Sunday, March 30, 2014

Adumbrationism and the Book Whisperer

There are 222 reviews of the Donalyn Miller's terrific Book Whisperer on Amazon.
182 gave it a "5"
31 gave it a "4"
8 gave it a "3"
Nobody gave it a 2
And HH gave it a 1
Here is HH's review, followed by my comment, also posted on Amazon.

Save yourself some time, March 16, 2014
By  HH.
"Great for novice teachers or anyone needing a refresher but more or less a culmination of every reading course, workshop or book about teaching reading ever written. The gist: students need time to read and teachers must be avid and passionate readers. It could have been said in those two sentence. I would recommend this book to non-traditional teachers."


My response, posted on amazon.
I included my real name.

H.H. is guilty of adumbrationism, "denegrating of new ideas by pretending to find them old" (Merton, 1961).  The Book Whisperer has introduced the concept of constrained self-selected reading, the missing factor in literature teaching. It is also a big part of the answer to intermediate second and foreign language teaching.  H.H. may have known about this all along, but I didn't, and neither did thousands of readers of the Book Whisperer who now find teaching literature to be much more satisfying and exciting.  I predict that research will show that the students appreciate it and profit from it as well.

Merton, R. K. 1961. Singletons and multiples in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 105: 470-486.


Misinformed about the common core


Too many people remain misinformed about the common core. Here is the latest distortion.

Alan Greenblatt just attacked the Opt-Out movement, saying that it is irresponsible and selfish.  There are over 300 comments on the website.  Greeenblatt and most of those who commented have no idea what is going on.
There is no way to respond to this on the NPR website, other than be one of the 300+ commenters.
The opt-out organizers posted an excellent response as a blog:  http://atthechalkface.com/2014/03/30/of-me-i-sing-really/
I said the same thing they did and posted it as a comment:

Mr. Greenblatt has not done his homework. Opting out of the common core tests is a rational, patriotic, socially responsible action. We all agree that students should be assessed, but the common core tests have zero research support, and are already bleeding our educational budget of every spare dollar, as well as converting teaching into narrow test-prep. The opposition to the common core testing program, as well as the common core itself, comes from well-known and respected educators and academic researchers, as well as parents who see the day-to-day damage caused by the testing program.
United Opt Out National is an extremely important movement that aims to save American education. It deserves our respect and full attention.

Monday, March 24, 2014

21st Century Skills?


