28 November 2003

New papers posted on http://www.sdkrashen.com:

Cho, G., Shin, F., and Krashen, S. What Do We Know about Heritage Languages? What Do We Need to Learn About Them? 10 pages.

Krashen, S. Second Language "Standards For Success": Out Of Touch With Language Acquisition Research 5 pages

Krashen, S. (2002) The Lexile Framework: The Controversy Continues : 4 pages

21 November, 2003

Published in USA Today, November 21, 2003

"Improved libraries would boost scores"

USA Today's editorial says federal research shows that "rigorous phonics programs work."

What federal research really shows is that heavy phonics instruction leads to higher scores only on tests in which children read isolated lists of words out loud ("Debate over how to teach reading slows student gains," Our view, Improving literacy debate, Monday, Nov. 17).

Heavy phonics makes only a tiny contribution to performance on reading comprehension tests given after the first grade. A large number of studies show that children who have more access to books and read more do better on tests of reading comprehension.

Diana Lam, a deputy chancellor in the New York City Department of Education is right: Increasing reading opportunities through improved classroom libraries, as well as school and public libraries, must be a central part of our efforts to improve literacy ("Rich, varied instruction").

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Sent to USA Today, November 17, 2003

USA Today states that federal research shows that "rigorous phonics programs work" (Improving Literacy: Monday's Debate, November 17). What federal research really shows is that heavy phonics instruction leads to higher scores only on tests in which children read isolated lists of words outloud. Heavy phonics makes only a tiny contribution to performance on reading comprehension tests given after grade 1. A large number of studies show that children who have more access to books and read more do better on tests of reading comprehension. Diana Lam, in her opposing view, is right: Increasing reading opportunities through improved classroom libraries, as well as school and public libraries, must be a central part of our efforts to improve literacy.

Stephen Krashen , Ph.D.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/front.htm

Sent to telegraph.co.uk Nov. 16, 2003

The "persistent failure of children to grasp the basics" of English grammar and writing ("Literacy drive 'fails to teach 11-year-olds basic grammar," November 16) may be because policy makers did not grasp the basics of research in literacy development. A brief glance at scientific studies would have told them that "six years of extra grammar teaching" will not help: Studies done over the last 100 years consistently show that increasing the teaching grammar has no impact on reading and writing. More recreational reading, however, has a strong impact on performance on tests of reading and writing. The most effective cure is the easiest and least expensive: More access to good books in school and public libraries.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Article at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F11%2F16%2Fnlit16.xml

To the editor:

When California's fourth graders did poorly on the national NAEP reading test in 1992, the experts blamed whole language. Dr. Jeff McQuillan disagreed, pointing out that scores were low before "whole language" was introduced, and presented strong evidence that the real cause was a lack of access to books: California had (and still has) the worst school library system in the country.

Whole language has been purged from California, replaced with "systematic, intensive phonics." This year, California fourth and eighth-graders "exhibited no significant progress in their reading skills despite billions of dollars spent on new phonics textbooks and smaller class sizes" (State's Math Scores Leap, November 14). Rather than conclude that whole language never was the problem, some observers now blame "California's large population of recent immigrants." But the percentage of English learners in school has increased only slightly since 1992 (from 21% to 25%), not enough to seriously impact test scores. There is another explanation. California's move to a heavy phonics approach didn't work. It is time to consider McQuillan's suggestion: Make sure children have access to books by investing in libraries.

Stephen Krashen
Emeritus Professor of Education, USC

LA Times story at: http://www.latimes.com/la-me-scores14nov14,1,7562751.story

Sent to the Taipei Times

To the editor:

In order to improve Taiwanese students' English competence, specifically performance on the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), experts have recommended that English education be extended to all four years of college and that teacher quality be improved ("Students' English disappoints," November
7).

Those studying this issue may be interested to know that research shows that the best predictor of scores on the TOEFL is the amount of recreational reading students have done in English, reading that students select themselves and read for their own pleasure. Other studies come to very similar conclusions: Those in classes that emphasize pleasure reading acquire more grammar and vocabulary than those in traditional classes.

These students have been done in several different countries, and include important work from Taiwan. Prof. Sy-ying Lee of National Taipei University has shown that the amount of pleasure reading done was a significant predictor of how well students performed on a writing test. Of great interest is the finding that the amount of formal study and the amount of writing done did not predict writing proficiency.

We know from linguistics that the grammatical system of any language is far too complex to be taught and learned: Linguists, in fact, admit that they have not yet succeeded in accurately describing all the rules of any language. In addition, academic English requires a vocabulary of between 50,000 and 150,000 words, far too many to memorize one at a time. Massive amounts of interesting reading allow students to absorb the complex writing style of English, gradually acquire the huge English vocabulary they need, as well as complex grammatical rules.

Before prescribing "more of the same," we might consider taking advantage of this easier, more
pleasant path.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California

Original article at:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2003/11/07/2003074896

Published in the Los Angeles Daily News, October 31

API scores
Re "L.A. schools do better" (Oct. 25):
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell proclaimed
that the current Academic Performance Index scores showed
"outstanding progress." Not so. The average increase statewide was
about 3 percentiles, only slightly more than one additional test
question answered correctly on each of the tests that make up the API.

All the high-fives and self-congratulations over the recent scores
are inappropriate. After a year of intensive test preparation and
teaching to the test, California's students made barely measurable
gains. Moreover, California's students have not improved on national
tests.

-Stephen Krashen

Thus far, our studies have shown an impact for the
school library, but the effect has been modest,
because of the overwhelming impact of poverty, and, I
suspect, because the school library for many children
is not the only source of books. Recall that
when McQuillan (The Literacy Crisis:False Claims
and Real Solutions,1998) considered
several sources of books (school, public library,
home) he found a gigantic impact on reading
comprehension, that held up well even when
poverty was controlled.

I would like to suggest a different direction for
studies of the impact of school libraries. This new
direction will, I think, be easy to do and will yield
far more dramatic results for the efficacy of school
libraries. I suggest that we focus our attention on
school libraries that serve children from low-income
families. My prediction is that truly excellent
libraries in such cases will have a strong impact on
reading achievement because they are usually the only
source of books and other reading material for these
children. Children from high-income families have
other sources of books, and these sources provide them
with a great deal of reading material (e.g. Neuman and
Celano, 2001).

I hope it will not be difficult to find these
libraries. It has been observed that quality of school
library is associated with SES: children from
high-income families tend to go to schools with better
school libraries (longer hours, more books, more
likely to have a certified librarian). A study of even
a few exemplary libraries may be very revealing.

This kind of study could also be done using the by-now
traditional Lance model: a multivariate analysis
controlling statistically for poverty. We would
predict an interaction between poverty and measures of
library quality: Library quality (books, staffing) is
related to reading achievement when poverty is higher.
This could be done using regular multiple regression
and adding interaction predictor terms.

Simply restricting the analysis to schools in
low-income areas is preferable, however. It is always
better to control experimentally rather than
statistically, and it saves the trouble of examining
many schools that will play no role in our central
hypothesis: school libraries are very helpful for
children of poverty. The usual regression or path
analyses can be done without worrying about SES, which
swamps other variables in most studies. SES will not
be included because it will not vary among the schools
in the sample.

Subsequently, studies can look at school libraries at
the other end of the SES scale. I predict that
research will show that school libraries do not
influence reading achievement in high-income areas.
This is, of course, not to say that they do no good.
In fact, this kind of result will free up library
research to examine the other contributions that
school libraries make, contributions to higher level
thinking and learning.

At this stage of the game it is useful to look at the
extreme cases, very poor and very wealthy. Eventually
we can seek to determine what the cut-off is, at what
level of poverty a well-equipped school library plays
a major role in predicting reading achievement.

From Susan Ohanian's wonderful website, susanohanian.org.

How Many Books Would $87 Billion Buy?

Susan Ohanian Notes: Every dollar spent on the war in Iraq could have been
spent on children in the U.S.

$87 billion is the number given for the cost of rebuilding Iraq.
* There are 72.6 million children under the age of 18 in the U.S.
* Take that $87 billion and spend it on the books for the kids.
That would provide $1,145 per student.
* Spent on $4 paperbacks-you'd have 286 books per kid.
* Assuming for middle grade kids that the books have 30,000
words per book, that's 8,580,000 words.
* If they read that, given Nagy's research, that would be 8,580
new vocabulary words.

- Suzanne Barchers, Managing Editor, Weekly Reader
"From Comics to Classics--Creating Lifelong Readers and Writers"
speech, Absecon, NJ, PTO

Re: "Kindergarten requirements concern parents," Sept. 29.

Assemblyman Steinberg proposes investing 2 billion dollars per year for universal preschool. There is an easier, less expensive way to ensure growth in literacy. Research consistently shows that progress in reading is a result of how much children read on their own, and children read more when they have access to interesting books. California has the worst school libraries in the country, with the fewest books and fewest librarians per child, and is near the bottom in public libraries.This is devastating for children of poverty with little access to books and explains why California has the lowest reading scores in the nation. Research also shows children make rapid progress when they have access to interesting reading. Children in Cal State Prof. Fay Shin's summer program made over one year's progress in six weeks when provided with interesting books and time to read.

Keith Lance's research shows that better school libraries and better library staffing are related to higher reading scores. The money would be much better spent on a one-time investment in libraries. The interest on 2 billion would soon provide California with the best staffed and best stocked libraries in the US.

Stephen Krashen

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/living/education/6887791.htm

Thanks again to David Loertscher for the idea of the trust fund.

Sent to Los Angeles Daily News, Sept 26

Dennis McCarthy hit the bull's eye in reporting on the positive
impact of the new library at Plainview Elementary ("Reading scores,"
September 25). The Plainview experience confirms what research has
repeatedly shown: When interesting books are made available, children
will read them.

A good school library is especially important for children of
low-income families. Many studies have shown that these children have
few sources of books outside of school. For them, the school library
is often the only source of reading material.

Original article at:
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0%2C1413%2C200~20954~1654208%2C00.html

Reading Today (John Micklos) just informed me that they will publish
this letter in the December/January issue.

Whole Language was never the problem, phonics is not the solution

Reading Today's report on the 2002 NAEP scores ("Good news, bad
news," August, September 2003) did not mention an important event in
the history of literacy education: California still ranks at the
bottom of the country and its scores have not improved since 1992.
California's poor performance in 1992 was blamed on whole language.
The obvious interpretation of the 2002 results is that California's
fanatic rush to phonics and skill-building had no effect. This is a
stunning confirmation of Jeff McQuillan's arguments (The Literacy
Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions, 1998): Whole language never
was the problem. More likely, the low scores are due to the fact that
California children have little access to books, a problem that is
just as serious today as it was ten years ago.

Stephen Krashen
University of Southern California (Emeritus)

Please see my article in the Phi Delta Kappan, reviewing the research on SSR:

http://www.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/er/krashen2001.html

Now available at http://www.sdkrashen.com:>http://www.sdkrashen.com. Free download.

At 11:38 AM -0700 9/4/03, Chris Vanderweit wrote:
Hi All

I have a teacher who is looking for some research on the merits of SSR (hopefully positive). We are in a high school and the English/Language Arts department have been requested to justify this as a requirement. I am a proponent of the ìmore you read the better you getî theory but weíd like a little quotable research.

Thanks for any help you can give us.

Chris VanderWeit

Reading is the Essential Skill of the Information Age.

I read five newspaper articles about the latest test scores from California. The headlines were very different. In descending order of enthusiasm:

SF Chronicle: Impressive boost in state's school test scores
Contra Costa Times: School scores up statewide for fifth year
San Jose Mercury News: Students improve on standards tests
LA Times: Most schools do better, but 925 come up short
LA Daily News: Nearly half of schools in state miss mark.

What do the data really show? For language arts: A massive 2.5 percentile gain overall from last year. Increases in grades 5,6 and 9 of 5 points, 4 points in grade 2, 3 points in grades 4 and 7, the rest 1,zero or -1.

And according to the new CAT6 test, CA is still way behind the rest of the country in reading. Apparently forgotten are the still recent NAEP grade 4 reading results, which showed no gains at all since 1992, with CA still dead last among states in the US.

Oh yes: Headline of California State Department of Education press release: State schools chief O'Connell applauds 2003 Star results showing fifth straight year of gains ...

The report boasts: "Results from the California Standards Tests (CSTs) reveal significant increases in the percentage of students demonstrating "proficiency" or above in English-language arts in all grades except for eighth. The greatest increase occurred in grade nine, where 10 percent more students scored at "proficient" or "advanced" this year than in 2001."

It does not point out that the gains were very tiny (3 percentiles or less in 6 of the ten grades), or that CA still lags way behind the rest of the country and has shown no progress on a national test in the last decade. Those fabulous ninth graders were the only group that scored at the 50th percentile nationally on the new CAT6.

To be fair, some of the newspaper stories did point out that gains were modest and that scores are still low; apparently the headline writers did not the article.

The Contra Costa article reminded readers that according the NCLB, all students must meet the proficient level in math and English by 2014, but "no school in California has reached that level."

Readers' Open Forum
08/11/2003
The Press-Enterprise (San Bernardino, CA)

Strong libraries and reading

Regarding the "Making better readers, one child at a time" editorial.
While it is wonderful that there is a program in San Bernardino to
encourage pleasure reading during the summer, we should remember that
studies have demonstrated that strong library media programs, including
certificated librarians at school sites, result in higher achievement for
students.

Another predictor of success is the level of funding to school libraries.
Investment in school libraries correlates with reading achievement;
unfortunately, California schools remain last in libraries and last in
reading achievement.

Yes, children need to be encouraged to read for pleasure just like they
are doing this summer in San Bernardino (and elsewhere). But until
decision makers decide to provide adequate funds for school libraries, we
all need to get used to the idea that scores will continue to be low. How
sad for our children.

YVONNE WEINSTEIN
Riverside

Reading and rewards

The Press-Enterprise got it right in the Aug. 4 "Making better readers,
one child at a time," editorial. Summer reading and improved libraries
are indeed the key to developing better readers.

Research shows that children from low-income families fall behind during
the summer, not during the school year, and research also confirms that
better libraries and more access to libraries means more reading and more
progress in reading.

One small criticism of the Press-Enterprise's position: There is no clear
research evidence that giving prizes for reading does any good, and there
is some evidence suggesting that it could be harmful in the long run.
When children are rewarded for an activity that is intrinsically
interesting, like recreational reading, they get the message that the
activity may not be worth doing without a reward.

The important factors that emerge from the research for encouraging
reading are access to interesting and comprehensible books, and time and
a place for reading. No child needs a prize to read Harry Potter.

STEPHEN KRASHEN
University of
Southern California
Rossier School of Education

Sent to the NY Post, August 9

The reason summer school doesn't help children improve their reading
( "The major failure of summer school," August 9) in is that summer
programs don't do what really works.Summer is crucial: Research shows
that children from low-income families fall behind during the summer,
not during the school year. There are, however, summer programs and
activities that work.

Studies by Fay Shin of California State University and Jimmy Kim of
Harvard show that children can make impressive gains over the summer
just by reading for pleasure. Shin organized a summer program for
middle schoolers that emphasized reading high-interest books, such as
Goosebumps. On one reading test, students gained over a year after
only six weeks. Kim estimated that children who read five extra books
over the summer gain, on the average, about three additional
percentiles on standardized tests; repeated each summer, this is a
big difference. Children can enjoy their vacations and improve at the
same time.

Research shows that when children have access to interesting reading,
most read. Also, children of poverty have little access to books.
Rather than invest in summer drill camps, let's increase investment
in libraries and make sure all chidren have access to interesting
reading all year.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus, USC
Author, "The Power of Reading" (Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited)

THE MAJOR FAILURE OF SUMMER SCHOOL
By CARL CAMPANILE
NY Post

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/38752.htm

Thanks to Yvonne Weintein for finding this editorial

Sent to the Press-Enterprise (Inland Empire), August 7

The Press-Enterprise got it right in their editorial "Making better readers, one child at a time," (August 4). Summer reading and improved libraries are indeed the key to developing better readers. Research shows that children from low-income families fall behind during the summer, not during the school year, and research also confirms that better libraries and more access to libraries means more reading and more progress in reading.

Some recent studies are particularly exciting. Fay Shin of California State University and Jimmy Kim of Harvard have shown that children can make impressive gains over the summer just by reading for pleasure. Shin organized a summer program for middle schoolers that emphasized reading high-interest books, such as Goosebumps. On one reading test, students gained over a year after only six weeks. Kim estimated that children who read five extra books over the summer gain, on the average, about three additional percentiles on standardized tests; repeated each summer, this is a big difference. Children can enjoy their vacations and improve at the same time.

One small criticism of the Press-Enterprise's position: There is no clear research evidence that giving prizes for reading does any good, and there is some evidence suggesting that it could be harmful in the long run: when children are rewarded for an activity that is intrinsically interesting, like recreational reading, they get the message that the activity may not be worth doing without a reward. The important factors that emerge from the research for encouraging reading are access to interesting and comprehensible books, and time and a place for reading. No child needs a prize to read Harry Potter.

Making better readers, one child at a time
08/04/2003

The Press-Enterprise

San Bernardino public library branches are in the midst of a summer
reading program about rain forests. Typical titles include "Magic School
Bus in the Rain Forest", "Poisoners and Pretenders" and "Red-Eyed Tree
Frog." Youngsters are urged to read 50 books, with prizes -- from pencils
to restaurant coupons -- awarded in five book increments.

Is this a big deal? Yes, it is; or at least, yes, it should be.

In many Inland communities, improving school test scores is a real
struggle. There's no quick answer. The key to producing better students
isn't just sending kids off to school. It's working toward that goal with
a will, in every way possible.

In San Bernardino, here's the reality of those statewide test scores: In
2002, of 41 elementary schools, only four performed in the upper 50
percent of elementaries statewide. Five of the city's seven middle
schools, and four of five high schools, tested in the bottom 20 percent
of schools statewide.

Underlying all these numbers, all learning, is reading capability. What
these numbers say is that San Bernardino needs to dedicate itself anew,
and to keep rededicating itself, to the work of improving its children's
education. A summer reading program like this is an excellent means to
that end. It's a praiseworthy effort by the library -- a good idea. But
it needs to be enlarged to a BIG good idea, one perpetually in gear, and
perpetually supported by families.

Education isn't just the work of the schools. It starts at home, and it's
in the interest of everyone -- individuals, organizations, businesses --
to support it. It's how we build better communities: one child at a time.

A very important comment on federal policy in education, in my opinion.

Letters to the Editor, Education Week, August 6, 2003

'Report Card' Void
Gives Policy Insight

To the Editor:

I found your article on what the U.S. Department of Education omitted
from its report on the 2002 National Assessment of Educational
Progress reading results very interesting for a number of reasons
("'Report Card' Lacking Usual Background Data," July 9, 2003).

If the federal government really wants to improve school reading
instruction, as it says it does, why would it withhold data about
what students do inside and outside of school? These are things
teachers need to know in order to better teach their students, and
the public needs to know in order to appreciate the difficulties in
educating today's children.

The case you gave as an example of missing information-what materials
4th grade teachers use-is inexcusable. Shouldn't we all know that
students who are taught with trade books or a combination of trade
books and basal readers score higher than those who are taught with
basal readers alone?

Moreover, Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst's dismissive comment about this
result was troubling. If it is true, as he believes, that poverty
districts are less likely to use trade books than affluent districts,
then shouldn't the Department of Education be working to change this
situation rather than pressuring poverty schools to use basals, as it
does through the Reading First Initiative of the "No Child Left
Behind" Act of 2001?

My suspicious nature tells me that Mr. Whitehurst's explanation that
the information was left out of the report because the department
wants to cover it more thoroughly in separate reports is just an
excuse for hiding from the public some truths about teaching reading
that don't square with government policy.

Joanne Yatvin
Portland, Ore.

Please note that the total median materials expenditure per school for the western part of the US is $19.23 per pupil for 2002. In California we are now at $1.44. This must be not only the lowest in the US, but is probably the lowest of all time. This is no time for high 5's about the current budget, whatever the cause of the reduction, whatever the political and economic situation, and despite the fact that it could have been even worse.

This is an excellent time to remind the public and the media that investment in school libraries correlates with reading achievement, that California remains last in libraries and last in reading achievement, that there has been NO improvement in NAEP scores despite the phonics frenzy, that the real cause of the low scores has not be addressed or even considered. Recall that in both McQuillan's study and my study NAEP scores correlated highly with access to print, including school libraries, even when poverty was considered. Lance's work generalized this relationship to many different tests of reading.

Thank you to Marilyn Shontz for her extremely important contributions. She and Marilyn Miller publish regular (every two years) reports in the School Library Journal on the condition of school libraries in the US. The reports are very detailed and very very informative.

At 12:31 PM -0400 8/7/03, Marilyn Shontz wrote:
Hello,

The newest (2001-2002) SLJ figures to be published in October
Confirm little or no change in the amounts spent for
Books and other library expenditures since 1999-2000
School year. We seem at a stand still.

Collection size:
Median Size of Book Collection 12,000
Median Number of Books per Pupil 15
Median # Volumes Added 500
Volumes Discarded 200

Median Expenditures for:
Books per school $5,000.00
Books per Pupil $8.00
Audiovisual Resources per school $500.00
Audiovisual Resources per Pupil $ 0.77
WWW based products per school $1,000.00
WWW based products per Pupil $1.08

Total Median Materials Expenditures per school (TME) $13,000.00
TME per Pupil $19.23

The above numbers are for the WEST region only,
all grade levels (n=101).

Marilyn Shontz

Ps you have a great listserv!

Here are some recent Gallup poll results (July 29, 2003). Gallup interviewed 607 parents of
children ages 6-11. 88% of the parents told Gallup that their child
likes to read. When asked, "which of the following is the main reason
your child doesn't read more often just for fun" the responses were:
Too many distractions (TV, video games) = 44%
Too many extracurricular activities (eg sports, music and dance lessons) = 25%
Homework = 19%
Child doesn't like to read = 6%

ONLY 6%, according to parents, DON'T LIKE TO READ!

For similar results, and some self-promotion, see:

Krashen, S. 2001. Do teenagers like to read? Yes! Reading Today 18(5): 16
Krashen, S. and Von Sprecken, D.. 2002. Is there a decline in the
reading romance? Knowledge Quest 30(3): 11-17.

Published as "Cyberletters" - Dallas Morning News (dallasnews.com)
August 2, 2003

Proof that summer reading educates kids!

I hope readers of Joshua Benton's Monday column, "Kids, use the summer to learn," read the conclusion, where he recommends reading Judy Blume.

Mr. Benton is right about the research: Children from low-income families fall behind during the summer, not during the school year. But the solution is not workbook-filled "reading camps" many
districts are setting up.

Studies by Fay Shin of California State University and Jimmy Kim of Harvard show that children can make impressive gains over the summer just by reading for pleasure. Ms. Shin organized a summer program for
middle schoolers that emphasized reading high-interest books, such as Goosebumps. On one reading test, students gained over a year after only six weeks. Mr. Kim estimated that children who read five extra books over the summer gain, on the average, about three additional percentiles on standardized tests; repeated each summer, this is a big difference. Children can enjoy their vacations and improve at the same time.

Research shows that when children have access to interesting reading, most read. As Mr. Benton notes, children from low-income families have much less access to books. Before investing in drill camps, let's increase investment in libraries. All children deserve access to interesting reading all year.

Stephen Krashen, School of Education, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, Calif.

Happy to read your support of library

Re: "We're No. 36! - Report card: Dallas needs to hit the books," Editorials, July 17.

I want to thank you for the outstanding editorial about the recent study released by the University of Wisconsin Whitewater that placed Dallas No. 36 on the list of the nation's most literate cities. While we "beat out" a lot of other cities our size and larger, we ranked a poor 52nd in our support of libraries.

We Friends of the Dallas Public Library have been concerned about this lack of support for years. We have also endeavored to help "plug the hole in the dike" by annual fund raising to provide "extras" and some not-so-extra library services, to help branches with emergency needs and, now, to help restore and renew Jonsson Central Library one floor at a time. Our advocacy was rewarded when $55 million in funds for the library was placed on the ballot in the recent winning bond election.

We thank The Dallas Morning News both for helping get the measure on the ballot and for educating voters to its importance.

We, too, share your concern and that of citizens about security issues and the problems with homeless people in the Central Library ("Clean Up Library - Downtown patrons deserve safer environment," Editorials, July 7). We are very glad the mayor has appointed a Homeless Task Force that is actively working to solve problems. Solutions are needed as soon as possible for the sake of the homeless individuals and to better assist library patrons.

I sincerely hope this editorial and the study quoted will further encourage the mayor and council to address the serious budgetary needs of the Dallas Public Library.

Marsha K. Fogarty, president, Friends of the Dallas Public Library,
Dallas, Texas

When it comes to buying books, Los Angeles residents make up one of the biggest markets in the country. But in truth, a University of Wisconsin chancellor now tells us, the city ranks way down at 54th in terms of metropolises where people value reading.

Then again, if you believe this fusty professor, you should read his "study" more closely.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-read26jul26,1,4340600.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

Jack Miller, who heads Wisconsin's satellite Whitewater campus, made up his own rules about what makes for a literary-minded city, and with his academic outlook, you can bet his criteria reflect a certain slant. He really ought to yank the ivy off his tower so he can look out his western window at the real world.

A favorite example: More points go to cities where residents hold college degrees. By Miller's reckoning, it doesn't matter if you're a high-school grad who cleans out the library shelves of good books each week. No college degree, no reading points.
Miller counts the number of bookstores, too. Not the number of books people buy there. Just the number of stores.

On top of that, the chancellor apparently has never heard of Amazon.com and the online shopping phenomenon. Tsk, tsk. Someone hasn't been keeping up with his reading.

True, with its vast population of immigrants who might have had little opportunity for schooling in their native countries, Los Angeles has a large number of adults for whom reading is a challenge. Volunteers and school-based courses work hard to help them gain literacy - but those don't count in Miller's mind.

At least Wisconsin doesn't seem to be having a huge state budget problem, since its college chancellors have time to dream up silly studies and hunt down misleading data to back their conclusions.

Los Angeles, not nearly as snobbish as Miller, welcomes him to visit the annual Times-sponsored Festival of Books, taking place every April. Tens of thousands of people each year drive miles and even take public transportation to buy, read and talk about books. Oh, sorry. Book festivals aren't in the study.

Some research on libraires:
Baughman, J. 2000. School libraries and MCAS scores. http://artemis.simmons.edu/~baughman/mcas-school-libraries
Elley, W. 1992. How in the World do Children Read? Hamburg: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Krashen, S. 1995. School libraries, public libraries, and the NAEP reading scores. School Library Media Quarterly 23: 235-238.
Lance, K. , Welborn, L. and Hamilton-Pennell, C. 1993.The Impact of School Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement. Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.
Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell,C. 2000: Measuring to Standards: The Impact of School Library Programs and Information Literacy in Pennsylvania Schools. Greensburg, PA: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries (604 Hunt Club Drive, Greensburg, PA, 15601).
Lance, K., Hamilton-Pennell, C., Rodney, M., Petersen, L. and Sitter, C. 1999. Information Empowered: The School Librarian as an Academic Achievement in Alaska Schools. (Alaska State Library, Junea, 1999)
Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. 2000. How School Librarians Help Kids Achieve Standards: The Second Colorado Study. San Jose: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.
Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell,C. 2000: Measuring to Standards: The Impact of School Library Programs and Information Literacy in Pennsylvania Schools. Greensburg, PA: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries (604 Hunt Club Drive, Greenburg, PA, 15601).
Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. 2001. Good Schools have Good Librarians. Oregon Educational Media Association.
McQuillan, J. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
NCEL, 2000. A study of the differences between higher- and lower-performing Indiana schools in reading and mathematics. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Oak Brook, Illinois (800-356-2735)
Smith,E. 2001. Texas School Libraries: Standards, Resources, Services, and Students' Performance. Texas State Library and Archives Commission. http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/pubs/schlibsurvey/index.html

"I received the fundamentals of my education in school, but that was not enough. My real education, the superstructure, the details, the true architecture, I got out of the public library. For an impoverished child whose family could not afford to buy books, the library was the open door to wonder and achievement, and I can never be sufficiently grateful that I had to wit to charge through that door and make the most of it.

Now, when I read constantly about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that the door is closing and that American society has found one more way to destroy itself."

Isaac Asimov

from: Isaac Asimov, 2002. It's Been a Good Life. Edited by Janet Jeppson Asimov. New York: Prometheus Books, p. 31.

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2003

Re: Shelve This Reading Study (7/26/03)

The LA Times faults scholar Jack Miller's conclusion that LA ranks 54th among US cities in literacy, pointing out that his ranking system is based on criteria such as number of residents with college degrees and number of bookstores, ignoring the fact people also buy books on line. The Times suggests that we should read Miller's study more closely.

I did. I found a separate ranking of cities for library quality, and the criteria Miller used are clear: School libraries were rated with respect to the number of library media specialists per student. This is valid: Research shows that the quality of school library staffing is related to reading achievement. Public libraries were rated on circulation, number of volumes, and number of branches. Research shows that public library quality is also related to reading achievement among students.

How did LA do in the library category? We tied for 55th place out of 64. Of the eight cities we beat, three were from California (Fresno, Anaheim, Santa Ana) and two other California cities were only slightly better: San Jose was in 53rd place and Long Beach was 54th. Top California cities were Sacramento (17th) , San Francisco (34th), and Oakland (38th). In other words, LA did lousy, and so did most other California cities. It is no wonder that California fourth graders still rank close to the bottom of the country in reading.

These rankings had nothing to do with the number of college grads or bookstores, just quality of public and school libraries.

In his book, It's Been a Good Life, author and scientist Isaac Asimov had this to say about libraries: "I received the fundamentals of my education in school, but that was not enough. My real education, the superstructure, the details, the true architecture, I got out of the public library. For an impoverished child whose family could not afford to buy books, the library was the open door to wonder and achievement, and I can never be sufficiently grateful that I had to wit to charge through that door and make the most of it. Now, when I read constantly about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that the door is closing and that American society has found one more way to destroy itself."

California appears to be leading the nation in this form of self-destruction.

Stephen Krashen

Below: Times editorial
Brief bibliography on libraries and reading achievment

LA Times editorial Shelve This Reading Study

July 26, 2003
When it comes to buying books, Los Angeles residents make up one of the biggest markets in the country. But in truth, a University of Wisconsin chancellor now tells us, the city ranks way down at 54th in terms of metropolises where people value reading.
Then again, if you believe this fusty professor, you should read his "study" more closely.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-read26jul26,1,4340600.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
Jack Miller, who heads Wisconsin's satellite Whitewater campus, made up his own rules about what makes for a literary-minded city, and with his academic outlook, you can bet his criteria reflect a certain slant. He really ought to yank the ivy off his tower so he can look out his western window at the real world.
A favorite example: More points go to cities where residents hold college degrees. By Miller's reckoning, it doesn't matter if you're a high-school grad who cleans out the library shelves of good books each week. No college degree, no reading points.
Miller counts the number of bookstores, too. Not the number of books people buy there. Just the number of stores.
On top of that, the chancellor apparently has never heard of Amazon.com and the online shopping phenomenon. Tsk, tsk. Someone hasn't been keeping up with his reading.
True, with its vast population of immigrants who might have had little opportunity for schooling in their native countries, Los Angeles has a large number of adults for whom reading is a challenge. Volunteers and school-based courses work hard to help them gain literacy - but those don't count in Miller's mind.
At least Wisconsin doesn't seem to be having a huge state budget problem, since its college chancellors have time to dream up silly studies and hunt down misleading data to back their conclusions.
Los Angeles, not nearly as snobbish as Miller, welcomes him to visit the annual Times-sponsored Festival of Books, taking place every April. Tens of thousands of people each year drive miles and even take public transportation to buy, read and talk about books. Oh, sorry. Book festivals aren't in the study.

