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 pote