Stephen Krashen

Yogi Berra: "It's hard to predict, especially about the future."
"I contend that, instead of insisting on more and more standardization, we should be increasing variety, flexibility, and choice in what we offer in our schools (Noddings, 2009, p.243).
" ... useful knowledge changes as societies change" (Zhao, 2009, p. 135).
It is often stated that new standards are necessary so that children will develop "21st Century Skills." Education Secretary Duncan behaves, at times, as if he knows what these skills are (but see below). Most of us have no idea.
The history of science and technology has taught us that new developments are nearly always a surprise. Secretary Duncan expressed this idea himself, in an interview with USA Today:
"As we get more and more of these technological breakthroughs, there are going to be jobs in fields available that don't even exist today. If these guys [sic] can come out and be those innovators and be those creators and inventors, they're going to create new opportunities that we can't even envision or begin to comprehend today" (USA Today, August 9, 2009).
In other words, Secretary Duncan seems to agree with Yogi Berra: "It's hard to predict, especially about the future."
Preparing for change: pursue your strengths
The only way to prepare students for the future is to make sure they are prepared for a wide variety of options and opportunities. We need to continue to "produce students who graduate with generic skills that allow them to adapt rapidly to economic changes" (Martin, 2009).
Zhao (2009) arrives at the same conclusion and adds an important point: School should help students "pursue their strengths":
" ... it is ... difficult to predict what new businesses will emerge and what will become obsolete. Thus, what becomes highly valuable are unique talents, knowledge, and skills, the ability to adapt to changes, and creativity, all of which calls for a school culture that respects and cultivates expertise in a diversity of talents and skills and a curriculum that enables individuals to pursue their strengths" (Zhao, 2009, p. 156).
Don't worry about going to your left
We do not allow students to pursue their strengths very much, forcing all students to reach fairly demanding levels in what some people consider to be "basics" before they can specialize. The usual advice to work on one's weaker areas is dangerous. Rosenblatt (2001) advises young basketball players not to worry so much about learning to go to their left, their weak direction: If you are always working on weak areas, you can never really get good at anything.
It is undeniable that all citizens need a certain minimum in some crucial areas, such as reading and math, but not nearly as much as is often required. Nor is it necessary to hurry development of weaker areas while delaying involvement in areas of real interest. There is much too much delayed gratification in education today, resulting often in students leaving the system before they have a chance to "pursue their strengths," and the current standards movement promises to make this problem worse.
Broadening options, not making them narrower
Our responsibility is to provide the means for students to develop their talents and explore their interests so they can reach their full potential. This means broadening curriculum options, rather than making them narrower (Ohanian, 1999, p. 4; Zhao, 1999, p. 181-183). Kurt Vonnegut may be right: " …we shouldn't be seeking harrowing challenges, but rather tasks we find natural and interesting, tasks we were apparently born to perform."  (Vonnegut, 1997, p. 148). Our job is to help students find those tasks they love to do, that they can learn to do very very well, and that contribute to society.
The United States, so far, is doing quite well in terms of flexibility and ability to adapt to new circumstances:  The U.S. economy is ranked as the fifth most innovative in the world out of 142, according to the 2013 Global Innovation Index, which is based in part on the availability of education, new patents and the publication of scientific and technical journal articles (Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO, 2013). The Common Core, however, promises only to diminish our capacity to innovate, and change and grow with the times.
"American education needs to be more American, instead of more like education in other countries. The traditional strengths of American education – respect for individual talents and differences, a broad curriculum oriented to educating the whole child, and a decentralized system that embraces diversity – should be further expanded, not abandoned" (Zhao, 2009, p. 182)
References
Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO. 2013. The Global Innovation Index 2013: The Local Dynamics of Innovation. <www.globalinnovationindex.org/content.aspx?page=gii-full-report- 2013#pdfopener> (accessed October 12, 2013).
Martin, M. 2009. Eggs or eggheads: Which does the U.S. economy really need? Arizona School Boards Journal, Winter. Available at: http://www.susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=68
Noddings, N. 2009. School for democracy. In Bracey, G. Education Hell: Rhetoric Vs. Reality, Alexandra, VA: Educational Research Service. Originally appeared in the Phi Delta Kappan, September, 2008.
Ohanian, S. 1999. One Size Fits Few. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishing Co.
Vonnegut, K. 1997. Timequake. New York: Putnam Publishing Group
Zhao, Y. 2009. Catching Up or Leading the Way? American Education in the Age of Globalization. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.




Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Strongest evidence so far in support of bilingual education



 McField, G. and McField, D. 2014. "The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) 2014. The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.

McField and McField analyzed all comparisons done in all meta-analyses of bilingual education vs. comparison programs (students with similar background in all-English programs) for tests of English proficiency. Previous meta-analyses found positive effect sizes for bilingual education, ranging from .18 to .33. McField and McField reported that when both program quality and research quality are considered, the effect size in favor of children in bilingual education programs is larger, d= .41.

This should settle the argument: bilingual programs, when set up correctly and evaluated correctly, do not prevent the acquisition of English – they facilitate it.

(Note: An effect size of .2 is considered "small," .5 "moderate" and .8 "large.")

Monday, March 17, 2014

The Common Core and Testing Fever


Published in the Oregonian, March 21, 2014, as Common Core and Testing

Brett Bigham suggests that we need more standards and less testing ("Common Core Standards are not insidious: Guest opinion," March 16).  The Common Core,  however, is requiring an astonishing amount of standardized testing, far more than No Child Left Behind (NCLB) required. The new tests include the usual end of year tests, but in more subjects and in all grade levels, as well as interim tests during the year and possibly pretests in the fall to measure improvement over the academic year, about a 20-fold increase over NCLB.
The tests will be delivered online. Thus, all students must have access to the internet, with up-to-date equipment. This will involve a staggering expense that will increase as systems require updating and replacement.
This effort and expense are planned despite the fact that there is no evidence that increasing testing helps achievement, nor is there evidence that online testing will help.
Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/common_core_standards_are_not.html
this letter: 
http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2014/03/letters_property_tax_inequity.html