Some research on libraires:
Baughman, J. 2000. School libraries and MCAS scores. http://artemis.simmons.edu/~baughman/mcas-school-libraries
Elley, W. 1992. How in the World do Children Read? Hamburg: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Krashen, S. 1995. School libraries, public libraries, and the NAEP reading scores. School Library Media Quarterly 23: 235-238.
Lance, K. , Welborn, L. and Hamilton-Pennell, C. 1993.The Impact of School Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement. Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.
Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell,C. 2000: Measuring to Standards: The Impact of School Library Programs and Information Literacy in Pennsylvania Schools. Greensburg, PA: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries (604 Hunt Club Drive, Greensburg, PA, 15601).
Lance, K., Hamilton-Pennell, C., Rodney, M., Petersen, L. and Sitter, C. 1999. Information Empowered: The School Librarian as an Academic Achievement in Alaska Schools. (Alaska State Library, Junea, 1999)
Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. 2000. How School Librarians Help Kids Achieve Standards: The Second Colorado Study. San Jose: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.
Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell,C. 2000: Measuring to Standards: The Impact of School Library Programs and Information Literacy in Pennsylvania Schools. Greensburg, PA: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries (604 Hunt Club Drive, Greenburg, PA, 15601).
Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. 2001. Good Schools have Good Librarians. Oregon Educational Media Association.
McQuillan, J. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
NCEL, 2000. A study of the differences between higher- and lower-performing Indiana schools in reading and mathematics. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Oak Brook, Illinois (800-356-2735)
Smith,E. 2001. Texas School Libraries: Standards, Resources, Services, and Students' Performance. Texas State Library and Archives Commission. http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/pubs/schlibsurvey/index.html

Sent to the Christian Science Monitor July 15

To the editor:

According to the Monitor, NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) writing scores this year were "a bit better" than previous years ("America's students improve in writing," July 15), but weren't very good; too many students scored below "proficient." According to some, this means there should be more emphasis on writing in schools.

But standards on this test are arbitrary. "Proficient" is only what a committee decides is proficient. NAEP standards have been repeatedly characterized as inaccurate and misleading by testing experts such as Gerald Bracey.

Even if we had a writing problem, the cure is not more assigned writing in school. Research shows that increasing writing quantity does not affect writing quality. Actual writing, when it includes planning, rereading, and revision (the "composing process"), is a wonderful way of solving problems and stimulating thinking. Studies show, however, that the real cause of better writing style and writing mechanics is reading, especially self-selected reading, the reading children do because they want to.

As a group, children of poverty do poorly on exams such as NEAP. They also have the least access to books at home, in school and in their communities. The solution: More investment in school and public libraries.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0715/p12s01-legn.html

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, July 11

NAEP writing scores were just announced for 2002 and California did lousy. Fourth graders in 19 states did significantly better than California's fourth graders, and no state was worse.

State Superintendent O'Connell, in a press release, said that these results "underscore the need for a much stronger statewide focus on writing." As usual, there is profound ignorance of the research. The research says that increasing writing quantity does not affect writing quality. Actual writing, when it includes planning, rereading, and revision (the "composing process"), is a wonderful way of solving problems and stimulating cognitive development. Numerous studies show, however, that the real cause of better writing style and writing mechanics is reading, especially self-selected reading, the reading children do because they want to.

The only way children can get a feel for what good writing looks like is by reading a great deal of good writing. As Frank Smith has noted: "To learn to write for newspapers, you must read newspapers; textbooks about them will not suffice. For magazines, browse through magazines rather than through correspondence courses on magazine writing. To write poetry, read it ..." .

For many children in California, the only source of books is the school library. California still ranks in the bottom of the US in school library quality, and the amount California spends on school libraries is disgraceful. The current budget calls for $3.44 per student. The national average in 2000 was $8.09 per student.

Stephen Krashen

A recent short article in the Los Angeles Times (Munoz, 2003) announced that first lady Laura Bush visited The Vernon City Elementary School in Los Angeles in order to award them with $5,000 for its library collection. It was the first school in the US to receive money from the Laura Bush Foundation of America's Libraries.

But this isn't the big news. The big news is that only 131 other schools in the country are getting additional funding from the Laura Bush Foundation. And 6,100 schools applied! That means only 2% of those who applied got funded.

There is more big news. The Vernon City school received enough money to add, at most, 400 titles to its library. This will raise Vernon's ratio of books per child from 15 to 1 to 16 to 1. (The national average is 18 to 1).

And there is still more big news. Vernon, as a member of Los Angeles Unified School District, has no school librarian. Also, according to the LA Times article, library hours will be cut next semester because of the budget. Who is going to select the books, be responsible for their care, introduce them to children, and help teachers integrate the new books into the curriculum? When will the children have a chance to see the books?

Mrs. Bush's focus is correct: School libraries have been underfunded and are incredibly important: Library quality (sufficient number of books and credentialed librarians) counts. A number of studies have confirmed a clear relationship between library quality and reading achievement, a result consistent with a great deal of research that shows that children with more access to books read more, and those who read more read better, write better, spell better, have larger vocabularies, and have better control of complex grammatical constructions. Studies have also shown that children of poverty are those with the least development of literacy and also have the least access to reading material, in school and outside of school. For these children, the school library is often the only place they can obtain reading material.

I'm afraid, however, that the contribution of the Bush Foundation is like shooting an arrow at the moon: It is in the right direction, but won't get far.

Here is another suggestion: A recent article in Education Week (Richard, 2003) announced that the testing required for No Child Left Behind will cost 5.3 billion between 2002 and 2008 (Richard, 2003). Let's invest the 5.3 billion not in testing learning but in promoting learning. Let's invest the 5.3 billion in a trust fund for school libraries, dedicated to improving both books and staffing in high poverty schools. The interest on this sum may be enough to guarantee a print-rich environment and adequate libraries for all children in the United States forever.

Munoz, H. 2003. First Lady Delivers $5,000 and a Passion for Reading. May 21, 2003.
Richard, A. 2003. GAO says costs for state tests all in how questions asked. Education Week, May 21, 2003.

Thanks to David Loertscher for the trust fund idea.

Jim Trelease reviews Dick Allington's Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum: http://www.trelease-on-reading.com/whatsnu_allington.html

Reluctant readers generally don't need too much instruction in reading skills, just a few basics. Usually, they need lots of easy and very compelling reading, like comic books and Goosebumps.

Here is a description of such a class, from an article in the CSLA journal. I am cc'ing the author (Fay Shin at Cal State Long Beach), in case you want more information from her.

Shin (2001) examined the impact of a six week self-selected reading experience among 200 sixth and seventh graders who had to attend summer school because of low reading proficiency. Students attended class four hours per day; during this time, approximately two hours were devoted to sustained silent reading, including 25 minutes in the school library. The district invested $25 per student on popular paperbacks and magazines, with most books purchased from the Goosebumps series. In addition, about 45 minutes per day was devoted to reading and discussing novels such as Holes, and The Island of the Blue Dolphins. Comparison children (n = 160) followed a standard language arts curriculum during the summer. Attrition was high for both groups but similar (class size dropped from 20 to 14.3 among readers, and from 20 to 13.2 among comparisons) as was the percentage of limited English proficient children (31% in the reading group, 27% in the comparison group). The readers gained approximately five months on the Altos test of reading comprehension and vocabulary over the six week period, while comparisons declined. On the Nelson-Denny reading comprehension test, the summer readers grew a spectacular 1.3 years (from grade 4.0 to grade 5.4). On the vocabulary section, however, the groups showed equivalent gains.

Shin, F. (2001). Motivating students with Goosebumps and other popular books. CSLA
Journal (California School Library Association), 25(1), 15-19.

Does anyone out there know of a short course on reading skills? We have a
class at this school for reluctant readers and I keep feeding my teacher
information that I find, but she would like a course/seminar that would help
her encourage reading skills for her students. The students are in 7th and
8th grade. (She is willing to travel to Hawaii. . . hehe)

Vicki Headley

George McNinch, 1997. Earning by learning: Changing attitudes and habits in reading. Reading Horizons, 37(3): 186-194.

Twenty at-risk second and third graders participated in an Earning By Learning (EBL) program in summer school, which they attended for half-days over six weeks. Students were nominated by teachers, "who considered erratic school attendance, low grades, low family income, little sibling success, and low rates of school library use as at-risk indicators" (p. 188). The socio-economic status of their families "was in the bottom third" (p. 189). The mean reading percentile of the group was 19.45.

Each child was paid $2.00 for each book read. We do not know if there was any means of ensuring that the children read the books. In addition, children were given increased access to books: "Both school and public libraries were accessible to the program children. Volunteers drove the children to the local library on an almost daily basis" (p. 188). Children were also encouraged to read more at home and "records were kept … as to books read and the children's earning charts were posted…" (p. 188). In addition to reading in school, "children … completed informal activities such as retelling and dramatizing to demonstrate their mastery" (p. 188).

The group of 20 children read 829 books in six weeks and earned a total of $1,658, an average of $82.50 per child, a considerable sum for a second or third grader from a low-income family. We are not told what counted as a book, nor are any examples provided.

It is not surprising that children took well to the financial rewards: the group consisted of poor children who were offered a substantial amount of money.

McNinch administered the McKenna and Kear Elementary Reading Attitude Survey at the beginning and end of the summer. Scores hardly budged. Students moved from 2.8 at the beginning to 3.1 at the end for overall reading. On the recreational reading half, they moved from 3.0 to 3.1 and on the academic reading half they moved from 2.8 to 3.0. The first two gains were statistically significant, and the third fell just short, but the size of the gains is very small.

McNinch concluded that EBL "seems to be effective" in increasing attitudes (p. 190).
This claim is clearly unjustified in terms of the actual gains: On a 1 to 4 point scale, children increased only .3 points overall, .1 points in recreational reading, and .2 points in academic reading. It must also be pointed out that these children were quite positive about reading before the summer began. On the recreational reading part, the section of most concern to us, their pretest score was 3.0, indicating a positive attitude. This is precisely the average score reported by the developers of the scale for both second and third graders (2,784 second graders, 3,005 third graders; McKenna, Kear and Ellsworth, 1995). Their pretest scores for academic reading were also nearly exactly at the average (2.9 for grade 2, 2.8 for grade 3). There is thus no evidence that these children were unmotivated readers.

There was no measure of reading achievement, but 63% of the teachers in the fall noted a "rise in reading levels." We do not know how many teachers were surveyed; recall that the sample consisted of 20 children.

As usual, there was no comparison group who were simply given literacy activities and increased access to books. Thus we do not know if increased access or the rewards caused the high quantity of reading.

It is quite likely that access would have been enough: these children had a positive movitation to read: as children of poverty, it is likely that they previously had little access to books. The failure to see a substantial increase in attitudes may be due to a ceiling effect: attitudes were high already, but could also be due to the use of rewards. Children may have been reading just to get the money. Their positive attitudes before the program began suggest that given increased access, they would have read a great deal without any rewards, and they might have shown even more enthusiasm.

McKenna, Michael, Kear, Dennis, and Ellsworth, Randolph. 1995. Children's attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly 30(4): 934-956.

September 6, 2002
New York Times: Letter to the Editor
Cutbacks at the Library

Re: Told to Trim Costs, New York Libraries Reduce Their Hours (August 31, 2002)
To the Editor:

Cutbacks in public library financing in New York ("Told to Trim Costs, New York Libraries Reduce Their Hours," news article, Aug. 31) reflect a national trend of shortening hours, reducing book and software purchases, and cutting staff and programs. From York, Me., where reduced hours and staff prevent full use of a new $5.1 million building, to Seattle, where the library system is being shut for two weeks, citizens are unable to reap the benefits of our extraordinary network of libraries.

Current cutbacks belie another trend: increased use of public libraries in cities nationwide. The New York Public Library, for example, reports a double-digit increase in patron visits and circulation of library materials this year.

We shortchange our libraries at our peril. As John Adams wrote, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people."
DIANTHA D. SCHULL
New York, Sept. 5, 2002
The writer is president of Libraries for the Future.

Burgess, Jacqueline, 1985. "Modifying independent reading leisure reading habits at home." The Reading Teacher 38(9): 845-848.

Subjects were 32 "remedial reading students" grades 2-8. All read at least two years below their grade level, only four said they had read either a library book, magazine or newspaper during a five day period preceeding the treatment.

Treatment: Students were given a calendar. Each day they read at home for at least ten minutes, parents signed the calendar. For each signature, students got a sticker, for those who had 24, they received "smelly erasers."

For the five days preceeding the treatment, little reading at home took place. During the treatment, students read an average of 17.1 days out of the 31 "reinforcement days." Five students did not turn in their calendars during the period or at the end of it.

Burgess feels that the program was successful. Note, however, that it only seemed to work for half of the days, and that five students ignored it completely. No follow-up data was gathered to determine if reading continued after the rewards were no longer available.

With respect to this, I am reposting another study (McLloyd, 1979) whose results suggest that reading might not continue when rewards are initially given. Also Robbins and Thompson (1991) took a close look at a small group of low achieving students and reported that most:of them did not continue reading after rewards were withdrawn.

Robbins, E. and Thompson, L. 1991. A study of the Indianapolis-Marion County public library's summer reading program for children. ERIC Document ED 355 647

McLoyd (1979) asked second and third graders to read from “high interest” books under three conditions: a “high reward,” “low reward” and “no reward” condition. In the high reward condition, children were promised a reward that they rated the most highly out of six presented. In the low reward condition, children were promised a reward that they rated the least highly out of six presented.(1)

It was explained to the children that the reward would be granted if they read until they reached a page following a marker in the book indicating 250 words and that the experimenter was interested in their opinion of the book. Rewards were not mentioned to the children in the no reward condition; rather, they were simply asked to read up to the indicated place in the text and to then give their opinion of the book. The reading sessions lasted for ten minutes. (2)

group time spent reading % total time words read difference
high reward 195.22 sec 33% 269.89 467.22
low reward 232.56 sec 39% 301.11 436
no reward 465.11 sec 78% 737.11

The difference between the two rewarded groups was not statistically significant. But both rewarded groups clearly differed from the non-rewarded group.

As indicated in table 1, the rewarded groups clearly read only what they had to in order to get the reward, barely going beyond the 250 word maker. The no-reward readers went well beyond this point; they were engaged in reading about twice as much than the two rewarded groups, and read more than twice as much.

The difference between the two rewarded groups was not statistically significant. But both rewarded groups clearly differed from the non-rewarded group.

As indicated in table 1, the rewarded groups clearly read only what they had to in order to get the reward, barely going beyond the 250 word maker. The no-reward readers went well beyond this point; they were engaged in reading about twice as much than the two rewarded groups, and read more than twice as much.

1. Accelerated Reader can be considered a high reward system, because children can exchange points for a wide variety of prizes.

2. McLoyd also included a group reading from “low interest” books; I consider here, however, only the high interest group, children reading a book that they rated the most interesting out of six books presented to them. This group is of the most interest to us, because it reflects what is or should be the case in sustained silent reading and in most reading management programs.

McLoyd, Vonnie. 1979. The effects of extrinsic rewards of differential value on high and low intrinsic interest. Child Development 50: 1010-1019.

Here is the first half of a forthcoming column by Gerald Bracey, to appear in the Kappan. Of obvious relevance. Bracey regularly posts/sends out copies of his columns before they appear to lots of people, so no problem sharing this with you.

The article refers to losses in reading abiity over the summer, and the importance of access to the library.

Gerald W. Bracey, RESEARCH "Summer Loss: The Phenomenon No One Wants to Deal
With" and "More Trouble for Schools: The Volatility of Test Scores," Phi
Delta Kappan, Vol. 84, No. 01, September 2002, pp. 12-13.

RESEARCH: Summer Loss: The Phenomenon No One Wants to Deal With

By Gerald W. Bracey

AS I REPORTED in the March Research column, poor students lose academic
ground over the summer, while their middle-class and affluent peers gain in
reading and hold their own in math. This strikes me as an important finding,
but it seems to have had little impact. Between 1996 and 2000, just a few
articles in Education Week mentioned it, but always as a small part of a
larger article that focused on something else.

Interest in the phenomenon of "summer loss" seems to have been largely
limited to researchers, but it is certainly long-standing. Twenty years ago,
Donald Hayes and Judith Grether reported that a seven-month difference in
reading achievement between poor and middle-class students in the second
grade had widened to two years and seven months by the end of sixth grade.
As in the research reported in the March column, the gap grew in spite of
the fact that the two groups made similar progress during the school year.
Hayes and Grether concluded that "the differential progress made during the
four summers between second and sixth grade accounts for upwards of 80% of
the achievement difference between economically advantaged and ghetto
schools."

Eighty percent! Just that finding should have been sufficient to make people
sit up and take notice, but now there's more. The phenomenon of summer loss
has major implications for the measurement of "Adequate Yearly Progress"
that is required of states accepting federal money through the reauthorized
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), otherwise known as the No
Child Left Behind Act. (In my opinion, states ought to decline the funds,
allowing them to ignore ESEA's outrageous requirements.) Most states and
districts do not test twice yearly, but without twice-a-year testing,
differential summer loss cannot be detected. Schools whose poor children are
learning over the year will suffer because summer loss will cause them to
fall farther and farther behind their middle-class peers and to fail to show
much growth in reading and math. It will thus appear that the schools are
failing, and they will be blamed for what is happening -- or, more
accurately, is not happening -- in the family and the community.

That said, I must also immediately add that there is a lot more to schools
than test scores (hard as that might be to believe these days). In the May
2001 Research column, I reported on a study that showed enormous differences
in beginning reading instruction in wealthy and poor classrooms. Freelance
writer Michael Sokolove has now captured the essential differences nicely in
the 24 February 2002 issue of the Washington Post Sunday Magazine. "As I
observed them [poor students receiving Direct Instruction], it occurred to
me that high-stakes tests are imposing a kind of instructional divide. The
wealthy kids get the full package -- instruction that is not rote, books
that are rich in content. And the poor kids get the stripped-down model --
only what they are perceived to need." I think the operative word in the
preceding sentence is "perceived."

In a review of research on summer loss, Richard Allington and Anne
McGill-Franzen of the University of Florida take note of a meta-analysis of
research conducted on 13 studies. The report of the meta-analysis also
provided a narrative analysis of 24 other studies that were available but
failed to provide sufficient data for the meta-analytic procedures. The
conclusion of the meta-analysis is stark: one summer equals a three-month
loss. Over the course of grades 1 through 6, this adds up to 11/2 years.

A study that did not directly examine summer loss found that, in Title I
programs, gains measured by spring-to-spring testing were much smaller than
those measured by fall-to-spring testing. This finding implies summer loss
and led the researchers to conclude: "Title I interventions during the
regular school year alone may not sustain their relatively large Fall/Spring
achievement improvements."

Allington and McGill-Franzen believe that much can be improved by increasing
the quality of instruction in low-income schools. However, they also argue
that "the scientific evidence on the accumulating impact of summer loss on
the achievement gap is compelling." (Allington can be reached at
ra@coe.ufl.edu.)

They echo the findings of the National Reading Panel that hundreds of
studies find that good readers read the most and poor readers, the least.
The problem, of course, is figuring out causality. Since ethical
considerations preclude researchers from systematically restricting a
control group's access to literature, all the studies are perforce
correlational. One study did find that the volume of summer reading was the
best predictor of summer loss or gain.

Even highly motivated readers in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage,
though. They get most of their reading material from school libraries, and
these have older, smaller, and less diverse collections than school
libraries in more affluent neighborhoods.

Outside of schools, affluent communities have three times as many stores
that sell children's titles as poor communities. In one study, the
worst-case scenario found that affluent families could purchase 16,000
children's titles; poor families, just 55. Naturally, income has an impact
on how many books can actually be purchased, no matter how many are
available.

The problem of access to books is magnified during summer. Even in
high-poverty schools that have summer programs, the library is often locked.
Allington and McGill-Franzen argue that poor students must have easy access
to many books and that they must also be taught well.

As I said at the outset, no one in the policy arena appears willing to
confront the reality of summer loss. The cynic in me says it's just easier
to blame the schools. Schools are concrete and can be pointed to, while
"family" and "community" are much harder to target. When I published an
op-ed article about it in the Washington Post (16 January 2002), I got just
a couple of letters and a few phone calls in response. When I posted the
March column on my website, a couple of teachers wrote to say that I had
confirmed their intuitions. Princeton University economist Alan Krueger
wrote about summer loss in the New York Times and got more attention, but,
apparently, nothing that affected policy or programs over the long haul.

GERALD W. BRACEY is a research psychologist, a freelance writer, and an
associate for the High/Scope Foundation. He lives in the Washington, D.C.,
area (e-mail: gbracey@erols.com). His newest book is The War Against
America's Public Schools (Allyn and Bacon/Longman, 2002).

Robbins, Edward and Thompson, Linda, 1989, A study of the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library's Summer Reading Program for Children. ERIC Document ED 316 845

The incentive program: Children were awarded points "based on the number and type of books they read" (p. 4). Points for individual books ranged from five points for preschool picture book to 25 points for a librarian-selected book. Prizes ranged from bookmarks to a fast food children's meal and could also be earned for books read to children by adults.. Robbins and Thompson do not mention if there was any effort made to confirm if the children really read the books they claimed credit for.

Subjects were 44 children in grades 1,2,3. All took the Indiana State Test of Educational Progress as a Pretest in March, 1989, and the California Achievement Test in August, 1989 as a posttest. Note that the pretest was followed by regular school instruction before the summer began.

Results:

1. Gains were unrelated to the number of points gained. Robbins and Thompson reported that among the children who earned more points than average, 34% showed gains or no change on the reading test and 17% got worse. Among those scoring the average number of points or less, 31% gained or did not change, and 17% got worse. The astute reader will note that these percentages do not total 100%. I have no explanation for this.

2. Overall gains: the group improved from the 66th percentile to the 74th percentile on the reading test (combined reading comprehension and vocabulary). Scores for the subtests and individual grades were similar. According to Robbins and Thompson a t-test revealed that the gain was not significant, but no details are provided. Converting these scores to normal curve equivalents, the gain is from 58.7 to 64.5, or 5.8 NCE's, corresponding to an effect size of 5.8/21.06 = .28 (p = .19), a modest effect size that includes zero in its confidence interval.

3. Note that these children were, as a group, above average readers, at the 66th percentile.

The use of rewards did not result in significant gains in this study. There was no comparison group doing pleasure reading and no comparison group doing nothing. Robbins and Thompson conclude that the program helped the children maintain their level of reading; some children show a loss over the summer. But those who show the most losses over the summer are typically those who have little access to books, and who are (therefore) usually poor readers. These children were good readers. Without a comparison group, it is hard to draw any conclusions.

It also needs to be noted that it is possible that there was no real accountability used in this study, such as AR tests. What we can conclude, however, is that a reading program emphasizing rewards was not a spectacular success.

This is the latest in a series of studies on the impact of rewards on reading. In this case, the treatment was successful and included Pizza Hut's Book It! but also included a lot of other things.
I continue to post these summaries because of the overwhelming response to them (two), and because of the amazing popularity of the use of AR and other incentive-based methods.

What Caused the Increase in Reading Enthusiasm?
Stephen Krashen

There is no doubt that Arlene Johnson (Johnson, 1988) succeeded in increasing reading among 25 third graders, described as competent readers (80th percentile on reading tests) who simply were not interested in reading for pleasure.

At the beginning and end of a three month treatment, she gave the children the Hanson Self-Commitment to Independent Reading Scale (see appendix to Johnson, 1988, for the complete questionnaire). Johnson reported on responses to three questions. Children were asked to indicate their agreement, with responses ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always):

1. I like to read during my free time.
2. I wish I had more time for reading.
3. I spend a lot of my spare time reading.

On the pretest, 11/25 children responded "always" to all three items. On the posttest, 25 did.

Johnson asked the children's parents these questions, with possible responses of "often," "seldom," and "never."

After school, does your child
1. read books?
2. read magazines?
3. read the newspaper?

On the pretest, only two parents indicated that their child read books, magazines and the newspaper "often." On the posttest, 20 did.

The teacher was asked to indicate, on a teacher observation checklist, if children were reading during their free time, specifically, whether the child

1. chooses a book to read during free time
2. is observed reading
3. visibly enjoys reading.

At the time of the pretest, eight children were observed reading a book and enjoying it. At the time of the posttest, 20 were.

Johnson thus confirmed that reading enjoyment and actual reading increased using reports from the children, the parents and the teacher.

What was done to cause this increase? Several things:

1. Read alouds: "A story … was read to the class daily until completion. The main character in the story found enjoyment in (the) new found practice of reading for pleasure" (p. 29). In addition, "in the third week …. the teacher started reading a book aloud but did not finish it. Stopping at a point of high interest caused some children to pick up the book to read the ending, just out of curiosity" (p. 24).
2. Sustained silent reading was introduced the second week. Children were free to read anywhere in the room they wanted to.
3. Literature activities, including a day in which children came to school as a character in a book.
4. "Less stress was placed on the completion of workbook pages …" (p. 31).
5. Rewards: The Pizza Hut Book It program was used. "The children were presented with a certificate for a free personal sized pizza at Pizza Hut upon the completion of a certan number of books read during a month's time. Gummy bears were used to reward individual book reading in the Book It reading enhancement program." (p. 25). Johnson notes that participation in this program was voluntary, but does not indicate how many children participated.

Which of these factors was rsponsible for the increased in reading and reading enjoyment? From Johnson's study alone it is impossible tell. There is, however, independent evidence demonstrating the efficacy of read alouds (Bus, Van Ijzendoorn, and Pelligrini, 1995; Block, 1999), the efficacy of SSR (Krashen, 2001) and free voluntary reading in general (Krashen, 1993), and the limitations of skill and drill programs (Garan, 2002) in increasing reading ability. There is also good evidence that readalouds promote enthusiasm for reading (e.g. Trelease, 2001) and that the practice of reading itself is a strong motivator for increasing motivation (e.g. Von Sprecken, Kim and Krashen, 2000; Kim and Krashen, 2000).

There is no independent evidence supporting rewards: No controlled study has shown that students who receive rewards for reading outperform those who do not, or read more, or enjoy reading more.

Blok, Henry, 1999. Reading to young children in educational settings: A meta-analysis of recent research. Language Learning 49 (2): 343-371.
Bus, Adriana, Van Ijzendoorn, Marinus, and Pellegrini, Anthony. 1995. Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research. 65: 1-21.
Garan, Elaine. 2002. Resisting Reading Mandates. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishing Company.
Kim, Jiyoung. and Krashen, Stephen. (2000). Another home run. California English, 6(2): 25
Johnson, Arlene, 1988. Encouraging third grade readers to participate in recreational reading through attitude improvement and motivational techniques. ERIC Document 306 544
Krashen, Stephen. 1993. The Power of Reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Krashen, Stephen. 2001. More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan 83: 119-123.
Trelease, Jim. 2001. The read-aloud handbook. New York: Penguin.Fourth edition.
Von Sprecken, Deborah., Kim, Jiyoung. and Krashen, Stephen. 2000. The home run book: Can one positive reading experience create a reader? California School Library Journal, 23 (2): 8-9.

Another study on accelerated reader. Another failure of AR to make any difference.
Note I am not reviewing the literature selectively, I am not deliberately looking for evidence against AR. This is what is out there.

Rosenheck, Donna, Caldwell, Delina, Calkins, Janet, and Perez, Daniel. 1996. Accelerated reader impact on feelings about reading and library use. ERIC Document 399508.

This study compared the effect of accelerated reader on fifth graders in three schools in Florida. All schools were similar in terms of socioeconomic factors and achievement. No data is presented on school libraries or other sources of books. In one school, AR was required (Edison Park), in another it was voluntary (Franklin Park) and the third (Allen Park) did not use it at all. Rosenheck et. al. compared the three schools in terms of reading enthusiasm and use of the library.

As seen in the table, there were no differences among the three schools in reading enthusiasm and use of the library. In agreement with Krashen and Von Sprecken (2002), students in all three schools were enthusiastic about reading.

Rosenheck et. al. note that they had "no indication of how long any individual student had participated in the Accelerated Reader program. It might be that attitudes take longer to develop …." (p. 12). Of course one could argue that it might also take longer for attitudes to decline. Also lacking are details on AR implementation, whether the program included increased access to books, increased reading time, or just rewards and tests.

Mandatory Optional No AR
number of students in sample 81 72 69
Do you enjoy reading? 86% 90% 91%
reading my favorite activity 9% 13% 15%
checked out 4 or more books last week 10% 6% 5%
checked out 2 or 3 books last week 38% 31% 33%

Krashen, S. and Von Sprecken, D. 2002. Is there a decline in the reading romance? Knowledge Quest 30(3): 11-17.

from the August 23, 2002 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0823/p11s01-coop.html

Christian Science Monitor
Leave no public library behind
By Helen Schary Motro

LIDO BEACH, N.Y. - As a boy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was so poor he worked Saturday mornings shining shoes in the New York neighborhood known as Hell's Kitchen. At noon, he would pick up his shoeshine box, walk to Fifth Avenue, and climb the big staircase between the stone lions into the New York Public Library.

He would check his wooden box into the cloakroom and march off to spend the afternoon among the books as royally as if he were a scion of the millionaires who had helped found the palace of the books.

At the 100th anniversary celebration of the New York Public Library in 1995, Senator Moynihan was an honored speaker.

This fiscal year has seen a 5 percent cut in the budget of the New York Public Library, and an additional retroactive 7.5 percent reduction was recently proposed. That equals a deliberate cut in the future.

I am one of the more than 14 million people who used the New York Public Library last year, as I have been doing since I stood with pounding heart behind the towering desk at the St. Agnes branch, while the librarian tested whether my halting voice could read the library card rules to her satisfaction. I did, and so at age 7, I received my first library card.

To whatever town I moved, my first stop after stocking up on milk and bread was the local library. Each had a distinctive character, from the Hansel and Gretel cottage in Allendale, N.J., to the sleek building exuding entitlement in Scarsdale, N.Y.

The library has fitted itself to the stages of my life, from taking out novels to studying for the bar exam. And not just for reading. Anyone who ducks into the main library over lunch hour this summer can feast his eyes on glass cases featuring an early edition of Dante's Divine Comedy; Columbus's account of his first voyage, printed in 1493; one of the world's 48 remaining Gutenberg Bibles; and a 17th-century Japanese edition of Aesop's fables.

Over the years, I took my own daughters to the children's room, the story hour, the summer reading club. But just as I brought the children there hoping to impart to them my love of books, I also escaped to libraries - to a quiet uninterrupted hour buried in a book while my children stayed home watching television and doing goodness knows what else.

This summer I am back at my local branch - the Allard K. Lowenstein library in Long Beach, Long Island. It is appropriately named, for the user-friendly institution embodies the populist ideals Mr. Lowenstein, the US congressman and activist, stood for.

The summer traffic is lively - teenagers checking out required reading, a stream of people leafing through dog-eared issues of Consumer Reports, the beach crowd searching for quick reads, the elderly laying down their canes beside an upholstered chair to spend the morning perusing the day's papers.

