Monday, February 24, 2014

Invest in libraries and librarians

Sent to Los Angeles Times, Feb 24.

Research and common sense tell us that we get better at reading (and writing, spelling, grammar and vocabulary) when we read a lot.  But we can only read a lot if we have access to books. Most students in LAUSD are without access to books: they have nowhere to turn.

Eighty percent of LAUSD students live in poverty, which means, among others things, very few books in the home.  Studies show that there are few bookstores in high-poverty neighborhoods. The Los Angeles public library system ranks 69th out of 77, according to the latest "most literate cities" report.  School is not helping: The Times reports that in "Many L.A. Unified school libraries, lacking staff, are forced to shut," (Feb. 24).

Let's invest more in libraries and librarians, rather than in untested technology that is often obsolete by the time it is installed.

Stephen Krashen


sources: http://skrashen.blogspot.ae/2014/02/why-invest-in-libraries.html

original article: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-lausd-libraries-20140224,0,5992443.story#ixzz2uFlBbtGK


Sunday, February 23, 2014

Please take a closer look at the Common Core

Sent to the School Library Journal 2/23

Librarians may be "findings aspects of the common core to celebrate"("What's happening at the core," Feb. 2014), but they are ignoring very serious problems. 

The standards might look like look like they involve "deeper levels of critical thinking" but they are completely untested. There were no pilot studies. The language arts standards force students to deal with demanding nonfiction texts in order to promote earlier mastery of "academic language," but there is no evidence that making reading harder produces better results. There is, however, plenty of evidence that the route to academic language includes a great deal of self-selected, recreational reading, which is now nearly impossible to include in the current version of the Common Core.

The common core demands an astonishing amount of standardized testing. The US Department of Education asserts that we will have testing at all grade levels, all subjects, interim tests, and maybe even pre-tests in the fall to be able to measure improvement through the academic year. The tests will be administered online, an untested plan that will cost billions, and that will demand more and more taxpayer money as today's equipment becomes obsolete, and as new "advances" in technology are developed, draining money from projects and approaches shown to help students, including libraries.

When the new system fails to produce results, teachers will be blamed, and there will be calls for more "rigor" and more testing.

The Common Core, a product of the business world, not professional educators, is an extreme and misguided proposal. I hope the SLJ and librarians will take a harder look. 

Stephen Krashen


Sources:

The route to academic language: Krashen, S. (2004).  The power of reading.  Portsmouth: Heinemann and Westport: Libraries Unlimited. Krashen, S. (2012). Developing academic proficiency: Some hypotheses. International Journal of Foreign Langauge Teaching, (2): 8-15. (available at ijflt.com) 

Free reading nearly impossible: Krashen, S. 2013. Access to books and time to read versus the common core standards and tests.  English Journal 103(2): 21-39.

Amount of testing: Krashen, S. (20130> How Much Testing?” Diane Ravitch’s Blog
(July 25). <http://dianeravitch.net/?s=how+much+testing>

Cost of the testing:  Krashen, S. and Ohanian, S. (2011). High tech testing on the way: A 21st century boondoggle?
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/ /2011/04/high_tech_testing_on_the_way_a.html.

Libraries: Krashen, S., Lee, S.Y. and McQuillan, J. 2012. Is the library important? Multivariate studies at the national and international level. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1): 26-36.







Friday, February 21, 2014

Our focus should be on protecting children from the impact of poverty

Published in the Wall Street Journal, February 21.

Response to: "A progressive education" (Editorial, Feb. 14)

Your editorial sends the message that our public schools are failing. They aren't. When researchers control for the effects of poverty, American schools rank near the top of the world. Our overall scores are unspectacular because the child poverty rate in the U.S. is very high, 23%, second-highest among all economically advanced countries. Children of poverty suffer from hunger, malnutrition, inferior health care and lack of access to books. All of these have a powerful impact on school performance. The best teaching in the world won't help when children are hungry, ill and have little or nothing to read.
Our focus should be on protecting children from the impact of poverty.

