Do educators support the common core?

Last month (September) the National Education Association announced " that a "Majority of Educators "strongly" support the Common Core State Standards" (headline of an article that appeared in NEA Today).

 

I have been unable to find the details of the questions and the results on the internet, but the NEA's own report of the results are not consistent with their headline.

First, the poll, done by the NEA, only surveyed NEA members. Second, we are told that 26% were "wholeheartedly in favor of the standards," 50% supported them with "some reservations" and 11% were opposed. Also, 13% didn't know enough about the standards to have an opinion.

In other words, only 26% strongly support the CCSS.  The headline could easily have read "Most NEA members polled have reservations about the common core or are opposed."

The NEA has strongly supported the standards, and the media is constantly filled with cheerful pronouncements about the common core from the US Department of Education.  My interpretation of the poll results is that many teachers are not convinced, thanks to their own experience.

http://neatoday.org/2013/09/12/nea-poll-majority-of-educators-support-the-common-core-state-standards/

Phonics Debate in The Austrailian.

The (limited) impact of heavy phonics instruction
Published in The Australian, Oct 1, 2013 as "Foster Love of Reading"

In "Bad teaching kills reading skills," (Sept. 30) Jennifer Buckingham claims that failing to include "explicit, systematic and structured" phonics is bad teaching. This means phonics instruction that teaches all students all the major rules of phonics in a strict order.

Published scientific studies show that students who have experienced intensive systematic structured phonics do better only on tests in which they have to pronounce lists of words presented in isolation. This kind of heavy phonics instruction has only a microscopic influence on tests in which children have to understand what they read -- tests of reading comprehension given after first grade.

Study after study has shown that performance on tests of reading comprehension is heavily influenced by the amount of self-selected free voluntary reading that children do, not whether they have had explicit, systematic and structured phonics.

Stephen Krashen
Brian Cambourne


Some Sources (not included in published letter)

Definition of explicit, systematic and structured phonics:
Ehri, C.L., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A., & Willows, D.M. (2001). Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, (3) 393-447.

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.
Garan, E. (2002) Resisting Reading Mandates. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. 2009. Does intensive decoding instruction contribute to reading comprehension? Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74.

Self-selected reading and reading comprehension:
Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann Publishing Company and Libraries Unlimited.
Sullivan, A. and Brown, M. 2013. Social inequalities in cognitive scores at age 16: The role of reading. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London   www.cls.ioe.ac.uk


original article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/bad-teaching-kills-reading-skills/story-e6frgd0x-1226729534319#.
This letter posted at tinyurl.com/my4sjxe
Letter published: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/foster-love-of-reading/story-fn558imw-1226731109304


RESPONSE TO OUR LETTER:

Some children need rote learning to succeed at reading
IT appears there has been a breakdown of communications between schools, teacher training and curriculum requirements.
Phonics is taught in primary schools for the purposes of learning to read and spell. Each student learns in their own way and good teachers employ multiple strategies to teach them.
I have taught in primary schools for more than 40 years and have noticed that phonics, whole word and other ideas are implemented, but what is missing is rote learning. It has been some time since I saw daily repetition of spelling.
Top students may learn quickly but for others, constant repetition is necessary to achieve high levels of competency. A musician has to practice constantly. So do children learning to read and spell.
Augusta Monro, Dural, NSW
TIM Mahar, Stephen Krashen and Brian Cambourne (Letters, 2/10) do not seem to appreciate that children can be immersed in literature but still be unable to read since they cannot crack the code of written language.
Your editorial ("After years of studies and fads, Jaydon still can't read", 1/10) sums up the deplorable and inexcusable state of literacy teaching in Australia.
Good phonics-based teaching has ample scope for discussing meaning. The children and adults I treat each day as a special education therapist do not self-select books, because they cannot read. So many parents complain to me that their child won't read, but when I do an assessment I find the child does not know the sounds of the letters nor how to blend them.
It is a false dichotomy to argue that the choice is between reading great and enjoyable books or lists of mind-numbing words. Indeed, structured phonics ensures that children can access any book in English to pursue their own interests.
Antonia Canaris, Ashfield, NSW
published at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/some-children-need-rote-learning-to-succeed-at-reading/story-fn558imw-1226732514169#sthash.Mh1kr6nt.dpuf

OUR RESPONSE, Published October 8. 

AUGUSTA Monro and Antonia Canaris's letters (4/10) commented on our letter on the limited effect of phonics (Letters, 2/10). The research does not condemn all phonics instruction, only extensive, systematic phonics, an extremist position that demands that we teach all the rules of phonics in a strict order.
A knowledge of basic phonics, straight-forward rules that can help make texts more comprehensible and that children can easily learn and remember, is helpful.
Not all reading results in improvement in reading ability. The texts that help are those that are comprehensible and interesting. These texts will provide all the repetition that Monro feels is important.
Canaris is correct in saying that self-selected reading is not for beginners. Beginning readers need to hear lots of stories, read easy texts and, as mentioned earlier, learn some basic phonics.
Stephen Krashen
Brian Cambourne

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/a-child-who-cant-read-is-disabled-for-life/story-fn558imw-1226733249567

National priorities: which comes first, improve economy or improve education?

On Oct 3, ASCD Smartbrief featured the results of a poll.

(http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/eMfCCemyuAggwvsIfDfIfYcOjQkk)

ASCD did not provide details, only the results.

The question: What do you feel should be the most important U.S. national priority or goal?

Among the choices were:

(1) Increasing jobs and economic growth.