But the library of 2002 is not the place I grew up with. The reading room has been transformed by the 15 computer terminals in high demand from morning until night. The reference librarian has turned into a willy-nilly technology expert, advising one how to look up careers in electrical engineering and another how to access Britannica online.

It is hard to imagine the debate a few years back on whether card catalogues were outmoded. In a flash, the terminals check on any book in print, and show which volumes are available at this branch through check-out or interlibrary loan. In today's library, computers are the indentured servants of the books.

A purist might frown at the popularity of the video section, but might relent when considering the shelves bulging with books on tape, offering everything from self-help to Shakespeare. There are numerous large-print volumes, and books are delivered free to homebound readers.

My young friend embarking on her career as a librarian at the children's room at the branch in Manhattan's Chinatown tells with sparkling eyes of schoolchildren reading English books out loud to their immigrant parents.

We Americans naively look at the library as our birthright, often unaware that a free public library system is far from universal. The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee the freedom to read. But the American library network hands this priceless gift to anyone who's interested upon a silver platter.

It's the last thing that society should diminish. With a library behind him, there's no telling how far a shoeshine boy can go.

o Helen Schary Motro is an American lawyer and columnist living in Israel and New York.

"Independent research reveals districtwide success with Renaissance programs." (www. renlenarn.com).

Clicking on this statement calls up a 192 page article: Smith, Ester, and Clark, Catherine. 2001. School Renaissance Comprehensible Model Evaluation. Prepared for the School Renaissance Institute by the Texas Center for Educational Research.

It is a report of the impact of Accelerated Reader at the McKinley Independent School District, Texas, during the1999-2000 school year. A close look at the report shows that there is no evidence of "district wide success" - only a modest percentage of the students appeared to profit from AR. Although 74% of the students took AR tests, only about 23% of teachers used it "as an integral part" of their reading program. Also, only about 1/3 of those who took the quizes made substantial gains (1.36 years in one year), those scoring on the average 90% and over. The rest gained about one academic year in reading over the year.

Those who did better on the tests and earned more AR points made better gains in reading, but we cannot conclude from this that the AR system succeeded. There is little doubt that those who did better did a lot of reading: Among the 23% of teachers who used AR heavily, 90% reported that their students read 30 minutes a day or more. The same 23% gave responses that suggested more reading was going on outside of school for their students: Over 50% said that parents "have reported that their children are choosing to read more at home" (63/122, 51.6%), p. 93 and that parents "have asked teachers about finding more books for their children to read" (66/122, 54.1%). Also, Smith and Clark report a districtwide gain of eight percentile points on the STAR reading test (publshed by the same company that produces AR).

But there was no control group that was encouraged free voluntary reading without tests and rewards. We do not know if the cause of the gains was the additional reading or the tests and rewards.

According to the report, AR appeared to be tough on librarians at McKinley. Group interviews revealed that librarians "reported that (AR) takes up 50 percent or more of their time, largely due to their associated database responsibilities and the identification and obtaining of books and appropriate tests" (p. 12). Elsewhere, Smith and Clark note that librarians claimed that AR took up between 50 and 80% of their time (p. 141).

Only 39.3% of the 122 heavy users of AR agreed "that AR helped raise student reading achievement above what it would have been without the program" (p. 87), and another 46.7% said it helped "some." This modest endorsement comes from the most enthusiastic subgroup of teachers.

Stephen Krashen

Letters published in reaction to LA Times article about phonics for middle schoolers and high schoolers.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Remedial Reading for Teens
July 27, 2002

I read with great interest "Teens Get a Second Chance at Literacy" (July 21), on the "Language!" program being used in the Los Angeles Unified School District. I used the program this past year with sixth-graders who were two or more years below grade level in reading at the school where I teach in La Mirada. I am an ardent supporter of the program. Students reading at the second- or third-grade level in high school have lots of holes in their literacy education and do need to go back to the beginning to fill them in.
Several of my students and their parents were reticent about reading stories and working on skills that seemed too "babyish" for sixth-graders, so I am sure in high school the reticence is even stronger. However, nothing is more important than getting students to read at the appropriate level. Doing nothing and allowing students to continue to be unable to read "Romeo and Juliet" and other great works of literature when they graduate would be a real tragedy.
Linda Summers
Brea
*
James McPartland of Johns Hopkins University seems to think that "almost every child of [high-school] age can sound out words." Unfortunately, he is mistaken. Time and time again, in my ninth-grade classes at Jefferson High School, I have watched students struggle with texts and give up in frustration.
Students who come to high school with a first- to third-grade reading level almost always lack basic decoding skills, especially if they are asked to attack a sentence or word list at a fluent-reader rate of speed. They need extra help and practice to be able to attack "real reading in real books." The "Language!" program gives them the practice to build those skills. Students are able to practice independent reading, at their level, using a program called Accelerated Reader. In addition, teachers read "real books" out loud to model fluency and then discuss the literary elements of those books with their students, thereby practicing critical thinking skills.
"Language!" is not a phonics program, though it does have elements of phonemic awareness. It addresses grammar, language mechanics, semantic relationships, vocabulary development, morphology, syntax, sentence structure, composition and critical thinking skills. Properly taught, it can make a huge difference for students.
Glenna M. Dumey
National Board Certified
Teacher, Jefferson High School
*
The LAUSD's decision to pump $16 million into phonics for middle and high school students ignores one of the district's major problems: poor libraries. Districts and states that have more books per student in the school library have higher reading scores, even when other factors, such as poverty, are taken into consideration. The average school library in the U.S. has 18 books per child. California is last among states with 12 books per child. The LAUSD has a dismal six books per child.

For the U.S. as a whole, there is one school librarian for every 900 students. California is last in the U.S., with less than one school librarian for every 5,000 students. The LAUSD does not fund a librarian in any of its elementary schools' libraries.
Including some phonics in a basic reading program is a good idea. It is one way of making texts more comprehensible. However, the problem readers in the new program have already had phonics instruction. Remedial readers need lots of interesting and comprehensible reading material. Because California has one of the worst public library systems in the country, and because so many poor readers are children of poverty, this reading material is not easily available outside of school. Improved school libraries are the only chance these children have.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
School of Education, USC

Sent to the LA Times. They just called and said it might appear on Saturday. Or it might not.

To the editor:

LAUSDs decision (Teens get a second chance at literacy, July 21). to pump
$16 million into phonics for middle and high-school students ignores one
of the districts major problems: Poor libraries.

Research shows that districts and states that have more books per student
in the school library have higher reading scores, even when other factors,
such as poverty, are taken into consideration. The average school library
in the US has 18 books per child. California is last among states in the
US with 12 books per child. LAUSD has a dismal six books per child.

Research shows that the presence of a credentialed librarian is related to
better reading achievement. For the US as a whole, there is one school
librarian for every 900 students. California is last in the US with less
than one school librarian for every 5000 students. LAUSD does not fund a
school librarian in any of its elementary school libraries.

Including some phonics in a basic reading program is a good idea. It is
one way of making texts more comprehensible. The Times makes it clear,
however, that the problem readers in the new program have already had
phonics instruction. Remedial readers need lots of interesting and
comprehensible reading material. Because California has one of the worst
public library systems in the country, and because so many poor readers
are children of poverty, this reading material is not easily available
outside of school. Improved school libraries are the only chance these
children have.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

>
> Teens Get a Second Chance at Literacy
> Education: L.A. Unified begins a back-to-basics reading program for
> secondary students. The effort is being watched by districts nationwide
>
ÿ By DUKE HELFAND, TIMES STAFF WRITER
ÿ LA Times July 21, 2002
>
>
> The Los Angeles Unified School District is embarking this month on a
> remedial reading program for 35,000 middle school and high school students
> who lack skills they should have learned by second or third grade.
>
> Educators across the country say the initiative is unusual for its focus
on
> teenagers instead of elementary students, and for the sheer number of
> youngsters involved. Its success or failure, they add, could set the
agenda for other big city school systems.
> At all 123 secondary campuses in the Los Angeles district, the worst
readers in sixth through ninth grades are forgoing electives such as music and art
> to attend mandatory classes as much as two hours a day that stress the
> phonics usually taught to 6-year-olds. English teachers--some reluctantly,
> others enthusiastically--are shelving classics such as "Romeo and Juliet"
> for rudimentary storybooks with big pictures, large print and sentences as
> simple as "Dad had a sad lad." As the students master such materials in
what is called the "Language!" program, their lessons grow more difficult.
>
> Los Angeles Unified leaders say the back-to-basics intervention--which
will cost $16 million this year--is necessary because tens of thousands of
> students drop out or graduate without the skills to succeed in college or
> get good jobs.
>
> Many students, at least during its early phases, say they dislike the
> program and are embarrassed to be in the classes, which they think of as
> special education.
>
> "People think you're dumb. It's little kids' stuff," Delfina Terrazas, a
> ninth-grader at Jefferson High School, said after she practiced the
alphabet on flash cards.
>
> When 13-year-old Damian Polk was asked to sound out "cat, hat and bat"
> during the first week of classes at John Muir Middle School, the
> eighth-grader blurted out: "Are we retarded?"
>
> "Of course you're not retarded," the teacher, Susan Glazebrook assured
> Damian and his classmates. But she told them that they needed help: They
had landed in the class because of their low reading scores on the Stanford 9
> exam.
>
> The nation's secondary schools are filled with struggling readers like
those in Glazebrook's class. These students' academic problems often have been
> overlooked as attention and money focused in recent years on reforms at
the elementary level, experts say.
>
> Teenage illiteracy is now attracting broader attention. The Bush
> administration will convene a meeting of researchers and teachers this
fall to examine the best ways of improving reading beyond the fourth grade. The
> gathering, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, is expected to
> examine the Los Angeles program.
>
> "We're going to look at this closely," Assistant U.S. Secretary of
Education Susan B. Neuman said. "I am very enthusiastic about any kind of
Intervention that squarely takes on this huge problem."
>
> Gerald N. Tirozzi, executive director of the National Assn. of Secondary
> School Principals, agreed. "What Los Angeles is doing is light years ahead
> of what most districts are doing," he said. "I give them huge kudos."
>
> The magnitude of adolescent illiteracy in Los Angeles was demonstrated
> earlier this year when the district tried to establish qualifications for
> enrollment in the new classes. District officials targeted the 67,000
> students entering sixth through ninth grades who scored in or below the
20th percentile in reading on the Stanford 9--those in the bottom fifth.
>
> About half that number were taken off the list, either because they had
> passed a separate third-grade reading test or because they were still
> learning English and qualified for another intervention program. That left
> the 35,000 who will spend the next two years learning how to read all over
> again.
>
> The phonetic exercises that start this month with the most basic lessons
> linking sounds and letters will gradually take on more complex and
> challenging material as students tackle grammar, learn to write essays and
> study methods to improve their comprehension.
>
> Los Angeles Unified is using state and federal money for teachers, their
> training and new books. Those funds could have gone to other programs, but
> the remedial classes are a priority for district Supt. Roy Romer.
>
> "We have to force something to happen for these low-performing
youngsters," he said. "I'm sick at heart that we have kids in secondary schools who
carry around books they can't read."
>
> The intervention comes at an urgent moment for many students.
>
> Starting with this year's 11th-graders, high school students in California
> must pass a rigorous "exit exam" to earn diplomas. Los Angeles Unified
> students performed dismally on a trial run last year: Just 44% of
> ninth-graders who voluntarily took the test passed the language arts
> section. Statewide, 64% of ninth-graders passed.
>
> District officials say they expect slow but steady progress in the
remedial classes, which have as few as 20 students, compared with 35 or more in
other English classes. The lessons also are twice as long as those for other
> classes.
>
> But even with intensive help, students may never fully make up their
missed vocabulary or learn all the history, science and math they missed because
of poor reading skills, teachers say.
>
> "We have so many kids at such a low level that they may never catch up,"
> said Kristin Szilagyi, the English department chairwoman at Marshall High
> School in Los Feliz. "We have to do something for them. I hope this is the
> curriculum that will produce quick results."
>
> The remedial classes are placing new--and sometimes unwelcome--demands on
> English teachers, who must abandon much of the literature they once taught
> and be retrained to lead elementary school-style lessons. Some criticize
the new phonetic materials, calling them "gibberish" and "garbage."
>
> But others say they are keeping an open mind. "At first, my ego got in the
> way. It said, 'C'mon, what am I doing here?' " said Levi Stanton Frisk, an
> English teacher at Van Nuys High School who is teaching two remedial
> classes. "But at the same time I saw the need for this type of program.
And I'm happy to fill it. I can see this is going to work. I believe in it."
>
> Standing at the front of his classroom at 7:30 a.m., Frisk launched into a
> lesson that focused on six consonants and one vowel--B, T, S, C, M, F and
A.
>
> "Say sat," Frisk told his ninth-graders.
>
> "Sat," they responded.
>
> "Say the sounds in sat," he said.
>
> "S-s-a-a-t-t," they chanted.
>
> A couple students yawned. One girl rolled her eyes. But most paid
attention
> and played along as they used hand gestures suggested by the program to
> reinforce each letter. Then Frisk had the students create new words by
> changing the first letters--for example, turning "sat" into "fat." The
class finished with timed tests. The students took turns in pairs, reading as
many words as possible in one minute from lists of 100 that included at, bat,
sat and Sam.
>
> Cynthia Marron correctly read 74 out of 79 words in one minute. But the
> exercise left her frustrated. "All the words look the same to me. They're
> confusing," the 14-year-old said. "They all have A in them." On her second
> try, Cynthia got 97 out of 100 correct. Then she said: "It's too easy. I
> don't consider myself a fast reader, but I can read."
>
> Frisk has been pleased with the progress he has seen in just three weeks.
> "This has to work," he said. "For many of them, it's their last chance."
>
> Parents have the right to refuse their child's enrollment in the classes.
So
> far, none has objected, district officials say.
>
Donjae White is a somewhat reluctant student at John Muir Middle School, putting his head down during his remedial class. But his mother, Mary Willford, is pleased that he's learning phonics over again. Willford said she already sees a difference at home--Donjae uses new words. "It's a very good thing. I say it enhances the skills in his life," she said. "I want him to do well in school and graduate from each grade and go to college. It's very important to me."

About 2,000 schools nationwide are using the "Language!" curriculum for their poor readers. But Los Angeles Unified's is by far the largest and most ambitious effort, officials said. Experts wonder if the school district can succeed on such a large scale and with so many teachers of varying experience. Others question whether the "Language!" program is the solution.

"Phonics is misdirected and will bore the students," said James McPartland, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University. "Almost every child of that age can sound out words. The real way to deal with this is real reading in real books, not exercises on handout sheets."

The Sacramento City Unified School District began remedial reading
programs in its secondary schools five years ago. Today, its eight middle schools
and five high schools all have such classes, serving about 10% of 14,000 secondary students. "We are sending many fewer kids to high school with serious reading problems," said Kathi Cooper, assistant superintendent of instruction. "We have seen enough growth to keep at it."

A handful of Los Angeles schools, including Jefferson High, began the remedial "Language!" classes last year on their own.

Last year's Jefferson ninth-graders resisted, as their peers elsewhere are doing this year. The Jefferson students were embarrassed. They were bored. But they stuck it out and say it helped. "Now I know my nouns, my verbs, my adjectives," said Clara Cuezzy, who is a Jefferson 10th-grader. "My spelling is so much improved."

>Clara's friend, Martin Calzada, used to ditch school because he couldn't keep up in his classes. Now he opens his backpack and shows off a fiction book about fugitive slaves he is reading--at home. "I used to hate reading," he said. "Now it's like my favorite thing."

Education ministry urges children to spend more time reading books
From: Daily Yomiuri (Japan)
Yomiuri Shimbun

The Education, Science and Technology Ministry, in a recently drafted plan, urged primary, middle and high school students to spend more time reading books.

The draft proposes several ways to create comfortable environments for children to be exposed to reading, such as opening school libraries to local residents.

It also suggests that primary, middle and high school students set goals for how many books they want to read before graduating.

The plan, which was drafted based on a law passed in December to encourage children to read more books, is scheduled to be officially announced in August after it is approved by the Cabinet, according to ministry officials.

The plan stressed that students in recent years have been spending less time reading books for pleasure, citing statistics released by the Japan School Library Association.

According to the statistics, 67 percent of surveyed high school students did not read any books for pleasure in May last year, with 43.7 percent of middle school students and 10.5 percent of primary school students surveyed answering that they did not read any books in that month.

Describing reading activities as essential for allowing people to gain "deeper insights into their life," the plan introduces measures to urge children to read more books, as well as ways to implement the measures.

The plan recommended that parents expose their children to books by reading books aloud to them or by setting up special times designated for reading.

In an attempt to encourage children to read books outside their homes, the plan said more schools should have morning reading sessions, which are now held at about 8,000 primary and middle schools.

The plan also proposed opening school libraries to the public. As only 8.9 percent of school libraries are open to the public, the plan proposes asking for volunteers to staff them to make them open for local residents.

In addition, local governments are required to improve public libraries by introducing a computerized search system that connect libraries operated by schools and prefectural and municipal governments.

The plan also states that "the government will make every effort to provide financial help" to carry out the proposed policies.

Published in the San Jose Mercury News, July 17

Libraries still lag

A S the Mercury News noted, some California school libraries are doing
better, but many are not (Page 1A, July 1).

California school libraries only have about 12 books per child. The
national average is 18. There is one school librarian for every 5,300
children in California; the national average is 1/900. California's school
libraries are still the worst in the U.S., our reading scores are still
among the worst in the U.S., and there is abundant research relating
reading achievement with school library quality (that is, the number of
books available in the library and the presence of a certified librarian).

Improving school libraries is especially crucial for poor children, who
often have little to read at home. But school and public libraries in poor
neighborhoods tend to be of poor quality, with fewer books, limited hours,
and substandard staffing. School libraries are indeed improving in
California, but we have a long way to go.

Stephen Krashen
Emeritus professor of education
University of Southern California
Los Angeles

Arizona Republic, Northeast Valley Opinion Section, June 29

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/northeastvalleyopinions/articles/0629scudder0629.html

A different view of reforming education
By John Scudder

June 29, 2002

Recently, Craig Cantoni wrote in these pages about a meal he enjoyed with an educational "expert" - namely, Johanna Haver. Cantoni wrote about a number of suggestions Haver has to fix public education. To no great surprise to many of us, these suggestions all leaned to the far right of educational reform. When I read that article, I vowed that the next time I dined with an educational expert I would similarly describe the conversation.

I had just such a meal recently with Dr. Stephen Krashen, an author, professor and educational thinker. And let's just say his suggestions on literacy and English-as-a-second-language instruction are a bit different from Haver's.

Furthermore, before you write him off as too progressive, please read Krashen's ideas carefully. There may be no stronger advocate for "evidence-based" educational practices, a philosophy that the Bush administration has emphasized consistently. Krashen's educational suggestions are based, not merely on his opinion, but on enormous amounts of valid research.

In an era of harsh cuts to school libraries, Krashen's work on literacy is disturbing. We don't need to spend money on fancy, new reading programs of the week. Agreeing with first lady Laura Bush, Krashen says, "We need more books and better libraries." The commonsensical truth is that when students read more books their fluency, comprehension and grammar improve. Also, research by Keith Curry Lance shows that school libraries with more books and better staffing are related to higher reading test scores.

Put another way: surround kids with interesting reading material and encourage them to read it, and the results are nothing short of literacy. Not to mention that they actually learn to enjoy reading which, of course, fuels more reading.

No population needs this more than the poorest among us. The lowest socioeconomic areas, of course, tend to have the least books in the home and the worst libraries. Krashen argues that it is nearly impossible for these children to develop a thirst for literacy in such a desert of reading material.

He does not dismiss the use of phonics for reading. He points out, however, that most of our knowledge of phonics comes from reading. There is a limited role of phonics knowledge, which makes text more comprehensible, so there is nothing wrong with teaching a child basic sound-spelling correspondences and rules. But this is a far cry from the systematic-phonics-will-save-all fanatics of recent years.

I am reminded here of a friend who swears by systematic phonics for her daughter. Her daughter can recite numerous phonics rules and, by all measures, can read remarkably well for her age. Of course, the little girl also lives in a house full of books, is read to on a daily basis, and is taken weekly to the library. Oops.

So, how would Krashen pay for all of this literacy reform? Probably raising taxes, right? Wrong. He points out that there is already plenty of room in the educational budget for better libraries and more books. With a more judicious use of our technology budgets and a reduction of testing, there would be plenty of funding to develop literacy. Notice that he didn't say, "Eliminate testing." He is opposed not to testing, but to excessive, inappropriate testing. Of which, as any teacher can tell you, there is now plenty.

Krashen's most fascinating work, however, is in the politically charged area of ESL. Amidst the controversy of California's Proposition 227 and Arizona's Proposition 203 and a similar proposition in Colorado, he is a supporter of bilingual education and with good reason. It is simply the best way for non-English speakers to learn English. Bilingual education is not letting children speak their native language without learning English. In fact, correctly done bilingual education uses the native language to accelerate English language development.

A plethora of research, which Krashen is happy to cite, shows that bilingual education is as effective, and oftentimes more effective, than immersion. And forget the
my-grandfather-succeeded-without-bilingual-education argument. The immigrant children who came to the United States early in the last century and did well in school, tended to have literacy in their own language. This is an argument for, not against, bilingual education.

So, why don't we use more bilingual education? The ESL debate as it relates to the ballot box, like so many political issues, is rarely about what works and what doesn't. Frankly, most people don't understand the issue. As I told Krashen, a frighteningly large number of people I talked to who voted for Proposition 203 thought they were voting to make English the official language of Arizona.

So that is it for my meal with Stephen Krashen of the University of Southern California. Perhaps next time - to make things a little more interesting - Craig Cantoni, Johanna Haver, Stephen Krashen and I should all eat together. But who will pick the restaurant?

John Scudder lives in Scottsdale and is a middle school teacher in the Washington Elementary School District. You can e-mail him at scudpolitics@aol.com. The views expressed are those of the author.

Sent to the Miami Herald, June 13, 2002

Sonji Jacobs ("A crisis of literacy for kids," June 10) notes that there has been no decline in reading performance of children in the US over the last few decades; the problem is that the demands for literacy have increased. To be an auto-mechanic today, you must be much more literate than an auto-mechanic was 20 years ago. Jacobs also presents part of the solution, quoting Johns Hopkins professor James McParland, who calls for more emphasis on reading fluency and comprehension in our reading programs.

There is overwhelming evidence that reading fluency and comprehension come from reading itself. Those children who make the slowest progress in learning to read are typically children of poverty who have very little access to reading material at home. Their only source of reading material, quite often, is the library. Susan B. Neuman's research has shown, however, that school and public libraries in poor neighborhoods tend to be of poor quality, with fewer books, limited hours, and substandard staffing. Also, Keith Curry Lance's research shows that better school libraries, those with more books and better staffing, are related to higher reading test scores. First Lady Laura Bush is correct: We need to improve our school libraries, especially in high poverty areas.

Stephen Krashen,. Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Education
University of Southern California

Sent to the Washington Post, June 9, 2002

Brigid Schulte's article, "Trapped between two languages" (June 9, 2002), presents examples of a phenomenon originally described by University of Toronto researcher Jim Cummins: Children can be fluent in conversational English but lack academic English. A major part of the cure is pleasure reading. Oral language (adults talking to adults, adults talking to children, and prime time TV) consists largely of the most frequently used 5000 words; printed texts, including children's books and comic books, include far more uncommon words. Researchers Donald Hayes and Margaret Ahrens of Cornell University have concluded that development of vocabulary beyond the basics "requires extensive reading across a broad range of subjects." These results match the conclusions of many studies associating vocabulary growth, as well as improvement in reading and writing ability, with free voluntary reading.

As Schulte points out, however, as children of poverty, these children often have nothing to read at home. Their only source of reading material is libraries. Susan B. Neuman's research has shown, however, that school and public libraries in poor neighborhoods tend to be of poor quality, with fewer books, limited hours, and substandard staffing. First Lady Laura Bush is correct: We need to improve our school libraries, especially in high-poverty areas.

Stephen Krashen

Trapped Between 2 Languages
Poor and Isolated, Many Immigrants' Children Lack English

Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 9, 2002; Page A01

William Martinez arrived in kindergarten nearly three years ago, knowing just the few words of English -- such as "happy" and "hello" -- he had picked up from TV and the playground. He was put in intensive English language classes that for decades have helped newly arriving immigrants make the transition to America.

But William is not an immigrant. He was born in Gaithersburg. And he is part of the largest and fastest-growing group of children who are learning to speak English in school throughout the Washington region: U.S. citizens.

To local officials and national experts alike, the statistic is startling. "These children are growing up in linguistically isolated households. And if they're isolated, they're probably in poor families," said Michael Fix, an immigration expert at the Urban Institute. "This is amazing. We're not talking East L.A. We're talking Montgomery County, one of the richest counties in the country."

Indeed, in Montgomery and Fairfax counties, about 35 percent of students in English for Speakers of Other Languages, or ESOL, classes are U.S. citizens, a dramatic increase from the mid-1990s. In the District, 37 percent are Americans; and in Prince George's and Arlington counties, nearly half of the children in the specialized classes are.

The statistics speak volumes: These are lives circumscribed by poverty, isolation and inattention. Many of the children spend most of their time in cramped apartments in front of TVs. Many of their parents have little or no education and work hours at low-paying jobs. Many are simply not home when their children are awake.

And most of the children do not have the extensive family networks of more established immigrant communities that can fill in the blanks.

That puts the children at a double disadvantage: Not only have they not learned English, they often don't learn their first language well.

The consequences are just beginning to hit school officials. In tests of language dominance, "quite often, it comes up that they have very small vocabulary in both languages," said Montgomery teacher Nina Klauder. Many have greater difficulty learning to read and write than do recent immigrants, even members of their own families.

The phenomenon calls into question the way schools teach English -- and whether programs designed decades ago primarily for well-educated Cubans fleeing Fidel Castro's regime need to change.

English language teachers say that many of their U.S.-born ESOL students consistently perform poorly on standardized tests, which, in this age of accountability, have become critical in rewarding or punishing teachers, schools and entire districts.

Montgomery County School Superintendent Jerry D. Weast, who promised to close the achievement gap and is instead battling flat and faltering test scores, will present a report Tuesday detailing the shortcomings of the county's ESOL program. "These are invisible kids," he said. "If we don't deal with them well, it's going to affect the quality of education for everyone."

William, now 7, is in second grade at Gaithersburg Elementary School. He now chatters in unaccented English about Britney Spears and how he loves doing the cha-cha slide in P.E. class. But the words he uses are simple, and he often pounds his forehead with his fist as he struggles to find them.

Most times, he mugs, making exaggerated faces in answer to questions.

"Another child, in another environment, would use words to express how they feel," said MariaEstela Merrell, a bilingual social worker who has been working with the boy and his family for a year. "But William just makes these funny faces."

He may sound fluent -- most children can learn to speak a foreign language, particularly "playground English," in one year. But he is struggling in school. It takes five to seven years, research has found, before a child can perform academically in a second language.

His report card shows that he is still far behind native English-speaking classmates, even after being moved into a special classroom ofonly 13 children who need extra help.

A recent language test of his ability to read and write shows why: It was as if he had never seen English. He scored a zero in writing.

William and others like him present a conundrum for teachers: Children who sound fluent when they talk are anything but when it comes to reading and writing. "I was piloting a kindergarten curriculum I thought was too simple," said language teacher Jennifer DeLorge. "But then it surprised me that these kids didn't know basic words, like roof, or pants. It's tricky, because they sound quite fluent."

Much of that apparent fluency comes from watching television. And although Spanish-language TV and American cartoons may help students learn to say words or phrases, it in no way prepares them to read and write. Further, the experience leaves them passive, teachers have found, and unable to carry conversations very far in either language.

At New Hampshire Estates Elementary School in Silver Spring, 200 students are in English language classes. Only 12 are immigrants. On a recent day, a group of 4-year-olds in Head Start preschool, all born here and all struggling with the English language, dug for worms.

One boy yelled, "Ah! Ah! Ah!" His teacher, Kristina Degentesh, looked over. "You found a beetle. Say, 'I found a beetle,' " she told him. A girl pouted and pulled on her own pants. "Is too big." "What's too big?" Degentesh asked. The girl pulled again, silently, at her pants. When another boy flung dirt on others with his shovel, or when some wanted to put worms in a bucket, the children had no words in any language. They filled the air with inarticulate grunts and cries of "Heeeey."

Although there are always exceptions, teachers say they fear many of these children will reject their first language, a typical pattern of assimilation in the United States. And if their English is weak, these children risk becoming "semiliterate."

"They may have some vocabulary in one language and some vocabulary in another and use both when they speak," said Cristina Stern, a longtime ESOL teacher in Montgomery County. "But it's as if they don't have a dominant language. They're not bilingual. They're alingual."

Dispersed Communities

The problem is well established in California and Texas. A 1993 survey found that one-third of the 2.1 million students learning English in U.S. public schools were born in America.

With some exceptions, these students speak their first language relatively well, in part because the immigrant communities in those states are so large, with so many extended family members, friends, churches and services in Spanish, experts say.

But in the Washington region, where the immigrant communities are smaller and dispersed, many immigrant families live not only in poverty, but also in isolation.

For years, the immigrant communities here were highly educated and largely well-heeled. The sons and daughters of bankers, diplomats and scientists entered local public schools and learned English quickly. In a typical program, their ESOL teachers took them out of class for a half-hour a few times a week and concentrated on building words and grammar. Most performed well. Indeed, on some math tests, many outperformed native English-speaking classmates.

But in the 1980s and '90s, more than a quarter-million immigrants came to the Washington area legally, and countless others illegally. And recent studies have found that the Latino immigrants, in particular, tended to be less educated and to earn less than those in the more established Hispanic community. They complained of being trapped in thecirculo cerrado -- or closed circle -- of low-wage jobs because they didn't speak English.

Now their children are arriving in public schools. Many of those children, like William, did not go to preschool. A survey last summer found that 30 percent of Latino children in Montgomery County do not. Many, like William, have been left with babysitters in front of television sets while their parents worked, cleaning houses and offices, working construction or mopping up at Wendy's.

The largest group -- 77 percent -- speaks Spanish at home. The rest, Montgomery County records show, speak just about every language on earth.

"They're catching up their entire careers," said Francisco Millet, who directs ESOL programs in Fairfax County. "And many never do."

In truth, no one really knows just how limited these U.S.-born children are because no one has ever asked the question. Harvard University researchers are just beginning an ambitious, four-year study, in Montgomery County and elsewhere, to pinpoint what exactly appears to put these students at greater disadvantage than not just other American children, but newly arriving immigrants as well.

Synthia Woodcock Dang has taught children from the same immigrant family, some who arrived with their parents and others who were born here. The difference was staggering.

"Even if they come from poverty in their home country, they had grandparents tell them stories and talk back and forth. They went to the market. They had rich experiences," she said. "The siblings born here don't have that. They've been left in day care with no stimulation. No one talks to them."

Isolation -- from the mainstream culture, from extended family -- is one clear cause of children's lack of English skills. And poverty is key. Indeed, in Montgomery County, 70 percent of U.S.-born children who don't speak English are poor, while only about half of foreign-born children are.

If poverty and isolation make the primary language skills weak, learning a second is not a matter of simply translating. It means learning new concepts in a strange tongue.

