The never-ending common core boondoggle

Sent to USA Today, January 25, 2014.

I was happy to read that "Some states get cold feet as Common Core testing draws near," (Jan. 24). As Theodor Rebarber noted, estimates of costs should include technology. All common core tests must be delivered online, on up-to-date computers, which many schools do not have. This will cost billions, and we can be sure that as soon as the system is functioning, most of the technology will be obsolete, which means a never-ending boondoggle for computer and testing companies at taxpayers' expense.

If the brave new tests fail to produce improvement, "experts" will blame teachers and call for even more testing, requiring newer (and even more expensive) technology.

Stephen Krashen

Original article at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/24/stateline-common-core-testing/4817739/

Lively discussion (debate) in the Japan Times over libraries/recreational reading

Lively discussion in the Japan Times (Krashen vs. Chris Clancy)

My original letter:

Recreational reading will score

Published in the Japan Times,  January 19, 2014

Regarding the Dec. 31/Jan. 1 article “English to get 2020 push but teachers not on the same page“: Experts have criticized Japan’s reform plan for English for not including enough hours of English instruction to accomplish its goals. They’ve also noted the lack of resources and staffing.

There is an easy way to help solve both problems and ensure that growth in English will continue after students finish school: Invest in libraries and promote recreational reading.

Study after study shows that self-selected pleasure reading results in profound gains in vocabulary, grammar, spelling and writing style in first and second languages.

Also, reading can be so pleasant that students are often eager to do it on their own. Many of these studies have been done with those acquiring English as a second language in Japan, and they have been published in scholarly journals all over the world.

I hope that the panel of experts about to be created by the education ministry will study the work of some of the prominent scholars in Japan who have done quality research in this area, including Beniko Mason, David Beglar and Atsuko Takase.

Professor Mason has reported that older English acquirers who develop a reading habit in English make impressive gains on the TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) even without extra English classes. (One of her subjects was in his 70s!)

stephen krashen

los angeles

Clancey response to my letter

Pleasure reading presents hurdles

Published in the Japan Times, Jan 25, 2014

Having the esteemed professor emeritus Stephen Krashen contribute to the ongoing question of English education in Japan is always pleasurable. However, his letter of Jan. 16, “Recreational reading will score,” raises more questions than it answers.

Just how investing in libraries and promoting recreational reading will solve the problems of inadequate resources and staff, as well as too few hours of instruction to meet the education ministry’s reform goals, is difficult to envision. Though the plan may very well ensure that growth in English will continue after students finish school, it fails to relate to the issue at hand — reforming English study from elementary to high school.

Also curious is the claim that research studies involving self-selected pleasure reading have been conducted among learners acquiring English as a second language here in Japan. This perhaps exemplifies that the good doctor may be off target.

Technically the study of English as a Second Language (ESL) pertains to situations of foreign speakers in an English-speaking environment — Latin Americans in the United States, for example. Contexts such as that in Japan, where English is studied more as an academic discipline than a tool for communication, are usually referred to in terms of English as a Foreign Language (EFL).

As for the issue in question — bolstering English education from elementary to high school — there are tremendous hurdles to be overcome prior to even considering any notion of sustained silent reading, or reading for pleasure. Krashen appears to be out of his league.

chris clancy

shiojiri, nagano

My response to Clancy, submitted to the Japan Times, January 25, 2014

Investing in libraries and recreational reading is still a very good idea: Response to Clancy

In my letter of January 16 ("Recreational reading will score"), I suggested that investing in libraries and promoting recreational reading would help English language development in Japan. Chris Clancy objects ("Pleasure reading presents hurdles," January 15).

Clancy says that because of inadquate time and resources, libraries and pleasure reading will only "ensure growth in English … after students finish school." Isn't this our goal?

Concerning the issue of time: Studies by Beniko Mason show that extensive reading is more efficient in terms of language acquired per hour than traditional instruction. Reading is a time saver.

As for resources, it is interesting that we cheerfully spent millions on untested technology that is obsolete as soon as it is assembled, but are unwilling to buy books, which are never obsolete.

Stephen Krashen

Is increasing reading instruction a good idea?

Sent to Education Week, January 25, 2014

We need to take a much closer look at claims that increased time spent in reading instruction results in improvement in reading achievement ("Fla. Pushes Longer School Day, More Reading in Some Schools," Jan. 22). According the Ed Week article, scores were higher than comparison schools in only 20 of the 100 schools observed. In other words, in 80 out of the 100 schools, there comparison schools did as well (or worse?). In addition, we are told that teachers in the program were known to "effective in teaching reading," in other words, in increasing test scores, which can be done in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with improving reading (e.g. teaching test-taking strategies).

Even if increased reading did work, we need to ask these questions: What kinds of tests were used? How much real reading was included in the treatments?

Intensive phonics instruction only significantly improves scores on tests in which children pronounce lists of words presented in isolation, and there is no evidence that phonemic awareness training improves scores on tests of reading comprehension.

In contrast there is massive evidence that more time spend in self-selected free reading produces increased gains in reading comprehension, as well as vocabulary, grammar and spelling.