(2) Improving the quality of our public schools.

Arne Duncan has said that the key to improving the economy is first improving education.  I assume this means that he would choose option (2).

Martin Luther King's position is different: "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” (Martin Luther King, 1967, Final Words of Advice). I assume this means that Dr. King would choose option (1).

Here are the results of the ED Pulse poll:

What do you feel should be the most important U.S. national priority or goal?

Increasing jobs and economic growth: 51%

Improving the quality of our public schools: 11%

The complete results: note that total = 100%, indicating that respondents were asked to choose one answer among the alternatives.

Increasing jobs and economic growth: 51.58%

Making sure children get a strong start through quality early education: 15.18%

Improving the quality of our public schools: 11.15%

Improving access to quality heatlh care for low-income families: 9.04%

Reducing the tax burden on families  8.46%

Securing our borders 3.85%

Making sure working parents can find quality, affordable child care for their young children: 1.73%

NOT included:

Increasing testing in schools and making sure children are tested on all subjects every year.

More rigorous standards in schools.

More up-to-date news about Miley Cyrus.

 

The (limited) impact of heavy phonics instruction

Published in The Australian, October 1, 2013 as "Foster Love of Reading"

In "Bad teaching kills reading skills," (Sept. 30) Jennifer Buckingham claims that failing to include "explicit, systematic and structured" phonics is bad teaching. This means phonics instruction that teaches all students all the major rules of phonics in a strict order.

Published scientific studies show that students who have experienced intensive systematic structured phonics do better only on tests in which they have to pronounce lists of words presented in isolation. This kind of heavy phonics instruction has only a microscopic influence on tests in which children have to understand what they read -- tests of reading comprehension given after first grade.

Study after study has shown that performance on tests of reading comprehension is heavily influenced by the amount of self-selected free voluntary reading that children do, not whether they have had explicit, systematic and structured phonics.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Brian Cambourne
Associate Professor 
Principal Fellow

Faculty of Education

University of Wollongong

Letter published: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/foster-love-of-reading/story-fn558imw-1226731109304

Some Sources (not published with the letter)

Definition of explicit, systematic and structured phonics:
Ehri, C.L., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A., & Willows, D.M. (2001). Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, (3) 393-447.

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.
Garan, E. (2002) Resisting Reading Mandates. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. 2009. Does intensive decoding instruction contribute to reading comprehension? Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74.

Self-selected reading and reading comprehension:
Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann Publishing Company and Libraries Unlimited.
Sullivan, A. and Brown, M. 2013. Social inequalities in cognitive scores at age 16: The role of reading. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London   www.cls.ioe.ac.uk


original article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/bad-teaching-kills-reading-skills/story-e6frgd0x-1226729534319#.

Are Americans reading less?

Sent to the New York Daily News, Sept. 27, 2013

The Daily News reported that "Less than half of Americans read for fun last year, National Endowment for the Arts survey shows" (Sept. 26).
This is not quite accurate.
The NEA reported that 54.5% of those surveyed said they read at least one book last year, nearly identical to the results of the 2008 survey.  About 47% said they read at least one work of "literature" (novels, poetry, plays) last year, about a 3% dip from 2008; much of this was a decline in reading poetry.
It is not clear in the NEA study if "book" reading included e-books. There has been an astonishing increase in the percentage of adults owning e-book readers in the US: According to Pew 26% of adults in the US now own an e-book reader, up from 2% in 2009.
When we consider the constant defunding of libraries, and the increase in poverty, it is amazing that people are still reading so much. 

Stephen Krashen

Source: Pew Internet Mobile: http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/February/Pew-Internet-Mobile.aspx. Updated, Sept 18, 2013.

original article: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pageviews/2013/09/less-than-half-of-americans-read-for-fun-last-year-national-endowment-for-the-arts

Educators, do your homework before you make children do theirs.

Sent to the Wichita Eagle Sept

If Colvin elementary fourth-graders work double-shifts (do their homework) for 100 days, one of their teachers will dye her hair orange ("Colvin fourth-graders challenged to meet ‘100 Days of Homework’ goal," Sept 26).

Has anybody at Colvin read the research on homework and rewards? Has anyone at Colvin read Alfie Kohn's Punished by Rewards or The Truth About Homework, books that present powerful evidence against homework and rewards? (Check out his website: alfiekohn.org, for many articles on these topics.)

Policy-makers and teachers are free to disagree with the research, but for the sake of these fourth-graders, they are not free to ignore it. 

Colvin educators, do your homework before you make children do theirs.

Stephen Krashen


Original article: http://www.kansas.com/2013/09/25/3021475/colvin-fourth-graders-challenged.html#storylink=cpy

Why the SAT decline?

Sent to the Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 27, 2013

There are two possible reasons for the decline of SAT scores ("As college-prep test scores falter, how the US can respond," Sept. 26).

One possibility, suggested by FairTest, is that the massive invasion of high-stakes tests that began with No Child Left Behind has not worked.

Another, according to an analysis by Seton Hall Professor Christopher Tienken, is poverty: Tienken has demonstrated that students coming from wealthier families achieve higher SAT scores. As we all know, poverty has been increasing in the US.

Most likely, both factors are at work.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California


Sources:
Fair test: http://fairtest.org/fairtest-news-release-release-2012-sat-scores
Poverty and SAT scores: Christopher Tienken, 2010, Strong Correlations, AASA Journal 7(2). http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx
Increase in poverty: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/inequality/research-roundup-post-recession-america-poverty-rate-stays-high#