Prof. Em. Stephen Krashen

Thursday, February 20, 2014

No unnecessary testing

Sent to the Wall Street Journal, Feb 21

To the editor:


Letters published on Feb 20. arguing that  "Testing can be good; It's a part of the real world,"' assume that those of us critical of the common core are anti-testing. Not true. All educators understand the necessity of responsible assessment.

We are opposed to unnecessary testing. The common core is requiring more standardized tests than we have ever seen on this planet, far more than required under No Child Left Behind. This nonstop testing is being imposed at a huge cost  (it will be administered online), without any evidence that it will help school achievement.

Stephen Krashen

source: Krashen, S. 2008. The fundamental principle: No unnecessary testing (NUT).  The Colorado Communicator vol 32,1, 7. http://skrashen.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-fundamental-principle-no-unnecessary.html

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Meaningful work versus coercion

Sent to the Oregonian, Feb. 19

Joanne Yatvin's description of how "Meaningful work keeps students in school," (Feb. 18) includes small class sizes, sports teams that allowed all comers to join and play, teacher collaboration with time to meet during the school day, plays and musical events that included all interested students, emphasis on building classroom community, and school wide projects. Yatvin notes that  "we devoted our thinking, actions and resources toward making our school a place where students wanted to be every day and be successful."

This is not what is happening in schools today.  Class size is increasing, sports is only for the select, talented few, teachers have little time to collaborate, plays, musical events, and projects have been crowded out in favor of test preparation, and competition has replaced community. 
Instead of making school a place students want to be every day, the standards and tests that dominate school today force compliance.

Stephen Krashen

Sources:
Increase in class size: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/education/07classrooms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Less planning time: http://blog.readinga-z.com/bobs_blog/2009/02/us-teachers-have-less-time-for-planning.html; Edenfield, B. 2013. Teacher Perceptions of the Impact of Reduced School Budgets on Their Ability to Meet Instructional Needs of Their Students. Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia Southern University.
Decline in plays, music: Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-10. National Center for Educational Statistics 
Original article: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/02/meaningful_work_kept_students.html

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Charters: Another point of view

Sent to the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 16, 2014

Mathew Kaminski's enthusiasm for Success Academy and for charters in general, ("Teachers Union Enemy No. 1", February 15) presents only part of the story.

The high test scores achieved by Success Charter Schools in New York has been thoroughly discussed in a series of blogs by Diane Ravitch (http://dianeravitch.net/category/harlem-success-academy/). The series includes evidence that Success schools devote an astonishing amount of time to test preparation and devote little or no time to subjects that are not tested, evidence that teachers, parents, students and staff were required to attend the pro-charter rally last fall, and evidence that suspension rates at Success schools are very high.

It should also be pointed out that research has shown that in general charter schools do not do as well as public schools, even though may are very selective in who they admit, and can expel "problem" students.


Stephen Krashen

Source:: Performance of charter schools: National Charter School Study. Can be downloaded at http://credo.stanford.edu/.
Original article: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304434104579382993628994458?KEYWORDS=kaminski

Saturday, February 15, 2014

A bad solution to a non-existent problem

Sent to the New York Times, Feb. 14, 2014

"The common core in New York" (Feb. 14) neglects to say that:
The standards are untested.  There were no pilot studies.
They come with a substantial increase in testing; research has indicated that increasing testing does not mean greater achievement.
The new tests will cost a fortune because they must be delivered online. This requires internet access, and up-to-date computers that will be obsolete nearly as soon as they are in use.

If the common core fails to result in improvement, teachers will be blamed, and there will be a call for more tests and more technology.

The real problem in American education is poverty, not low standards: Our child poverty rate is 23%, second highest in the world among economically advanced countries. The New York City rate of child poverty is higher than the national average at 31%. When researchers control for the effects of poverty, American international test scores rank near the top of the world.

The common core is a bad solution to a non-existent problem.

Stephen Krashen


Sources:

Amount of testing: Krashen, S. 2012. How much testing? http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen-­‐ krashen-­‐how-­‐much-­‐testing/

Increasing testing does not mean greater achievement: Nichols, S., Glass, G., and Berliner, D. 2006. High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability increase student learning? Education Policy Archives 14(1). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n1/.