"What we see are children who have difficulty putting sentences together in either language," said Mathilda Arcineagas, who for 20 years has taught nonnative English speakers. "They're really between two languages."

Seen but Not Heard

A hammock, made of bright red, yellow and blue strands, hangs the length of the living room in William Martinez's Gaithersburg apartment. Red crayon scribbles mark the walls. Damp laundry hangs on a line across the back bedroom he shares with his pregnant mother, his father and his younger brother, Antonio, 4. An older man and his teenage son rent the other bedroom.

It is not difficult to understand how William spent the first five years of his life in a bubble of Spanish. His mother, Petrona Chavez, 34, has learned no English since coming from El Salvador in 1990. "It never occurred to me that I would learn it," she said through a translator.

Throughout the day, the TV is tuned, loudly, to a Spanish channel. The blond brick apartment complex off Diamond Avenue is known as "Little El Salvador" because everyone there speaks Spanish. And on weekends, if William goes out at all, it is to large family gatherings in Frederick, where no English is spoken and children are seen but not heard.

To shop, Petrona can go around the corner to Metro Market, where a Spanish-speaking staff can help her find flour tortillas, annatto seeds, cans of tender cactus, chipotle and 20-pound bags of rice. She goes to Mass on Sunday at St. Martin of Tours Catholic church, where in the last decade the number of Spanish-language Masses has increased from two a day to five a day.

If she needs to send money to her mother, which she has done religiously for 12 years, there are three Western Unions on Summit Avenue that advertise in Spanish.

William's father, William Sr., speaks a little English but has never studied it, figuring he can get by. He works heavy construction, operating an excavator. "I don't need much English, because I do the same job every day, and I know what to do," he said in halting English. But there are times he wishes he knew more: "When I go out to a mall or restaurant, I don't know how to order something. So I always have to eat the same thing at the same place. I go to McDonald's every day."

To understand why 7-year-old William's Spanish is limited is complicated.

His mother spent five years in first grade in a small village outside San Miguel, El Salvador.

She quit school to sell candy on the street with her mother. She learned to read a little, but she never learned to write. And she can't add. At 16, she had her first baby, followed by another. She left her husband, who gambled, and when she wasn't scrubbing the wash with a stone, she worked selling meat and picking cotton.

At that time, a brutal civil war was raging. When Petrona was 22, her father sold a cow to smuggle her and her younger brother north to safety in America. She left her children, 5 and 2, behind.

She made her way to Gaithersburg, where her older brothers had found work, and began cleaning houses during the day and office buildings at night. In 1993, she married William Sr., and they began their family. Petrona had to keep working to support the children she left behind. Almost everything she earned, $300 a month, went to El Salvador.

She was rarely home with William. And after she had Antonio, she was hospitalized with severe postpartum depression. For a year, the boys stayed with a babysitter Petrona knows only as "Senora Mexicana."

After she returned home, little changed. She worked at a Wendy's, often until 10 p.m. She worked weekends. William Sr., who has a sixth-grade education, was not much involved. Antonio did not start to speak until he was 2 1/2. At 3, he could barely put three words together in Spanish. Petrona rarely spoke to the boys except to correct them. The boys watched hours of television.

Language, any language, develops through interaction, experts say, in expressing meaningful experiences to important people. William and Antonio never had the chance.

They are not the only ones. Maria Malagon, Montgomery's director of English language programs, asked the mother of a silent child if the girl talked at home. "You'd have to ask her sister," the mother said. She is never home when the child is awake.

VyVy Pham was born in Silver Spring. At 9, she is now a soft-spoken fourth-grader at Christa McAuliffe Elementary in Germantown. And she is in her fifth year of English language classes. Most children take just two or three.

VyVy's English is limited because the only time she hears it is at school. And her Vietnamese is as limited as her mother's life was constrained by poverty.

Chi Pham, 34, an Amerasian who speaks not a word of English, has worked as a babysitter, has been on welfare and now cleans up at a nearby Roy Roger's.

VyVy's recent report card showed she is trying hard in school but often doesn't do her homework. "Please read at home!" her teacher, Jim Fritzinger, wrote. But there are no books in the spare three-bedroom townhouse the Phams share with another family. And Chi Pham can't read.

William's first-grade teacher, Greg Shinsky, is troubled that more and more children have such a small window on the world. They don't know words such as whisker or flower girl.

"When we read books," he said, "it's just painfully clear that they haven't had any experiences."

Margaret Van Buskirk, who has taught ESOL for years, describes them this way: "They're not children of the Third World," she said. "They're children of the Fourth."

Taking a Step to Help

In a makeshift classroom in a trailer behind William's school, Petrona Chavez sat hunched over a piece of oversize paper with wide lines, the kind that kindergartners use to write their first alphabet. And that was what Petrona was doing. In Spanish.

For the past year, Petrona has been trying to change. She has been coming to Gaithersburg Elementary's Parent Resource Center to learn how to read and write in Spanish. Teachers say that is the only way she will ever begin to learn English.

Social workers with Even Start, the federal family literacy project, have been working with her at home, encouraging her to turn the TV off, to talk to her boys, to take them to the park.

Now home because of a difficult pregnancy, she has been carefully pronouncing Spanish words for Antonio and has registered him for Head Start. She no longer pulls William out of school to be her translator. He goes to homework club. And on Fridays, she has been learning how to get down on the floor and play with Antonio.

It has not been easy.

"This is not like how it was when I grew up, where kids just crawled around on the dirt floor, and if they put something dirty in their mouths, it was okay," she said through a translator. "I'm realizing kids don't just raise themselves."

The realization came hard, last year, when William was acting up in school, using bad words on the playground and disrupting class. She had come to America for a better life, to find hope away from sadness, if not for herself, then for her children. If her luck was to change, she would have to.

"I don't want them to have the hard life that I have had," she said.

She has come far. But there is still a long way to go.

Back in their cramped apartment, Petrona began cooking rice and beans for dinner. Antonio took crayons and began to draw.

When asked which was his favorite color, Antonio quickly grabbed the red crayon.

"West!" he said emphatically.

"His favorite TV show is 'Power Rangers,' " William explained. "The red one's name is West."

Antonio raced around the room with the red crayon, proudly calling, "West! West!"

Tomorrow: A team of researchers recommends that Montgomery County overhaul its ESOL programs.

More on the confusion generated by the National Reading Panel. Original letters appearing in Ed Week reposted after these three letters. Note also that Laura Bush now strongly supports school libraries.

June 5, Letters to the Editor
Education Week.

Reading Report:
Add an Addendum: Common Sense
To the Editor:

I read with fascination Timothy Shanahan's recent letter about the National Reading Panel's findings on the role of independent reading ("Reading Report's Unending Debate," Commentary, May 22, 2002). To be fair, I can only imagine the gargantuan task and the political pressure that the NRP members faced when they were placed on that panel. However, I am wondering if they were all in the same room, participating in the same discussion, about the same topics.

Every time I read or hear a comment by one of the panel's members (and now by any of the Reading First folks in Washington) on the findings of the NRP report, yet another differing interpretation of some fine point is offered. In fact, contradictions seem to be the rule of the day when discussing the interpretations of the NRP report and the Reading First legislation. Those of us who are charged with actual implementation are becoming more than frustrated with this debate.

The controversy about independent reading is especially troubling. Mr. Shanahan says, "The issue that the NRP studied was not whether independent reading had value, but what school efforts lead children to increase their amount of reading." He compares programs to encourage reading to schemes to encourage children to eat a balanced diet, and further admonishes us that "likewise, no matter what the benefits of [independent] reading-and they appear to be extensive-not all plans for encouraging kids to read more are likely to work."

Can this statement possibly be interpreted to mean that children should be discouraged from reading during the school day at all? Knowing Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Susan Neuman's admirable research on the correlation of access to books and reading achievement, I would certainly think not. Yet, as a member of my state Reading Leadership committee, I have traveled to Washington twice to listen to Reading First presentations about the new reading law. On one occasion (Feb. 13, 2002), an assembly of state representatives of which I was part was told explicitly by one of the Reading First presenters, "There is no room for independent reading during the school day."

If Mr. Shanahan's statements are true, and the NRP looked only at research regarding programs to encourage independent reading, someone should inform the Reading First committee. It appears that the National Reading Panel members who produced the original report and the Reading First committee in Washington that is interpreting the law based on the report need to get on the same page (if a book metaphor can be permitted).

I shudder to think that any state official or school administrator, believing that Washington really does know all the answers for the reading education of all children everywhere, may be taking books out of the classrooms, hands, and minds of children based on such irresponsible statements. As one part of a balanced literacy program, children need to be surrounded by books of all kinds, sizes, and shapes and given time to read them to become readers. We owe it to our children to use not only "science," but also common sense.

Brenda Overturf
Gheens Academy
Louisville, Ky.

To the Editor:

In his May 22, 2002, letter to the editor, Timothy Shanahan seems to retreat from the document that he helped author. He claims that the benefits of independent reading "appear to be extensive," yet the report found that several commonly adopted programs do not succeed in developing this habit in students. The report, Mr. Shanahan claims, does not question the value of independent reading- only the efficacy of programs designed to foster it.

In fact, the report goes beyond its examination of particular programs to question the value of independent reading itself (Pages 12-13 of the short report). The authors speculate that independent reading may be an effect of reading proficiency (good readers read a lot), rather than a cause of proficient reading (reading a lot produces good readers). It's like arguing that boys who play a lot of playground basketball do so because they possess basketball skills, but that the extensive playing may not further develop those skills.

Consequently, the report does not assert that the benefits of independent reading are "extensive"; it claims they are unproven and perhaps inconsequential.

I can understand Mr. Shanahan's desire to reshape this conclusion, but it's too late to rewrite the report now.

Thomas Newkirk
Director of Literacy Institutes
University of New Hampshire
Durham, N.H.

To the Editor:

In separate letters to Education Week, both Patrick Groff ("'Guided Oral' Vs. 'Free Silent' Reading," Commentary, May 1, 2002) and Timothy Shanahan ("Reading Report's Unending Debate," Commentary, May 22, 2002) accuse me of misinterpreting the National Reading Panel report. I summarized the National Reading Panel's conclusions as follows: " ... there is no clear evidence that getting children to read more actually improves reading achievement" ("'Free Reading' Promotes Literacy," Commentary, April 10, 2002.). This is what the NRP said. Here is a direct quote from the report: "Based on the existing evidence, the NRP can only indicate that while encouraging children to read might be beneficial, research has not yet demonstrated this in a clear and convincing manner."

Mr. Shanahan makes it clear in his letter, however, that this is not his interpretation, that the report only concluded that certain ways of encouraging reading may not be effective, repeating the NRP's claim that programs such as sustained silent reading do not result in more reading or better reading. I have argued that this conclusion is incorrect, in several letters to Education Week and in a detailed article in the Phi Delta Kappan. The NRP missed a lot of studies (including all studies involving second-language acquirers) and misreported several of the studies the panelists did include.

Mr. Groff claims that the NRP found that "guided oral reading" is more effective than free voluntary reading. This is not correct. Sustained silent reading and guided oral reading were never compared with each other; each was compared with other treatments, typically traditional basal methods.

Finally, Mr. Shanahan refers to his conclusions as "frank information" and criticisms as "slippery arguments and overblown claims." This kind of name-calling is inaccurate, uncalled for, and unprofessional.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
School of Education
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, Calif.

Shanahan's letter

May 22, 2002

Reading Report's Unending Debate
To the Editor:

Recently, you have published a spate of letters and a Commentary essay on the National Reading Panel findings concerning the role that free or independent reading plays in reading development ("'Free Reading' Promotes Literacy," Letters, April 10, 2002; "Reading and the Limits of Science," Commentary, April 24, 2002; "'Guided Oral' Vs. 'Free Silent' Reading," Letters, May 1, 2002). It is not surprising that this part of the NRP report is creating such a stir, given the widespread practice of assigning independent reading during the school day.

What is surprising is that much of the discussion is based on an evident misunderstanding of what the National Reading Panel actually did in this area. For example, Stephen Krashen claims in a letter that the NRP found "that there is no clear evidence that getting children to read more actually improves reading achievement," and Thomas Newkirk asserts in his Commentary that the "report stunningly fails to find any solid evidence in support of independent reading." These are fascinating claims, given that the NRP did not study independent reading.

What the panel did study was the efficacy of various procedures and programs used to encourage children to read more. The issue that the NRP studied was not whether independent reading had value, but what school efforts lead children to increase their amount of reading. The NRP examined the research on procedures like SSR (sustained silent reading) and DEAR (drop everything and read), which set aside time within the school day for free reading, commercial programs aimed at encouraging more reading, and various incentive plans.

The conclusion: None of these programs or procedures has proven that it effectively gets students to read more and, consequently, to read better. The NRP did not reject the possibility that some procedures might succeed in encouraging reading, and it called for more research on the issue.

Nutritionists widely agree that balanced diets promote health and fitness. That does not mean that all schemes aimed at encouraging children to eat better will have that result. Likewise, no matter what the benefits of reading-and they appear to be extensive-not all plans for encouraging kids to read more are likely to work. Schools should be cautious about adopting such uncharted schemes on a large scale, especially if they lead to less instructional time for children.

In any event, schools will be better served by frank information of this type than by slippery arguments and overblown claims.

Timothy Shanahan
Executive Director
Chicago Reading Initiative
Chicago Public Schools
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, Ill.

Groff's letter:

'Guided Oral' Vs. 'Free Silent' Reading

To the Editor:

The report of the National Reading Panel does not object to the idea that "students who read better also write better, have larger vocabularies, and better grammar," Stephen Krashen's view to the contrary notwithstanding ("'Free Reading' Promotes Literacy," Letters, April 10, 2002.) Nor does this selective recent survey of the latest relevant experimental research findings refute the conclusion that "getting children to read more actually improves reading achievement," as Mr. Krashen claims.

Since Mr. Krashen remains "an unrepentant supporter of whole language" reading teaching, it is not surprising that he objects to direct, intensive, systematic, early, and comprehensive (DISEC) instruction of a prearranged hierarchy of discrete reading skills. It is his prerogative to do so. However, his misinterpretation of the NRP's defense of DISEC instruction must not pass unchallenged.

Patrick Groff
Professor Emeritus of Education
San Diego State University
San Diego, Calif.

US 15 year olds read OK: No literacy crisis
Stephen Krashen

The US did not do badly in the recent International Comparisons for
Reading among 15 year olds (called PISA, for Programme for International
Student Assessment). Without considering out-of-school factors, the US
falls in the middle of the 30 countries in the study. When one considers
these factors, the US easily makes the upper one-third.

In overall reading, students in 12 countries did better, and students in
14 countries did worse. The US was tied with four other countries in the
middle of the pack. The test was designed to have a mean of 500, with
two-thirds of the students scoring between 400 and 600. The average US
score was 504. The top three scorers were Finland (546), Canada (534), and
New Zealand (529), and the bottom three were Luxembourg (441), Mexico
(422) and Brazil (396).

The PISA team found that several family and background factors contributed
to reading performance. Those who scored lower tended to have more
siblings, were more likely to be foreign-born, were more likely to be in
single-parent families, have parents with lower paying jobs and less
schooling, have fewer educational resources in the home (desk, calculator,
dictionary, textbook), and fewer cultural possessions in the home
(classical literature, books of poetry, art). (1)

When scores were adjusted for these factors, the US did better, with an
adjusted average of 512. Considering adjusted scores, only eight countries
were clearly better and 18 were worse. The gap between the US and Finland,
the highest scoring country, was reduced from 42 to 31 points. The next
highest scoring country, Japan, at 534 points (adjusted score), was 22
points ahead of the US adjusted score, not a huge difference on a test in
which the lowest 5% of the lowest scoring country averaged 255 and the top
5% of the highest scoring country scored 681 (unadjusted scores).

This is hardly evidence for a literacy crisis.

PICA (Programme for International Student Assessment) (2001). Knowledge
and Skills for Life: First Results from PISA. Paris: Organization for
Economic Co-Operation and Development.

1. Surprisingly, PISA did not consider what may be the most important
background factor: the availability of reading material. The school
library was one of several factors in the PISAs measure of school
resources, but this category also included computers, calculators, and
laboratories. In addition, only instructional resources in the library
were considered.

Another Urban Legend.
Did test scores plummet in California because of whole language? Was Humphrey Bogart the original Gerber baby? Are there alligators in the sewers of New York?

Stephen Krashen
Rethinking Schools (in press)

Thanks to pack journalism (one major newspaper prints a sensational story and others believe it and report it as "news"), it is now generally accepted that test scores dropped dramatically in California in the late 1980's and early 1990's and the cause was the introduction of whole language, a fuzzy-minded method of teaching reading that forbids the teaching of phonics and spelling, and that asks children to read texts that are completely incomprehensible.

None of this is true. It is, in fact, an urban legend, one that competes with alligators in the sewers of New York, and that Humphrey Bogart was the original Gerber baby. Let's look at each aspect of the legend.

Did California adopt whole language? Many writers claim that whole language was introduced in California by the California Language Arts Committee that met in 1987. I served on that committee. To my knowledge, we never used the words "whole language" in our discussions and the phrase does not appear in our report. We said that language arts should be literature-based. This is hardly a radical position.

Were phonics and spelling banned in California? No surveys were done. We have no idea if teachers changed their teaching or not. There is, in fact, no evidence that whole language was ever widespread in California.

Did test scores plummet? What is true is that in 1992 California's fourth graders ranked last the US on the NAEP test of reading comprehension. But this was the first time the NAEP scores had been presented by individual states. Critics of whole language assumed that things had been better before, that there was a decline, but they had no basis for making this assumption. In his book The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions (a book I usually refer to as The Pelican Brief), Jeff McQuillan examined reading comprehension scores from another test, the CAP test, from 1984 to 1990. McQuillan found no evidence that scores had decreased or increased in California in all grades tested, grades three, six, eight and 12. California's reading scores were low well before the framework committee met in 1987.

And they are still low: NAEP tests administered in 1994 and 1998 have shown no gains at all for California.

Why are California's scores so low? McQuillan provides overwhelming evidence that California's low scores are due to its pathetic print environment. Let's examine every possible source of reading material for children, and we will see that in each case, California ranks at or near the bottom of the country.

School libraries: California has the worst school libraries in the country. The national average for elementary schools is 18 books per child. California now has 12 books per child (down from 13 per child ten years ago), and LAUSD has only six books per child. These are disgraceful statistics for a state that eagerly spends millions on testing. In the US, there is one school librarian for every 900 students. In California the ratio is one for every 5000.

School libraries are important: Keith Curry Lance and his associates found that Colorado schools with better school libraries (with better staffing and better collections) had higher reading scores, even when factors such as poverty and availability of computers were controlled. Lance's Colorado results have been replicated in several other states, by Lance himself as well as by other scholars and are consistent with studies done by McQuillan and by me: We found that states with better school and public libraries earned higher scores on the NAEP fourth grade reading examination.

Public libraries: According to data published in 1997 by the National Center for Educational Statistics, California's public libraries have 1.9 volumes per capita, compared to the national average of 2.8. Only three states are worse. California's public libraries circulate 4.9 books per capita per year, compared to the national average of 6.6. Only ten states are lower.

Books in the home: McQuillan reported that California ranked near the bottom of the country in the percentage of homes with more than 25 books. Of course, books in the home is directly linked to poverty: California now ranks in the bottom eight of the country in terms of percentage of children ages 5-17 living in poverty.

These print access variables are strongly correlated with NAEP reading scores. McQuillan reported a .85 correlation between measures of print access (books and other forms of print available in the home, school and community) and 1994 NAEP scores. Even controlling for poverty, the correlation remained high (r = .63). Independent research supports McQuillan's analysis. There is excellent evidence that children with more access to books read more and that children who read more make superior gains in literacy development.

What's the obvious cure? Better school libraries (and of course better classroom libraries). We have no control over public libraries and no control over books in the home, but we can easily improve school libraries. For many children of poverty, school libraries are the only possible source of books. A modest investment, a fraction of what we cheerfully pay for testing and technology, can have a profound effect on the print environment. There is no evidence that increased testing works, and no evidence that computers have ever had any effect on reading ability. But there is tremendous evidence that access to books and actual reading are good for you.

Of course, the public's view is that the cure is increased phonics and other forms of direct instruction. Nobody has denied the value of teaching some phonics, of giving students some conscious knowledge of sound-spelling correspondences. Frank Smith, in Understanding Reading, points out that some knowledge of phonics can help make texts more comprehensible. Smith points out, however, that there are severe limits on how much phonics can be taught directly: the rules are complex and have numerous exceptions. Smith argues that most of our knowledge of phonics is the result of reading and not the cause. The rules of phonics also have limited applicability. Elaine Garan (see her book, Resisting Reading Mandates) has also concluded that in grade 2 and higher, children who have participated in intensive phonics programs do not do significantly better than those with less intensive phonics on tests of reading comprehension. What is clear is that children who read more read better, write better, spell better, have better control of grammar, and have larger vocabularies.

Humphrey Bogart was not the original Gerber baby. There is no evidence that alligators live in the sewers of New York City. And the urban legend that whole language caused California's reading scores to plummet is false. Reading scores were low well before the Language Arts Framework Committee met in 1987, and there is compelling evidence that California's low scores are related its impoverished print environment. There is also no compelling evidence that the cure is more phonics. The skills hysteria that has gripped California and other states has no basis.

Postscript: A word on whole language. Whole language has been badly mischaracterized by the media. It certainly does not forbid the teaching of phonics. The core of whole language is the hypothesis that we learn to read by understanding texts. Phonics is one way of doing this, but there are of course other ways, such as supplying background information. Whole language teachers do not force children to deal with incomprehensible texts; rather, they provide interesting texts and help children understand them.

More on the SSR Debate 12 April 0
April 10, 2002
Published in Education Weeki

'Free Reading'
Promotes Literacy
To the Editor:

In an earlier letter, I claimed that students who read better also write
better, have larger vocabularies, and better grammar ("Science Supports
Whole Language," Letters, March 13, 2002). Patrick Groff says in response
("Whole Language and Its Platitudes," Letters, March 27, 2002) that I
"falsely complain" that the National Reading Panel disagreed. But they
did.

In its section on "Fluency," the panel reached the startling conclusion
that there is no clear evidence that getting children to read more
actually improves reading achievement. In its review of sustained silent
reading, or SSR, research, the NRP found only 14 comparisons in which
those in SSR were compared with those in traditional instruction. None
were long-term. Readers did better in four cases and there was no
difference in 10. The panel concluded that this "handful" of studies
raises "serious questions" about the efficacy of sustained silent reading.

Mr. Groff accuses whole- language supporters of ignoring the "scientific
study of literacy development." He should be interested to know that I, an
unrepentant supporter of whole language, have reviewed the experimental
literature and have concluded that the NRP's conclusion is incorrect. In a
paper in the Phi Delta Kappan (October, 2001), I reported that students
who participated in sustained-silent- reading programs read as well as or
better than those in comparison groups in 51 out of 54 comparisons. In
studies lasting longer than an academic year, those in SSR outperformed
comparison students in eight out of 10 comparisons, with two comparisons
showing no difference.

(Note that a finding of "no difference" suggests that free reading is just
as effective as traditional instruction. Because it is so much more
pleasant than traditional instruction and also provides students with
valuable information and insights, a finding of no difference supports the
use of sustained silent reading. It also confirms that free reading does
indeed result in literacy growth.)

The case for free voluntary reading does not rest entirely on studies of
sustained silent reading. There are numerous case histories, correlational
studies, and other experimental studies that support recreational reading,
as well as studies showing that those with more access to books (for
example, those who attend schools with better school libraries) do better
on tests of reading comprehension. The National Reading Panel, in addition
to missing most of the research on sustained silent reading, disregarded
this research as well.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
School of Education
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, Calif.

Sent to Education Week, March 27, 2001

To the editor:

I claimed that students who read better also write better, have larger vocabularies, and better grammar ("Science supports whole language," March 13). Patrick Goff ("Whole language and its platitudes," March 27) says I "falsely complain" that the National Reading Panel (NRP) disagreed. But they did. In their section on "Fluency," the panel reached the startling conclusion that there is no clear evidence that getting children to read more actually improves reading achievement. In their review of sustained silent reading (SSR) research, the NRP found only 14 comparisons in which those in SSR were compared to those in traditional instruction. None were long term. Readers did better in four cases and there was no difference in 10. They concluded that this "handful" of studies raises "serious questions" about the efficacy of sustained silent reading.

Goff accuses whole language supporters as ignoring the "scientific study of literacy development." He should be interested to know that I, an unrepentant supporter of whole language, have reviewed the experimental literature and have concluded that the NRP's conclusion is incorrect. In a paper in the Phi Delta Kappan (October, 2001), I reported that students who participated in sustained silent reading programs read as well as or better than those in comparison groups in 51 out of 54 comparisons. In studies lasting longer than an academic year, those in SSR outperformed comparison students in eight out of ten comparisons, with two comparisons showing no difference.

(Note that a finding of "no difference" suggests that free reading is just as effective as traditional instruction. Because it is so much more pleasant than traditional instruction and also provides students with valuable information and insights, a finding of no difference supports the use of sustained silent reading. It also confirms that free reading does indeed result in literacy growth.)

The case for free voluntary reading does not rest entirely on studies of sustained silent reading. There are numerous case histories, correlational studies, and other experimental studies that support recreational reading, as well as studies showing that those with more access to books (e.g. those who attend schools with better school libraries) do better on tests of reading comprehension. The National Reading Panel, in addition to missing most of the research on sustained silent reading, disregarded this research as well.

Stephen Krashen

To the Editor:

The letter by emeritus professor Stephen Krashen that claims (as its headline reads) "Science Supports Whole Language" (March 13, 2002) is typical of the unsatisfactory manner in which supporters of whole-language literacy instruction now deal with this issue.

At first, the whole-language movement averred that scientific study of literacy development was ipso facto bogus. At least this was a logical position to take, since none of the unique principles or novel practices of whole-language literacy instruction are corroborated by relevant empirical evidence.

Professor Krashen attempts to skirt around that fact by contending that the "core hypothesis" of whole language is that "literacy is developed by understanding texts." In truth, of course, literacy is the ability to understand the meanings in texts intended by their authors. Thus, all that Mr. Krashen actually offers is the unavoidable platitude that being literate acts to make one more literate.

Finally, Mr. Krashen falsely complains that the report of the National Reading Panel did not conclude that students who "read better" also "write better, have larger vocabularies, and have more control over complex grammatical constructions." That has been common knowledge among teachers since long before either whole language or the National Reading Panel.

Patrick Groff
Professor Emeritus of Education
San Diego State University
San Diego, Calif.

Spend money on books, not programs

Sent to the Washington Post, March 19, 2002

The Post's article on giving children rewards for reading ("Heavy reading reaps benefits," March 19) does not include the scientific research. The research says that students who receive rewards for reading do not read better or read more than those who do not. There is, however, plenty of evidence that reading itself encourages more reading; for example, children who participate in sustained silent reading programs read more on their own than those who do not, even years after the program ends. This research suggests that when programs such as Accelerated Reader and Reading Counts! appear to work it is because of the increased access to interesting books, not the tests and rewards. The money spent on such programs might be better spent on books.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
USC School of Education

Heavy Reading Reaps Rewards
Computer-Based Programs Help Students Learn to Love Books, but Others Question Point System

By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 19, 2002; Page A11

Tom Clancy's big, best-selling "Executive Orders" rates 78 points, while Stephen Crane's classic but short "The Red Badge of Courage" earns students only eight points. Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" nets just four points.

In the latest bid to turn a generation of TV viewers into avid readers, schools across the Washington region, as well as the rest of the nation, have adopted programs that reward students with points - and sometimes candy - for the books they read and the computer tests they take to measure their comprehension.

The programs have proved huge hits, with educators and parents agreeing that students are picking up more and more books.

"It really turns on the love of reading," said Susan Porter, principal of Potomac View Elementary School in Prince William County, where test scores have soared since a program called Accelerated Reader was installed.

Patrick Pope, principal of Hardy Middle School in the District, uses a similar program, Scholastic Reading Counts! "We now have over 700 library books and computer tests available for the kids," he said. "It has been very successful in motivating and helping kids keep track."

But some parents, and even some students, have begun to question the points assigned to various books through a system which seems weighted more to the length of the volume than the strength of the prose.

"It's the style of the writing that is important," said Nicholas Engle, a seventh-grader at George Washington Middle School in Alexandria who has piled up more than 400 points, "not how many words or how many pages there are in the book."

His mother, Janet Engle, agreed that reading should be more than a point-scoring exercise. "I believe that even with a simple book, you could ask the kind of questions that would show it to be a quality work," she said.

John T. Guthrie, a human development professor at the University of Maryland, said there is little research indicating whether such incentive programs have more success producing active readers than other methods, but "there are cases where kids start reading for points and get hooked on a book." Chris Thaiss, chairman of George Mason University's English Department, said he applauds any effort to reduce the number of students "coming into college who just don't have a habit of reading."

Beth Tuttle said her daughter Maggie Carragher, a sixth-grader at George Washington, "is a significantly more motivated reader" after using the Accelerated Reader program. "She is choosing her own books and reading for the love of reading, not because the teacher said she had to read every night."

Judi and Terry Paul, the Wisconsin couple who invented Accelerated Reader in 1984 to help their youngest child, describe it as a way to give students instant feedback on their work and liberate teachers from having to keep every child on the same page as they move through their lessons.

Education technology experts say the Pauls' approach is one of the most successful computer-based learning programs in the country - and one of the few to show results that go beyond teaching students how to use a computer.

Guthrie, who has observed the programs in several schools, said they not only encourage more reading, but also insist on checking comprehension with computerized tests. "It is not just completing the task, but demonstrating some understanding," he said.

Accelerated Reader is produced by Renaissance Learning, launched by Judi Paul in 1986. Terry Paul, her husband, said the program is used in 55,000 schools. Harry Barfoot, who runs Scholastic Reading Counts! for New York-based Scholastic Inc., said his program is in fewer schools but the numbers are also in the five digits.

Both companies let local schools and teachers decide whether to give students prizes for accumulating reading points. Nicholas Engle said he has received nothing but teacher approval for his large point total. But at Potomac View Elementary, fifth-grader Christopher Hancock said he turned in points in exchange for a toy and sour-apple-flavored candy.

Crystal Kicherer, who is in Hancock's class, said she had accumulated 45 points and likes the tests that she takes after reading each book. "It helps you to really pay attention," she said.

The formula for determining the points awarded for each Accelerated Reader book is 10 plus a factor measuring reading difficulty multiplied by the number of words and divided by 100,000. Scholastic Reading Counts! has a slightly different formula, but it produces similar results. On its list, Clancy's "Executive Orders" earns 87 points; for Crane's "The Red Badge of Courage," 10.

In Accelerated Reader, students do not receive the full point count unless they do well on the quick computerized test. Readers who do well at one level of difficulty are encouraged to move to the next level. Those who have trouble with English receive extra help. Madeline Udell, a fifth-grade teacher at Potomac View who supervises her students' daily hour of individual reading, sits at her desk and helps slower students as they read aloud.

"Everyone gets to read something at their level and have success with it," Udell said.

At Potomac View, where Accelerated Reader was introduced five years ago, the passing rate for fifth-grade English on the Virginia Standards of Learning test has jumped from 61 percent to 81 percent in just two years; in social studies, it has gone from 37 percent to 61 percent. The passing rate on the math portion has also jumped - from 21 percent to 56 percent - as the school has employed an Accelerated Math program that also allows students to go at their own pace.