Sources:
Amount of testing: Krashen, S. 2012. “How Much Testing?” Diane Ravitch’s Blog (July 25). <http://dianeravitch.net/?s=how+much+testing> (accessed October 13, 2013).
Expense of online testing: Krashen, Stephen, and Susan Ohanian. 2011. “High Tech Testing on the Way: A 21st Century Boondoggle?” Living in Dialogue (Apr 8). <http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in- dialogue/2011/04/high_tech_testing_on_the_way_a.html> (accessed October 13, 2013).
No evidence: Nichols, Sharon L., Gene V. Glass, and David C. Berliner. 2006. “High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Does Accountability Pressure Increase Student Learning?” Education Policy Archives 14 (1). <http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/72/198> (accessed October 14, 2013).





Friday, March 14, 2014

Nonstop hi-tech testing

Published in the Los Angeles Times, March 19, 2014

Re "Common Core learning curve," Editorial, March 14

Not mentioned in the editorial  (March 14) is the astonishing amount of testing required by the Common Core and the requirement that testing must be done online.

No Child Left Behind required tests "only" at the end of year in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school. The Common Core aims to test all subjects in all grades, and includes interim tests to be given throughout the school year.

To take the tests, students must be connected to the Internet with up-to-date computers. After the computers are in place, there will be continual upgrades and replacements. The one billion set aside by Gov. Brown is only the beginning.

There is no evidence that massive online testing will benefit students in any way. 

Stephen Krashen

This letter printed at: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-le-0319-wednesday-common-core-20140319,0,1709673.story#ixzz2wQTHupxG
Sources:
Huge increase in testing, interim testing, pretests: Krashen, S. 2012. How much testing? http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen-­‐ krashen-­‐how-­‐much-­‐testing/
 and: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/

One billion only the beginning: 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

No evidence that massive testings benefits students: 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/. OECD. Tienken, C., 2011. Common core standards: An example of data-less decision-making. Journal of Scholarship and Practice. American Association of School Administrators [AASA], 7(4): 3-18. http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx.







Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Does the data support charters? Does the data support test-centered schooling?

Sent to the Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2014

"Cuomo steps up for charters," (editorial, March 10) claims that New York charter school students outperform students in nearby traditional schools. But charters can often be very selective in who they admit, and can expell "problem" students. Were these factors included in the New York analysis? Despite their advantages, studies show that in general charter schools do not do as well as public schools.

"Shaking up the classroom," (March 11) notes that the Lindsay District has improved its passing rates on the California Academic Performance (CAP) Index from 2009 to 2013, but a comparison with the chart accompanying the article shows that state and county passing rates have improved at nearly exactly the same rate. This suggests that the improvement is the result of changes in criteria in calculating the CAP index, not the intensive test-preparation nature of schooling at Lindsay.

The Wall Street Journal is the leading source of financial information in the world, but the education staff needs work.

Stephen Krashen

Note: I measured the difference between the Lindsay scores and State/County scores 2009 and 2011 in the figure using a ruler.

Source:

Performance of charter schools: National Charter School Study. Can be downloaded at http://credo.stanford.edu/.


Tuesday, March 11, 2014

How we acquire language


Sent to the China Daily, March 11

Re: "Language is better learned in casual study, scholars say"  March 6

Prof. Van Damme's conclusion that language acquisition takes place in informal environments and through active communication is correct, but research supports a deeper generalization, one that gives hope to language education programs: Language is acquired when we understand what we hear and read, and happens best when the messages are of great interest to us.
This idea is supported by studies showing that language classrooms can be very effective when they are filled with "comprehensible input," as well as studies showing that reading for pleasure is a powerful means of increasing first and second language proficiency.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Rossier School of Education, USC, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031
310 924 2490 (USA)

Sources:
Krashen, S. 2003. Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use: The Taipei Lectures. Heinemann Publishing Company.
Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading (second edition). Heinemann and Libraries Unlimited.