Cost of the tests: Krashen, S. and Ohanian. S. 2011. High Tech Testing on the Way: a 21st Century Boondoggle? http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in- dialogue/2011/04/high_tech_testing_on_the_way_a.html

Child poverty: Levels of child poverty: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012), ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.
New York City: http://www.cccnewyork.org/blog/new-census-data-shows-increase-in-child-poverty-in-nyc/

Control for the effect of poverty: Carnoy, M and Rothstein, R. 2013, What Do International Tests Really Show Us about U.S. Student Performance. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute. 2012. http://www.epi.org/). Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13; Bracey, G. 2009. The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/Bracey-Report;

Original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/opinion/the-common-core-in-new-york.html?ref=opinion&_r=0



Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Why Invest in Libraries


Stephen Krashen
Presentation at LAUSD Board of Education meeting, February 11, 2014


To discuss libraries, several important results from educational research will be of use.

POVERTY COUNTS

The impact of poverty on educational achievement has been documented again and again. Poverty means, among other things, inadequate diet, lack of health care, and lack of access to books. Each of these has a powerful impact on achievement (Berliner, 2009;  Krashen, 1997).  The best teaching in the world has little effect when children are hungry,  undernourished, ill, and have little or nothing to read.

Martin Luther King recognized this: "We are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished" (King, 1967). Research done since 1967 has confirmed that Dr. King is right: (Baker, 2007; Zhao, 2009; Ananat, Gassman-Pines, Francis, and Gibson-Davis, 2011).

FREE VOLUNTARY READING IS THE MAJOR CAUSE OF LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Free voluntary reading is reading because you want to, self-selected reading for pleasure.  Awide range of studies have confirmed that free reading is the major factor in literacy development.

Sustained silent reading (SSR) studies: In SSR, a short period is set aside for self-selected reading, with little or no accountability. Students who participate in these programs consistently outperform comparison students on measures of literacy, especially if the program is given sufficient time to run (Krashen, 2004; 2007).

Multivariate studies allow researchers to determine the impact of a predictor controlling for the effect of other predictors, that is, assuming that other predictors have no effect on each other. In multivariate studies, free voluntary reading has been a consistent winner, successful predicting scores on the TEOFL test among ESL students, as well as other measures. Traditional instruction has not done well in these studies (Gradman and Hanania, 1991, Constantino, Lee, Cho and Krashen, 1997, Lee, 2005).

Case histories are valuable when we have a lot of them; then we can see what factors successful cases have in common. In case after case, free voluntary reading is given credit for academic success and for the development of higher levels of literacy.

The cases include Goeffrey Canada, the founder of the Harlem Children's Zone, who tells us: "I loved reading, and my mother, who read voraciously too, allowed me to have her novels after she finished them. My strong reading background allowed me to have an easier time of it in most of my classes"
 (Canada, 1995, p. 89).

Liz Murray, who grew up under extreme poverty, relates that she only showed up for school just before the spring exams, in order see what the tests would be like. She says she owed her education to her dad's habit of borrowing library books from all over New York City and never returning them: "Any formal education I received came from the few days I spent in attendance, mixed with knowledge I absorbed from random readings of my or Daddy's ever-growing supply of unreturned library books. And as long as I still showed up steadily the last few weeks of classes to take the standardized tests, I kept squeaking by from grade to grade." (from Shanahan, 2010). (For additional cases, see Krashen, 2004.)

CHILDREN OF POVERTY HAVE VERY LITTLE ACCESS TO BOOKS.

Children of poverty have very few books at home, live in neighborhoods with few bookstores and inferior public libraries, and attend schools with inferior classroom and school libraries (Krashen, 2004).  Thus,

THE MAJOR SOURCE OF BOOKS FOR CHILDREN OF POVERTY IS LIBRARIES.

In fact, libraries are their only chance.