Stephen Krashen

original article:  http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/22/18florida_ep.h33.html?tkn=UYNFBnWvn5QCgOj0j76PFewH7P7W8gII2h34&cmp=clp-edweek


Sources:

Phonics instruction: Garan, Elaine M. 2002. Resisting  Reading Mandates: How to Triumph with the Truth. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. 2009. "Does Intensive Reading Instruction Contribute to Reading Comprehension?" Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74.

Phonemic awareness instruction: Krashen, S. 2001. Does “pure” phonemic awareness training affect reading comprehension? Perceptual and Motor Skills 93: 356-358.
Krashen, S. and Hastings, A. 2011. Is Phonemic Awareness Training Necessary in Second Language Literacy Development? Is it Even Useful? International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 7(1).

Self-selected free reading: Krashen, S. (2004).The Power of Reading. Portsmouth: Heinemann and Westpost: Libraries Unlimited.
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.
Sullivan, Alice and Brown, Matt. 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
 

The Common Core: A Disaster for Libraries, A Disaster for Language Arts, a Disaster for American Education

Stephen Krashen
Knowledge Quest 42(3): 37-45 (2014).

There never has been a need for the common core and there is no evidence that it will do students any good. The common core ignores the real problem in American education: Poverty. The common core will continue the process of turning schools into test-prep centers, and bleed billions from places the money is badly needed, where it can help protect children from the effects of poverty. The only real goal of the common core is to do the opposite, to profit a small group of the elite, the .01% at taxpayer expense, a classic case of "take from the needy, give to the greedy."
There has never been a need for the common core, and there is no evidence it will do students any good.
The major argument for the common core is the assertion that our schools are terrible and that something needs to be done about the situation. The only evidence cited in support of this argument is the claim that our international test scores are very low. We must therefore force students and teachers into doing better. This "improvement" will be done by establishing tough standards that control what is taught and by testing students on the standards, thereby making sure that the standards are taught.
But analyses of our international test scores have revealed that American international test scores are nowhere near as bad as critics claim and that they have not declined (Loveless 2011). In fact, when we control for the effects of poverty, American students rank near the top of the world (Carnoy and Rothstein 2013).
Our overall scores are unspectacular because of our high rate (more than 23%) of child poverty, the second highest among all industrialized countries (UNICEF, 2012). In comparison, Finland, a country that consistently has high scores, has about 5% child poverty.
The products of our educational system do very well: 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).
Every indication points to a continuation of this record of success. Our educational system is doing much better than it needs to in the area of science and technology. In the US two to three qualified graduates are available for each science/tech opening (Salzman, 2012; Salzman and Lowell, 2007, 2008; see also Teitelbaum, 2007) and according to the Atlantic (Weismann, 2013), the US is producing more Ph.D.s in science than the market can absorb.
Finally, there is no evidence that having national standards and increasing testing have improved student learning in the past (Nichols, Glass and Berliner, 2006; Tienken, 2011).
The real problem: Poverty
As noted above, when we control for poverty, American students rank near the top of the world

on international tests. This finding confirms that poverty is the major factor in determining school achievement, a finding that is consistent with the results of many studies showing the powerful negative impact of poverty on many aspects of learning, including, of course, reading comprehension and other aspects of literacy development (e.g. Biddle, 2001; Duncan and Brooks-Gunn, 2001).
Studies have documented how poverty impacts school performance: Food insecurity, lack of health care, and lack of access to books, among other aspects of poverty, all have devastating effects on student's ability to learn.
Food insecurity
Children of poverty are likely to suffer from food insecurity (hunger and concern about future availability of food). Studies (Coles 2008/2009) show that food insecure children more likely to have slow language development and problems in social behavior and emotional control. They are more likely to miss school days, repeat a grade, and have academic problems.
The effects of food insecurity are reversible: when previously food-secure children experience food insecurity, their reading development slows down relative to food secure children. But "a change from food insecurity to food security can bring concomitant improvements: the study also found that poor reading performance for food insecure children in the beginning grades was reversed if the household became food secure by 3rd grade" (Coles, 2008/2009).
Lack of health care
High-poverty families are more likely to lack medical insurance or have high co-payments, circumstances that result in less medical care, and more childhood illness and absenteeism, which of course negatively impacts school achievement. David Berliner cites studies showing that "children in poor families in most states are six times more likely to be in less than optimal health, experiencing a wide variety of illnesses and injuries, as compared with children in higher income families" (2009, p. 16). School is not helping: Poor schools are more likely to have no school nurse or have a high ratio of students to nurses (Berliner, 2009).
Lack of access to books
There is very clear evidence that children from high-poverty families have very little access to books at home, at school, and in their communities (Newman and Celano, 2001; Duke, 2001; additional studies reviewed in Krashen, 2004). Studies also show when children have access to interesting and comprehensible reading material, they read (Krashen, 2001; 2004). And finally, when children read, they improve in all aspects of literacy, including vocabulary, grammar, spelling, reading and writing ability (McQuillan, 1998; Krashen, 2004). In fact, the evidence is strong that reading for pleasure, self-selected reading, is the major cause of advanced literacy development. Making sure that all children have access to books makes literacy development possible. Without it, literacy development is impossible.
Libraries
Libraries are often the only source of books and other reading material for children of poverty and they are a potent source: A number of studies confirm that providing access to books via libraries has a positive impact on reading development: The better the library (more books, presence of a credentialed librarian, better staffing), the higher the reading scores (e.g. Lance and Helgren,