Article: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2014-03/06/content_17327762.htm

Yes, let's drop the SAT essay. While we're at it, let's drop the SAT.

Sent to the NY Times, March 11

Re: "Can writing be assessed?"  March 10.

There is no point in testing writing form, i.e. the use of conventional writing style, grammatical accuracy.  Research consistently tells us that writing form comes from reading, not from writing and not from study.

Writing itself is a powerful tool for solving problems and making yourself smarter.  This requires mastery of the composing process (e.g. knowing that as you revise you come up with better ideas). This cannot be tested.

Research also tells us that high school grades are a good predictor of college success. Adding a standardized test does not improve the prediction.  So there is no point in having the SAT.

Stephen Krashen


NY Times article: NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/10/can-writing-on-a-college-entrance-exam-be-properly-assessed


Sources:
Reading and Writing: Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading (Heinemann and Libraries Unlimited); Lee, S.Y. (2005). Facilitating and inhibiting factors on EFL writing: A model testing with SEM. Language Learning, 55(2), 335-374.

Composing process: Elbow, P. Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford UP. 1973. Perl, S. (1979). The composing process of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-339. Boice, R. (1994). How writers journey to comfort and fluency. Westport: Praeger.

Grades and the SAT: Bowen, W., Chingos, M., and McPherson, M. 2009.Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Geiser, S. and Santelices, M.V., 2007. Validity of high-school grades in predicting student success beyond the freshman year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators of four-year college outcomes. Research and Occasional Papers Series: CSHE 6.07, University of California, Berkeley.http://cshe.berkeley.edu

Sunday, March 9, 2014

The common core: An untried curriculum plus nonstop testing

Sent to the Salt Lake Tribune, March 9, 2014

M. Donald Thomas is right: "Common Core supporters (are) providing misinformation" (March 7). In addition to the points he makes, there are other serious problems.

First, the common core standards are untested.  There were no pilot studies.
Second, the common core requires a huge increase in testing; research has indicated that increasing testing does not mean greater achievement.
Also, 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.



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.

Poverty means, among other things, food deprivation, lack of health care, and little or no access to books. The best teaching will not help when students are hungry, ill, and have little to read. When researchers control for the effects of poverty, American international test scores rank near the top of the world. 

Instead of protecting students from the effects of poverty, we are wasting billions on what Susan Ohanian has accurately described as “a radical untried curriculum overhaul and … nonstop national testing.”   



Stephen Krashen

M. Donald Thomas letter: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57642648-82/common-core-public-academic.html.csp


Sources:
Huge increase in testing: Krashen, S. 2012. How much testing? http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen-­‐ krashen-­‐how-­‐much-­‐testing/
 and: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/

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/. OECD. Tienken, C., 2011. Common core standards: An example of data-less decision-making. Journal of Scholarship and Practice. American Association of School Administrators [AASA], 7(4): 3-18. http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx.

Cost of 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

Level of 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.

Poverty means: 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;   Krashen, S. 1997. Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership  55(4): 18-22.

Control for poverty: 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. Berliner, D. 2011. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. Tienken, C. 2010. Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa Delta Phi Record 47 (1): 14-17. 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/).

Saturday, March 8, 2014

No Unnecessary Testing, Not No Testing

Published in the Indy Star, March 17, 2014 as "Let's eliminate unnecessary testing"

Tim Swarens writes that "Diane Ravitch’s opposition to accountability isn’t realistic," (March 7) because we need to "identify those who excel and those who lag behind."

Agreed. But we don't need to test every child every year on every subject to find this out.  The NAEP test, a zero-stakes standardized test, is given to samples of students every few years, and the results are extrapolated to get an accurate assessment of how districts, states and the country are doing.

If we want to expand the NAEP to measure performance for individual schools, we need to determine, through careful study, how many students need to be tested and how often.  The evaluation of individual students is best done by teachers, according to recent research.

When you go to the doctor, they don't take all your blood, just a sample. 

I recommend the principle of NUT: No Unneccessary Testing. Test as much as we need to and no more. 