Guthrie, from Maryland's College of Education, said if carefully supervised by teachers, the point system will not be harmful, although he has heard of a primary school student with an eight-point book teasing a classmate with only a three-point book. "A little status-seeking like that is a potential hazard," he said.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

School libraries lacking

Shortage of librarians, books, puts Mass. near bottom of list

By Sandy Coleman, Globe Staff, 3/17/2002

The new library at the Veterans' Memorial School in Saugus looks perfect. Strategically placed near the school's entrance, it is meant to be the center of student life. Light pours in through towering windows. A patio invites outdoor reading in warm weather. Slick blond wood tables and chairs beckon.

But one key element is missing from the image - a full-time, professional librarian.

After spending $12.4 million to rebuild the school and create the library, Veterans' Memorial cannot afford to hire one. And, despite $75,000 spent on 10,000 new books - chosen without a librarian's expertise - the new shelves remain mostly empty.

Across the state, public school libraries are struggling, facing what librarians insist is a crisis that threatens to undermine the very academic skills education reform hoped to build up. There is no state mandate to fund libraries, so many remain neglected - and superintendents readily admit they will take the biggest hit in budget crunches like the current one.

''We have had to make some choices, not good choices, to get to the bottom line,'' said Charlotte Sciola, Saugus's assistant school superintendent.

Funding shortages are keeping Massachusetts near the bottom of state-by-state rankings of school libraries. Even as Laura Bush pushes a national $10 million initiative to recruit a new generation of librarians, Bridgewater State College may shut down its library science program because it is so underenrolled.

Interest in the job is lagging, said Ronald Cromwell, dean of Bridgewater State College's school of education, one of the state's main public teacher training schools. At most, five graduates a year enroll in the library science program, and it's hard to find faculty to teach the subject.

Research published in this month's issue of American Libraries magazine shows that based on 1990 Census data, 57 percent of professional librarians (including those in schools and in public libraries) will reach retirement age between 2005 and 2019.

Adding to the litany of woes: Book collections in many libraries are so old that man is depicted as still thinking about going to the moon and African-Americans remain Negroes. Also, librarians say, technology threatens to undermine the teaching of information gathering, because some see librarians and books as less important now that the Internet's reach is so wide.

In a survey last year on superintendents' perceptions of libraries, James Baughman, head of Simmons College Graduate School of Library and Information Science, found that nearly all of the 171 superintendents who responded agreed that every student should have access to a good library program. But libraries were ranked fifth on a scale of 5 of what is important to a school district's budget. Class size was number one.

Ending up last on the list is the reason the 800-member Massachusetts School Library Media Association has started aggressively lobbying legislators. The group is pushing a bill that would mandate a certain amount of money per child in each district for library materials, as well as legislation that would add wording to the state's 1993 Education Reform Law, saying librarians are essential and thus entitled to funding.

The overarching problem, say librarians and parents, is a lack of understanding of the job and the place. Many people still have a 1950s view of librarians as people who simply check out books, said Joan Gallagher, the group's past president and legislative liaison.

These days, a good librarian, who is certified through the state Department of Education, has a master's degree and is a teaching partner with the classroom teacher, said Gallagher. She is rebuilding Somerville public school libraries with $215,000 after years of stagnant funding.

Gallagher and other librarians acknowledged the bad timing amidst budget cuts, but ''we have to educate policy makers,'' she said.

And they say they have plenty of stories statewide of trouble unfolding in public school libraries.

Northampton elementary schools no longer have a librarian because the current one took a job elsewhere and district officials say they can't afford to replace her. Three librarians in Hanover are being let go because of an $800,000 shortfall. Framingham is cutting two librarian positions, leaving one librarian to take care of 12 elementary and middle schools and 6,500 students.

At Winthrop High School, a Proposition 21/2 override is finally providing money for new computers, furniture, and materials for the library, but it will be a long climb up after many years of neglect. The antiquated card catalog system needs to be computerized. Old books have been weeded out, but the average copyright date is still around 1960.

Library media specialist Rosemary McCarthy knows she faces a tough challenge: Many teachers have stopped relying on the library because the presence of a school librarian has been sporadic over the years. And the few students who drift in to use the computers - ones that were going to be discarded before the former librarian drove to Washington, D.C., to rescue them from the Library of Congress - think the library is fine.

''That's not good,'' said McCarthy. ''You know how when you're poor, you don't know it?''

At the Shoemaker Elementary School in Lynn, media specialist Barbara Camann has learned to be resourceful. Once a month, she holds ice cream sales in the cafeteria to raise money to supplement the $2,000 allocated annually to buy books and materials. Through sheer will and creativity she has fashioned a program that many librarian/media specialists talk about.

''I could sit and read books all day long and check out books and say `good-bye kids.' That would be a lot easier,'' said Camann. However, ''I'm very passionate about school libraries.''

In Framingham, some parents have written letters and spoken out against the cutbacks to libraries.
''I'm very upset,'' said Melanie Goddard, whose child is in sixth grade in Framingham. ''The librarians are an integral part of the curriculum.''

But the outcry likely won't change anything. Framingham has to ultimately cut $5 million from the school budget and seek an override of Proposition 21/2 in June, said Superintendent Mark Smith.
It is not that he does not understand the significance of librarians, said Smith. When he came to Framingham in 1996, he unsuccessfully tried to get money allocated for elementary school librarians for three years straight.

''I see their role as teachers. That's what they should be,'' said Smith. But in Framingham that role had lapsed into mainly an administrative one that will now be eliminated. ''We considered cutting social workers, school nurses, literary teachers,'' he notes. ''It's a Hobson's choice.''

Reality hurts, admits Sciola, the Saugus assistant superintendent. ''Our kids' research skills probably won't be at quite the same level as other communities with a stronger economic base,'' she said.

This story ran on page B1 of the Boston Globe on 3/17/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.

Sent to Scientific American, March 8, 2002

To the editor:

"How Reading Should be Taught" (Raynor, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky and Seidenberg, March 2002) presents an inaccurate definition of whole language and an incomplete view of the research on learning to read.

Contrary to what Raynor et. al. claim, whole language is not a derivative of the "whole word" approach and it does not forbid the teaching of phonics. The whole word approach simply asks students to memorize sight words, and is an inefficient way to teach reading. Whole language is based on the well-supported hypothesis that we acquire language when we understand messages and we learn to read when we understand what is on the page. The core principle of whole language is providing children with interesting texts; the teacher's task is to help make the texts comprehensible. As Raynor et. al. note, context is one way of doing this, but it is not the only way. Some direct teaching of phonics also helps make texts comprehensible. There are, however, severe limits on how much phonics can be taught and learned: As Raynor et. al. point out, some rules are extremely complex, many rules do not work well, and different commercial series teach different rules. Most of our knowledge of phonics is the result of reading, not the cause.

Raynor et. al. claim that research shows that phonics-based methods are superior to whole language methods in helping children learn to read. This is not correct. Much of this research (eg some of Chall's review and the Arabic study Reynor et. al. describe) actually compares phonics-based teaching to whole-word methodology, not whole language. As Raynor et. al. note, the National Reading Panel (NRP) recently reviewed studies comparing phonics-based methods with those labeled whole language. The NRP did not consider the crucial variable of how much reading the children did. I reviewed the same studies, as well as those the NRP inappropriately excluded, and concluded that children in classes in which more meaningful reading was done outperformed those in classes in which less reading was done on tests of reading comprehension. Meaningful reading is the crucial variable in interpreting these studies and it is the core of whole language.

Raynor et.al. reported that in Evans and Carr's 1985 study children in "traditional" reading instruction (termed "routinized performance") did better on tests of reading comprehension than children in what Raynor et..al. considered to be "whole language" type classes (Evans and Carr termed this group "language-oriented" and did not use the terms "whole language.") Children in the routinized performance class read more, spending about five minutes more per day on silent reading, which amounts to about 18 more hours of reading over the year. Also, the routinized performance classes emphasized "contextual meaning" more (p. 333). The language-oriented group did more oral reading of stories the children had written themselves or had dictated to the teacher, an activity that entails less new meaning. Thus, a careful look at what the children actually did reveals that the results of this study are consistent with those of other studies showing that children who read more do better on tests of reading comprehension.

Raynor et. al. also appear to have missed Elaine Garan's recent review of the NRP research on phonics, which appeared in the Phi Delta Kappan last year. Garan concluded that NRP's own analysis shows that heavy phonics instruction primarily impacts tests of regularly spelled words presented in isolation, and has little impact on tests of reading comprehension given to children beyond grade 2.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

From BBCnews

Monday, 21 May, 2001
Books 'best for tests'

Books improve test results, the study suggests

Books are better than computers at helping primary school children to pass tests, research has suggested.

Children attending schools which had invested in good computing resources did show an improvement in national SATS tests for 11-year-olds.

But the link between spending on books and better test results was almost twice as strong, according to the study commissioned by The Publishers Association from Statistics for Education.

The analysis by government computer agency Becta looked at data from 800 primary schools in England.

There is a clear and positive relationship between the amount spent on books and schools' Key Stage 2 success

Investment by schools in information technology has risen following the government's promise that every child will have access to computers and the internet at school.

But the amount spent on books has fallen by 12% per pupil each year.

On average, primary schools now spend £30 per pupil on computers each year, £19 per pupil on books.

The study found there was a positive link between good information technology and national test results, of 0.07 under the Spearman Rank Correlation statistical measurement system.

But Statistics for Education found a positive correlation of 0.12 between books and good results.

Chief researcher on the study Roger Watson said: "Good IT resources may help to raise standards but it looks as though traditional school books help even more.

"I have also tested the statistical validity of our findings and the result is highly significant.

"There is a clear and positive relationship between the amount spent on books and schools' Key Stage 2 success - the probability of it being due to chance is very small indeed."

Shin (2001) examined the impact of a six week self-selected reading experience among 200 sixth and seventh graders who had to attend summer school because of low reading proficiency. Students attended class four hours per day; during this time, approximately two hours were devoted to sustained silent reading, including 25 minutes in the school library. The district invested $25 per student on popular paperbacks and magazines, with most books purchased from the Goosebumps series. In addition, about 45 minutes per day was devoted to reading and discussing novels such as Holes, and The Island of the Blue Dolphins. Comparison children (n = 160) followed a standard language arts curriculum during the summer. Attrition was high for both groups but similar (class size dropped from 20 to 14.3 among readers, and from 20 to 13.2 among comparisons) as was the percentage of limited English proficient children (31% in the reading group, 27% in the comparison group). The readers gained approximately five months on the Altos test of reading comprehension and vocabulary over the six week period, while comparisons declined. On the Nelson-Denny reading comprehension test, the summer readers grew a spectacular 1.3 years (from grade 4.0 to grade 5.4). On the vocabulary section, however, the groups showed equivalent gains.

Shin, F. (2001). Motivating students with Goosebumps and other popular books. CSLA
Journal (California School Library Association), 25(1), 15-19.

The uses and limits of phonics
Sent to the Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 29, 2002
Can be shared

We will make progress in "Ending the Reading Wars" (Commentary, January 29) when definitions and research results are made clear.

Whole language does not entail "plunging children into literature." Rather, whole language teachers provide children with interesting texts and help make these texts comprehensible. Frank Smith, in his book Understanding Reading, points out that providing some knowledge about phonics contributes to making texts comprehensible, but there are severe limits on how much phonics can be taught directly: many phonics rules are very complex, and have numerous exceptions. All too often, Smith notes, memorizing sound-spelling correspondences is not presented as a help to reading but as an alternative to reading.

There is no evidence that a heavy emphasis on phonics is of value; In her reanalysis of the National Reading Panel's report, California State University Prof. Elaine Garan concluded that the impact of heavy phonics instruction is largely limited to reading simple words in isolation and has a negligible impact on reading comprehension after first grade. There is, however, a great deal of evidence that those who read more also read better, spell better, write better, have larger vocabularies, and know more.

Commentary > The Monitor's View ; from the January 29, 2002 edition

Ending the 'Reading Wars'

Few would argue with the emphasis put on reading by the recently passed
federal education law. Many, however, will argue about the best way to teach
reading.

The battle between "phonics" and "whole language" - dubbed "the reading wars"
- has gone on for decades. Some have declared that the new law, with its
clear tilt toward phonics, assigns victory and ends the "war."

That's probably a hasty conclusion, at least so far as it implies one
approach will, or should, dominate. The bill mandates attention to phonics,
which stresses teaching children how to sound out letter combinations and
words. This makes sense, because extensive research has shown the value of
this approach. It may have particular value for children with little early
reading experience at home.

The whole language method, which favors plunging children into literature in
order to spark what's viewed as a natural interest in reading, is widely
used. Too often, however, its adoption has meant the abandonment of any
systematic phonics training.

Kids need to learn the basics about letters and sounds, and they need to
appreciate the fun and adventure of reading. To meet those needs, the
dogmatism that has marked the reading wars has to recede - in schools of
education and district curriculum offices, as well as in the classroom.

Under the new federal mandate, teachers of reading should retain the freedom
to pursue what they've found useful for particular students. In any given
classroom, some students will be quick readers, others will take longer.
Helping every child enter the world of words requires both science - a
knowledge of how reading is learned - and art.

Also, the tests used to evaluate reading progress should measure both the
ability to sound out words and the ability to grasp meaning.

Here's hoping the reading wars are over, and that the country's new
commitment to this crucial skill heralds more literate, more thoughtful
future generations of Americans.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0129/p08s02-comv.html

A number of studies have confirmed that reading makes you smarter, but Stanovich and Cunningham (1992) is an especially interesting one. Subjects were 268 North American undergraduates who took an author recognition test, a magazine recognition test, and a newspaper recognition test (measuares of print exposure), a variety of measures of exposure to TV, and several tests of general knowledge, including a test of practical knowledge ("What does the carburetor in an automobile do?"), a test of knowledge of science and social studies ("What part of the body does the infection called pneumonia occur?"; "What is the term for selling domestic merchandise abroad?"), an acronym test (items included NATO, EEC and UHF), and checklists of names of well-known individuals in a variety of fields. Performance on the print composite correlated highly with performance on the composite of tests of general knowledge (r = .85), but exposure to TV did not correlate either with print exposure ( r = .03) or with general knowledge (r = -.05). Moreover, the relationship between print exposure and general knowledge held even when controlled for measures of "general cognitive ability" (nonverbal cognitive ability (Raven Matrices), reading comprehension, grade point average) and TV exposure, and the relationship help for every test of general knowledge.

Stanovich and Cunningham also compared the performance of those who scored high on a test of reading comprehension but read little, and those who scored lower on a test of reading comprehension, but read more. The latter group did better on the test of general knowledge, indicating that amount of reading counts more than reading ability in terms of gaining information.

An analysis of performance on certain items of the practical knowledge test was particularly revealing. Among the questions asked was "At the time of the Normandy invasion (1944), what country was Germany's primary ally"?. Those who were readers scored higher than those who were not, and TV watching made no difference. In fact, among the "low print/high TV" group, 28% thought that the Soviet Union was Germany's primary ally at that time. Below I also present results for the question, "Name a country in which Latin is currently the primary language." The investigators scored this liberally, accepting "Rome, " "the Vatican," and "none." Once again, readers did best and TV had no impact. The overall scores of these collage students are distressing, however.

HiPrint Hi Print Lo Print Lo Print
Hi TV Lo TV Lo TV Hi TV
Primary Ally 33% 21% 10% 13%
Latin 48% 34% 13% 10%

Stanovich, K. and Cunningham, A. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 211-229.

Sent to the New York Times, January 5, 2001

Staples mistaken about teaching reading

Re: Brent Staples on teaching reading. ("How the clip n'snips owner changed special education"; January 5).

I have been involved in research on reading for over 20 years.

I am unaware of any studies showing that " 4 in 10 children ... have trouble learning to read." I am, however, aware of research showing that children in the US read quite well.

I am unaware of research showing that "95 percent of learning- impaired children can become effective readers if taught by scientifically proven methods (heavy phonics)." I am, however, aware of research showing that children who read more read better.

I am unaware of anyone seriously involved with whole language who defines it as children "wandering through books." I am aware, however, of whole language practice that provides children with interesting texts and helps them understand these texts, using phonics as one means of doing so.

Stephen Krashen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Education
University of Southern California

January 5, 2002
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
How the Clip 'N Snip's Owner Changed Special Education
By BRENT STAPLES The NY Times

The people of Florence, S.C., know Shannon Carter as the owner of Shannon's
Clip 'N Snip, a barber shop where the locals get haircuts and conversation.
The Clip 'N Snip has room for seven barber chairs, but Shannon is limiting
the business to two for the moment and renting out space until the economy
improves enough for the barbering business to expand.

Shannon's public school teachers are no doubt surprised to see her running a
business and working out a financial plan. During the 1980's she finished
ninth grade failing virtually every subject, and was nearly illiterate. The
schools told Emory and Elaine Carter that their daughter was terminally lazy
and would "never see a day of college." In truth, Shannon was suffering from
a common but undiagnosed learning disability that made it difficult for her
to comprehend the little that she could read. Alienated and depressed,
Shannon became suicidal. In desperation her parents placed her in a private
school for disabled children, where she jumped several grade levels within a
few years and graduated actually reading on grade level.

The Carters then sued the school system for private-school tuition and were
upheld in the landmark Supreme Court case known as Florence County School
District Four v. Shannon Carter. The law before this case limited parents of
disabled children to schools approved by the state. But the court ruled in
Shannon's case that the school system lost its right to plan a disabled
child's education if it failed to provide an "appropriate public education"
as required by the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, known
as the IDEA.

Ask about Shannon Carter in New York or Los Angeles, and you see school board
lawyers snarling or hanging their heads in dismay. The school boards see
Carter cases as "a voucher program for the rich," in which affluent parents
reserve spaces in private schools and then badger the school systems into
paying burdensome tuition costs. Critics have a point when they note that
small districts can be destabilized by the cost of one student's stay at an
expensive residential school, and that urban districts with too few textbooks
are sometimes forced to underwrite lavish private school tuition. But as
Congress prepares to reauthorize the federal special education program, it
should bear in mind that the Carters went to court only after the public
schools failed at their most basic mission: teaching Shannon to read.

The task of teaching reading is undermined by the common but mistaken belief
that children are somehow neurologically "wired" to read. This view led to
the "whole language" fad of the 1970's, in which children were allowed to
wander through books, improvising individual approaches to reading. The whole
language technique works well with some children. But data from four decades
of studies by the National Institutes of Health show that it is disastrous
for the 4 in 10 children who have trouble learning to read. Nearly half these
youngsters fall behind in the early grades, never catch up and eventually
drop out.

In the most extreme cases, children seem to have abnormal activity in the
parts of the brain that process phonemes &Mac226;Äî the basic sounds that correspond
to the letters of the alphabet. The simplest rules of language make no sense
to them. Asked for a word that rhymes with "cat," for example, they simply
draw a blank. The disorder strikes children of all backgrounds. It afflicts
those who are read to as infants as well as those who grow up without a book
in the house.

The fortunate children are diagnosed early and assigned to smaller classes
where teachers take special care to teach them the fundamentals of written
language that others take for granted. The children are walked through the
alphabet again and again, learning to connect the letters to the sounds, the
sounds to the syllables, the syllables to words and so on. The good news from
the N.I.H. findings is that 95 percent of learning- impaired children can
become effective readers if taught by scientifically proven methods. The bad
news is that less than a quarter of American teachers know how to teach
reading to children who do not get it automatically. At the moment, nearly
half of all children placed in special education are there for reading
difficulties. Federal scientists commonly describe them as "casualties of bad
instruction."

Part of the blame lies with colleges that have resisted federal attempts to
improve teacher education programs. Part of the blame lies with Congress,
which has clung to the view that curriculum is a state and local matter in
which the federal government should not meddle. Congress failed to even
notice the reading research until just recently, when the Bush administration
made reading a priority.

Congress has focused almost solely on the fact that special education is
expensive &Mac226;Äî and that it takes away money from regular education. The debate
will go nowhere until lawmakers begin to view special and regular education
as part of a single system that is being hampered by an all too pervasive
problem &Mac226;Äî that schools are teaching reading in a way that fails to
effectively reach millions of children. The basic lesson of the Carter case
and the tens of thousands that have followed is that the country needs a
national reading campaign, based on science. The longer we delay, the more
families like Shannon Carter's will bolt the system, taking public dollars
with them.

Yang (2001) provides new evidence for the power of reading. Subjects in this study were students in four evening adult EFL classes in Hong Kong. All had passed an exam at a level equal to 450 on the TOEFL in grade 11. They attended class for three (consecutive) hours per week for a total of 15 weeks.

Students in two classes (A and B below) read two Agatha Christie novels in addition to the reading materials done by all students in all four classes. Students read about 40 pages per week. About an hour was spent in class per week discussing the books. ("... plots, characters, and social issues students found in the book and how those issues could be related to present day life," p. 455).

The pre and post tests were identical, a multiple choice test of "grammar, sentence structure and usage" (pp. 454-5). Yang performed an omnibus ANOVA, which revealed "strong evidence that at least one class is different from the rest" (p. 457) but did not perform post-hoc comparisons. He noted, however, that classes A and B made about twice the gains as the other two classes. Combing scores for classes A and B (the readers), and C and D (non-readers), I calculated an effect size of 6.3, which is enormous and easily statistically significant (posttest means for readers = 74.6, sd = 1.26; for nonreaders = 66.9, sd = 1.18; pretest scores were nearly identical for all four groups).

Results of a questionnaire administered showed that most readers understood the books, and felt that reading was beneficial. Only 20% had read a novel in English before.

As Yang points out, there are confounds. Those who did the reading spent more time on English, and also had writing assignments related to the novels. His conclusion is reasonable: "... the extra time on reading in English is time well spent" (p. 460).

Of course one could argue that extra time spent doing grammar is also well spent, but studies of in-class sustained silent reading and related programs in which students spend the same time in skill-building and reading show reading to be more effective (Krashen, 2001). In addition, Lao and Krashen (2000) reported that university EFL students in Hong Kong who participated in a popular literature-based class made greater gains in vocabulary and reading rate than students in traditional classes. Students in the literature class reported more reading outside of school, but those in the comparison class spent more time watching TV and movies in English, used English more in conversation, and spent significantly more time in academic study of English. These results confirm that time spent in reading is indeed very well spent.

Krashen, S. 2001. More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan 83: 119-123.
Lao, C.Y. and Krashen, S. 2000. The impact of popular literature study on literacy development in EFL: More evidence for the power of reading. System 28: 261-270.
Yang, A. 2001. Reading and the non-academic learner: a mystery solved. System 29 (4): 451-466.

The following is an editorial by Pauline Gough, editor of the Phi Delta Kappan, in the December Kappan.

No Quick and Dirty Fixes

There are a couple of strange notions abroad in the land. The first is that there is one best way to teach children. And the second is that quick, cheap fixes will solve the problems of education. Every good teacher recognizes both notions as badly mistaken, but politicians and business-people persist
in touting them to an unwary press and public.

The April 1999 report of the National Reading Panel (NRP) is a case in point. Kappan readers know a lot about that report, and none of the knowledge builds confidence in the report's finding. In the March 2001 Kappan, Elaine Garan detailed the flaws in the NRP report on phonics. Stephen Krashen followed up in the October 2001 issue with his critical analysis of the NRP report on fluency. Last month, reading researcher Gerald Coles added his voice to the chorus. By now, the NRP report ought to be a dead issue. Unfortunately, the report still has cachet where it counts.

The NRP report was spawned by Congress, which in 1997 asked the director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to appoint a panel to conduct a comprehensive investigation of research on reading. Writing in the U.S. Department of Education's April 2001 Community Update, G. Reid Lyon, chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch at NICHD, praised the report as a resource that can help teachers "discriminate between research that can be trusted and research that cannot be." Lyon went on to recount his own experiences as a third-grade teacher in the mid-1970s, dealing with many students who were not yet competent readers.

"The university courses that I had taken to become certified as an elementary school teacher led me to believe these youngsters would learn to read when they were ready," he wrote. "Likewise, my school's reading curriculum was based on the assumption that learning to read was a natural process, similar to learning to listen and speak. Thus, children did not need to be taught basic reading skills in a systematic or direct manner."

Excuse me, but I was a reading teacher in the 1970s too. And I never met a reading teacher who did not spend some time on letter/sound associations. It's just that phonics is not the whole of reading.

One of my grandsons provides a compelling example. He completed first grade under a first-year teacher who'd apparently been taught to believe in systematic phonics as the "one right way." She gave him endless worksheets that pounded on sound/symbol relationships. Late in his first-grade year, my grandson could read anything--letter-by-letter, arduously sounding it out. But the words never meshed into sentences with meaning, and he found reading a painful chore. He'll be saved by Harry Potter, who will teach him the delights of the printed page. But he could have avoided the interim agony, had he encountered a teacher with many more strategies in her bag of tricks.

At least, though, we are not alone in our silliness. A September 2001 publication of the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI Rourou) looked at critical issues that had been overlooked by that nation's Select Committee report on reading. The overlooked issues? Professional development for teachers, culturally appropriate programs for students, smaller classes, the problem of transient students, the need for a full-time trained librarian in all low-achieving schools, and early childhood education.

Ah, but now we're not talking about fixing things quickly or on the cheap, are we? Funny--educating children is very complex, but those who pull the strings are always looking for cheap and simple solutions. More phonic worksheets, anyone?--PBG

Worthy (2000) asked 419 middle school children and 35 teachers for their suggestions for motivating students to read. The schools were from a range of ethnic and socioeconomic groups.

The students were asked: "What could your language arts teacher do to make students more motivated to read?" Students were asked to write up to three suggestions, and made a total of 509 suggestions. Teachers were asked "What do you think are the best ways of motivating students to read?" and provided "multiple suggestions." Both groups recommended providing more interesting books (students = 45% of suggestions, teachers = 35%) and both recommended more student choice and more readalouds. Nine student suggestions were for more time to read, but this was not mentioned by teachers.

A particularly interesting category was incentives: "Teachers and students made strikingly different suggestions regarding incentives. Although 29% of teacher suggestions were focused on rewarding or coercing students to read (i.e. grades, "nagging") only 9% of students' suggestions fell into this category, and often their suggestions were obviously facetious (e.g. 'Give us $10 for every page we read)." (p. 448)

"Although most teachers spoke of the importance of developing intrinsic motivation to read, more than half said that they used external motivators as inducements to reading." (p. 448)

Worthy, J. 2000. Teachers' and students' suggestions for motivating middle-school children to read. In T. Shanahan and F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.) 49th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. pp. 441-451.

An important study done by Jeff McQuillan and Julie Au will soon appear in the journal Reading Psychology. The study confirms that the amount of free reading done is associated with higher levels of literacy. The study also finds new evidence for the importance of the school library: high schoolers who had more planned trips to the school library did more free reading.

Subjects were 24 high school students who were in a regular language arts (junior English) class ("neither the school's best (honors) nor worst (remedial) readers" (p. 231)). About 71% of the subjects' parents had a high school diploma or less.

The Print Environment

The average number of books in the home reported by students was 133 (standard deviation = 82), which is remarkably close to Purves and Elley's mean of 137 in their study. Each student, however, reported only owning 12.4 books of their own (sd = 11.5). McQuillan and Au also asked students how many of the books in the home not owned by the student were interesting to them. The average was 28. Combining this with the number of books owned by the student, the average number of books of interest in the home to the subjects was about 40. McQuillan and Au conclude that "the home does not appear to be a particularly rich source of reading materials for students from working-class and lower-income homes" (p. 243).

The average number of books purchased by the students "last month" was 1.32 (sd = 1.24). Students reported that they averaged 34.6 minutes per day of free reading (sd = 33.6).

Free reading and reading achievement

McQuillan and Au found that those who reported more free reading achieved higher scores on the Nelson-Denny Reading Comprehension test (r = .55), a result that remained significant when parental education was statistically controlled. This is an important result. Since parental education is strongly associated with SES (socio-economic status) (parental education and reading achievement were significantly correlated in this study, r = 4), it suggests that SES per se is not the cause of the differences in reading ability; rather it is the amount of reading done (see also McQuillan, 1998). Because the amount of reading done is related to access to books (see below, as well as other studies, eg Krashen, 1993; McQuillan, 1998), this suggests that there is something one can do about the impact of poverty on literacy development: Provide children with interesting books.

Predictors of free reading

McQuillan and Au also investigated why some students did more free reading than others. As expected, positive correlations were found between books owned by the student and amount of free reading done (r = .60). It is hard to interpret whether access to books is a cause or effect in this relationship, because it may simply be the case that those who like to read more buy and request more books. But McQuillan and Au also examined factors that were not under the voluntary control of the students. If these factors are related to amount of free reading, it is plausible that the factor really was a cause of free reading.

Factors investigated were: the number of books in the home that the students found to be of interest (not counting their own books), the number of times per month students were taken to the school library by their teachers , and their travel time to the local public library. Of these, only planned trips to the school library was a significant predictor of free reading (r = .46). McQuillan and Au point out that travel time to the public library was similar and quite low: the average was only 7.2 minutes with a standard deviation of 3.8 minutes. In addition, students had in general few interesting books to chose from at home (about 28), which could explain why this factor was not a significant predictor of the amount of reading done. The relationship between trips to the school library and amount of free reading held even when students' reading ability was held constant.

The correlations between free reading and literacy achievement, and between planned trips to the library and amount of free reading done were quite substantial, which is very impressive considering the modest sample size (n = 24) and the fact that the students were from a restricted range of reading ability.

The finding that a relationship exists between organized trips to the school library and amount of reading, along with previous evidence that taking children to the public library can have a positive impact on interest in reading (Ramos, 1997), suggests that it helps to lead the horse to the water. One wonders what it was about planned trips to the library that resulted in more interest in reading, i.e. book talks, browsing time, suggestions from the librarian and/or teacher, or some combination of these. McQuillan and Au's results open up a new area of investigation.

Krashen, S. 1993. The Power of Reading. Libraries Unlimited.
McQuillan, J. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions. Heinemann.
McQuillan, J. and Au, J. 2001. The effect of print access on reading frequency. Reading Psychology 22:225-248.
Ramos, F. 1977. A band-aid remedy for a big injury: Bringing schools to libraries. California School Library Journal 21(1): 16-17.

Do students read during SSR time?
S. Krashen

Three recent studies confirm that students actually read during SSR time. Simply providing time to read results in reading, and ensuring access to books results in even more reading (Von Sprecken and Krashen, 1998). Also, participation in SSR may not be high at the beginning of the year. It may take a little time for students to get involved in a book (Cohen, 1999).

Von Sprecken and Krashen (1998) observed SSR sessions in a middle school in the middle of the school year and reported that 90% of the students were reading. More reading tended to take place in those classrooms in which more books were available in the classroom library, in which teachers also read while students read, in which students were not required to bring their own books, and in which teachers made deliberate efforts to promote certain books. In one of the 11 classes observed, there were few books, no modeling of reading, no promotion of books students had to bring their own books. Nevertheless, 80% were observed to be reading during SSR.

Cohen (1999) unobtrusively observed 120 eighth grade students during SSR time over a two week period, and found that 94% were reading during SSR. She noted that enthusiasm for sustained silent reading was not high at the beginning of the school year, but increased after one or two months.

