EF English Proficiency Index not the way to measure a nation's English language proficiency

Index not a valid guide to English skills
Published November 16, South China Morning Post

I refer to the article by William Wang ("Hongkongers need to learn English from an early age", November 11). He makes the recommendation highlighted in your headline because of Hong Kong's ranking on the Education First (EF) English Proficiency Index.
Policy decisions about English education should not be based on this index. Countries with low scores should not despair and countries with high scores should not rejoice. I do not think the EF index is a valid measure of a country's English competence.
Half of a country's score on the index is based on a test given only to those enrolled in private English-language schools. It therefore only tests beginners and intermediates, and excludes those who speak English well, who have no need to take such a course. It also excludes those who cannot afford to take a private course.
The other half of a country's score is based on an internet exam that is freely open to anybody who wants to take it, which means it is limited to those with easy access to computers and the internet, and who are curious about their level of English.
This is not the way to measure a nation's English language proficiency.

Stephen Krashen, professor emeritus,
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, US

Rushing into high-tech testing

Sent to the Buffalo News, Nov. 25.

Buffalo educators are concerned about whether students are tech-savvy enough to take the new computerized tests, and whether districts will have up-to-date equipment ("Pencils out, keyboards in for future exams," Nov, 25). But only a few people are asking whether we should be rushing into high-tech testing.

Williamsville Superintendent Martzloff points out that the tests will be expensive. The cost of setting up online testing, replacement equipment regularly will indeed be enormous and will continue to escalate as new "progress" is made in technology.

Nobody has asked whether there is any evidence that high-tech testing will do any good. So far, there is no evidence that it will help anyone except the testing and computer companies. No small scale studies have even been planned, to my knowledge.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/buffalo-public-schools/pencils-out-keyboards-in-for-future-state-exams-20131124

Feds want to help schools by rushing to buy imperfect technology

The Feds have decided schools are bad and that the solution is spend billions on imperfect technology as fast as we can.

Stephen Krashen

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

These statements assume that (1) our schools are really really inadequate, and we must rush to fix them; (2) technology is the major part of the fix; and (3) imperfect technology is better than no technology.

None of these assumptions are supported by evidence. 


(1) There is no evidence that there is a crisis in American education. When researchers control for poverty, American students' international test scores rank near the top of the world. Also, 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.

(2) There is no evidence that the kinds of technology involved will improve school achievement.  A major part of the new technology is a gigantic increase in testing. Research shows that increasing testing does not increase achievement, and there is no evidence that the kind of brave new tests our students will take under the common core will be any better than the kind we have now.

(3) Imperfect technology: Jumping in without proper preparation wastes our students' time and will cost more money in the long run (which may be exactly what the private sector wants; taxpayers pay the bill for the "corrections" while the .01% profit.) Studies on the spread of innovation show that very early first-wave adoption of innovations is not a good strategy. The best strategy is to be part of the second wave, waiting to see the problems in the first wave and apply after they are corrected. The DOE is insisting that American education be early adopters.

Sources:
 
Technology Plan: Transforming Education: Learning Powered by Technology. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.  http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 Quotes here are from the Executive Summary.
 
Control for effect of 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/).
 
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 increase 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.

Innovation: Rogers, E. 2003. The Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press.

Unemployment figures among recent college grads do not support claim of STEM worker shortage

Unemployment figures among recent college grads do not support claim of STEM worker shortage

S. Krashen  November, 2013

 

If there is a shortage of STEM workers, there should be very little unemployment among recent college graduates with STEM majors, far less than among recent graduates in non-STEM fields.  

But according to Carnevale and Cheah (2013),  for the years 2010 and 2011, unemployment rates for recent STEM grads, with the exception of those who majored in chemistry and math, are not obviously lower than in many other fields and are even higher than those in several non-STEM fields.

Unemployment Rates

STEM fields

Engineering: 7.4%*

Computer Science, 8.7%,

Biology 7.8%,

Information Science, 14.7%.