LIBRARIES CAN MAKE UP FOR THE EFFECTS OF POVERTY

The results of a series of multivariate studies suggest that access to a good library can balance, or can make up for the effects of poverty on reading achievement. These studies are reviewed in Krashen (2011) and I present one here in detail.

Krashen, Lee and McQuillan (2012) analyzed the results of the 2006 PIRLS test, given to ten year old children in 40 different countries. Children took the tests in their own language, and tests were of equal difficulty regardless of language.  Table 1 presents the results.

Table 1: Multiple Regression Analysis: predictors of achievement PIRLS 2006 reading test
Predictor
Beta
p
SES
0.41
0.005
independent reading
0.16
0.143
library: 500 books
0.35
0.005
Instruction
-0.19
0.085
r2 = .61   

The important data are the beta's – the larger the beta, the stronger the effect. Clearly, poverty (SES) is the strongest predictor, consistent with many many previous studies: Higher socio-economic status meant better performance. The percentage of students allowed to do self-selected reading during the school day was a positive predictor, but of modest strength, consistent with the SSR research reviewed above.

The third predictor, percentage of children with access to a school library with at least 500 books, was not only positively related to reading scores, but was nearly as strong as the negative effect of poverty: In other words, the school library had a strong positive effect which balanced the impact of poverty's negative effect. This result makes sense: A major reason children of poverty have low reading test scores is because they have little access to books. When we supply access, in the form of libraries, they read about as well as children from more affluent families.

The final result is that those receiving more direct instruction in reading actually did somewhat worse on the reading examination.

LAUSD

Poverty: The child poverty rate for the US is 23.1%. This is very high, the second highest among all advanced economy countries (UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2012), This is the major reason for our unspectacular performance on international tests: When researchers control for the effet of poverty, American children score near the top of the world (Carnoy and Rothstein, 2013).

Finland, which always scores at or near the top of the world in reading achievement, has only 5.3% child poverty.

Eighty percent of LAUSD children live in poverty, the second highest of all big cities in the United States (http://laschoolreport.com/how-lausd-compares/).

Access to books.  The high rate of poverty among LAUSD means little access to books, among other major problems. For LAUSD students, libraries are of little help.

Public Libraries: In the  library category of the America's Most Literate Cities study (Miller, 2013), Los Angeles public libraries ranked near the basement: Los Angeles public libraries ranked 69th out of 77 cities.

I was not able to find data on holdings in Los Angeles Unified school libraries, but the figures on school librarians are alarming. Several studies confirm that the presence of a certified librarian is an independent predictor of reading achievement (e.g. Lance and Hofschire, 2011).  In the US, there is one school librarian for every 916 students. California ranks last, by far, in the US, with a ratio of approximately one school librarian per 5,124 students (California Department of Education, 2012). LAUSD has one certified school librarian for every 6,500 students (based on data from Ratliff, 2014).

The TECHNOLOGY solution

"Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
Nor the last the lay the old aside."
Alexander Pope,  An Essay on Criticism. (From Rogers, 1983).

It is often suggested that technology can solve the problem of access to books, through high-powered computers with internet access and through e-books and e-book readers. 

It appears to be best to be a "deliberate" early adopter, not the very first to use innovations (Rogers, 1983). Deliberate adopters wait until basic problems are solved and prices go down. This is sensible practice in educational technology.  There is, at present, no evidence supporting the current technology fever that has gripped the schools, stimulated by the requirement that all testing related to the Common Core be online.

In The National Education Technology Plan (US Dept of Education, 2010), the US Department of Education insists that we introduce massive technology into the schools immediately, because of the "the pressing need to transform American education ...",  even if this means doing it imperfectly: Repairs can be done later: "... we do not have the luxury of time: We must act now and commit to fine-tuning and midcourse corrections as we go." In other words, we should all be super-early adoptors.

But jumping in without proper preparation wastes our students' time and will cost more money in the long run. The cost of connecting all students to the internet, of providing up-to-date computers for all students, the constant upgrading and replacement as the computer industry makes "progress" as well as repair of glitches will run into the billions, and will only increase in time.  And all this is happening with no pilot studies, no clear data showing the new technology will help students, and, as far as I know, no plans to do such studies.