2010) Krashen, 2011). Multivariate studies show that the positive impact of school libraries can be as strong as the negative impact of poverty on reading achievement (Achterman, 2008; Krashen, Lee and McQuillan, 2012): in other words, a good library can offset the effect of poverty on literacy development.
Protect children from the effect of poverty
The implications are straight-forward: until poverty is eliminated, until we have full employment at a living wage, we need to protect children from the effects of poverty. This reality means they need adequate food programs, improved health care, including providing more school nurses in high poverty schools, and, of course, more investment in libraries and librarians.
As readers of this journal know, however, library funding is not being increased: It is being cut (Kelley, 2010).
Funding
There is an obvious way to free up money that could be used to support food programs, increased health care and libraries and librarians: Reduce testing. An unprecedented amount of testing has been planed to monitor compliance and achievement under the CCSS, far more than the amount done under No Child Left Behind and far more testing than has ever been seen on this planet (Krashen, 2012). The new tests will include the usual end of year tests, but in more subjects, and in more grade levels, as well as interim tests during the year and possibly pretests in the fall to measure improvement over the academic year.
All tests are to be delivered online. Therefore all students must have access to the internet, with up-to-date equipment. Providing this access will involve a staggering expense, and one that promises to increase as systems require updating, replacement, and even complete overhauls as progress is made in technology (Krashen and Ohanian, 2011). All this effort and expense are planned despite the fact that there is no evidence that standards will help, that new tests will help, or that online technology will help.
What is clear is that the testing and computer industry will profit, and taxpayers will pay the cost of setting up the infrastructure and supporting the numerous adjustments and changes, as software and hardware regularly become obsolete.
I need to point out that I am not presenting an argument against all standardized testing. My position is that we should have only standardized tests that actually do some good, that help with teaching and learning (Krashen, 2008). My position is No Unnecessary Testing (NUT).
The Nature of the Standards
Despite the claim that the standards do not tell teachers how to teach, the nature of the language arts standards (especially Reading: Foundational Skills, Writing, and Language) make it hard for teachers to do anything but direct instruction.
First, the standards have accepted in full the conclusions of the National Reading Panel: “Materials that are aligned to the standards should provide explicit and systematic instruction and diagnostic support in concepts of print, phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, and fluency,” Coleman and Pimentel, K-2 (2012a, 2012b), (page 2), as well as text structure (Common Core State Standards Initiative 2010a) and grammar (CCSS Initiative,

2010b). The creators of the language arts standards appear to be unaware of the extensive and deep criticism of the National Reading Panel's conclusions, and the unimpressive results of Reading First, which was based on the these conclusions (Garan, 2001, 2002; Krashen, 2001b; 2005; 2009; Allington, 2002; Coles, 2003).
Second, the common core standards are so demanding that there will be little time for anything not directly linked to the standards in English language arts classes. Nor should there be, according to the Publisher’s Criteria: “By underscoring what matters most in the standards, the criteria illustrate what shifts must take place in the next generation of curricula, including paring away elements that distract or are at odds with the Common Core State Standards.” (Coleman and Pimentel, Publishers' Criteria, 3-12, page 1). As Ashley Hastings has pointed out, the common core is clearly more than a “core”: it is the entire apple.
Third, constant high-stakes testing ensures direct teaching. As noted above, the standards will be enforced by a massive amount of testing, including “interim” testing through the academic year, to make sure students stay on their “educational trajectory.” (Duncan 2009). Performance on these tests will have serious consequences for students, for teachers, and, we are told, even for schools of education: “We need comprehensive data systems that do three things, track students throughout their educational trajectory, ... track students back to teachers...track teachers back to their schools of education.” (Duncan, 2009). The pressure to stick with what is in the standards will be extreme, and the force of constant testing will ensure that direct teaching methods will be used; educators will be concerned that there is no time for the target structures to emerge naturally; it may not happen in time for the next test.
In short, it is likely that language arts will consist entirely of direct instruction, with no time for self-selected reading. This is in conflict with the massive research that shows direct teaching of aspects of literacy produces very limited results and that most of our literacy and academic language competence is the result of reading, especially self-selected reading.
The common core and self-selected free reading
The CCSS disparages self-selected free reading. This quote from Appendix A of the ELA standards presents the creators' position on free reading:
“Students need opportunities to stretch their reading abilities but also to experience the satisfaction and pleasure of easy, fluent reading within them, both of which the Standards allow for" (CCSS Initiative 2010b, 9).
The quote sends the message that hard reading requiring grim determination is the real stuff, the true way to "stretch reading abilities." Easier, more comprehensible reading that we actually enjoy is fine for a break, but only to experience some "satisfaction and pleasure."
The ELA Standard's Appendix A does not cite any of the plentiful research that strongly indicates that reading that does not require struggle is the source of nearly all of our literacy competence, that it is the bridge between "conversational" language and "academic" language.
Appendix A, along with the rest of the ELA standards, has very little respect for the power of reading. It assumes that grammar must be taught directly, even though many studies show that our grammatical competence is largely the result of reading. ELA Apprendix A barely acknowledges that vocabulary is the result of reading, maintaining that "direct study is ... essential"(CCSS Initiative 2010b, p. 35). Appendix A states that "at most between 5 and 15 percent of new words encountered upon first reading are retained" (CCSS Initiative 2010b, p. 32), which is not what the studies show: Studies actually show that when readers see a new word in print, they typically pick up a small part of its meaning, about 5-15%; as they read more, they encounter the word more and gradually acquire the meaning. Appendix A does not point out that research, including studies cited in Appendix A, show that if people read enough, a 5-15% increase in acquisition of a new word's meaning each time it is encountered is more than enough to account for vocabulary growth.)

