Is pre-K just test prep?

Submitted to the Daily Herald, Columbia, TN, Sept. 29.

According to a recent study from Vanderbilt University, children who voluntarily participated in a pre-K program did better on kindergarten readiness tests than children who did not do pre-K, but the pre-K advantage was gone by the end of third grade ("Pre-K expansion remains iffy after intensive study of benefits," Sept. 29). The pre-K advantage at entering kindergarten was greatest on tests of literacy, especially on skills-oriented tests such as letter-word identification and spelling. But by the end of grade 2, those without pre-K actually did slightly better on the same kinds of tests as well as on a test of reading comprehension.

The 51-page report does not tell us what methods of instruction were used in the pre-K program, but it is likely that literacy instruction was "training" for the kindergarten readiness test with an emphasis on direct and intensive phonics instruction, judging by the test performance.  The results of previous studies show that this kind of training does not contribute to performance on tests in which children have to understand what they read.  The Vanderbilt results are consistent with this research.

In addition, the pre-K students also "had poorer work skills …" and felt more negative about school in kindergarten. This could also be a consequence of focusing on test-preparation and not real literacy.

Stephen Krashen

The full report: Lipsey, M. W., Farran, D.C., & Hofer, K. G., (2015). A Randomized Control Trial of the Effects of a Statewide Voluntary Prekindergarten Program on Children’s Skills and Behaviors through Third Grade (Research Report). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Peabody Research Institute.
Previous research summarized in: Krashen, S. (2009). Does intensive reading instruction contribute to reading comprehension? Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74.  (Available for free download at: http://sdkrashen.com/articles.php?cat=1).
Original article: Pre-K expansion remains iffy after intensive study of benefits - http://columbiadailyherald.com/news/local-news/pre-k-expansion-remains-iffy-after-intensive-study-benefits#sthash.LrT8q76M.dpuf

Stages of language aquisition and a different view of academic language

Sent to Language Magazine, Sept. 29, 2015

It should be pointed out that the five stages included V. Williams' proposals on developing academic language ("Building to code," Language Magazine, 9/26: http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=124487) were originally developed by the late Tracy Terrell, and were presented in our co-authored book, The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom (1983).  (Dr. Williams may have been unaware of this because the book is out of print.)

Readers may also be interested in exploring proposals about the acquisition of academic language other than the plan Dr. Williams presented. See, for example, the arguments that we acquire academic language primarily through self-selected reading, with lighter reading providing the competence and knowledge that makes "heavy" academic reading more comprehensible. (e.g. Krashen, S. 2012. Developing academic proficiency: Some hypotheses. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, (2): 8-15, available at ijflt.com.). This view is more consistent with the theory underlying Prof. Terrell’s five stages.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Sustained Silent Reading: Let's Revisit the Research

Sent to Education Week, September 29, 2015

In "A Teacher Revisits the Sustained Silent Reading Debate," (Sept. 28), Liana Heiten asks how educators have solved the "silent reading conundrum" of holding students accountable for their reading without making reading less enjoyable.

There is no conundrum. There is massive, well-documented evidence that sustained silent reading (SSR) works very well for both first and second language acquirers with little or no accountability as long as certain common-sense conditions are met, e.g. a long enough duration (short-term SSR programs are not as effective as long-term programs), access to interesting reading material, a comfortable physical environment, and no anxiety over evaluation. (For evidence, please see Krashen, S. 2011. Non-engagement in sustained silent reading: How extensive is it? What can it teach us? Colorado Reading Council Journal 22: 5-10. Available at www.sdkrashen.com.)

This evidence is documented in articles in the Phi Delta Kappan (volumes 83(2), 2001, 86(6), 2005), in recent meta-analyses (Nakanishi, TEOL Quarterly, 49(1), 2014; Cho and Krashen, International Journal of Humanities & Social Science 5(7), 2015) and in several of my books (The Power of Reading, 2004; Free Voluntary Reading, 2011).

I have also published detailed responses to the National Reading Panel's incorrect conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to support sustained silent reading. Several of these responses have been published in Education Week (May 10, 2000; March 13, 2002; April 10, 2002), Reading Today (Aug/Sept. 2006) and in the Phi Delta Kappan, cited above.

As we "revisit the sustained silent reading debate," let's also revisit the research.