Chemistry: 5.8%

Math: 5.9%

Non-STEM

Business: 7.3%

Education: 5.7%

Psychology: 9.2%

Recreation: 5.2%

Social work: 8.2%

English literature: 9.8%

Nursing: 4.8%

Journalism: 7%

Commercial Art and Graphic Design: 10.5%

Clearly, this data does not support the common view that there is a serious shortage of qualified STEM workers.  If there were, unemployment would be much less than in non-STEM fields.  The shortages seem to be in education, nursing and recreation.

*There was little difference among different kinds of engineering: civil (7.6%), electrical (7.6%), mechanical (8.1%), and general (7%).

Carnevale, A. and Cheah, B. 2013. Hard Times: College Majors, Unemployment, and Earnings. Georgetown University Public Policy Institute.

See also: Charette, R. 2013. The STEM crisis is a myth IEEE Spectrum. bit.ly/18DhN1V 

.

Do we need better measures of school quality?

Sent to the LA Times, November 15.

"How to grade public schools" (Nov, 14)  calls for better measures of school quality, which suggests American schools are inadequate and need to improve drastically.

There is nothing seriously wrong with American schools: Our students do very well on international tests when the effect of poverty is controlled.

In numerous polls, people rate their local schools much more positively than American schools in general: In one poll, 75% of parents gave schools their oldest child attended grades of A or B, indicating reasonable satisfaction with local schools. Only 20% gave all American schools these grades.

Gerald Bracey explained why this happens: People think schools are much worse than they are because of unsupported negative statements about schools by politicians and idealogues consistently reported in the media.

Excessive investment in measuring school quality means less investment in solving the real problem: child poverty, now at the astonishing level of 23%.

Stephen Krashen

Sources:
 

Controf for effect of 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/).

In one poll: Phi Delta Kappan/ Gallup poll (Phi Delta Kappan, September 2009)

Gerald Bracey, "Experience outweighs rhetoric" (Phi Delta Kappan, September 2009)

An incomplete view of the common core

Sent to the Oakland Tribune, November 13

"Schools in East Bay and state are switching to Common Core standards" (Nov 10) presents an incomplete view.
There is no need for the Common Core: Our schools are not broken. The problem is poverty. Test scores of students from middle- class homes who attend well-funded schools are among the best in world. Our unspectacular overall scores are due to the fact that the US has the second highest level of child poverty among all 34 economically advanced countries (now over 23%, compared to high-scoring Finland’s 5.4%). Poverty means poor nutrition, inadequate health care, and lack of access to books, among other things. All of these negatively impact school performance.
Instead of protecting children from the effects of poverty, the CC provides "tough" standards and more testing than has ever been seen on this planet.
Most important, there is zero evidence that harder standards and increased testing help students.
Instead of dealing with the real problems, the common core offers us, in the words of Susan Ohanian, “a radical untried curriculum overhaul and … nonstop national testing.”  

Stephen Krashen

original letter: http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_24496683/schools-east-bay-and-state-are-switching-common

Some sources:
Poverty and international test scores: 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/).

Impact of poverty: “Poverty means poor nutrition, inadequate health care, and lack of access to books”: 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.

Impact of standards and tests on student learning: 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.

Nonstop 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/

Are STEM employment opportunities "tremendous"?

Sent to US News and World Report, Nov. 13, 2013

In "The Latest Tools for Teaching STEM: Video Games," (Nov. 11), Karen Cator of the Digital Promise company is quoted as saying that "We must engage many more Americans in developing their STEM expertise because the opportunity to find gainful employment is tremendous."  Articles are now appearing regularly in the popular and professional press reporting that there is no shortage of STEM (Science Technology, Engineering and Math) workers in the US. In fact, there is a surplus. 

For example, Rutgers University professor Hal Salzman has concluded that there are approximately three qualified graduates annually for each science or technology opening and according to the Atlantic (Feb, 2013), the United States is producing more Ph.D.s in science than the market can absorb.  Also, about 1/3 of college-bound high-school students take calculus, and only abour 5% of jobs require this much math.

I am all for improved science and math education, but it is not at all clear employment opportunities in STEM are "tremendous."