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/03/07/diane-ravitchs-opposition-to-accountability-isnt-realistic/6181929/
This letter:  http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/03/14/lets-eliminate-unnecessary-testing/6429401/


Some sources:
Evaluation of individual students: Bowen, W., Chingos, M., and McPherson, M. 2009. Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Geiser, S. and Santelices, M.V., 2007. Validity of high-school grades in predicting student success beyond the freshman year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators of four-year college outcomes. Research and Occasional Papers Series: CSHE 6.07, University of California, Berkeley. http://cshe.berkeley.edu

Friday, March 7, 2014

Let's do some critical thinking

Let's do some critical thinking
Sent to the Denver Post, March 7.

The Douglas County school superintendent says that students should not just "compare and contrast" but "create and evaluate" and engage in critical thinking ("Educators to state: Let's go above common core," March 6).

Agreed.

Let's start by evaluating whether we should have common core standards and tests at all.

How many policy makers are aware of these facts?
(1) US students do very well on international tests when we control for poverty: There is no crisis.
(2) 23% of our children live in poverty.
(3) Poverty means lack of good food, lack of health care and little or no access to books. All of these have a devastating impact on school performance.

Now let's do some critical thinking and evaluate this proposal: We can protect children from the effects of poverty with improved food programs, more school nurses and investing in libraries for a fraction of what we are about to spend on the common core, especially online testing. This will improve school achievement as well as the quality of life for millions of students.

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.denverpost.com/dougco/ci_25273289/educators-lets-go-above-common-core

Sources:

Control for poverty: 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. Berliner, D. 2011. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. Tienken, C. 2010. Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa Delta Phi Record 47 (1): 14-17. 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/).

Level of 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.

Poverty means ...:  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;   Krashen, S. 1997. Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership  55(4): 18-22.

Cost of the common core:  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

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Do we need the SAT?


Sent to USA Today, March 6, 2014

Not mentioned in the discussion of changes in the SAT ("Sharpen those pencils: The SAT test is getting harder," March 6) is the question of whether we need SAT-type examinations.

In two different studies, researchers from UC Berkeley, Harvard and Princeton reported that high school grades were a good predictor of college success, and that adding SAT scores did not improve the predictive power of grades alone.

These results suggest that teacher evaluation does a better job of evaluating student potential than standardized testing does: The repeated judgments of professionals who are with students every day appears to be more valid that a test created by distant strangers.

Stephen Krashen

Sources:
Bowen, W., Chingos, M., and McPherson, M. 2009. Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Geiser, S. and Santelices, M.V., 2007. Validity of high-school grades in predicting student success beyond the freshman year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators of four-year college outcomes. Research and Occasional Papers Series: CSHE 6.07, University of California, Berkeley. http://cshe.berkeley.edu

original article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/05/sat-college-board-redesign-college-entrance-exam/6078091/




Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Bilingual education: What does the research say?

Published in Education Week, March 25, 2014, as 
Debate on Bilingual Education Needs to Include All the Facts



The campaign to full restore bilingual education in California needs to include the research. Despite efforts by academics, this research was not brought to the attention of the voters.

Not mentioned in the Education Week article is the fact that studies done before and after Proposition 227 passed consistently showed that students in bilingual programs outperform similar students enrolled in English-only programs on tests of reading English. Had the public known this, the outcome of the election might have been different.

Also, as researcher Grace McField noted in the article, dismantling bilingual education in California did not improve achievement for English-learners in California.

Both of these findings deserve much more salience in the bilingual education debate.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

original article: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/05/23bilingual.h33.html

Sources: 
Students in bilingual programs outperform: ...:
McField, G. and McField, D. 2014. "The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A meta-analysis of meta-analyses." In Grace McField (Ed.) 2014. The Miseducation of English Learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. pp. 267-299.
Dismantling did not improve ...:
Parrish, T., Linquanti, R. Merickel, A. Quick, H. Laird, J and Estra, P. 2006. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K-12: 2002 Report http://www.wested.org/resources/effects-of-the-implementation-of-proposition-227-on-the-education-of-english-learners-k-12-2002-report/