Stephen Krashen

Comment on de Blasio plan: Invest in libraries

Sent to the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2015

Critics of Mayor de Blasio's plan to improve education in New York typically fault the plan for not attending to their favorite cure ("Mayor DeBlasio’s school agenda," Sept. 18). This letter is no exception, but the research is overwhelming: Invest in school and public libraries and their staffs.

Here is the logic: Children of poverty typically have the lowest scores on reading tests. They also have little access to books at home, at school, and in their communities. For these children, their only source of books is often the library. Studies confirm that given access to interesting reading material, children will read, and when they do, their reading scores improve, as does their vocabulary, grammar, and writing.  In fact, those who develop a reading habit nearly always perform well on literacy tests.  Without access to books, it is impossible to develop a reading habit.

There is strong evidence for each of these claims, and they are confirmed by studies showing the positive impact of library quality on reading test scores.

Stephen Krashen

article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/opinion/mayor-de-blasios-school-agenda.html?mwrsm=Facebook
Sources:
Children of poverty typically have the lowest scores on reading tests: Krashen, S., Lee, SY. 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. 
Little access to books: Smith, C. , Constantino, R.  and Krashen, S. 1997. Differences in print environment for children in Beverly Hills, Compton and Watts. Emergency Librarian 24,4:4-5; Neuman, S. & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle- income communities. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 8-26. 
Given access, children read: Lindsay, J. 2010. Children's Access to Print Material and Education-Related Outcomes: Findings from a Meta-Analytic Review. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. http://bit.ly/9lKPPa
When they read, reading, vocabulary, grammar, writing improves: Sullivan, A. & Brown, M. (2014). Vocabulary from adolescence to middle age. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, University of London; Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann and Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited (second edition).
Positive impact of library quality: Krashen, S., Lee, SY. 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.  Keith Curry Lance, studies at http://www.lrs.org/impact.php.

(Most of ) "For better reading: Libraries, not heavy phonics" published + a request for evidence

Published in The Australian, September 20, 2015
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority chief Robert Randall wants a concentration on phonics because of its importance in developing reading ability.
The research says that intensive phonics instruction does not lead to better performance on tests of reading comprehension.
The research says that those who read better are those who have done more real reading for pleasure, and children with more access to books do more reading for pleasure.
Stephen Krashen, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, US

ORIGINAL VERSION SUBMITTED. NOTE THAT THE LAST SENTENCE WAS NOT INCLUDED:
The Chief Executive Officer at the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority wants a concentration on phonics because of its importance in developing reading ability ("Phonics, faith and coding for primary school kids," September 19)
This doesn't agree with what the research says.  The research says that heavy, intensive phonics instruction does not lead to better performance on tests of reading comprehension, tests in which children have to understand what they read. The research says that those who read better are those who have done more real reading for pleasure, and children with more access to books do more reading for pleasure.
If we are interested in developing reading ability, the concentration should be on libraries, not heavy phonics.


Article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/phonics-faith-and-coding-for-primary-school-kids/story-fn59nlz9-1227534083014?sv=2f37b94f8cac5b5fff430d9cafd1ef41
Sources:
Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann and Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited (second edition).
Krashen, S. (2009). Does intensive reading instruction contribute to reading comprehension? Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74.

this letter: http://skrashen.blogspot.com/2015/09/for-better-reading-libraries-not-heavy.html

C. Clifford wants to see the research:

Phonics works well

What is the research Stephen Krashen refers to showing that intensive phonics teaching does not improve reading comprehension (Letters, 21/9)? Britain is the only English-speaking OECD country where the teaching of reception phonics is mandatory. Reception phonics must be taught intensively as early as possible. No teaching of sight words or whole language, no guessing words or looking at pictures or being surrounded by books that children can’t read.

After testing 500,000 students in Britain in 2014, the research showed that reception phonics can boost a child’s reading age by 28 months by the age of seven. Even in schools with high numbers of special needs children, this was so. Some seven-year-olds attained a reading age of 13.

Is Krashen claiming that these children can only read the words and not understand them? Even if this vague, unproved claim is correct, it is better that they can read than be functionally illiterate.

C. Clifford, Chatsworth, Qld

Response SUBMITTED BUT NOT PUBLISHED:

The limits of intensive phonics: The evidence. Sent to The Australian, September 22.