Stephen Krashen

Some sources:

Surplus:
Salzman, H. & Lowell, B. L. 2007. Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1034801
Salzman, H. and Lowell, L. 2008. Making the grade. Nature 453 (1): 28-30.
Salzman, H. 2012. No Shortage of Qualified American STEM Grads (5/25/12) http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-foreign-stem-graduates-get-green-cards/no-shortage-of-qualified-american-stem-grads.
See also:
Teitelbaum, M. 2007. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 6, 2007
Percent of jobs requiring calculus: Handel, M 2010. “What Do People Do at Work? A Profile of U.S. Jobs from the Survey of Workplace Skills, Technology, and Management Practices (STAMP)” (OECD, forthcoming).
1/3 of college-bound high school students take calculus:
www.macalester.edu/~bressoud/talks/2011/portland-apcalc.pdf‎

Original article: http://www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2013/11/11/the-latest-tool-for-teaching-stem-video-games

Test your public ed savvy

Test Your Public Ed Savvy: Are you Ed Wise or Prey to Popular Myth? Susan Ohanian and Stephen Krashen
Published in The Progressive, Jan 26, 2013 http://www.progressive.org/test-your-public-ed-savvy

1. US  international test scores aren’t at the top because:
a)    we lack common standards and valid tests.
b)    many teachers are not doing their job.
c)    nearly 25% of American children live in poverty.
d)    American children are not interested in hard study.
e)    parents don’t take an interest in children’s education.


2.   A notable feature of education in Finland, the country scoring highest on international tests, is:
 a) universal preschool emphasizes an early start in skill development.
 b) children in grade school have a play break every 45 minutes.
 c)  a system of  annual national standardized tests informs teachers of every child's skill attainment.
 d) there are no teacher unions to cripple reform.
 e) corporate leaders have taken a leadership role in school policy.

3.  Middle class American students who attend well-funded schools
a)   achieve  high scores on international tests, among the highest in the world.
b)   don’t read as much as kids used to.
c)   aren’t learning enough math and science.
d)   don’t do enough analytical writing.
e)    lack competitive drive.


4.  1.6 million children in the U. S.
 a)  have teachers who are not highly qualified.
 b)  are overweight.
 c)  live in single-parent families.
 d)  should be held back in school.
 e)  are homeless.

5.  Children who live in poverty in the US
a)   are protected by a comprehensive social welfare safety net.
b)   need a very structured curriculum
c)   are more likely to attend a school with no library than are middle class children
d)   have the same chance for school success as other students—if their parents support education
e)   need vouchers to attend better schools


6.  Common Core Standards were developed because
a)   parents worry that US children score far below other countries on international tests
b)  teachers lack the skills to craft adequate curriculum and wanted help
c)   state departments of education asked for them
d)   of grass-roots concern that children need special  tools to compete in the Global Economy
e)   the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation paid for them

7. Common Core Standards in literacy were written by
a) classroom teachers
b) child psychologists
c) university researchers
d) business leaders
e) a lawyer and  someone who once tutored children while studying at Yale


8.  The new Common Core tests
a)  let the teachers know exactly what each student needs to learn next
b)  give parents evidence teachers are doing their job
c)  ensure that standards are being met
d)  give principals a fair way to evaluate teachers
e)  offer fiscal demands many districts cannot meet

   
9. The new online feature of Common Core testing
a) will reduce administration costs
b) will streamline student evaluation
c)  offers new opportunities for creativity
d)  will lead to more individualized learning
e)  means students will be tested many more times each year

10. Who said “Hurricane Katrina was “the best thing that happened to the education system in 
 New Orleans. That education system was a disaster.”
a) Rush Limbaugh
b) Pat Robinson
c) Editor at The Onion
d) Bill O’Reilly
e) U. S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan
          