The common core standards do not allow “easy reading”: The publishers criteria explains that materials for independent reading “need to include texts at students’ own reading level as well as texts with complexity levels that will challenge and motivate students.” (Coleman and Pimentel, 2012b, p. 7) Nothing below the readers' current official level is allowed.
The creators of the CCSS seem not to be aware that reading below one's current official level can be beneficial; reading level is an average – "easy" texts often contain plenty of language above one's level; easy reading provides background knowledge; and easy reading can increase enthusiasm for more reading (Krashen, 2005).
Consequences for libraries
The common core movement will be a disaster for school libraries and will have a negative impact on nearly every aspect of our educational system.
Like other major educational organizations, the school library organizations have dedicated their efforts to finding a way to live with and adjust to the common core. In fact, a current argument for supporting school libraries is that school libraries and school librarians can help students meet some of the requirements of the common core.
Given the serious problems with the common core (it is unsupported by research, it creates a rigid, test-prep version of schooling, and there is the real possibility that it will drain every spare dollar from the educational system), to borrow from Alfie Kohn's comments about efforts to privaitize education, we should not be "scrambling to comply with its provisions." Rather we should be trying to figure out the best ways to resist (Kohn 2004).
We should, at a minimum, demand that experiments and descriptive studies of groups of students be carried out so that the standards and measures can be evaluated. Instead, states whose departments of education and legislators jumped on the common core bandwagon are using their entire student populations of the as experimental subjects. When the new standards and technology fail to produce dramatic results, "experts" will blame teachers and call for tougher standards, and even more testing, requiring newer (and even more expensive) technology. And the profits for the .01% will be even greater.
Like other groups, school librarians have argued that the common core is inevitable; the train has already left the station. Yes it has, but it has not yet arrived. The public has little idea what the CCSS require, and no idea of what its drawbacks are. If the public were aware that the CCSS is, “a radical untried curriculum overhaul and ... nonstop national testing” (Ohanian, 2013), it would be halted immediately.

Works Cited
Achterman, Douglas. 2008. “Haves, Halves, and Have-Nots: School Libraries and Student Achievement in California.” PhD dissertation, University of North Texas. <http:// digital.library.unt.edu/permalink/meta-dc-9800:1> (accessed October 12, 2013).
Allington, Richard L., ed. 2002. Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum: How Ideology Trumped Evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Berliner, David C. 2009. Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success. Boulder and Tempe, AZ: Education and the Public Interest Center, and Education Policy Research Unit. <http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential> (accessed October 12, 2013).
Biddle, Bruce J. 2001. “Poverty, Ethnicity, and Achievement in American Schools.” In Social Class, Poverty, and Education, edited by Bruce J. Biddle, 1–29. New York: Routledge.
Carnoy, Martin, and Richard Rothstein. 2013. What Do International Tests Really Show Us about U.S. Student Performance? Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. <http://www.epi.org/files/2013/EPI-What-do-international-tests-really-show-about-US-student- performance.pdf> (accessed October 12, 2013).
Coleman, David, and Susan Pimentel. 2012a. Revised Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades K–2. <www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_K-2.pdf> (accessed October 12, 2013).
———. 2012b. Revised Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades 3–12. <www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3- 12.pdf> (accessed October 12, 2013).
Coles, Gerald. 2003. Reading the Naked Truth: Literacy, Legislation, and Lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
———. 2008/2009. “Hunger, Academic Success, and the Hard Bigotry of Indifference.” Rethinking Schools 23 (2). <www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/23_02/hung232.shtml> (accessed October 12, 2013).
Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2010a. Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. <www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf> (accessed October 12, 2013).
———. 2010b. Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements of the Standards; Glossary of Terms. <www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf> (accessed October 12, 2013).
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).
Duke, Nell. 2000. “For the Rich It's Richer: Print Experiences and Environments Offered to Children in Very Low- and Very High-Socioeconomic Status First-Grade Classrooms.” American Educational Research Journal 37 (2): 441–78.
Duncan, Arne. 2009. "Excerpts from Secretary Arne Duncan’s Remarks at the National Press Club" < http://www.ed.gov/blog/2009/06/excepts-from-secretary-arne-duncan%E2%80%99s-remarks-at- the-national-press-club/> Accessed October 16, 2013.
Duncan, Greg J., and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2001. “Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Children’s Achievement.” In Social Class, Poverty, and Education, edited by Bruce J. Biddle, 49–75. New York: Routledge.
Garan, Elaine M. 2002. Resisting Reading Mandates: How to Triumph with the Truth. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kelley, Michael. 2011. “LJ’s Budget Survey: Bottoming Out?” Library Journal 136 (1): 28–31. 
Kohn, Alfie. 2004. “Test Today, Privatize Tomorrow.” Phi Delta Kappan (April).
<www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/testtoday.htm> (accessed October 12, 2013).
Krashen, Stephen. 2001. “ ‘Do Teenagers Like to Read?’ Yes!” Reading Today 18 (5): 16.
———. 2004.The Power of Reading. Portsmouth: Heinemann and Westpost: Libraries Unlimited. ———. 2005. “Is In-School Free Reading Good for Children? Why the National Reading Panel Report is
(Still) Wrong.” Phi Delta Kappan 86 (6): 444–47. <www.sdkrashen.com/articles/in- school%20FVR/in-school%20FVR.pdf> (accessed October 13).