C. Clifford (letter, "Phonics works well," September 23) asks me for details about research showing that intensive phonics does not improve reading comprehension.  I have summarized this research, and provided citations, in a paper available online:  Krashen, S. (2009). Does intensive reading instruction contribute to reading comprehension? Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74.  (Available for free download at: http://sdkrashen.com/articles.php?cat=1).

I included this citation in my original letter, but it was not published.

Stephen Krashen        

Clifford letter: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/labor-had-the-chance-to-tackle-tax-when-in-office-but-didnt/story-fn558imw-1227539202304

Shorten the tests?

Sent to the New York Times, Sept. 17, 2015.

Making the tests shorter is designed to give testing critics the feeling that they have accomplished something. ("New York Will Trim Common Core Exams After Many Students Skipped Them." Sept. 16.) All it does, however, is expand the floor of the cage a little bit.
The serious problems with common core testing will remain: There will still be far too many tests and far too much time devoted to testing. Students will still be taking tests that have not been shown to be valid and have not been shown to increase learning.
The tests cost schools and taxpayers a lot of money and there is no reason to expect that shorter tests will be significantly less expensive.

Stephen Krashen

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/nyregion/new-york-will-trim-common-core-exams-after-many-students-skipped-them.html?_r=0

The new tests are harder. But are they better?

Published in the Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2015

We are told that most of our students "are not on track to succeed in college" because of the results of recent testing ("New California tests present sobering picture of student achievement," September 10).
There is no evidence that the new tests predict college success, nor is there any evidence that they are better than previous tests or having no standardized yearly tests at all.
The decrease in test scores shows us only that the new tests are harder.  As Alfie Kohn said, harder does not necessarily mean better.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

article:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-new-test-results-20150908-story.html

English in Thailand: An easier, less expensive path

Sent to the Bangkok Post, September 9, 2015
As I understand it, Thailand is taking the following steps to improve English language teaching ("English language teaching: Cambridge to the rescue," Sept. 8)
1.    Bring in new exams, and include test scores on graduation certificates.
2.    Set up "intensive" language classes.
3.    Bring in foreign teachers to coach Thai teachers.
There is no basis in the research supporting any of these steps, and there is plenty of research supporting an easier and less expensive way.
First, studies show that increasing testing and testing pressure does not improve achievement. It only results in more "test preparation," ways of doing better on the exam without actually improving in the language.
Second, there are more efficient and pleasant ways of improving than intensive classes.  Study after study shows that for intermediate students time spent doing self-selected pleasure reading in English improves all aspects of English. Pleasure reading in English is an excellent predictor of TOEFL scores, and also results in improved TOEIC scores.
Third, a Thai teacher who knows pedagogy, can recommend good reading material, and speaks English well is far preferable to an untrained foreign teacher who only has the advantage of a better accent.
For a more efficient and less expensive approach to English, I suggest comprehension-based methods in the early stages such as TPRS and Natural Approach, shown repeatedly to be superior to traditional instruction, and at the intermediate level encouraging a pleasure reading habit in English, through classes in popular literature and increased library holdings.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California
Original article: http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/easy/685032/english-language-teaching-cambridge-to-the-rescue

Needed: A push for libraries

Sent to the Daily Telegraph, Sydney Australia (Sept 8, 2015)

Re: Phonics will be pushed in NSW schools: Teachers have little training in it (Sept. 8)
I wonder if those insisting on a "major push on phonics" are aware of the fact that "whole language" includes basic phonics, the straight-forward rules that students can learn, remember and apply to texts to make reading more comprehensible.  I wonder if they are aware of research showing that those have done heavy phonics, way beyond the basics, do not do better on tests of reading comprehension, tests in which children have to understand what they read.  I wonder if they know that those who read better are those who have done more real reading for pleasure, and children with more access to books do more reading for pleasure.
We need a major push for libraries, not phonics.
Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/phonics-will-be-pushed-in-nsw-schools-teachers-have-little-training-in-it/story-fni0cx12-1227518577796

Confusion over whole language

Sent to the National Review, September 8, 2015

In "For the left, anything new is better" (Sept.  8) Dennis Prager characterizes whole language as a method that teaches children to recognize whole words and as phonics-free.         