Herda and Ramos (2001) reported that 63% of students in SSR sessions in grades 1 through 12 were actively reading; in grades 1-5, the percentages were much higher, ranging from 76% to 100%. In the upper grades, students were given the option of studying or pleasure reading, and a substantial percentage took advantage of the study option. Nevertheless, a surprising percentage were reading for pleasure, ranging from 29% in grade 12 to 65% in grade nine. Overall, 21% of the sample were studying during SSR time and only 17% were neither reading nor studying.

Cohen, K. 1999. Reluctant eighth grade readers enjoy sustained silent reading. California Reader 33(1): 22-25.
Herda, R. and Ramos, F. 2001. How consistently do students read during sustained silent reading? California School Library Journal 24(2): 29-31.
Von Sprecken, D. and Krashen, S. 1998. Do students read during sustained silent reading? California Reader 32(1): 11-13.

Sent to the American Language Review, May 17, 2001

Douglas Laskin ("High time to reform reading strategies," May/June, 2001) presents only two options for improvement of reading achievement in California's high schools: Incomprehensible texts ("the current practice of of handing The Grapes of Wrath to a functionally illiterate teenager ...") or the use of programs that focus on phonemic awareness and Greek and Latin roots. There is another option: Encouraging massive amounts of free voluntary reading through appropriate language arts and ESL instruction, and by providing a print-rich environment.

Studies show that students with more access to books read more, and those who read more develop higher levels of literacy. Not surprisingly, research also shows that students with access to better libraries (more books, better staffing) read better.

Laskin attributes low high school achievement to whole language instruction and bilingual education in elementary school. There is no evidence for these accusations. There is, on the other hand, plenty of evidence that California's elementary school students have little access to books: The average elementary school in the US has 18 books per child. California is dead last in the US with 11 books per child and Los Angeles Unified School District elementary school libraries have only six books per child. The US average is one librarian for every 882 students. California has one librarian for every 5,342 students and Los Angeles Unified does not provide for any professional school librarians in their elementary schools.

Before we insist on exotic approaches, we might try the obvious.

Stephen Krashen

Sent to Education Week, May 12, 2001

University of Illinois Professor Timothy Shanahan has concluded that research has not proved or disproved the effect of sustained silent reading on reading achievement (May 9, "IRA Attendees Flock to Sessions On Applying Reading Research,") and should not count as part of reading instruction. His conclusions are based on the National Reading Panel's recent report (http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/ch3.pdf). The Panel found only only ten studies of sustained silent reading. Those in sustained silent reading outperformed comparison students in three studies, and there was no difference in the others. But the National Reading Panel did not look very hard, devoting only six pages to this topic. (By contrast, 66 pages were devoted to research on phonemic awareness and nearly as many to phonics.) I found many more studies and strong evidence supporting sustained silent reading: Those in sustained silent reading did as well or better than control students on tests of reading comprehension in 51 out of 54 comparisons, and in studies lasting one year or longer, were better in eight of ten comparisons, with no difference in the other two.

Even findings of "no difference" support the practice of sustained silent reading. Findings showing that sustained silent reading and traditional instruction produce equivalent gains in reading achievement confirm that free voluntary reading does indeed result in literacy development. Free reading also provides students with valuable information and insights, and research shows that children who do self-selected reading gradually expand their reading interests. Free reading is also very pleasant: Ten to fifteen minutes of sustained silent reading is a welcome break in the challenging school day for both students and teachers.

Stephen Krashen
University of Southern California

I sent this to Education Week. Note that Hirsch seems to be calling
for eliminating the study of literature. No kidding.

Literature and Libraries, not Vocabulary Exercises

E.D. Hirsch ("The Latest Dismal NAEP Scores," May 2) proposes two
solutions to reduce the gap between rich and poor students in reading
ability. The first is to de-emphasize or even eliminate the study of
literature ("a fragmented hodge-podge of mainly fictional stories").
The second is to utilize a "systematic, analytic and explicit
approach" to learning, with an emphasis on vocabulary. Hirsch argues
that implicit acquisition is fine if one has time, but "if you want
to learn fast, be explicit."

The research does not support either of these suggestions.
Literature, in addition to its other virtues, stimulates interest in
independent reading. William Nagy and others have shown that
implicitly acquiring vocabulary from reading is much more effective
than explicit vocabulary teaching, and a number of studies have
confirmed that those who read more read better, write better, and
have better control of complex grammatical structures. Keith
Stanovich's research has demonstrated that those who read more know
more in general.

Studies done by Keith Curry Lance, Jeff McQuillan, myself and others
have confirmed that school library quality and staffing are related
to performance on tests of reading. A recently published study in the
Reading Research Quarterly, co-authored by newly appointed Assistant
Secretary of Education Susan Neuman concluded that middle class
children are likely to be "deluged with a wide variety of reading
materials." Poor children interested in finding books to read,
however, "would have to aggressively and persistently seek them out."

Before we take the radical steps of eliminating fiction and requiring
massive drill on vocabulary, a more reasonable and conservative path
might be to provide poor children with more access to books, as well
as quality literature instruction that encourages and promotes
independent reading.

Stephen Krashen
Professor of Education
University of Southern California

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:LiteracyForAll-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Wild about Harry: Potter's coping skills cast positive spell on child psychiatrists

05/09/2001

By Janet McConnaughey / Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS - A roomful of psychiatrists analyzed Harry Potter and found him wonderful.

The children's book character makes mistakes, but he comes through in the end. He not only survived an abusive childhood in the home of hateful relatives, but he came out with hope and an ability to love.

"He is adventuresome, tolerant of a lot of negativism directed his way, yet is not aggressive, arrogant or clinically depressed," said Dr. Leah Dickstein, a psychiatrist and former fourth- through sixth-grade teacher.

Not only that, but he can help psychiatrists. Dr. Elissa Benedek, a forensic and child psychiatrist, said that, for a long time, she has asked the children she treats and their parents about what they view on TV, what videos they watch, what computer sites they visit and what books they read.

"Now I ask if they read Harry Potter. Who do they like? Who do they not like? What are their favorite scenes?"

It helps establish rapport and gives her an idea of what the children think and feel, she said.

One thing is consistent, Ms. Benedek said: None of her young patients - not even those who idolize the rapper Eminem and quote his violent lyrics by the yard - identifies with the head bad guy, Voldemort.

"And I see some pretty bad kids," Ms. Benedek said.

The books are "not merely escapes but tools for children and adults to work through their daily struggles," said Dr. Daniel Dickstein, a pediatrician and resident in child psychology.

They spoke this week as part of an American Psychiatric Association panel about "understanding the Harry Potter phenomenon."

When Ms. Benedek asked who had read some of the books, just about everyone in the audience of psychiatrists, psychiatry students and their spouses raised a hand. Three-quarters of them had read all four in the series.

Audience members started a lively discussion of whether the books' psychological messages were marred by the transformation that Harry's sidekick, Hermione Granger, undergoes for their first school dance.

"I have an issue with that. ... Nobody notices her as a woman until she gets a pretty dress ... and gets giggly,"said one woman who did not identify herself.

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/361451_harry_09tex.AR.html

Some comments on The Nation's Report Card (NAEP 2000), the report of how well fourth graders in the US read.

1. The NAEP report found no differences at all between performance the most recent administration (2000) and earlier administrations. Some observers (eg DuPont, 2001; Schrag, 2001) have tried to make a big deal out of the fact that there was a decline in the lowest 10th percentile students and a gain for the top 10 percent. But nobody seems to have looked at the data. The differences were quite small, and, with few exceptions, were not statistically significant (see table C.2, page 104). Children in the lowest 10th percentile in 2000, in fact, were significantly better than 10th percentile children in 1994.

2. Scores for individual states were not reported. There was no explanation for this, only a statement on pages two and five that "there was no state-by-state assessment in 2000" (p.5). Why not? How much extra work does this require? A few minutes on the computer, that's all. The failure to report such data naturally arouses suspicion. It has been reported, for example, that Texas' highly publicized gains on TAAS were not matched by gains on NEAP in previous years. How did Texas do this year? When California came in last in the country on this test in 1992, (the first year state-by-state scores were reported), whole language was blamed (despite the finding that there was no previous data on NEAP for California and despite McQuillan's finding (MCQuillan, 1998) that there had been no decline on other reading tests). Now that whole language has been banned in California, and phonics rigidly enforced, have NAEP scores increased? They didn't in 1994 and 1998. Perhaps Texas' and California's 2000 NAEP scores are an embarrassment for an administration that has embraced hard core phonics as the answer to reading instruction.

3. As in previous NAEP reports, this report found that more free reading was associated with higher performance on the reading examination, and that children from low income families did much worse. NAEP also confirmed that those with less access to reading material do worse on this test. These are, of course, correlational results: They do not show that recreational reading causes better reading - maybe those who are better readers, thanks to drill and practice, go out and read more. But experimental studies confirm that reading itself is causative (in-school free reading studies). The NAEP report also does not conclusively demonstrate that more access to reading material results in better reading, but it is hard to argue the opposite. And it is well established that children from low income families have much less access to reading material. As was the case in previous NAEP reports, the authors seem unaware of the vast amount of careful research showing that poverty is associated with lack of reading material, that access to reading material results in more reading, and more reading results in better reading. As far as NAEP is concerned, the finding of relationships between reading comprehension and variables such as poverty, access and amount of reading done are unrelated.

4. NAEP put an interesting spin on the "breaking words into parts" question. They asked children how often their teachers helped them break words into parts. 25% said "everyday" and had an average NAEP score of 209. 22% said "once or twice a week" and averaged 217. 53% said "never or hardly ever" and averaged 226. Clearly, less breaking words into parts was related to higher scores. There are two possible conclusions: (1) It doesn't help, or (2) only poor readers need to do activities in which they break words into parts. NAEP endorsed the second option, proclaiming that breaking words into parts is "useful in the early stages" (p. 52). This is very interesting, in light of many recent suggestions (see e.g. California's Every Child a Reader) that phonics and even phonemic awareness activities should be continued far beyond the early stages of reading, and for all students.

5. NAEP's spin on writing also needs to be pointed out: Those who were asked to write about their reading at least once a week (53% of the sample) did worse than those who wrote about their reading only once or twice a month (217 vs. 225). NAEP choose to emphasize the fact that these two groups combined did better than those who only wrote once or twice a year (210; only 11% of the sample) or not at all (199; only 8% of the sample). Once or twice a month isn't very much. This result is quite consistent with research showing the quantity of writing students do is not clearly associated with literacy development, but the NAEP authors did not cite any research on writing frequency.

Note:

First of all, some observers (eg Huffington, 2001, DuPoint, 2001) interpret scores that are "below basic" as showing that children "cannot read." I suspect that a substantial number of a children who received low scores read perfectly well. The NAEP reading comprehension examination is not only a test of literacy. It is also a test of literature. A glance at the evaluation criteria (p. 74) reveals that readers have to be able to interpret passages the way an "educated" person would. It is quite possible to understand a passage perfectly well but have a nonstandard (or very creative) interpretation or way of answering questions. A detailed discussion of the scoring criteria for the 1992 NAEP (Langer, Campbell, Neuman, Mullis, Persky, and Donahue, 1995) reveals this. In a discussion of the "short constructed response" items of the NAEP, a sample passage was presented about about the first paid woman umpire in baseball (Amanda Clement). Students were asked "If she were alive today, what question would you like to ask Mandy about her career? Explain why the answer to your question would be important to know." Here are some answers that were considered "unacceptable":

"How old are you? Can I have a picture of you."

"Did you real like basket ball did you have any friends or fans. Was you ever at any basketball games? The reason I wold ask these questions is because I like basket, ball to. Was you ever a cherleader? What color is your hair because if she ever got lost or anything you or people would have to (know) what color here hair is."

Acceptable answers, according to the authors, indicated "that the student has considered the more complex social or personal issues suggested by the passage." I am not arguing that the unacceptable examples presented here show high levels of literacy achievement. They don't. But it is clear that the writers were certainly not completely illiterate. I should also point out that several of the "acceptable" example passages contained grammar, spelling and punctuation errors.

DuPont, P. 2001. Bereaucrats first, kids second. The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2001.
Huffington, A. 2001. Just a test: Bush's inadequate education plan. http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files.041601.htm.
Langer, J., Campbell, J., Neuman, S., Mullis, I., Persky, H., and Donahue, P. 1995. Reading Assessment Redesigned: Authentic Texts and Innovative Instruments in NAEP's 1992 Survey. National Center for Education Statistics. Report 23-FR-07. Washington: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
McQuillan, J. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Shrag, P. 2001. Is school reform working? What the tests tell. Sacramento Bee, April 11, 2001

Note the last sentence.
>From the Montreal Gazette (Canada)

Thursday 26 April 2001

Books they can only dream about
Government's zero-deficit crusade drains millions from school boards
ALLISON LAMPERT
The Gazette

Benoit Bessette would love to buy thousands of books to fill the shelves of school
libraries across Montreal.

But instead of thinking about books, the Commission Scolaire de Montreal
commissioner has spent months agonizing over how to contain the board's
burgeoning deficit.

If only the board could keep the $15 million it grudgingly hands over each year to
the provincial government, Bessette says. It's funding that's taken directly from the
CSDM's budget to help Quebec maintain a zero deficit.

"It's crazy what you could do with that money," sighed Bessette, chairman of the
board's finance committee.

"If they had stopped cutting $15 million last year and then another $15 million this
year, well that's $30 million; we'd stop complaining right away."

What he and other Montreal commissioners are complaining about is having to pay
a "recurring negative adjustment" - jargon for the 3 to 4 per cent of funding Quebec
has lopped off boards' budgets ever since the beginning of its 1990s anti-deficit
crusade.

It's a complaint that's being heard more and more this week from Montreal Island
commissioners, who are denouncing Quebec for what they call the unfair
downloading of costs.

On Tuesday, board officials said they'd have to take money out of classroom
spending to heat their buildings next year, despite a Parti Quebecois pledge to
cover all increases in school energy costs. And on Monday, island property-owners
were warned they might have to shoulder even higher school taxes to pay for the
growing expense of running schools.

While officials of Quebec's Education Department couldn't be reached for comment
yesterday, commissioners were questioning why boards must continue sacrificing
valuable dollars when the province has already had four years of zero deficits.

"It's ridiculous," said Diane Ratcliffe, a commissioner with the Lester B. Pearson
School Board, which forks over $4.4 million to Quebec each year. "If they abolished
this, it would go a long way toward helping boards."

To find out just how much of a difference, The Gazette decided to take
commissioners, parents and teachers from three of the five boards on a
hypothetical shopping spree. All were asked what they'd do with the money they
now give Quebec.

With the $5 million it loses, the English Montreal School Board would be able to
scrap a proposal to cut library staffing hours and even hire a few new librarians. It
could also significantly reduce the board's $6 million deficit.

"Give me $5 million, oh yes, I'll do something with it," exclaimed Susan Clarke,
chairman of the EMSB's finance committee.

Parents and teachers agreed some of the money should go to help special- needs
kids. "We'd need more speech therapists, more psychologists," said EMSB parent
Sandra Ronci. "There's no limit to what we could do with money."

In the Commission Scolaire de Montreal, Bessette said he'd lower teacher-pupil
ratios, hire more specialists and fill library shelves. "We have no money to buy
books," he lamented. "What kind of a society doesn't provide enough money to buy
books for school libraries?"

- Allison Lampert can be E-mailed at alampert@thegazette.southam.ca

Reading Today, published by the International Reading Assocation
18(5): 16

Do teenagers like to read? Yes! by Stephen Krashen

Organizers of reading promotion campaigns typically assume that adolescents and teenagers need to be encouraged to read. Not so. The results of three surveys, two recent and one done over a decade ago, clearly show that most adolescents and teenagers already like to read, read quite a bit, and value reading. These surveys are as follows:

1. The Mellon poll (conducted by Constance Mellon in 1987 and reported in School Library Journal, vol. 38, no. 8) was given to 362 ninth graders in two rural high schools in North Carolina. Mellon reported that in these schools, one third to one half of the families were below the poverty level.
2. The SmartGirl poll was administered in October 1999 on the SmartGirl Web site (www.SmartGirl.com) in cooperation with the Young Adult Library Services Association's Teen Read Week campaign. More than 3,000 adolescents ages 11-18 participated (1,826 girls and 1,246 boys). It was, apparently, an elite group; only 2 percent said their grades were below average (another 8 percent would not answer the question), and only 6 percent said they were "below average" readers, with another 3 percent not answering this question.
3. The READ California poll was reported in September 1999 by a professional polling company, California Opinion Research (Fairbanks, Maaslin, Maullin and Associates). They surveyed 201 subjects between the ages of 10 and 17-48 percent male and 52 percent female-mostly in the southern California area. Ninety two percent said they attended public school. READ California is a public relations effort sponsored by the state Department of Education to encourage reading.

Teenagers like to read, and they read a lot

These surveys indicate that teenagers like to read. Sixty four percent of the READ California respondents rated reading 7 or better on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = not fun and 10 = a lot of fun. Thirty six percent agreed that reading is "really cool," and another 55 percent agreed that reading is "kind of cool," a total of 91 percent of the sample.

Contrary to popular opinion, most teenagers read a lot. Although the questions asked on the three polls were slightly different, responses were amazingly similar. In the Mellon poll, 82 percent of the respondents said they read in their spare time. Seventy two percent of those responding to the SmartGirl poll said they either "read constantly for my own personal satisfaction" (26 percent) or "I don't have much time to read for pleasure but I like to when I get the chance" (46 percent). Eighty five percent of READ California respondents said they read on their own outside of school.
When asked how often they read, about two-thirds of the SmartGirl respondents said they read a book a month or more, and 30 percent said they read a book a week or more. READ California respondents gave similar responses: 58 percent said they read four days a week or more, and 67 percent said they read 26 minutes per day or more.

These results are quite remarkable, especially when one considers the time pressure some teens face, including school, work, the all-important social pressures, and the fact that not all teenagers have easy access to reading materials.

Furthermore, READ California's results confirm that teenagers understand reading is important. Virtually all of the respondents felt reading skill was "really important" (88 percent) or "kind of important" (11 percent) for success in the future.

Polls may underestimate how much teenagers read

These polls present a cheerful picture of teenage reading, but they may actually seriously underestimate how much teenagers read. Mellon concluded that respondents "didn't trust" that the questionnaire was really dealing with self-selected pleasure reading, and considered the kind of reading they liked as "not quite legitimate." Here are three illuminating comments by her subjects:

o "I don't like reading except for comic books or magazines."
o " ... I hate reading unless it's a magazine about something I like."
o "I don't like to read much except for romance, mystery, and scary books."

Of the 66 respondents in Mellon's study who claimed they never read in their spare time, 49 checked several categories of leisure reading when asked what they liked to read!

What should campaigns do? Help improve libraries

If teenagers are already interested in reading, what should reading promotion campaigns do? Their primary task should be to supply books and other reading material for those with little access to them. While middle and upper class teenagers typically have plenty of access to books, many potential readers do not. Several studies confirm that children of poverty have few books at home.

If adolescents and teenagers are provided with interesting reading materials, and have time and a place to read them, they will read. For instance, Debra Von Sprecken and Stephen Krashen observed 11 middle school classes during sustained silent reading time during the middle of the school year. Overall, 90 percent of the students were reading. This strongly suggests that many of the adolescents who do not read have little access to reading materials, little time, or no comfortable place to read. This study was reported in the California Reader (vol. 38, no. 1).

Improving school and public libraries is an obvious first step to insure that all potential readers have access to books and other reading material. Studies agree that school and public libraries are important sources of books for children, and the results of the three polls reviewed here confirm this is true for teenagers. Almost 90 percent of respondents in the Mellon poll said they got books from their school library, and 66 percent of the girls and 41 percent of the boys got books from the public library.

SmartGirl respondents also named the school library (62 percent) and public library (58 percent) as important sources of reading materials. When READ California asked "where do you get the books you read?" 66 percent of the respondents said "the library," and 25 percent indicated "school." These results mean that that teenagers are quite willing to use libraries, and that those without access to good libraries probably will use them if such access is provided.

Of special relevance here is McQuillan's work, which reports that public library circulation and high school library quality were good predictors of verbal SAT scores in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, even when controlling for per pupil spending, classroom size, and the amount of computer software available.

Most teenagers like to read and know it is good for them. Therefore, the first priority of reading promotion campaigns should be to help make reading possible by providing access to books. Once access to reading is taken care of, we can then deal with the small minority of potential readers who have access to reading material but do not read.

Below is my letter to the editor, published in the American School Board Journal, April 2001.

They also published a longer (and more eloquent) letter from Eugene Hammer, Director of Library Development, Colorado State Library. He mentions two omissions in Black's positive article about school libraries: The Lance studies in Colorado, Alaska, and Pennsylvania, and the newest version of Information Power. Hammer also writes: "It is unfortunate, given the great value and return on investment that library programs provide to schools, that they are too often among the first to go when school boards look for cost savings .... There is a critical need for decision makers to know about the power of the library and librarian in the educational process."

American School Board Journal, April 2001 (vol 188,4)

Susan Black's Febrary article presents a strong case for the school library. But there is more. A number of studies done by Keith Curry Lance and others have shown that better school libraries (more books, better staffing) are associated with higher reading scores, even when factors such as poverty are statistically controlled.

Stephen Krashen

I like the part about books and a reading garden. But I don't like the part about bringing in amateurs to teach reading.
And I wonder who will manage the new books and the reading garden. LAUSD does not provide any funding for elementary school librarians.

Riordan Launches Literacy Corps Drive
March 28 From LA Times Staff Reports

Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan launched his L.A. Literacy Corps during a radio broadcast Wednesday, calling on businesses to chip in both money and employee time for schools.

Under the program, employees would read to students and coach them in reading. Four companies answered the challenge during the broadcast on KFWB-AM (980) radio, beginning with the radio station. Animation studio Klasky-Csupo, biomedical corporation MiniMed and the Southern California Institute of Architecture also pledged to adopt schools.

Riordan outlined the plan last month while on a bus tour of several Los Angeles schools. He filled in more detail Wednesday, saying that each company in the corps will donate a minimum of $5,000 a year for five years to pay for books and reading programs.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will match that gift by building a reading garden at each adopted school. The company will also allow its employees one hour per week to volunteer at the school as a reading partner to a child in kindergarten through third grade. Eleven other donors signed up before Riordan's formal kickoff.

Sent to the New York Times, March 15, 2001

Richard Rothstein (March 14) reports that "Recent reading wars were most bitter in California, where whole language methods were mandated in 1987. The state then switched to phonics when reading scores fell." This decline never occurred. California fourth graders did indeed place last in the US in the NAEP reading test in 1992, but this was the first time NAEP scores were reported for individual states. Arizona State University Professor Jeff McQuillan has shown that there was no change in reading scores on standardized tests for California students from 1984 to 1990, and since 1992 there has been no increase in California's NAEP scores. California's scores were low before "whole language" and have remained low.

California's low reading scores are not related to whole-language instruction.They are a result of the fact that California has offered children little access to books. California's school libraries are among the worst in the nation, both in terms of the quantity of books and presence of librarians, and public libraries in California are also weak. In addition, California's rate of child poverty is high and has been increasing, which also means less access to books. All of these factors have been shown to be related to reading achievement.

The State of California has made efforts in recent years to improve its school libraries. California's libraries are so poor, however, that it will take years to reach acceptable levels.

Stephen Krashen

March 14, 2001
New York Times
Lessons: There's More to Reading Than Phonics

By RICHARD ROTHSTEIN

t seems to be common sense that reading instruction should emphasize phonics ó how to combine letters into sounds and words. But because pupils' backgrounds and learning styles differ, teaching too must vary.

Certainly, phonics is crucial. A National Academy of Sciences report in 1999 confirmed that most children won't become good readers if they don't very early learn alphabet sounds and how to combine them.

But there's more to it. Nobody reads this newspaper letter by letter. Proficient readers recognize words and phrases without sounding them out. Beginners also need this skill.

There is a myth that "fuzzy" methods replaced phonics in recent decades and that reading suffered. But most adults with nostalgia for their own phonics-based instruction had no such thing. Fifty years ago, schools taught more whole word recognition than phonics. Texts repeated words so children would know them by sight. ("Run, Dick, run. Run, run, run.")

Then, as now, there were battles. A 1955 best-seller, "Why Johnny Can't Read," complained that teachers were suddenly ignoring phonics. But the book lacked perspective. As far back as 1892, a study of New York City schools found word recognition, not phonics, was typical. If there was a golden age for reading, phonics drill wasn't the key.

Literacy in some countries would be hard to explain if phonics were the only way to read. The Chinese and formal Japanese languages have no letters to sound out. Children memorize character meanings, much as Americans learn to recognize "run."

A 1991 worldwide study of 9-year- olds found that Finnish students read best. One reason is that Finland produces few television programs of its own. Children learn from cartoon subtitles, flashing so quickly that word recognition, not sounding out, is the only way to read.

For Americans, a combination of phonics and other approaches works best. The optimal mix varies by child, so it is not helpful for politicians to dictate phonics or any method. What's needed are skilled teachers to diagnose reading difficulties and prescribe appropriate solutions.

To move an exciting story along, good teachers sometimes use whole language methods that urge children to guess at unknown words from context or pictures. Teachers should urge pupils to sound out syllables, but learners shouldn't have just one strategy.

The National Academy of Sciences report, noting that phonics has been too much ignored in recent years, also cited the importance of motivation for reading. Excessive phonics drills can be drudgery and destroy a desire to read. The report summarizes research that a phonics emphasis leads to earlier reading, but adds that whole language methods produce more positive attitudes and may better "enable students to sustain an interest in reading though the upper grades."

That is why advocates of a balanced approach want children to have interesting books available. Teachers should read them aloud and schedule lots of free reading time. This contributes to proficiency along with direct instruction in letter sounds.

Recent reading wars were most bitter in California, where whole language methods were mandated in 1987. The state then switched to phonics when reading scores fell. But school funds had just suffered from a voter property-tax revolt, so whole language had probably not caused the low scores. More likely culprits were depleted school libraries, an influx of immigrants whose parents were illiterate, and classes so large that teachers could not vary instruction based on individual diagnoses.

In the past, sloganeering about phonics had minimal effect, as did the countervailing extremism of experts who urged only whole language. Ignoring ideological wars, good teachers usually blended whole language, whole word and phonics methods. In the 1920's, when whole word pedagogies held sway, a national survey found teachers using more phonics than experts said they should. But now, state and district authorities interfere more, sometimes requiring teachers to follow scripted phonics lessons. These programs may be of high quality, but if teachers can't exercise judgment about when to use them, reading may suffer.

Some children read poorly if they have not learned phonics, others if they are not exposed to exciting stories that make reading fun. Some children enter school with poor vocabularies because they come from homes where parents rarely read aloud and spoken language is less complex. Teaching pupils to sound out words they never heard is rarely sensible.

Reading improvement can only come from balanced teaching, supplementing phonics with other methods as individual needs require.

School libraries cut hours as staff shelved
Kristin Rushowy
EDUCATION REPORTER
The Toronto Star

The school library is awfully quiet these days.

Long considered the hub of learning, today's library is likely to be understaffed, underfunded or closed at some point during the week.

One-third of elementary school libraries in Ontario now report part-time hours - some open just five hours a week.

When open, they're often staffed not with teacher-librarians, but technicians, volunteers or no one at all.

``In talking to parents out there, when you say to them that school libraries are occasionally closed, they are flabbergasted,'' said Vivian Papaiz-Klinck, who chairs the parent council at her children's school in Severn Bridge, a town at the southernmost point of Muskoka, where the librarian now works less than three hours a week and volunteers fill in when they can.

``They don't recall a time in their school history when the library was ever closed.''

The cuts have also left teacher-librarians wondering if they're a dying breed.

``I'm afraid of what the future holds. I really am,'' said teacher-librarian Karen Smulevitch of Toronto's Leaside High School.

``Unless the public is made aware of what we do, what the role of a teacher-librarian is and how desperately important it is to have teacher-librarians to work with other teachers, I'm afraid we are going to become like dinosaurs and disappear.''

Just as neighbourhood libraries have come under threat in Toronto, those at schools in the city and around the province face uncertain futures as cash-starved boards search for savings.

All too often, those savings include trade-offs - getting rid of ``frills'' like specialist teachers such as teacher-librarians and using that money to cover costs in other needy areas, such as transportation.

The library crisis is unparalleled at the elementary level, where only 2 per cent of schools are large enough to qualify for a full-time teacher-librarian under the province's funding formula.

The province provides boards with money for a full-time librarian at a ratio of 1.3 per 1,000 students at the elementary level and 1.1 in high schools. In reality, those ratios are higher.

`Unless the public is made aware . . . we are going
to become like dinosaurs and disappear.'
- Karen Smulevitch
Teacher-librarian

Whether full-time or part-time, just 68 per cent of elementary schools now have a teacher-librarian, down from 80 per cent in 1998, reports advocacy group People For Education.

``There's something very tragic when at the very time you have a wonderful new curriculum, excellent materials coming out of the Ministry of Education and, at the same time, are short-changing things on site,'' said Sya Van Geest, who heads the Ontario School Library Association.

``It's bad for kids in the information age to be cutting back on the very teachers who have that expertise.''

Now that it's budget time, teacher-librarians are bracing themselves.

Already, the Grand Erie District School Board in Brantford has voted to go from 17 teacher-librarians to nine next year, replacing them with seven library technicians.

``It feels like people don't understand, and I'm not sure trustees are aware of what the job entails or the difference between teacher-librarians and technicians,'' said Bobbie Henley, head librarian at Brantford Collegiate Institute and Vocational School.

The Toronto District School Board is facing a decline in its numbers, although it's better off than most with 1.5 teacher-librarians per 1,000 high school students, but only 1.25 per 1,000 elementary.

Sharon Mills, the teacher-librarian at George S. Henry Academy in North York, said levels can vary from school to school.

``I'm very fortunate as my school administrator is very supportive of the library and has been for many years . . . it's allowed us to have a strong library program and a strong teaching program.''

But the situation at elementary schools has left parents frustrated.

Catherine Finlayson, who has children at Bedford Park and Maurice Cody junior public schools in Toronto, has written to the public school board and Education Minister Janet Ecker.

``Bedford elected to get rid of its specialist gym and music teachers in order to keep its specialist librarian,'' she said. ``Maurice Cody did the opposite and it's had a huge impact on the school.''

There, the library is open only when teachers take their class in or there's a volunteer, she said, leaving children without access to computers or printers when it's closed.

The loss is noticed by regular classroom teachers, too, said Rose Dotten, principal of school librarianship at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. She instructs teacher-librarian qualifying courses.

Teacher-librarians are fully qualified teachers who've taken additional, specialty courses to also become librarians. They focus on integrating information technology with the curriculum, and work with teachers to design research units.

``We think of teacher-librarians as curriculum leaders,'' Dotten said.

The importance of teacher-librarians has been recognized by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Several U.S. studies have shown a link between a strong school library program and children's achievement on standardized tests and other academic measures, added Lynne McKechnie, a professor in the faculty of information and media studies at the University of Western Ontario.

``In California, they got rid of their teacher-librarians and then realized they needed them, and began pumping money back into libraries,'' said University of Toronto master's student Raffaela Baratta, who is studying the impact of teacher-librarians on student learning.

``We are heading in that direction, getting rid of them.''

In fact, one Ontario board has followed California's example, last year cutting a number of teacher-librarians at high schools only to reinstate them this school year.