In contrast, we already have an astonishing amount of evidence that providing access to interesting, comprehensible books has a strong impact on literacy development. Given access to interesting, comprehensible books, most students will read them (Krashen, 2001, 2004), and when they do, their vocabulary, grammar, writing style, vocabulary and knowledge of the world will improve.

The conservative, careful and fiscally responsible path to improving literacy is by investing in libraries and librarians, and delaying massive investment in technology until there is good reason to believe that it will really help.

References
Ananat, E., Gassman-Pines, A., Francis, D., and Gibson-Davis, C. 2011. Children left behind: The effects of statewide job less on student acbievement. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper No. 17104, JEL No. 12,16. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17104
Baker, K. 2007. Are international tests worth anything? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 101-104;
Canada, G. 1995. Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun: A Personal History of Violence. Boston: Beacon Press.
Carnoy, M and Rothstein, R. 2013, What Do International Tests Really Show Us about U.S. Student Performance. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute. 2012. http://www.epi.org/).
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre 2012, ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.
Berliner, D. 2009. Poverty and Potential:  Out-of-School Factors and School Success.  Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential;  
California Department of Education 2012. Statistics about California School Libraries. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/lb/schoollibrstats08.asp
Constantino, R., Lee, S.Y. Cho,K.S., Krashen, S. 1997. Free voluntary reading as a predictor of TOEFL scores. Applied Language Learning, 8,111-118.
Gradman, H., and Hanania, E. 1991. Language learning background factors and ESL proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 75, 39-51.
King, M.L. 1967. Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? New York: Harper & Row,
Krashen, S. 1997. Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership  55(4): 18-22.
Krashen, S. 2001. Do teenagers like to read? Yes! Reading Today 18(5): 16
Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, and Westport, CONN: Libraries Unlimited (second edition).
Krashen, S. 2007. Extensive reading in English as a foreign language by adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 3 (2): 23-29.
Krashen, S. 2011. Protecting students against the effects of poverty: Libraries. New England Reading Association Journal 46 (2): 17-21.
Krashen, S., Lee, S.Y. and McQuillan, J. 2012. Is the library important? Multivariate studies at the national and international level. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1): 26-36.
Lance, K. and Hofschire, L. 2011. Something to shout about: New research shows that more librarians means higher reading scores. School Library Journal 57, 28-33.
Lee, S. Y. 2005. Facilitating and inhibiting factors on EFL writing: A model testing with SEM. Language Learning, 55(2), 335-374.
Miller, J. 2013. "America's Most Literate Cities, 2013."
Shanahan, K. (2010). Review of Liz Murray, Breaking Night,. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Night-Forgiveness-Survival- Homeless/product- reviews/0786868910/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_3?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&page Number=3.
Ratliff, M. 2012. Supporting Educational Equity and Student Achievement through Expanded Access to Libraries. Resolution presented to the Los Angeles Board of Education, February 11, 2014.
Rogers, E. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free  Press.
United States Department of Education. 2010. Transforming Education: Learning Powered by Technology. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.  http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
Zhao, Y. 2009. Catching Up or Leading the Way? American Education in the Age of Globalization. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.;



California's public libraries do poorly in national rankings. LA ranks 69th out of 77 cities.


California cities captured six of the bottom ten places in the public library category of the most recent "America's Most Literate Cities report" (2013).  Los Angeles public libraries ranked 69th out of 77.
The report analyzes data from 77 cities with populations of 250,000 and above.

The bottom ten:
68. Anaheim, CA
69. Los Angeles, CA
70. Anchorage, AK
71. Bakersfield, CA
72. Sacramento, CA
73. Mesa, AZ
74. Fresno, CA
75. Stockton, CA
76. Aurora, CO
77. Santa Ana, CA

Miller, J. 2013. "America's Most Literate Cities, 2013."

The library rankings are based on
1.     Number of branch libraries per 10,000 library service population.
2.     Volumes held in the library per capita of library service population
3.     Number of circulations per capita of library service population
4.     Number of library professional staff per 10,000 library service population
"These numbers were then divided by the city population in order to calculate ratios of library services and resources available to the population."