———. 2008. “A Fundamental Principle: No Unnecessary Testing (NUT).” Colorado Communicator 32 (1): 7. <www.sdkrashen.com/articles/NUT_No_Unnecessary_Testing.pdf> (accessed October 13, 2013).
———. 2009. "Does Intensive Reading Instruction Contribute to Reading Comprehension?" Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74.
———. 2011. “Protecting Students against the Effects of Poverty: Libraries.” New England Reading Association Journal 46 (2): 17–21.
———. 2012. “How Much Testing?” Diane Ravitch’s Blog (July 25). <http://dianeravitch.net/?s=how+much+testing> (accessed October 13, 2013).
Krashen, Stephen, Syying Lee, and Jeff McQuillan. 2012. “Is the Library Important? Multivariate Studies at the National and International Level.” Journal of Language & Literacy Education 8 (1): 26–36. <http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Is-the-Library-Important.pdf> (accessed October 13, 2013).
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).
Lance, Keith Curry. 2004. “The Impact of School Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement.” In School Library Media Annual, edited by Carol Kuhlthau, 188–97. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Lance, Keith, and Jamie Helgren. 2010. “The Impact of School Libraries on Student Achievement: Exploring the School Library Impact Studies.” <www.lrs.org/impact.php> (accessed October 11, 2013).
Loveless, Tom. 2011. The 2010 Brown Center Report on American Education: How Well are American Students Learning? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. <www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/2/07%20education%20loveless/0207_e ducation_loveless.pdf> (accessed October 13, 2013).
McQuillan, Jeff. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims, Real Solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 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). Neuman, Susan B., and Donna Celano. 2001. “Access to Print in Low-Income and Middle-Income Communities: An Ecological Study of Four Neighborhoods.” Reading Research Quarterly 36 (1): 8–26.
Ohanian, Susan. 2013. "Whoo-Hoo! Occupy the Schools" http://www.dailycensored.com/woo-hoo/
(accessed October 16, 2013)
Salzman, Hal. 2012. “No Shortage of Qualified American STEM Grads.” Debate Club (May 25).
<www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-foreign-stem-graduates-get-green-cards/no-shortage-of-
qualified-american-stem-grads> (accessed October 14, 2013).
Salzman, Hal, and B. Lindsay Lowell. 2007. "Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence on Science
and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand. Social Science Research Network"
(October 29). <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1034801> (accessed October 14, 2013). 
Salzman, Hal, and B. Lindsay Lowell. 2008. “Making the Grade.” Nature 453 (1): 28–30.
<www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/453028a.html> (accessed October 14, 2013). 
Teitelbaum, Michael. 2007. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC,
November 6.
Tienken, Christopher H. 2011. “Common Core State Standards: An Example of Data-Less Decision
Making.” Journal of Scholarship & Practice 7 (4): 3–18. <www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Newsletters/JSP_Winter2011.FINAL.pdf> (accessed October 14, 2013).
UNICEF Office of Research. 2012. Measuring Child Poverty: New League Tables of Child Poverty in the World’s Rich Countries. Innocenti Report Card 10. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. <www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf> (accessed October 14, 2014).
Weissman, Jordan. 2013. “The PhD Bust: America's Awful Market for Young Scientists—in 7 Charts.” Atlantic (February 20). <www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-americas- awful-market-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339> (accessed October 14, 2013).

The Common Core and Voluntary Reading

Sent to the New York Times, January 23, 2014

Charles Blow's inspirational testimonial ("Reading is fundamental," January 22) in support of reading is supported by mountains of research showing that voluntary reading results in tremendous growth in all areas of literacy.
Is this the same Charles Blow who enthusiastically endorsed the Common Core Standards in the Times a few months ago ("The Common Core and the Common Good," August 21)? Because of its rigid curriculum and constant testing, the Common Core allows very little room for self-selected reading, and insists that children only read material at or above their current reading level.
The common core requires an investment of billions to support online testing. Students living in poverty (23% of children in the US) have little access to books at home or at school. If Mr. Blow is right about reading, we should be investing billions in libraries, not in technology that will be obsolete in a few years.