``It came to our attention, via students, teachers and everyone involved in the secondary panel, that we needed teacher-librarians in schools on a full-time basis,'' said Chris Cable, spokesperson for the York Catholic District School Board.

It now has one full-time teacher-librarian and one full-time library technician at each of its 10 high schools.

But with funding woes, some 10 per cent of Ontario's boards no longer have any librarians in elementary schools, and at least one board relies entirely on library technicians, who are paid less than teachers and generally catalogue and shelve materials. Technicians can't teach children, said Baratta.

But the board uses library technicians exclusively and has been successful, said Margaret Nelson, director of education.

``This board has extremely effective programs and is high-achieving in regards to academic outcomes, so I'd say we're making good use of library technicians,'' she said, adding some of them have master's degrees in library science.

But library budgets, too, seem to be a concern. Mike Mundy was the only teacher-librarian in the entire St. Clair Catholic District School Board in the Chatham area before retiring in 1999.

He said after paying for online research magazines, periodicals and CD-ROMs, there was very little left to buy books.

Terry Piper, dean of education at York University, worries that children's literacy and research skills could be affected by the cuts.

``(Teacher-librarians) are probably the people in the school who are closest to children's literature,'' she said. ``They know children's literature. They know what's good.

``They are absolutely invaluable in maintaining a collection that makes sense for the school.''

Teacher-librarians and advocacy group People for Education are calling on the province to make overdue changes. They're asking for improved and secure funding to eliminate inequities.

``Right now, a school needs 764 students to qualify for one full-time teacher librarian and we are suggesting lowering that number to 350 and then putting it in a separate (funding) envelope from which it could not be cut,'' said Annie Kidder of People for Education.

She estimates that would cost an additional $116 million.

However, the Ministry of Education says it has already increased the amount of money provided to boards for guidance counsellors and librarians to $317 million this year, from $294 million in 1997.

Spokesperson Rob Savage said protecting funding for librarians would rob a local board's flexibility to deal with local priorities.''

Liz Sandals, president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association said the ``mixed bag'' approach to school libraries existed before the Conservatives came to power.

But the funding formula has affected teacher-librarians.

``That's exactly why boards are looking at the library technician model because it's cheaper than the teacher-librarian model.

``It may make more sense to have a library technician who can keep the library open, understanding that you do lose a component of the library program . . . but at least you are making sure the library is open.''

Free reading works everywhere.

Here is another interesting study. Renandya, Rajan and Jacobs (1999) examined the progress of 49 Vietnamese government officials who took a two month intensive English course in Singapore (28 hours per week). All were college graduates, and 36% held graduate degrees. Their proficiency in English was considered "low to high intermediate" before taking the course.

Part of the course consisted of extensive reading: Students were required to read either 20 books in English or at least 800 pages. Importantly, students were encouraged to read books that they could read without too much difficulty and that were interesting, and were encouraged to read different kinds of books. After reading the books, students wrote short summaries. Teachers gave feedback on the content of the summaries, with less emphasis on writing mechanics.

On questionnaires administered when the course was over, students noted how much they read: The average number of pages read during the course was 729 (sd = 329), indicating that students did the reading (or at least reported that they did), but the range of pages read was substantial, from a low of 221 to a high of 1638. Students said that the books were in fact interesting (mean rating = 7.31 on a scale of 1-10), and confirmed that they were not too difficult (mean difficulty rating = .438 on a scale of 1-10). They also found the reading enjoyable (mean = 2.63, 1-4 scale, where 1 = a little enjoyable, 2 = enjoyable, 3 = very enjoyable, 4 = extremely enjoyable), and said that they understood what they read (mean = 87% understood).

Students took a general test of English before and after the course (listening, reading, grammar and vocabulary, writing). Renandya et. al. reported that those students who did the most reading in the class made the best gains (r = .386). This predictor survived a multiple regression analysis, which means that it was a significant predictor even when other factors were considered, such as the amount of reading done in English before arriving in Singapore.

Although no control group was used in this study, the results are very suggestive. It is hard to image any other source for the gains than reading - one could argue, for example, that those who read more were the more motivated students in general and were also those who studied their grammar and vocabulary harder. I have argued, however, that direct grammar study is not particularly effective (e.g. Krashen, 1999). Finally, it could be argued that writing summaries was responsible for the gains. Our recent results suggest, however, that adding writing does not add to the power of reading (Mason and Krashen, in press).

Krashen, S. 1999. Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals 32(2): 245-257.
Ranandya, W., Rajan, B.R.S., and Jacobs, G. 1999. ER with adult learns of English as a second language. RELC Journal 30(1): 39-61.
Mason, B. and Krashen, S. (in press). Can we increase the power of reading by adding more output and/or correction? Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education.

PS: The RELC Journal is published in Singapore.

The Grandmother Effect

Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson (1997; pp. 111-113) compared reading achievement in children coming from families in which both single mother and grandmother shared the residence (n = 31) and families in which the grandmother did not live with the single mother, but other relatives did (n = 49). There was no difference between the years of schooling for both groups of mothers, and no differences mothers' age, or mothers' expectations for school achievement, nor was there a socio-economic difference. Children coming from grandmother-mother homes read slightly, but insignificantly better at the start of grade 1 (CAT reading comprehension 284 vs. 272), and had significantly better work habits. Reading marks at the beginning of grade 1 were significantly higher for grandmother families (2.13 vs. 1.67). Also, mothers who lived with grandmothers were significantly less depressed. Fewer children from grandmother families were retained, both at the end of grade 1 and at the end of grade 5. Children from grandmother families were late to school significantly fewer times and were absent less in grade 1.

The reading advantage for the grandmother group wore off by the end of grade 5 (CAT 487 vs. 480). Thus, the presence of a grandmother appears to provide a modest head start that tends to wear off, similar to the effect of intensive phonics instruction. One wonders what grandmothers do that produces this effect. It could be story telling, read alouds, verbal interaction, and/or simply providing more help in general.

Entwisle, D., Alexander, K. and Olson, L.S., 1997. Children, Schools and Inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Note the very last sentence. I think Jim Trelease deserves a lot of the credit for this encouraging statistic.

Census: Income, Well-Being Connected
Updated 12:01 AM ET February 23, 2001

WASHINGTON (AP) - There's a close connection between family income and how often a
parent or caregiver reads to a child and how involved a child gets in after-school activities,
according to the Census Bureau.

The bureau arrived at those findings in its first-ever report, being released Friday, on the
well-being of American children.

The report is based on a 1994 survey, but the study arrives at conclusions still likely to be true
today, Census Bureau analyst Kristin Smith said.

"What is nice to learn is that kids, in general, are doing well," Smith said. "A lot of these
indicators don't change over time."

Children who live with two parents, and children from families in higher income brackets,
typically are read to more often and spend more time in extracurricular activities, the report said.

For instance, 55 percent of children ages 12 to 17 from a family with a monthly income of
$4,500 or more participated in an after-school club, compared with 46 percent of those from a
family with a monthly income between $3,000 and $4,499, 36 percent of those from a family
that makes between $1,500 and $2,999 per month, and 28 percent of those from families with a
monthly income below $1,500.

More well-to-do parents can pay a baby sitter to pick up the child, or those parents may encourage their children to participate in after-school activities since they do not have extra house chores or work in the afternoon, Smith said.

Most families, regardless of income level, had at least one rule controlling a child's television-viewing habits. However, children ages 12 to 17 with married parents were more likely to have TV guidelines than those with never-married parents - 81 percent compared with 70 percent.

Also, 47 percent of children ages 3 to 5 were read to seven or more times per week. About 9 percent of children in that age group were not read to at all in the week prior to the survey.

---

Here is another report from the research. The implications for libraries are clear, I think.

Gottfried, Fleming and Gottfried (1998) examined the characteristics of the home environment when their subjects were eight years old, and also measured their degree of academic intrinsic motivation at ages 9, 10, 13. Of interest to those involved in literacy is the fact that home environment included visits to the library, a library card, subscriptions to a magazine, membership in a book club, and magazines and journals in the home. Also, their measure of intrinsic motivation included intrinsic motivation for reading.

Gottfried et. al. found
(1) the home environment at age eight was indeed a significant predictor of intrinsic motivation for age 9, and also had effects on intrinsic motivation for later ages.
(2) although those from higher SES families had home environments more conducive to intrinsic motivation. the effect of home environment on motivation held even when SES was included, or statistically controlled. McQuillan (1998) found similar results for SES, access to print, and reading achievement. In McQuillan's study, both SES and access to print predicted reading achievement, but access to print was a significant predictor even when SES was held constant.

These are encouraging results. Poor children have very little access to print, compared to children from higher income families. But there is something we can do about it.

Gottfried, A.E., Fleming, J. and Gottfried, A. W. 1998. Role of cognitively stimulating home environment in children's academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal study. Child Development 69 (5): 1448-1460.
McQuillan, J. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

McGill-Frantzen, A., Allington, R., Yokoi, L. and Brooks, G. 1999. Putting books in the classroom seems necessary but not sufficient. The Journal of Educational Research 93(2): 67-74

This is a simple but elegant study. One group of kindergarten classes were given a large supply of children's books (250 titles per classroom library, 130 titles for a parent-lending library, three personal books per child, and five books for parents who attended a one-hour evening session). Teachers in these classes also received thirty hours of training on topics such as physical design of the classroom, book display, importance of read alouds, environmental print, and literacy activity during play: "A central theme in the training was 'putting the books in the children's hands' - allowing and encouraging children to pick up the books and read them" (p. 68). A second book received books and no training and a third group had no treatment at all.

The impact of the training was obvious. Teachers in the books+training group did twice as many read alouds as controls, and did significantly more than the books-only classes. They displayed far more books in the classroom than either of the other groups. In fact, two (of the three) teachers in the books-only condition had not opened the boxes in which the books arrived by midyear (winter). The books+training classes were judged to have a richer print environment than the other two groups of classes, which did not differ for this variable. Teachers in the books+instruction classes also linked reading and writing activities (mostly read alouds) more than those in the other groups.

McGill-Frantzen et. al. reported that children in the books+instruction classes made better gains on a variety of measures, with the two other groups showing little difference from each other. McGill-Frantzen reported both pre and post test results for all children, which included some who did not take the pretest because of attrition, and gain scores for children present for both tests, the latter controlled for age. Results for both were similar. Books+training children made significantly better gains on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and much larger gains on a concepts about print test, a test in which they were to write all the words they knew in ten minutes, a word reading test, and a test of phonemic awareness.

McGill-Frantzen et. al. conclude that their results are counter to the simple hypothesis that access to books is enough; teacher development also needs to be included. Their study provides compelling evidence that this is correct, certainly at the kindergarten level, where most children cannot yet read independently.

Older children might profit a great deal from simple access. There is good evidence, however, that some children do not read, even when books are all around them (e.g. the library latch-key children described in Pack, 2000). There is also good evidence that encouraging reading for older children is effective, through read alouds, book promotion, providing genuinely high interest reading (Krashen, 1993; Trelease, 1996; Von Sprecken and Krashen, 1999) and planned trips to the library (Ramos and Krashen, 1999). Sometimes only one positive experience will result in a child becoming a dedicated reader, e.g. one "home run" book (Von Sprecken, Kim, and Krashen, 20000; Kim and Krashen, 2000). Nevertheless, the McGill-Frantzen et. al. study confirms that books alone are insufficient.

Their results also remind me of a common (and bogus) complaint about whole language: Critics sometimes define whole language as simply giving children books to read and providing absolutely no help in making them comprehensible. This occurred in the Los Angeles Times (Colvin, 1995):

""The frustration of students taught with the whole language method was obvious last year in the faces of her first graders, said Tammy Hunter-Weathers, a teacher at Hyde Park School in the Crenshaw area of Los Angeles. 'The children were in tears,' she said, when they were asked to read texts even though they did not know the letters or sounds. 'They look at you with three paragraphs on a page and they say, 'What do we do with this?''"

Whole language is just the opposite: Whole language teachers provide interesting texts and help children understand them. Phonics is one of ways this is done.

Another interesting result from McGill-Frantzen et. al. is the finding that the books+instruction group made outstanding gains on skills (reading words in isolation, phonemic awareness). Note that the teacher development portion did not focus on skills. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that phonemic awareness and phonics development are the result of reading (e.g. Smith, 1994).

Colvin, R. 1995. State report urges return to basics in teaching reading. Los Angeles Times September 13, 1995.
Kim, J. and Krashen, S. 2000. Another home run. California English 6(2): 25
Krashen, S. 1993. The Power of Reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Pack, Sam. 2000. Public library use, school performance, and the parental X-factor: A bio-documentary approach to
children's snapshots. Reading Improvement 37: 161-172.
Ramos, F. and Krashen, S. 1998. The impact of one trip to the public library: Making books available may be the best Smith, F. 1994. Understanding reading. Fifth Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trelease, J. 1995. The Read Aloud Handbook. 4th edition. New York: Penguin.
Von Sprecken, D. and Krashen, S. 1998. Do students read during sustained silent reading? California Reader 32(1): 11-13.
Von Sprecken, D., Kim, J. and Krashen, S. 2000. The home run book: Can one positive reading experience create a reader? California School Library Journal 23 (2): 8-9.

Jack Humphrey on Reating 14 Feb 01

Heritage Hills tops in school reading
Indiana Courier Press
Feb 11, 2001

By JUDY DAVIS, Courier & Press staff writer
(812) 464-7593 or jdavis@evansville.net

LINCOLN CITY, Ind. - Heritage Hills Junior-Senior
High School is first in the state again, and this time the
entire school - students, faculty and staff - and even some
parents are on the team.

The school recently received the Indiana State Reading
Association Exemplary Reading Program Award for its highly
successful reading program.

"The association selected three schools from the
state as the best,"
said Jack Humphrey, director of the Middle Grades Reading
Network.

It rated Heritage Hills tops.

"The faculty are role models for the students and the
principal is
the catalyst for this," Humphrey said.

Heritage Hills received special mention for excelling
simultaneously in athletics and academics.

"What's really interesting is so many people have it in their
minds that reading is something you do in elementary school.
"Here you have a reading program in middle and high school,
and it is proving its value," Humphrey said.

Janet Tassell, director of learning and assessment at Heritage
Hills, said that the school's reading comprehension study group
applied for the award.

"We looked at how our reading program had impacted on student
comprehension," she said. "We did the application as
part of the
study."

The study, done by parents, teachers and staff,
included research
and surveys.

The reading program is based on a simple premise - more
reading makes a better reader, and a better reader
makes a better
student.

"We read daily, so it becomes a habit," said Principal Al
Logsdon.

"The high school reads 20 minutes and middle school 30 minutes,
first thing each morning," Logsdon said. "That's
sacred time, just
for reading."

Each classroom has its own library, or students may bring their
own books or magazines. Teachers and staff read, too.

Since the school is about 25 miles from the nearest bookstore,
Logsdon said, teachers travel to bookstores in
Evansville to buy
books for their classroom libraries.

"Once a year, all seventh-graders go to Barnes & Noble in
Evansville," Logsdon said. "We give them $7.50 each out of
concession money. They buy reading material, which is
put in the classroom library."

The goal, Logsdon said, is to get students into the habit of
shopping for and selecting books.

"Last weekend Castle High School had a book sale. Some of our
teachers went there to buy books. … I bought some myself,"
Logsdon said.

Logsdon says he has no doubt the program is working. Scores are
up, and students seems to enjoy reading.

"At a game with Harrison High School (in Evansville)," he said,
"I asked Nathan Hancock, who was a lineman on our
state-champion football team, how many books he had read
during the read-in. He said he had read 16. I asked him how
many he read before he started the read-ins. He said, 'I didn't
read before I got involved in the read-in.'"

Logsdon quoted what Steve Krashen of California wrote in
Power of Reading: "Surround children with reading material,
give them time to read, serve as a role model and children will
read."

"Every week kids from here go to elementary schools and read to
the students," Logsdon said.

The "reading role models" have created a lot of interest.

"When little kids see star athletes and student
leaders reading, it
sends a message about what's important in school."

Logsdon said the reading program, originally for grades 7-12,
was adopted in every classroom in the school corporation, K-12,
within two years.

"We're becoming a community of readers," he said.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LiteracyForAll-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Pack (2000) is an usual, creative and insightful study. Pack asked 58 fourth graders to document their after-school activities by taking pictures, and asked them to fill out a questionnaire about library use. The children ignored the questions and just took pictures, but Peck was able to get more information with follow-up interviews after the pictures were taken. The children were classified as high, medium and low school achievers, according to teacher judgment. Pack classified them as high, medium and low library users and as high, medium and low "parental presence" on the basis of his interview, but he does not provide details on how he arrived at these classification.

In general, there was a relationship between library use and school performance.

school perf: high medium low
library users 15 12 3
non library users 6 5 17

Pack also identified an interesting subgroup, which he labeled "The library latch-key kid": Four children were actually in the library every day, but had low to moderate school achievement, and low "parental presence." These children did not include parents in their photos, and did not take pictures of themselves, because "nobody was available to take photographs of them" (p. 166). Their parents used the library "as a free source of after-school care" from one to six hours per day and the children "do little more than 'hang out' at the library" (p. 166). They do not read (none took pictures of books), but socialize with other children and play on the computer.

The existence of this group confirms that the presence of books is necessary but not always sufficient. A bit of attention from a librarian or other helper might help these children get interested in the books (Ramos and Krashen, 1998) and even discover a "home run" book (Von Sprecken, Kim and Krashen, 2000; Kim and Krashen, 2000) and become involved readers.

Kim, J. and Krashen, S. 2000. Another home run. California English 6(2): 25
Pack, Sam. 2000. Public library use, school performance, and the parental X-factor: A bio-documentary approach to children's snapshots. Reading Improvement 37: 161-172.
Ramos, F. and Krashen, S. 1998. The impact of one trip to the public library: Making books available may be the best incentive for reading. The Reading Teacher 51(7): 614-615.
Von Sprecken, D., Kim, J. and Krashen, S. 2000. The home run book: Can one positive reading experience create a reader? California School Library Journal 23 (2): 8-9.

To appear in Reading Today, published by the International Reading Assocation

Commentary

Do teenagers like to read? Yes! by Stephen Krashen

Subhead: Surveys offer useful information for reading promotion campaigns

Organizers of reading promotion campaigns typically assume that adolescents and teenagers need to be encouraged to read. Not so. The results of three surveys, two recent and one done over a decade ago, clearly show that most adolescents and teenagers already like to read, read quite a bit, and value reading. These surveys are as follows:

1. The Mellon poll (conducted by Constance Mellon in 1987 and reported in School Library Journal, vol. 38, no. 8) was given to 362 ninth graders in two rural high schools in North Carolina. Mellon reported that in these schools, one third to one half of the families were below the poverty level.
2. The SmartGirl poll was administered in October 1999 on the SmartGirl Web site (www.SmartGirl.com) in cooperation with the Young Adult Library Services Association's Teen Read Week campaign. More than 3,000 adolescents ages 11-18 participated (1,826 girls and 1,246 boys). It was, apparently, an elite group; only 2 percent said their grades were below average (another 8 percent would not answer the question), and only 6 percent said they were "below average" readers, with another 3 percent not answering this question.
3. The READ California poll was reported in September 1999 by a professional polling company, California Opinion Research (Fairbanks, Maaslin, Maullin and Associates). They surveyed 201 subjects between the ages of 10 and 17-48 percent male and 52 percent female-mostly in the southern California area. Ninety two percent said they attended public school. READ California is a public relations effort sponsored by the state Department of Education to encourage reading.

Teenagers like to read, and they read a lot

These surveys indicate that teenagers like to read. Sixty four percent of the READ California respondents rated reading 7 or better on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = not fun and 10 = a lot of fun. Thirty six percent agreed that reading is "really cool," and another 55 percent agreed that reading is "kind of cool," a total of 91 percent of the sample.

When asked how often they read, about two-thirds of the SmartGirl respondents said they read a book a month or more, and 30 percent said they read a book a week or more. READ California respondents gave similar responses: 58 percent said they read four days a week or more, and 67 percent said they read 26 minutes per day or more.

We also know that better libraries mean more literacy development. This has been confirmed for younger readers by Keith Lance in the School Library Media Annual (vol. 12, 1994) and by Jeff McQuillan in The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions (Heinemann, 1998), as well as for high school students in a recent Internet article by James Baughman, 2000.
Of special relevance here is McQuillan's work, which reports that public library circulation and high school library quality were good predictors of verbal SAT scores in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, even when controlling for per pupil spending, classroom size, and the amount of computer software available.

Startling differences in print environments between high and low income neighborhoods

A short time ago, I posted a short note on Duke's study in the American Educational Research Journal, which showed that first graders in high income area schools had access to better classroom libraries and more time to read. There was more environmental print in the high income area classrooms, children spent more time with "extended text," and heard more stories.

Here is another study, which just appeared in the Reading Research Quarterly, that finds startling differences between high income and low income print environments, in terms of access to places that sell books, public libraries, school libraries, preschool print environments, environmental print in the community, and in the number of places conducive to reading in the community. The two studies were done independently (they do not cite each other) and appeared at nearly exactly the same time. Apparently this is a finding whose time has finally come.

Neuman and Celano (2001): " ... children in middle-income neighborhoods were likely to be deluged with a wide variety of reading materials. However, children from poor neighborhoods would have to aggressively and persistently seek them out" (p. 15).

Four communities were studied, two low income (46%, 90% at poverty level) and two high income (none at poverty level). The differences in access to reading material was incredible:

1. There were more places to buy books in the high income neighborhoods. Neuman and Celano looked at bookstores, drugstores, grocery stores, bargain stores, corner stores, "other" stores, and children's stores. Each low income neighborhood had four places to buy children's books. One high income neighborhood had 13 places, the other 11. The low income neighborhood had no place to buy young adult books. One high income neighborhood had 3, the other one.
High income children had access to a much wider variety of books. The total number of children's book titles available
in the two low income neighborhoods was 358 (one title for every 20 children) in one and 55 in the other (one title for every 300 children). In one high income neighborhood, 1597 titles were available (.3 per child), in the other, 16,455 (13 per child). Comparing the print richest and the print poorest: high income children have 4000 times the number of titles available. Interestingly, " ... drugstores were the most common source of print materials for young children" (p. 15) Young adult materials were "scarce."
2. School libraries.
In high income neighborhoods, school libraries had more books per child (18.9 and 25.7, compared to 12.9 and 10), were open more days (5 and 5, vs. 4 and 2). Both high income school libraries had a trained librarian with an MS or MLS, neither low income school library had a trained librarian. (Total book collections: low income =7,900 + 5,400; high income = 8,500 + 7,700.
3. Public libraries
High income public libraries had more juvenile books per child (3.9 and 12.7, compared to 2.5 and 2.2). Both were open two evenings per week (until 8 pm), the low income libraries were never open past six pm. (Total juvenile book collections: low income = 11,823 + 21,215, high income = 26,646 + 15,780)
4. There was more readable environmental print in the high income neighborhoods. Nearly all environmental signs were readable (96% and 99%). In the poor neighborhood, signs were often "graffiti-covered and difficult to decipher" (p. 19), only 66% and 26% were in "good readable condition" (p. 19).
5. In the high income neighborhood, there were more places suitable for reading (eg coffee shops with good lighting, seating, friendly staff, etc.). Thus, children in the high income communities were more likely to see people reading.
6. Preschool book collections in high income neighborhoods were of better quality.

Duke, N. 2000. For the rich it's richer: Print experiences and environments offered to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status first-grade classrooms.American Educational Research Journal 37(2): 441-478.
Neuman, S. and Celano, D. 2001. Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities. Reading Research Quarterly 36(1): 8-26.

Richer first graders are in print-richer classrooms: Duke (2000) in the American Educational Research Journal

Duke (2000), observed and examined 20 first grade classrooms from very high and very low socioeconomic levels in the Boston area for a total of four days (In the low SES classrooms, the per capita income was $14,400 and 11.4% of the families were below the poverty level. In the high SES classrooms, the per capita income was $39,200 and 1% of the families were below the poverty level. ) No English learners were included in the study.

Classroom libraries

The high SES children had better classroom libraries, with an average of 33 books per child, compared to 18 in the low SES classrooms. In the high SES classes, an average of 19 books were added to the high SES classroom over the course of the school year, but only 10 were added in the low SES classroom libraries. In general, books in classroom libraries in low SES classes "appeared to be older" (fn 3, p. 475).

High SES classrooms had more books on display. High SES classroom libraries had an average of 21 books on "full display" at the beginning of the year, with 60 more on full display over the course of the year, compared to ten on full display at the beginning of the year in low SES classroom libraries, with an average of 16 more displayed during the year.

Seven of ten high SES classes had a specific time during which children were to read or look at a book silently, but only two of ten low SES classes had such a specific time.

6.2% of whole language written activity was devoted to free choice reading in high SES classes, but only 1.5% was in low SES classes.

Classroom environmental print

High SES classes had more environmental print, but the difference was not statistically significant. In high SES classes, however, "there was more incorporation of classroom print in daily classroom life" (p. 461). In four visits, Duke observed an average of 52 references to classroom environmental print in high SES classes, but only 31 in low SES classes. In addition, in high SES classes, environmental print was more commonly integrated with topics of study. High SES classes had more "extended" environmenal print ("extended" = three or more related sentences; p. 451).

Written language activities

Low SES classes had more exposure to written language activities, but the difference was not statistically significant. But high SES students spent a larger percentage of print time with extended text, while low SES student "devoted a greater proportion of time to text at the letter, word and phrasal/sentential levels" (p. 464). High SES teachers provided instructional time to graphophonic relationships and high frequency word reading, "but more often embedded this instruction in extended text forms" (p. 464).

Read-alouds of novels were observed in seven of ten high SES classrooms, but only in two of ten low SES classrooms.

More writing in high SES classes was student-authored, and was written for audiences beyond the teacher alone.

Duke suggests that "schools themselves may contribute to relatively lower levels of literacy and other kinds of achievement among low-SES classrooms" (p. 464). Schools are not only failing to level the playing field, they may also be "acting as agents of further disequalization" (. p. 464).

Duke, N. 2000. For the rich it's richer: Print experiences and environments offered to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status first-grade classrooms.American Educational Research Journal 37(2): 441-478.

Sent to the SF Chronicle, January 16, 2001

The Chronicle's report on reading instruction in King Estates, Oakland ("No more time for excuses," January 16), presents an inaccurate view of the impact of whole language. Whole language is not simply based on "guessing words" and does not forbid the teaching of phonics. Whole language is based on the idea that we learn to read by understanding texts. The correctness of this hypothesis is supported by studies showing that children in classes that involve more real reading do better on tests of reading comprehension. Knowing some phonics rules can help make texts comprehensible; phonics has been part of whole language since it began.

Sources cited in the Chronicle's article give the impression that whole language is responsible for a decline in literacy in California, and that intensive phonics is turning things around, that NAEP scores are now "creeping up." Not true. The perception that there has been a decline emerged because California fourth graders have performed poorly on national reading tests (the NAEP test) since data of this kind began to be collected in 1992, and in 1987 a literature-based approach was officially endorsed by the state. But there was no decline: Jeff McQuillan, in his book The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions (Heinemann, 1999) examined the data and found no evidence that reading scores declined in California from 1984 to 1990.

To be sure, California did poorly on the NAEP test, but as McQuillan has pointed out, performing poorly is not the same thing as declining. There is strong evidence that California's poor performance is related to its print-poor environment. California ranks last in the country in the quality of its public libraries, and ranks near the bottom in public libraries. In addition, our children do not have reading material at home: California ranks near the bottom of the country in the percentage of homes with more than 25 books. Moreover, as several studies have shown, all of these variables are strongly correlated with NAEP reading scores. This clearly suggests that California's problem is not whole language but a lack of reading material. The Chronicle article confirms that King Estates children suffer from a lack of access to books: One student "could not produce a single book he owned."

Is intensive phonics really helping? Are California's scores "creeping up"? Hardly. Our fourth grades NAEP reading scores were 202 in 1992, 197 in 1994 and 202 in 1998.

Stephen Krashen

No More Time for Excuses'
Oakland school works to turn students into lifelong readers
Meredith May, Lori Olszewski, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 16, 2001
©2001 San Francisco Chronicle

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/16/MN168269.DTL

One in an Occasional Series

The Chronicle is documenting the yearlong struggle of one low-performing Oakland school to turn itself around.

At the after-school Homework Club at King Estates Middle School in Oakland, a sixth-grade girl is coaxing her best friend to read.

"You have to try. C'mon."

The friend in the pink sweatshirt drops her head and shakes it no. She has folded the top and bottom corners over the lesson on
every page in her reading booklet, turning it into some sort of origami fan.

She is among 75 percent of Oakland middle school students -- about 10,000 children -- who read below the national average.
Reading is frightening to this 12-year-old girl. She crosses the classroom to a couch, where she said in a whisper, "I don't know it.
In church, I'm afraid the pastor will call on me to read."

The key to whether King Estates can lift itself off the state's list of 860 "underperforming" California schools is whether teachers, counselors and new principal Emily Gaddis can undo six years of elementary school failure and help students like this girl tackle their fears. If they don't, the children will fall hopelessly behind as the curriculum leaves less time for basic skills and moves toward content. Sixth-graders are supposed to be learning about American history, not learning to read.

Like school districts in Los Angeles and Sacramento, Oakland has declared a reading crisis. This year, the school district threw out dozens of hodgepodge reading programs and chose instead phonics-based literacy programs, which rely on sounding out words to teach the fundamentals of reading.

The girl in pink is what Oakland's language arts director Folosade Oladele calls the "canary in the coal mine," -- the urban public school student who is the first to show signs of trouble and thus alert the district that the system may not be working.

Today's middle and high school students are struggling with reading, Oladele said, largely because of conflicts over statewide teaching methods that erupted years ago, when the children were in elementary school. The fight was between educators who advocated "sound-it-out" phonics and those who preferred "whole language," which relied on guessing words from context and believed reading comes naturally.

From year to year, children were passed back and forth between contradictory textbooks and teaching styles.

Compounding their problems, urban schoolchildren were more likely to be taught to read by inexperienced teachers. Seriously lacking in skills, Oladele said, students were nonetheless promoted year after year by educators who had liberal guilt over the plight of poor black inner-city children.

"These are excuses people make for urban students, but wouldn't dare for their own kids," she said.

"Teachers are also excusing their own inability to teach the children by blaming poverty or parents. There's no more time for excuses."

Last year, King Estates Middle School volunteered for and was accepted into a new state program for underperforming schools. Under the program, each school must formulate a plan to lift reading scores within three years. King qualified because 85 percent of its 568 students read below the national average.

The cornerstone of King's plan is mandatory reading intervention classes for students who need to catch up to their peers. More than half the school -- 330 students -- must give up an elective, such as music, art or drama. Instead, they will study booklets called Caught Reading -- a phonics-based text published by Globe Fearon and chosen by 13 of the 14 middle schools in Oakland.

Some parents have had a hard time accepting that their children need extra help.

"I thought my son could read," one father said. "If you give him a book, he says all the words. He just doesn't remember what it means."

The boy can decode but can't comprehend the story, Oladele said, which is what happens when a child can't read multisyllabic words quickly and fluently.

Caught Reading is an intervention program that breaks words into small, manageable sounds. There are seven workbooks, or levels, designed to bring these struggling sixth- to eighth-graders up to a fourth-grade reading level, so they can easily read books such as "Indian in the Cupboard" and "Bandit's Moon."

Classes are small, and each child gets an instruction plan tailored to his or her ability.