Saturday, February 8, 2014

No child left without basic resources



Published in the Washington Post, Feb. 7. 2014
Before we worry about no child left unconnected to the Internet [“Broadband in schools gets FCC push,” news, Feb. 3], how about no child left unfed, no child without adequate health care and no child without easy access to a good library? The rate of child poverty in the United States is 23 percent, the second-highest of all economically advanced countries.
Stephen Krashen, Los Angeles

Major hat-tip: Susan Ohanian: "When congress passes No Child Left Unfed, No Child Without Health Care and No Child Left Homeless, then we can talk seriously about No Child Left Behind." 

Levels of child poverty: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012), ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence. 

Original article: article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fcc-to-boost-fund-for-broadband-in-schools/2014/02/02/c17039e2-8c54-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html?tid=hpModule_88854bf0-8691-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394 

Friday, February 7, 2014

The Star Method: A Brilliant, No-Cost, Idea

Letter Published in the School Library Journal, 2010. 


LaDuska Adriance's idea of students putting a star in the inside corner of library books they like might be one of the great ideas of the century: Simple, no-cost, with the potential of substantially increasing interest in reading by creating a community of readers, what Frank Smith calls a "literacy club." 

I hope others try the Star Method and that those who are research-minded will carry out studies. I predict that the results will support this simple but powerful means of getting information around among students about good books. 


Adriance, L. 2010. Seeing Stars. How I ignored my inner librarian and got kids excited about books again. School Library Journal 56, 7: 26-27. 

Stephen Krashen


Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Greater access to … profits.

Sent to the New York Times, Feb. 4, 2014

Why are Microsoft, Verizon,  Sprint and Apple so eager to donate three quarters of a billion dollars to increase school access to the internet ("Obama Announces Pledges of $750 Million for Student Technology," Feb. 4)? Could it be related to the fact that the Common Core requires online testing, a move that will result in unprecedented profits for these companies?
Online testing requires not only access, but massive amounts of new technology that promises to be obsolete as soon as it is in place. There is no evidence that greater access to the internet will help school achievement, and if the brave new technology fails to produce results, teachers will be blamed and there will be calls for more technology.
The students will have greater access to the internet, and these companies will have greater access to the $500+ billion we spend on public education annually.

Stephen Krashen

article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/us/politics/obama-announces-pledges-of-750-million-for-student-technology.html?ref=us

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Children should not be allowed to behave like children.

Published in The Oregonian, Feb. 4, 2104
http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2014/02/letters_kindergarten_readiness.html

It's wonderful to know how seriously Oregon takes kindergarten entry testing. The kind of publicity from The Oregonian, proclaiming that "Kindergarten test results a 'sobering snapshot'" (Feb. 1) will ensure that preschools will take firm steps to make sure that children are ready for the rigors of kindergarten, as well as encourage parents to follow strict, sequential standards in teaching their toddlers to count and develop pre-phonics skills to prepare them for preschool.
The unfortunate tendency of children to want to play and enjoy themselves must stop, despite the claims of mushy-minded "experts" who claim that play improves "social and emotional development," whatever that is.
Children should not be allowed to behave like children.

Stephen Krashen
President, Kindergarten Kalculus Association
Author of "Phonemic awareness training for prelinguistic children: Do we need prenatal PA?" Reading Improvement 35: 167-171, 1998

original article: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/01/kindergarten_test_results_a_so.html