Stephen Krashen

Sources:
Voluntary reading and growth in literacy: Krashen, S. (2004). The Power of Reading. Portsmouth: Heinemann and Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Rigid curriculum: “By underscoring what matters most in the standards, the criteria illustrate what shifts must take place in the next generation of curricula, including paring away elements that distract or are at odds with the Common Core State Standards.” Coleman, David, and Susan Pimentel. 2012 Revised Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades 3–12. <www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12.pdf> 
 
Constant testing: Krashen, S. 2012. “How Much Testing?” Diane Ravitch’s Blog (July
25). <http://dianeravitch.net/?s=how+much+testing>

Read only at or above grade level: Materials for independent reading “need to include texts at students’ own reading level as well as texts with complexity levels that will challenge and motivate students.” (Coleman and Pimental, 2012, p. 7, op. cit.)

Billions to support 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-dialogue/2011/04/high_tech_testing_on_the_way_a.html> 

Percentage of US children living in poverty: UNICEF Office of Research. 2012. Measuring Child Poverty: New League Tables of Child Poverty in the World’s Rich Countries. Innocenti Report Card 10. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. <www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf>

Children of poverty and access to books: Krashen, S (2004), op. cit.

Selections from, comments on Ravitch, Everything you need to know about the common core

Excerpts from, and a few friendly comments on, Diane Ravitch's essay, Everything you need to know about the common core.  (Comments marked with "SK").  My hope is that this very strong essay will turn the tide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/18/everything-you-need-to-know-about-common-core-ravitch/

1. "These two federal programs (NCLB and Race to the Top), which both rely heavily on standardized testing, has produced a massive demoralization of educators; an unprecedented exodus of experienced educators, who were replaced in many districts by young, inexperienced, low-wage teachers; the closure of many public schools, especially in poor and minority districts; the opening of thousands of privately managed charters; an increase in low-quality for-profit charter schools and low-quality online charter schools; a widespread attack on teachers’ due process rights and collective bargaining rights; the near-collapse of public education in urban districts like Detroit and Philadelphia, as public schools are replaced by privately managed charter schools; a burgeoning educational-industrial complex of testing corporations, charter chains, and technology companies that view public education as an emerging market. Hedge funds, entrepreneurs, and real estate investment corporations invest enthusiastically in this emerging market, encouraged by federal tax credits, lavish fees, and the prospect of huge profits from taxpayer dollars. Celebrities, tennis stars, basketball stars, and football stars are opening their own name-brand schools with public dollars, even though they know nothing about education."

2."No other nation in the world has inflicted so many changes or imposed so many mandates on its teachers and public schools as we have in the past dozen years. No other nation tests every student every year as we do. Our students are the most over-tested in the world. No other nation—at least no high-performing nation—judges the quality of teachers by the test scores of their students."

SK: Re the amount of testing: HOW MUCH TESTING? Stephen Krashen
July 25, 2012
Posted on Diane Ravitch’s blog: http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen- krashen-how-much-testing/

3. "The Pearson Corporation has become the ultimate arbiter of the fate of students, teachers, and schools."

4. "This is the policy context in which the Common Core standards were developed. Five years ago, when they were written, major corporations, major foundations, and the key policymakers at the Department of Education agreed that public education was a disaster and that the only salvation for it was a combination of school choice—including privately managed charters and vouchers– national standards, and a weakening or elimination of such protections as collective bargaining, tenure, and seniority. At the same time, the political and philanthropic leaders maintained a passionate faith in the value of standardized tests and the data that they produced as measures of quality and as ultimate, definitive judgments on people and on schools. The agenda of both Republicans and Democrats converged around the traditional Republican agenda of standards, choice, and accountability. In my view, this convergence has nothing to do with improving education or creating equality of opportunity but everything to do with cutting costs, standardizing education, shifting the delivery of education from high-cost teachers to low-cost technology, reducing the number of teachers, and eliminating unions and pensions."

SK: And most important, everything to do with maximum profits for the .01%. And we should underline "shifting the delivery of education from high-cost teachers to low-cost technology, reducing the number of teachers,"

5. "The U.S. Department of Education is legally prohibited from exercising any influence or control over curriculum or instruction in the schools, so it could not contribute any funding to the expensive task of creating national standards. The Gates Foundation stepped in and assumed that responsibility. It gave millions to the National Governors Association, to the Council of Chief School Officers, to Achieve and to Student Achievement Partners. Once the standards were written, Gates gave millions more to almost every think tank and education advocacy group in Washington to evaluate the standards—even to some that had no experience evaluating standards—and to promote and help to implement the standards. Even the two major teachers’ unions accepted millions of dollars to help advance the Common Core standards. Altogether, the Gates Foundation has expended nearly $200 million to pay for the development, evaluation, implementation, and promotion of the Common Core standards. And the money tap is still open, with millions more awarded this past fall to promote the Common Core standards."

SK: For just last year's Gates Foundation investments, I mean donations, see: http://susanohanian.org/core.php?id=632."

6. Integral to the Common Core was the expectation that they would be tested on computers using online standardized exams. As Secretary Duncan’s chief of staff wrote at the time, the Common Core was intended to create a national market for book publishers, technology companies, testing corporations, and other vendors.