"My reading class is small, and I like that there are fewer kids there and nobody laughs at you," said sixth-grader Dario Canon.

Reading class is often the first class of the day, at 8:20 a.m. That's when Eileen Ingenthron, the curriculum coach, teaches reading in the library. She has 14 students, but typically, eight or nine show up.

She keeps the pace fast and engaging, switching activities when the students start to tune out. On pieces of construction paper that she tapes to the bookcases, the lessons for the day are written out:

Read to yourselves

Read to each other

Ask for help

Practice

Read to the class

Retell the story

"If you prefer to mumble or whisper read, that's OK. Put a check over the words you don't know and get help from each other," she says, crossing among the tables.

At first, eighth-grader Ronika Washington didn't want to be in a reading class. She felt defeated and was prepared to fail.

After getting help at home, where her aunt and uncle read to her and give spelling tests, she tackled her first book with chapters,
"Something in the Tree House."

"It's about a boy in a tree house who thinks he sees monsters. It's the first book I've read all by myself," the eighth-grader said.

Before switching to King this year, Ronika went to a different Oakland middle school where she wasn't in a small reading class. King is different, she said, because teachers are showing her how to read, instead of handing her a book and telling her to read aloud.

"I want to read the books my friends read, and when I go get a job, I need to be able to read the application," she said.

Confident in her new abilities, Ronika is eager to read aloud in Ingenthron's class.

"Some kids say the reading classes are stupid, that they are too easy, but I don't think so. I say give it time and it will help you."

There was an eight-week delay getting the program because the school chose a different reading program before Gaddis took over. She had to reorder books and wait for them to arrive from the district office. Adding to the delay, students had to be tested to figure out which reading level class they needed.

"We got a late start, but we are up to speed now," Gaddis said.

King Estates also now has Saturday school staffed with tutors from the University of California at Berkeley, and a before and after-school Homework Club. Parents are offered free classes that teach strategies to help their children succeed academically. Gaddis also uses enticements, such as tickets to the Warriors-Bulls basketball game, to reward students who come to class prepared. She is pushing all her teachers to create classroom libraries for students.

"Can I get a ticket, Ms. Gaddis, please, please, please?" asks one boy in a Chicago Bulls jersey, watching the crowd of good students surround the principal.

"Did I call your name?" she said. "Have you been bringing all your papers and your agenda to school every day? I don't think so.
Maybe next time."

Gaddis is constantly thinking up new ways to keep the students interested in learning.

"They have grown up with technology, in an entertainment age of video games and all that flash," she said.

"Compared to video games, school is slow, deliberate, routine. Kids get bored easily, and we struggle every day against that."

A visit to one student's home supports her description. He had a television at the base of his bed with a choice of video games, but the seventh-grader could not produce a book he owned.

Gaddis has started pulling groups of girls and boys separately from physical education class for "commonsense, mother wit" talks to try to change the anti-reading culture among some students. Children who have trouble reading often play class clown to cover their inabilities or pick on the others who read well. Some good readers have told stories about getting jumped by other kids for acting "too smart."

"I need to instill the will to be educated," Gaddis said. "I talk to them about self-respect, about how to compliment one another and be able to express what they are grateful for, because some of these children have intense lives."

To give them confidence to excel, Caught Reading recommends starting children one level below their ability, Ingenthron said.

That's also a recommendation of the National Research Council, which in 1998 put out the 390-page book "Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children," considered one of the definitive studies of reading.

The study, and a second one released last April by the National Reading Panel, called for an end to the infighting over phonics or "whole language" approaches to reading. A combination of phonics and oral reading, they said, is the best method.

"It's not an 'either / or' debate anymore," said National Reading Panel member Linnea Ehri, a professor of educational psychology at City University of New York. But the debate that raged until the late '90s ruined a whole generation's chances of learning to read easily, according to California Board of Education member Marion Joseph. And one of those students was her grandson.

"I call it child abuse," Joseph said.

Whole language reading instruction was introduced into classrooms in 1987 by then-California schools chief Bill Honig.

With that approach, even young children read classics, biographies, stories,
joke books and brainteasers. Children are encouraged to make up stories based on what they read.

But whole language also encourages children to invent spelling and skip over words they do not understand, gathering their meaning through context alone.

By 1995, California's fourth-graders tied with Louisiana children as the nation's worst readers on the National Assessment of Educational Progress exam.

That caused the pendulum to swing back, and in 1996, the state Board of Education voted to reinstall phonics. The textbooks were rewritten and will finally be ready for California classrooms in the spring. Honig has had a change of heart and now writes and teaches the benefits of phonics instruction.

Already children are showing a slight improvement on the national reading test, as districts buy their own phonics programs rather than waiting for the state. In 1998, California's fourth-graders had creeped up a few more slots from the bottom, edging out Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Mississippi in addition to Louisiana.

"It's a really sad story," Joseph said. "People think poor kids can't read because they are poor, but it was this wishy-washy child-centered, self-esteem- type teaching that hurt them."

The situation is compounded for today's eighth-graders, who will be the first students required to pass a new high school exit exam to get their high school diplomas.

Reading experts like Ehri say it's never too late to learn to read, and they point to adult literacy programs as proof.

And there's more proof in Matthew Leafgren's Caught Reading class at King, where students are eager, almost competing, to read aloud. The story is about the Robertson family, who survived more than a month adrift in the Pacific after a killer whale attacked their boat.

"Who wants to read next? Vanessa? OK, you're hired. Go!"

The students are fascinated by the survival story and discuss how the family used a tarp to catch rainwater and wire to catch fish. There seems to be a general consensus that sailing around the world in a small boat is not a good idea.

Leafgren, who graduated last year from Ohio State University and came to Oakland because he "heard they need teachers," plays R&B on the radio while the students quietly answer questions about the story.

They hum the words to a song, "Sorry, Ms. Jackson, I never meant to make your daughter cry. I apologize a trillion times. . . ."

Leafgren said his students were skeptical of Caught Reading at first, but have since embraced it.

"I have this one student, the class clown, and I realized he was acting out because he didn't want anyone to know he wasn't a very good reader. But he really liked the novel about a boy who gets lost and a basketball player who saves him, and now the student's voice is getting stronger. He demands to read every day."

TEACHING READING AT HOME

There are many things parents and guardians can do to at home to help their children become better readers. Below are some specific recommendations from America's leading researchers on childhood literacy:

-- From birth to age 4, children should be encouraged to label objects in their world and in magazines. Ask questions, such as
"Where is your nose?"

-- Turn the tables at reading time. When children reach preschool age, they can be the reader or teller of the story. Ask them to tell you what's going on in the story, and why. Relate the story to their own lives.

-- Share the mail and shopping lists with preschoolers. Tell them what the letter from auntie says, what the bill means, and what groceries are on the list. Show them reading gives information.

-- When taking breaks from reading, finish at the end of a sentence. Say, "Let me finish this sentence before I answer your question." Then point to the period when you get there. This helps children learn how one aspect of print works.

-- Play the SNAP game, good for kindergartners on a long car ride. One player says two words, and if they share a sound such as "ball" and "bat," the other players snap their fingers. If the two words don't share a sound, the other players are silent.

-- Make a word wall. Select five words each week from a favorite book or the child's writing and post them. Practice reading, spelling and chanting them daily. Add new words weekly.

.

Source: "Starting Out Right, A Guide to Promoting Children's Reading Success, " the National Research Council, 1999. To order a copy, call

1-800-624-6242

HELPFUL WEB SITES

-- International Reading Association. www.reading.org

-- The National Reading Panel. www.nationalreadingpanel.org

-- Reading Is Fundamental. www.rif.org

-- The Internet Public Library Youth Division. www.ipl.org/youth

ABOUT THE SERIES

This is the third story in The Chronicle's yearlong look at King Estates Middle School in Oakland.

As one of the 860 participants in California's new Underperforming Schools Program, King Estates has funding and a plan to improve test scores, attendance and teacher turnover.

Chronicle staff writers Meredith May and Lori Olszewski and photographer Michael Macor are documenting King's efforts to succeed.

To read previous installments of the series, log on to sfgate.com.

E-mail Meredith May at mmay@sfchronicle.com and Lori Olszewski at lolszewski@sfchronicle.com.

BC:

OAKLAND SEVENTH GRADE READING SCORES
Teaching children to read is at the center of the reform efforts at King Estates Middle School in Oakland, where most children in sixth, seventh and eighth grade read at a level below the national average.
Low reading performance, however, is a problem at all Oakland middle schools. The only Oakland middle school where most students read at or above the national average is Montera.
The following chart shows the percentage - or proportion - of seventh-
graders who read at or above the national average, the 50th percentile, on the
STAR test administered in 2000.

Edna Brewer 30%
Carter 17%
Claremont 44%
Elmhurst 11%
Frick 11%
Bret Harte 36%
Havenscourt 8%
KING ESTATES 15%
Lowell 12%
Madison 13%
Montera 69%
Roosevelt 15%
Calvin Simmons 10%
Westlake 28%

Source: California Department of Education 2000 STAR test results
Information about all districts is available at the California Department
of Education Web site: www.cde.ca.gov.

---------------------------------------------------------
CHART (2):
.
CALIFORNIA SEVENTH GRADE READING SCORES
Reading performance varies widely across the state, but, overall, about
half of the state's middle schoolers are reading below the national average.
Here are the percentage of seventh graders who read above the national average
in California, in the Bay Area counties and in selected urban districts.
.
Statewide 46%
Oakland Unified 24%
San Francisco Unified 50%
San Jose Unified 49%
Los Angeles 27%
West Contra Costa Unified 33%
.
-- Bay Area Counties
Alameda 51%
Contra Costa 59%
Marin 79%
Napa 54%
San Francisco 50%
San Mateo 58%
Santa Clara 58%
Solano 50%
Sonoma 62%
.
Source: California Department of Education 2000 STAR test results.
Information about all districts is available at the California Department of
Education Web site: www.cde.ca.gov.

---------------------------------------------------------
CHART (3):
.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX
In October, the state released the annual Academic Performance Index, which
uses student test scores to rank all 8,000 California public schools on a
score from 200 to 1,000. King Estates ranks eighth among Oakland's 13 middle
schools.

Score (1999-2000 school year)
Middle School
1. Montera 737
2. Claremont 603
3. Bret Harte 599
4. Brewer 578
5. Westlake 523
6. Roosevelt 490
7. Carter 456
8. King Estates 440
9. Elmhurst 414
10. Frick 409
10. Calvin Simmons 409
11. Lowell 408
12. Madison 400
13. Havenscourt 370
.
Source: California Department of Education

©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A1

Cutbacks hurt school libraries

Instructional mission can go by the wayside as more facilities turn to aides, shorter hours

By Holly Kurtz
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the library is the instructional heart of a school, Casey Middle is having a coronary.

Ever since budget cuts in Boulder Valley Schools earlier this year, the librarian has worked part-time in a library closed one hour during every school day.

"I think it's obvious that our kids have a tough time getting into the library and finding the books they need," Casey Middle Principal Ellen Miller-Brown said.

The numbers bear her out.

Statewide, per-pupil spending on print material fell 50 percent between 1994 and 1999 - to $9 per student, according to the state library. Spending in middle schools declined 25 percent during that period - to $22 per student. Spending in high schools fell 35 percent - to $12.50 per student.

Overall spending on library materials, from books to CD-ROMS, declined 50 percent during those same five years.

So goes the most recent chapter of school library history in Colorado: Funding is falling. Book collections are shrinking. Librarians are working fewer hours.

All that comes in the wake of an April report by the Colorado State Library concluding that now more than ever, in this era of high-stakes testing, books are kids' best friends.

Colorado Student Assessment Program reading scores were as much as 18 percent higher at schools with well-developed library media programs, the report concluded. When library staff members worked closely with classroom teachers, CSAP scores rose as much as 20 percent.

And when students were allowed to visit the library as needed on their own, scores rose as much as 22 percent.

"The CSAP is a very clear test of literacy," said Jody Gehrig, who oversees Denver Public Schools' libraries. "We feel the students can be more successful with a good library."

In theory, school officials agree. When, after all, is the last time you saw an educator bad-mouth reading books? But when it comes to bookkeeping, libraries often lose out.

"Libraries come up on the chopping block every year in many districts," said Eugene Hainer of the Colorado State Library.

Consider this:

* Part-time aides replace librarians who also have been trained as teachers.
* Two of five public schools have either no trained librarian or one who works less than half-time, according to the state library.
* Since 1994, staffing relative to enrollment has dropped more than 10 percent.

As jobs disappear and librarians retire, the pipeline is drying up. By 2010, the state library predicts, there could be no new library media graduates in Colorado.

Some educators say cost-saving measures such as hiring aides to run the library don't compromise educational effectiveness.

"To be honest," said Rob Lee, principal of Manaugh Elementary in Cortez, where aides, not media specialists, run the elementary school libraries, "I think what we do is appropriate for the elementary level. I'm not sure if we had a library specialist, we would be doing things much differently."

Librarians beg to differ.

....

It's a little quieter in here than it would be in a lunchroom, a little noisier than a classroom.

There is a rocking chair to curl up in, a carpet to crawl on and a menagerie of stuffed dolphins, seals and bears.

The library at Park Hill Elementary feels more like the children's section of a good bookstore than the stiff, sterile rooms in which strict librarians have traditionally shushed children into submission.

To an outsider, it might look a little like a three-ring circus. But to librarian Marilyn Martin, it looks like a lot of learning.

In one corner, little boys flip through books about gemstones. In another, children expertly manipulate a computer to check out whatever books they want. In yet another, Martin is helping two second-graders, Julia and Sophie, write a report about children's book author Beverly Cleary.

"We read in here," says Sophie, pointing to a page pulled from an Internet biography of Cleary, "that her father worked on a farm."

"Would you say, 'Her father worked on a farm?"' Martin asks. "Or is there another way of saying it?"

There is a long pause. Martin knows she is pushing the children beyond their comfort level. But she also knows they can handle it.

"Her father," Julia proclaims triumphantly, "was a farmer."

Moments like these, says Martin, prove the library is more than a place to keep books. It is a classroom.

"It's the same thing as in a classroom," Martin says. "What does a teacher bring that a paraprofessional does not? I'm not saying a para could not do it. But they would have to have that love of it that would lead them to more learning."

In an era of high-stakes testing, when schools are insisting that everything from field trips to art lessons reinforce what's on the CSAP, this is crucial.

Deanie Andersen of South High knows how much school librarians have changed. That's because she's been one for 30 years. She remembers when kids couldn't take books home, when elementary librarians were glorified baby sitters who taught disjointed lessons about indexes and encyclopedias while the teachers took their planning periods.

"The instruction fits the needs when it used to be just instruction for instruction's sake," Andersen said.

Park Hill classroom teacher Susannah Fraser says it helps to have a trained teacher in the library.

"She is always asking us, what are we doing in the classroom, what she can do to make that a richer experience," Fraser says. "Her training and knowledge in the curriculum is really key."

At Cortez's Manaugh Elementary and other schools with librarians who are hourly employees, the aide who runs the library comes in late one day a week so she can keep the library open late.

But salaried workers like Martin have even more flexibility.

Before school, Martin might attend, for instance, a spelling meeting. After work, instead of making up for arriving early, she might head downtown to help a group of Denver Public Schools librarians put together a handbook on using the school library to improve CSAP scores.

The book lists CSAP questions, followed by library lesson plans that teach the skills the questions test.

Martin acknowledges that a teacher's aide might attend such meetings. But she says it's also likely an hourly worker, especially one paid to work only a half day, wouldn't be around when teachers or other librarians meet.

"Paras," says Haimer of the state library, "aren't paid for these sorts of things. They're paid to run the library. There are very good paras in the state. But they would tend to say, let me get the cheapest books - let me get the paperbacks - and maybe not know how to fit them in with instruction."

Getting the most "bang for the book" might mean relying heavily, too heavily, on the World Wide Web.

"I insist," Martin says, "on books. The Internet is great. It's just that for first-, second-, third- and fourth-graders, it's still pretty difficult. It's all words. If they can't read it, they can't read it. They have to be able to do all kinds of research."

In Denver, a 1998 property tax increase allowed schools to boost book collections and keep librarians at most schools.

In Boulder, Casey Middle Principal Miller-Brown worries about the budget cuts that forced her to reduce her librarian's hours.

"Teachers just are tending not to use the library fully anymore," she said. "The library is the instructional heart of the school."

December 27, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Denver Rocky Mountain News

Lance in Pennsylvania: A report on Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell,C. 2000: Measuring to Standards: The Impact of School Library Programs and Information Literacy in Pennsylvania Schools. Greensburg, PA: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries (604 Hunt Club Drive, Greensburg, PA, 15601).

The intrepid Keith Lance research team has brought its research arsenal to Pennsylvania, once again providing the profession with important results. This study covered grades 5,8 and 11 in a total of 435 schools. Lance et .al. used the 1999 PSSA (Pennsylvania System of School Assessment) reading comprehension test, given in February.

Clear results were found for library staffing: Schools with libraries that had adequate staffing (at least one full-time librarian with at least one aide or other support) performed better on the PSSA. This was true at all three grade levels, and held true even when a number of potential confounds were considered. The strongest relationship (r = .274) was found for grade 11; this dropped to r = .185 when poverty was taken into consideration. For grade 8, the simple correlation was .252, which dropped to .133 when poverty was controlled. For grade 5, r = .215, and the correlation beetween staffing and achievement was not significant when poverty was controlled. These are all very modest correlations. It is interesting, however, that the role of the library staff appears to get larger as students get older.

Lance et. al. did not report, and hence we assume did not find, a significant relationship between books in the library and reading test scores. In this case, the statistic reported was total number of books, not books per pupil, as in previous studies. Lance et. al. reported, however, an interesting comparison between the 25 highest and lowest scoring schools in his sample. For all grades, higher scoring schools spend far more money on the library, had more computers connected to the internet, and more volumes.

Perhaps the most striking difference was librarian hours per week. The difference in librarian hours between high and low performing schools was in the predicted direction but not always huge. Higher performing schools, however, provided the librarian with far more help. For high schools, for example, the support staff of the high performing schools averaged 50 hours per week; for low scoring schools, support staff only contributed 19.3 hours per week. Because there was no control for poverty in this particular analysis, these figures are only suggestive. They are consistent, however, with previous studies showing a relationship between access to books and reading achievement, as well as studies showing a positive relationship between staffing and reading achievement (Baughman, 2000; Lance, Rodney and Hamilton-Pennell, 2000).

Baughman, J. 2000. School libraries and MCAS scores. http://artemis.simmons.edu/~baughman/mcas-school-libraries
Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. 2000. How School Librarians Help Kids Achieve Standards: The Second Colorado Study. San Jose: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.

Review of Lance, K., Hamilton-Pennell, C., Rodney, M., Petersen, L. and Sitter, C. 1999. Information Empowered: The School Librarian as an Academic Achievement in Alaska Schools. (Alaska State Library, Junea, 1999)

This time the formidable Keith Lance research team has turned its attention to Alaska. The study was done in Fall, 1998, and included 211 schools, about one half of the total number of schools in Alaska. The measure used was the California Achievement Test (CAT) (version 5), which tests reading, language arts, and math. The CAT is given in grades 4,8, and 11.

Note that in previous studies showing a clear relationship between library offerings (books per student) and achievement, only reading comprehension was tested (Lance, 1994; Krashen, 1995; McQuillan, 1998; Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell, 2000). In a study using a measure combining language arts, science and math, the Simmons study (Baughman,2000), the relationship between library offerings and achievement was weaker.

Lance et. al. reported a strong relationship between scores on the CAT and socio-economic and community factors. Combined, educational level in the community, percent native-American and level of poverty accounted for nearly 34% of the variation in test scores. As long as these factors were considered, library factors did not contribute significantly to achievement. If these factors are not considered, however, some interesting relationships emerge. Among these relationships were:

1. Better achievement is related to higher levels of library staffing: the lower the librarian-to-students ratio, the higher the percentage of a school's students score at or above the proficient level on the CAT. For elementary schools (grade 4), r = .31, for secondary schools (grades 8 and 11), r = .20.
2. For secondary schools, library expenditures per pupil was related to achievement.

These results should be interpreted cautiously, because they disappear when community and socio-economic variables are considered. Even without these variables present, library staffing and expenditures are only modestly related to achievement.

The failure to find a relationship between books in the library and achievement is not a serious counterexample: As noted above, other studies have reported this relationship consistently (see also Krashen, 1998, for a review). In addition, it is possible that the Alaska data did not contain enough variability: if schools do not have a wide range of library offering and if students do not provide enough variability in test scores, correlations will not be obvious, even if a true relationship exists. Finally, as noted earlier, the test used included more than reading comprehension.

Baughman, J. 2000. School libraries and MCAS scores. http://artemis.simmons.edu/~baughman/mcas-school-libraries
Krashen, S. 1995. School libraries, public libraries, and the NAEP reading scores. School Library Media Quarterly 23: 235-238.
Krashen, S. 1998. Why consider the library and books? In R. Constantino (Ed.)Literacy, Access, and Libraries among the Language Minority Population. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. pp. 1-16.
Lance, K. 1994. The impact of school library media centers on academic achievement. In C. Kuhlthau (Ed.) School Library Media Annual, vol. 12. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. pp. 188-197.
United States. Indiana Media Journal 18(3): 65-70.
Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. 2000. How School Librarians Help Kids Achieve Standards: The Second Colorado Study. San Jose: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.
McQuillan, J. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

The Second Colorado Study: Lance, K., Rodney, M., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. 2000. How School Librarians Help Kids Achieve Standards: The Second Colorado Study. San Jose: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.

Keith Lance's original Colorado study demonstrated that library quality makes a clear contribution to reading proficiency. Lance, Rodney and Hamilton-Pennell (2000) is a replication of this study, and provides important confirming data. Lance et. al. examined school libraries serving fourth graders in 124 Colorado public schools and 76 school libraries serving seventh graders. The measure used was the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) reading test score.

Lance et. al. used the term "LM Program Development" (which I will refer to here simply as LM) to indicate a composite of several predictors that were themselves intercorrelated. (Lance et. al. determined this by the use of a statistical procedure, factor analysis). For fourth graders, LM represented:
1. total LM (library media) staff hours per 100 students
2. print volumes per student
3. periodical subscriptions per 100 students
4. total LM expenditures per student

For seventh graders, LM represented the above, plus
5. LMS (library media staff) hours per 100 students)
6. electronic reference titles per 100 students

Using the statistical procedure multiple regression, Lance et. al. found that LM contributed to students' performance on the CSAP reading test even after level of poverty was taken into consideration. This is an important result, because level of poverty is always a strong predictor of reading test scores.

One interpretation of these results is that children have two important sources of reading material: home and school. Level of poverty is, to some extent, a reflection of books at home, and LM is a reflection of books available through the school library. Lance et. al. have confirmed that both count, and that they make independent contributions to reading ability.

Lance et. al. provide a clear presentation of their data in a useful set of tables. The following is taken from their tables 37 and 38, and suggest that quality libraries can make a strong, measurable difference in reading test scores: The difference between a poor library and a good library is 5 to 10 points on the reading test.

mean reading score
grade four seven
25 highest rated LM programs 72 57
25 lowest rated LM programs 61 52

Here is another way of looking at it:
mean number of volumes per student
grade four seven
25 highest scoring schools 20.3 16.5
25 lowest scoring schools 14.2 13.9

Needless to say, California is way behind the 25 lowest scoring schools, with a current ratio of about 11 volumes per student, and LAUSD is even more dreadful, at 6 to 1. Lance et. al. provide similar tables demonstrating the impact of LM staff hours, the positive impact of librarian collaboration on test scores, and other variables.

I strongly recommend this volume. There is an excellent review of the professional literature, and Lance et. al. provide much more data than I have mentioned here. It can be ordered through Hi Willow at sales@lmcsource.com (website: www. lmcsource.com). Hi Willow notes that royalties will "support further research in the school library media field."

Reading Guide Gets Poor Reviews
A reference number arriving with Stanford 9 results leads parents to Internet reading lists. But critics find the system confusing and many recommendations inappropriate.

By LYNN O'DELL, Special to The Times

For the first time, state education officials have created recommended book lists linked to the Stanford 9 academic tests and designed to help parents boost their children's performances on the crucial standardized exams.
The lists, available on the Internet since July 1, are intended to be used in conjunction with the test results that are arriving in the homes of 4.5 million schoolchildren this summer.
Pegged to each student's reading score, the electronic lists are intended as a do-it-yourself, score-boosting tool. The key to navigating the material is a personal reading list number included this year with each student's score.
"If you want to get better at pole vaulting, you practice pole vaulting. You want to get better at reading, you practice reading," said Bob Rayborn, statewide director of California STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting program) for Harcourt Educational Measurement, which publishes the Stanford 9 test.
But not everyone's overjoyed by the lists, which can be viewed at www.startest.com. Although online for barely more than a week, the lists have drawn fire.
Frustrated parents have said they have difficulty using them. Librarians complained that the titles are old. Teachers said the lists offer books with overly sophisticated themes to young readers.
And one outspoken education professor, Stephen Krashen of USC, said: "This is an utter waste of money. It's like giving vitamin pills to starving people." Krashen said the money to develop the lists would have been better spent buying more school library books.
"The concept of linking reading to Stanford 9 scores is just nuts," he said. "The way to raise reading scores is to give kids access to books."
Education officials said the cost of making the lists has been minimal, just part of the state's $421,986 contract with Harcourt to distribute results of the test to districts, schools and parents.
The tests--which cover reading, math and other subjects--have become all-important because the state is using scores to hold teachers and administrators accountable for how much students learn.

The lists are aimed at getting parents to encourage their children to read. But if the family of Patti Silverman of Orange is any indication, thatgoal may be easily overlooked by even the most involved of parents.
Silverman is a mother of two school-age children. Both eagerly opened their Stanford 9 test results, which recently arrived in the mail.
Yet no one noticed the accompanying paperwork and the inconspicuous California Reading List numbers printed in the lower left-hand corners of the test results.
"I know how to read the scores and unless you turn it over to read the explanation of scores, you don't even see it," Silverman said.
When she did find the Web site, Silverman did as suggested and clicked on the list that supposedly matched the abilities of her daughter Rebecca, who is going into the fifth grade.
Silverman found 165 suggested titles, ranging from the children's story "Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle," by Betty MacDonald--an independent reader for third graders--to such advanced works as "The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald and "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad--books usually studied in high school or college.
To further narrow the range, Silverman had to click on one of four "interest levels"--primary, upper elementary, middle school or high school.
The idea, education officials say, is to help parents find age-appropriate books.
Yet critics say there are drawbacks. For one, the reading list numbers--from 1 to 13--tend to be confusing because they don't correspond to grade levels.
Instead, they relate to readability measures called "lexiles," which are computerized analyses based on the difficulty of the words and the length of the sentences.
The lexile process, critics say, doesn't measure content. And content "is kind of a big thing to leave out," said Villa Park High School English teacher Carol Mooney.
The result: The lists can match books with adult-themed content with children who are technically proficient readers, but may be too young for the material.
In Silverman's case, Rebecca, who will be 10 on Tuesday, would actually be reading below her assigned level--List 10--if she cracked open J.D.Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye," which the state has on List 7.
Yet Salinger's work is typically read in high school because of content. As described on the Web site, the book is the "story of an alienated,disillusioned youth who drops out of school and spends three days and nights in New York City on a quest for self-discovery."
"The words in 'Catcher in the Rye' are not hard words but the subject matter is not something you'd want fourth-graders to read," acknowledged Les Axelrod, educational research and evaluation consultant with the California Department of Education.
He admitted that use of the electronic lists can create situations in which children "might be able to read a book but might not understand it.
"The lists go across all grade levels," he said. "There's no rhyme or reason to it other than reading difficulty. That's where the parents come in:
They have to make decisions on subject matter."

Summer Fare Isn't Included

Mooney, who teaches freshman and senior English classes, said she found it disturbing that the lists could also guide young readers to material such as Toni Morrison's "Beloved," which she feels should be reserved for high school seniors. The book includes scenes of rape, murder and mutilation and is on List 8, well within what the Web site indicates is Rebecca's reading reach.
Rebecca, whose reading comprehension score was 90, has already started her summer reading. And her selections are not on any of the lists.
She's reading books about actress twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen of the television series "Two of a Kind" and about the television series"Seventh Heaven."
"It's summer and, as long as she's reading, I'm not going to push it," said her mother, who nonetheless checked out List 10 and found a few prospects for Rebecca's fall reading.
Her sister, Rachel, 14, perused her assigned level, List 13+, but found it too full of history and biography for summer reading. Her own selections? A collection of Agatha Christie novels and a stack of teen magazines.
Readers searching for the wildly popular Harry Potter books will be disappointed. They aren't on the lists.
That's because the lists are old, said Judy Kelley, youth coordinator for the Newport Beach Public Library. State officials admit they were compiled from older inventories that are due to be updated.
Diane Levin, a language arts consultant to the state Department of Education, acknowledged that there are "a few flaws and a lot of bugs to work out." Still, she said she believes the Legislature was well-intentioned in requiring the electronic system.
"The bottom line is, we want to encourage kids to do a lot of reading. Parents often don't know what books are appropriate. This is one way to help. It's not the only way," she said.
But as educator Krashen sees it, the state's attempt to match books with reading levels is unnecessary. Children's own experiences in sampling books work better than any formula can, he said.
"People don't look at Stanford 9 scores when they go book shopping. They know the children and they see what others are reading," he said.
"If you need help selecting a book, go to someone who knows children's literature, like a qualified California teacher. The teacher should be able to make some recommendations, the child checks it out and one of three things happens: It's incomprehensible, it's dull or it's interesting.
"It's not that hard to figure out. It takes a few minutes," he said.

I have posted a few articles on the internet. You can find them at http://www.languagebooks.com/2.0/articles/default.html. or at http://www.languagebooks.com and click on "articles"
More to come.

Literacy

1. One Page a Year Commencement Speech delivered at California State
University, Bakersfield, June 9, 2000
2. The National Reading Panel Report on Phonics: Consistent with and
Supportive of the Comprehension Hypothesis (We Learn to Read by
Reading) (2000)
3.There was no decline in California, whole language has a theoretical base
and solid research support, developing literacy is natural, and the role of
phonics instruction: A response to K. Anderson's Review, "The Reading
Wars"(2000)
4. The Lexile Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful (2000)
5. Does Phonemic Awareness Develop Without Special Training? (2000)
6. Do Teenagers Like to Read? A Comment on Literacy Campaigns (2000)
7. The National Reading Panel: Errors and Omissions (2000)
8. Errors Remain, New Errors Added, Omissions Not Justified: Additional
Comments on the National Reading Panel's Report (2000)
9. Low PA Can Read OK (2000)

Bilingual Education

1. Proposition 227's Success in California Never Happened: Response to
O'Sullivan. (2000)
2. Is One Year /180 Days Enough?(2000)
3. Does Transition Really Happen?(2000)
4. No evidence that English immersion worked: A response to Michael Barone
(letter to the editor of US News) (2000)
5. Misunderstandings about bilingual education: The nature of the problem,
what we can do about it, and a reason to be optimistic (1999)
6. Another Response to Keith Baker(1999)
7. Bilingual Education: Arguments For and (Bogus) Arguments Against (1999)

Language Acquisition and Language Teaching

TPR: Still a Very Good Idea(1998)
A Conjecture on Accent in a Second Language (1997)