Prager confuses whole language with "Look-Say" teaching, a method abandoned decades ago. Whole language is based on the idea that we learn to read by understanding what is on the page. One way we do this is a knowledge of the basic rules of phonics.  Whole language includes "basic phonics," the straight-forward rules that children can learn, remember, and apply to texts to make them more comprehensible.

Prager also claims that college freshmen today read at the level of a seventh grader. Prager's data comes from the company that produces Accelerated Reader and is based on assigned summer reading lists.  In contrast, scores on the most respected reading test we have, the NAEP, have remained the same (17 year olds) or have increased (ages 9 and 13) since 1971. 

Stephen Krashen
Original article: http://www.nationalreview.com/the-left-loves-change

The limits of phonics (and phonemic awareness)

Sent to the New York Times, Sept. 8, 2015

Daniel Willingham's approval of the findings of The National Reading Panel is not justified ("Teachers aren't dumb," Sept. 8).
   The panel decided that teachers need to know the fine details of phonological awareness (sensitivity to individual sounds in words). There is very little research directly linking phonemic awareness training and improvement in reading comprehension, and many people learn to read quite well with little phonological awareness.
   The panel also decided that teachers need to teach "intensive" phonics, which requires that children learn all the major rules of phonics in a strict order. Studies show that intensive phonics instruction results in better test scores only on tests in which children pronounce words presented in isolation. Intensive phonics makes no significant contribution to performance on tests in which children have to understand what they read.
   There is overwhelming research showing that real reading ability is the result of actual reading, especially of books that readers find very interesting. 

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/opinion/teachers-arent-dumb.html?emc=edit_tnt_20150908&nlid=5100421&tntemail0=y&_r=0

Some sources:

Effect of phonemic awareness training:  Krashen, S. (2001). Does “pure” phonemic awareness training affect reading comprehension? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93, 356-358.
Coles, G. 2003. Reading the Naked Truth: Literacy, legislation, and lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
The limited impact of phonics:
Garan, E. 2001. Beyond the smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan 82, no. 7 (March), 500-506.
Coles, G. 2003. Reading the Naked Truth: Literacy, legislation, and lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. 2009. Does intensive decoding instruction contribute
to reading comprehension? Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74.
The impact of real reading:
Flurkey, A. and Xu, J. (Eds). 2003. On the Revolution in Reading: The Selected Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann Publishing Company and Libraries Unlimited.
Smith, F. 2004. Understanding Reading. Sixth Edition, Routledge. 2004.
Sullivan, A. & Brown, M. (2014). Vocabulary from adolescence to middle age. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, University of London. www.cls.ioe.ac.uk

Support school libraries by supporting opting out of testing

Sent to American Libraries, Sept 6

As Keith Michael Fiels ("Support school libraries," Sept 5) points out, "testing pressures and budget decisions have led to elimination of school libraries," at a time in which research evidence for libraries has never been stronger.  He recommends we support several pro-library efforts in Congress.
The problem is that "testing pressures" are greater than they have ever been. All proposals for renewal of the education law are test-centric, some involving the same amount of testing as the old law. Also, the new tests are delivered online, a never-ending boondoggle for testing and computer companies as equipment and software is regularly declared obsolete.  There is no evidence that the brave new hi-tech tests will do students any good.
Moreover, new tests, covering more subjects, more grade levels, and including "interim" testing, are being introduced all the time, even though research shows that increasing testing does not increase school performance.
Only the opt-out movement is holding back the flood. 
There will be no funding for libraries if we continue to spend billions on unvalidated and expensive nonstop testing.  

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2015/09/04/support-school-libraries/
United opt-out: http://unitedoptout.com/

The common core: Harder doesn't necessarily mean better

Sent to Education Week, September 2

The fact that classroom assignments are not well aligned with the common core standards is good news ("Classroom Assignments Fail to Meet Common-Core's Higher Bar, Study Says," Sept. 2). The standards have never been shown to be valid and they have never been shown to produce better learning or more enthusiasm for learning.  The decrease in test scores associated with the new standards, however, shows that they are harder.  Alfie Kohn reminds us that harder does not necessarily mean better.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

original article: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2015/09/classroom_assignments_fail_to_meet_common_core_higher_bar_study.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news2