SK: The whole story was exposed by Susan Ohanian, who reported on Joanne Weiss' article in the Harvard Business Review.  Weisse was Arne Duncan's Chief of Staff..  Ohanian's comment:

" Who would guess Weiss' salary is paid for by US taxpayer dollars? Seems like it should be coming from the Business Roundtable or maybe Wireless Generation and McGraw-Hill. One thing is clear: The Duncan people feel no need to be subtle. Weiss is very clear about the real purpose of the Common Core Standards and Assessments."

http://susanohanian.org/core.php?id=201

7. "ExxonMobil is especially vociferous in advocating for Common Core, taking out advertisements on television and other news media saying that the standards are needed to prepare our workforce for global competition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed the standards, saying they were necessary to prepare workers for the global marketplace. The Business Roundtable stated that its #1 priority is the full adoption and implementation of the Common Core standards. All of this excitement was generated despite the fact that no one knows whether the Common Core will fulfill any of these promises. It will take 12 years whether we know what its effects are."

SK: I think the CC$$ are very necessary for profits right now and in the immediate future. Nothing more.  American education is still doing fine, American business is doing fine.  There is no crisis. Only a crisis in how to funnel more money to the .01%.  Plz see: Hacker, J. and Pierson, P. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. Simon and Schuster. Plz see also Emery, K. and Ohanian, S. Why is Corporate America Bashing Our Public Schools?

8. "The Common Core testing consortia decided that the passing mark on their tests would be aligned with the proficient level on the federal tests called NAEP. This is a level typically reached by about 35-40% of students. Massachusetts is the only state in which as many as 50% ever reached the NAEP proficient level. The testing consortia set the bar so high that most students were sure to fail, and they did."

SK: Gerald Bracey presented excellent arguments years ago that the "proficiency" level of the NAEP was very very high, eg  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202004.html.

9. "The financial cost of implementing Common Core has barely been mentioned in the national debates. All Common Core testing will be done online. This is a bonanza for the tech industry and other vendors. Every school district must buy new computers, new teaching materials, and new bandwidth for the testing. At a time when school budgets have been cut in most states and many thousands of teachers have been laid off, school districts across the nation will spend billions to pay for Common Core testing."

Please see: High Tech Testing on the Way: a 21st Century Boondoggle? Stephen Krashen and Susan Ohanian http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in- dialogue/2011/04/high_tech_testing_on_the_way_a.html

10.  "The standardized testing should become optional. It should include authentic writing assignments that are judged by humans, not by computers."

SK: Tests in which writing style, or form, are evaluated are really tests of reading. Nearly all of our ability to write with an acceptable style comes from reading (eg evidence cited Krashen, 2004, The Power of Reading).  Writing helps us communicate with others, but also helps us solve problems. The use of writing to solve problems cannot be tested in any simple way.

Krashen presentation, January 17, 2014-01-14

The ever-increasing power of reading and libraries

The world-wide threat of the common core state standards (CC$$)

The ever-increasing power of reading and libraries

The latest in library studies:

Predictors of NAEP grade 4, 1992, 42 states

	beta	t	P
Poverty	-0.45	-5.07	0
Print Access	1.12	4.3	0

r2 = .72     From: McQuillan, 1998

Replication: Predictors of NAEP grade 4, 2007, 51 states

	B	beta	t	p
Poverty	-0.919	0.72	7.42	0
Access	0.658	0.53	1.62	0.055
r2 = .6468

r2 = .65  adjusted r2 = .63   Fluent English proficient students only Krashen, Lee & McQuillan, 2012

PIRLS: 40th graders in 40 countries, in their own language

Krashen, Lee and McQuillan (2012): the simple analysis

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

Table 2: Replication:  PIRLS 2011

Predictor	Beta	P
SES	0.518	0.01
library: 5000 books	0.197	0.08
class libr	0.08	0.28
parent read	0.065	0.31
early lit	-0.261	0.04
Instruction	-0.016	0.5

r2 = .62

EARLY LIT: Parents' judgment of child's ability to do these tasks:

1.Recognize most of the letters of the alphabet.

2. Read some words.

3. Read sentences.

4. Write letters of the alphabet.

5. Write some words.

Summary: SES and Library the consistent winners.

Instruction: negative or nothing

Parental reading, class library correlated with PIRLS but relationship disappears;  a spurious correlation, the result of SES.

The big surprise: EARLY Lit negatively correlates with reading score five years later!

-       consistent with intensive systematic approach to phonics: helps only on tests in which children pronouce words presented to them in a list.

Sample countries:  Average (mean) scores on the PIRLS 2011 for Hong Kong and Taiwan.

	mean	sd	Hong Kong	Taiwan
score	507.6	55.4	571	553
HDI	0.8237	0.0867	0.898	0.882
library 5000 books	30.34	26.7	82	90
class libr	25.2	20.3	75	73
parent read	31.11	11.15	14	17
earlylit	26.3	11.7	41	30
instruction	143.34	42.05	102	65

The INDIA Study

Pratheeba & Krashen, 2013, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 117, 2, 1-7

Engineering students in India, demanding vocabulary test, survey of reading habits

Variable	M	SD	Correlation	p (one-tail)
Vocabulary	30.04	7.39
Reading Questionnaire (total)	62.8	7.31	.78	<.001
Book Reading (4 items)	13.00	3.34	.36	.04
Computer Reading (4 items)	15.84	2.25	.20	.22

Book reading: historical novels, political novels, science fiction, biographies and autobiographies

Ccomputer reading: used the internet to read about current affairs, for academic purposes, pleasure, online journals

Only one item of the four computer reading items, pleasure reading on the internet, correlated significantly with vocabulary test results.