Critics of education: Nostalgia for a time that never was

Published in the Los Angeles Times, Feb.6
Nicholas Meyer thinks that “no one learns history (or civics, remember them?) anymore.” He blames the “dismantled” school system and says movies that are based on history but alter facts are picking up the slack.
The same complaint appeared in the New York Times — on April 4, 1943, in an article with the title, “Ignorance of U.S. History Shown by College Freshmen.” It reported that only 25% of the students knew that Abraham Lincoln was the president during the Civil War and that only 15% knew where Portland, Ore., was.
In 1930, Thomas Briggs of Columbia Teachers College reported that high school students had no idea who Solon was and were unable to define the Monroe Doctrine. They were also deficient, according to Briggs, in math and writing.
Complaints about school quality go back at least to the 1830s, and even then, as now, critics called for a “return” to higher standards.
Stephen Krashen
Los Angeles
The writer is a professor emeritus of education at USC.
[Source for Briggs, studies in the 1930's: Hostadter, Richard. 1963. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.  New York: Vintage Books]

hat-tip: Jim Trelease

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Charters are not superior to public schools and the public schools are not failing

Sent to the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 1, 2014

The WSJ's enthusiasm for the Sgt. Marcus Lutheran school, and for charters in general, is not supported by the data ("The 'Progressive' War on Kids," February 1-2).

An article in the Milwaukee Courier (October 12, 2013) revealed that St. Marcus Lutheran students perform well below the Wisconsin state average on state tests, with between 18 and 32% performing at the proficient or advanced levels in reading. The current state average is about 38%.  In fact, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (Sept. 23, 2013), charter schools in Milwaukee have done well. Research has shown that in general charter schools do not do as well as public schools, even though they can often be very selective in who they admit, and can expel "problem" students.

The WSJ's editorial sends the message that our public schools are failing. They aren't. When researchers control for the effects of poverty, American schools rank near the top of the world. Our overall scores are unspectacular because the child poverty rate in the US is very high, 23%, second-highest among all economically advanced countries.  Children of poverty suffer from hunger, malnutrition, inferior health care, and lack of access to books. All of these have a powerful impact on school performance: The best teaching in the world will not help when children are hungry, ill, and have little or nothing to read.

Our focus should be on protecting children from the impact of poverty.

Stephen Krashen


Sources:

Performance of St. Marcus Lutheran students: The myth of academic achievement at St. Marcus Lutheran School: http://milwaukeecourieronline.com/index.php/2013/10/12/the-myth-of-the-academic-achievement-at-st-marcus-lutheran-school/
Milwaukee charters: Many independent charter schools miss mark on state report cards. http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/many-independent-charter-schools-miss-mark-on-state-report-cards-b99102550z1-224814982.html#ixzz2rSKZlIva
Wisconsin State Norms: http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp
Performance of charter schools: National Charter School Study. Can be downloaded at http://credo.stanford.edu/.
Control for the effect of poverty: Carnoy, M and Rothstein, R. 2013, What Do International Tests Really Show Us about U.S. Student Performance. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute. 2012. http://www.epi.org/). Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13; Bracey, G. 2009. The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/Bracey-Report;
Levels of child poverty: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012), ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

A better way to deal with summer loss in reading: Libraries

Published in the Seattle Times, Feb. 5, 2014 as "Provide better reading material"

There is a much cheaper and much more effective way to deal with summer learning loss than by adding 20 days of school to the school year. Provide more access to interesting reading material.

Research tells us that those living in poverty have the least access to books. They also show the most summer loss, and those who read more over the summer make better gains in reading achievement.

Let’s invest in libraries filled with books and other kinds of material that students would read, as well as librarians who would help children find what is right for them.

We are living in a golden age of literature for young people. Let’s take advantage of it.

Stephen Krashen, professor emeritus, University of Southern California

Sources:
Poverty and access to books: Neuman, S. and Celano, D. 2001. Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities. Reading Research Quarterly 36(1): 8-26.

Summer loss and poverty, more reading and gains:
Allington, R. and McGill-Franzen, Anne. 2012. Summer Reading: Closing the Rich/Poor Reading Achievement Gap. New York: Teachers College Press.
Heyns, Barbara. 1975.  Summer Learning and the Effect of School. New York: Academic Press.
Kim, Jimmy. 2003. Summer reading and the ethnic achievement gap, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 9, no. 2:169-188.
Shin, Fay. and Krashen, Stephen. 2007. Summer Reading: Program and Evidence. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

original article:  •  
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2022797763_lancedickiecolumnsummerlearning31xml.html