Correlation between book reading and computer reading: r = .19

The UK Study: Sullivan and Brown

Predictors of scores on vocabulary test given at age 16

Variable	beta	p-value
SES: higher job status	-0.012	0.613
Parent has degree	0.255	0
Higher income family	0.02	0.542
Read to everyday at age 5	0.115	0.01
Reads books often at age 10	0.313	0
Visits library often at age 10	0.009	0.791
Reads newspapers more than once/week at age 16	0.183	0
Reads books more than once/week at age 16	0.353	0
Reading proficiency at age five	0.039	0
Reading proficiency at age 10	0.117	0

Case Histories: The Beniko Mason series

Gains on TOEIC

	Mr. Tanaka	Mr. Nakano	Mrs. Fujita
Age	42	75	66
Duration	12 months	5 months	9 weeks
Pages read	5456	2624	1739
Gain	475-655 = 180	495-580 = 85	680-740 = 60
Points/hr	.56	.78	.35
Points/page	0.03	0.03	0.03
Hours CI	247	109	72.5
Hours study	70 (vocabulary)	"a few" (TOEIC prep)	94.5 (TOEIC prep)

 

Mason, B. (2011). Impressive gains on the TOEIC after one year of comprehensible input, with no output or grammar study. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(1).  http://www.tprstories.com/images/ijflt/IJFLTNovember2011.pdf

Mason, B. (2013). Substantial gains in listening and reading ability in English as a second language from voluntary listening and reading in a 75 year old student. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(1), 25-27.

Mason, B. (in press). The case of Mr. Kashihara: Another case of substantial gains in reading and listening without output or grammar study, Shitennoji University (IBU) Journal.

FVR = the bridge between conversational and "academic" language – the missing link: In all cases, reading material is comprehensible, compelling, reading is narrow and self-selected.

The role of sheltered subject matter teaching - As a means of encouraging the middle stage, the route to self-selected academic reading

Constrained self-selected reading = students select reading within limits as prescribed by the teacher. 

Inspired by The Book Whisperer: Donalyn Miller – originally for middle school literature; in her classes students are required to read the following types of books.

40 Book Requirement (Miller, 2009)

Realistic Fiction 5

Historical Fiction 4

Fantasy 3

Science Fiction 2

Biography/ Autobiography/ Memoir 2

Nonfiction 5

Poetry 4

Traditional Literature 3

Graphic Novels            1

Free Choice      11

For ESL students: possible categories: comic book/graphic novel, magazines (gossip, general interest, trade/hobby), newspaper (serious, gossip), girl oriented fiction, boy oriented fiction, all discussed as literature as it reflects on the culture.

History, the Trojan War. students are free to choose one (or two or three, depending on the depth involved) among the following: One or more historial novels (eg Helen of Troy), a graphic novel covering the history of the war, one or more of movies made about the Trojan war (the most current is Troy).

The world-wide threat of the common core state standards (CC$$)

The US Common Core State Standards (CC$$)

The tests

1.     Huge increase in number of tests

2.     Delivered online = boondoggle (new computers, expanded infrastructure, constant updating

The Standardss

1.     Promote skill-building approach: detailed discrete skills as learning targets: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary with interim testing: anything not included in the standards should not be taught

2.     Self-selected reading: only in combination with explicit instruction, at or above current "reading level" only

WORLD-WIDE testing: Learning Metrics Task Force: http://www.brookings.edu/about/centers/universal-education/learning-metrics-task-force

"to improve learning we must be able to measure and monitor its outcomes" (p. 30).

Seven areas to be tested: physical well-being (eg nutrition, exercise), social & emotional (eg conflict resolution, civic values, mental health), culture and the arts (eg awareness and respect for diversity, creative arts), learning approaches and cognition (reasoning and problem-solving, critical thinking), numeracy and mathematics, science and technology, and: literacy and communication

1 Combined test to be given at the end of primary school; reading also at end of grade three (the grade three fallacy)

2 "Ready to learn" testing on entry to primary school:"five of the seven domains: physical well-being, social and emotional, literacy and communication, learning approaches and cognition, and numeracy and mathematics."

3 p.26: Citizen of the World: Measuring among youth the demonstration of values and skills necessary for success in their communities, countries and the world. Beyond reading and numeracy …

Literacy and communication testing

•    Early childhood level: Receptive language, Expressive language, Vocabulary, Print

•    Awareness

•    Primary: Oral fluency, oral comprehension, reading fluency, reading comprehension, receptive vocabulary, written expression/composition

•    Post-primary: Speaking and listening, writing and reading

Source:

Access to books and time to read versus the common core state standards and tests (English Journal 103.2 (2013) pp. 21-29.) Stephen Krashen      Posted at http://sdkrashen.com/articles.php?cat=4