 ANSWERS
1.    C
“Measuring Child Poverty,” UNICEF, May 2012
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf
2.    B
“Finland Schools Flourish in Freedom and Flexibility,” The Guardian, Dec. 5, 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/finland-schools-curriculum-teaching
3.    A
“PISA 2009 Reading Test Results: The US does quite well, controlling for SES. And maybe
American scores are “just right.”
http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/PISA_2009-US_Scores_Just_Right.pdf
4.    E
http://www.familyhomelessness.org/children.php?p=ts
5.    C
Di Loreto, C., and Tse, L. 1999. Seeing is believing: Disparity in books in two Los Angeles area public libraries. School Library Quarterly 17(3): 31-36; Duke, N. 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): 441-478; Neuman, S.B. and Celano, D. 2001. Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 1, 8-26.
6.   E
“Is the Gates Foundation Involved in bribery?” July 23, 2010
http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2010/07/is-gates-foundation-involved-in-bribery.html
 “JoLLE Forum--Rotten to the (Common) Core,” Nov. 1, 2012
 http://www.susanohanian.org/core.php?id=364
7.    E
David Coleman bio; Susan Pimentel bio
http://www.achievethecore.org/student-achievement-partners#team
http://www.nagb.org/who-we-are/members/bios/b_pimentel.html
8.    E
“Federal Mandates on Local Eduation: Costs and Consequences--Yes, it's a Race, but is it in the Right Direction?”http://www.newpaltz.edu/crreo/brief_8_education.pdf
9.    E
“Common Core Assessments”
http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-assessments/   
10.   E
“Duncan: ‘Katrina was the best thing for New Orleans school system,’” Jan. 29, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/01/duncan-katrina-was-the-best-thing-for-new-orleans-schools/

Don't panic over TOEIC

Published in the Taipei Times, Nov 11, 2013

It may be true that "Taiwan's TOIEC scores (are) lagging" (Nov. 9) but this does not mean that Taiwan has an English crisis. The "drop" from last year's average score was only three points, not very much for a test with a maximum score of 990, and the average Taiwan score in 2014 was identical to the score in 2010 and is six points higher than the average score for Taiwan in 2008.  As Prof. Chang points out, in at least one country that outscores Taiwan, those who take the test are already very proficient in English. In others, English is very widely used and is often an official language of the country.

Although there is no crisis, we are interested in doing better.  The best single way of improving TOEIC scores, as well as improving nearly all aspects of English language proficiency, is to encourage self-selected pleasure reading in English; study after study has shown that when self-selected reading is included in English classes, there is dramatic improvement in reading, writing, vocabulary and grammar. 

Many of the most important of these studies have been done in Taiwan, by Lee Sy-ying (李思穎), a professor at National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, and her associates Wang Fei-yu (王費瑜) and Hsieh Ming-yi (謝明義), and Kenneth Smith of the Wenzao Ursuline College of Language.  In addition, Professor Beniko Mason of Shitennoji University Junior College in Japan has demonstrated, in a series of studies, that adult students can made substantial gains on the TOEIC simply by reading in English for pleasure, gains that are far superior to those achieved by those taking traditional classes.

Let's invest in libraries with a good supply of genuinely interesting reading material in English, and include time for pleasure reading in English class. This is a modest investment, one that should be considered before we take more drastic and expensive measures.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

original article in Taipei Times: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2013/11/09/2003576453/1

Don't base policy decisions on an invalid English test

Sent to the South China Morning Post

William Wang recommends that "Hongkongers need to learn English from an early age" (Nov. 11) because of Hong Kong's ranking on the EF (English First) English Proficiency Index.
Policy decisions about English education should not be based on the EF English Proficiency Index; countries with low scores should not despair and countries with high scores should not rejoice. The EF Index is not a valid measure of a country's English competence.
Half of a country's score on the EF Index is based on a test given only to those enrolled in private English language schools. It therefore only tests beginners and intermediates, and excludes those who speak English well, who have no need to take such a course. It also excludes those who cannot afford to take a private course.
The other half of a country's score is based on an internet exam that is freely open to anybody who wants to take it, which means it is limited to those with easy access to computers and the internet, and who are curious about their level of English.
This is not the way to measure a nation's English language proficiency.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus, University of Southern California

original article:
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1353522/hongkongers-need-learn-english-early-age

Not a Valid Test of English

Sent to the New York Times, November 11, 2013

The conclusion that "English Proficiency Falters Among the French" (Nov. 11) is based on performance on the "EF (English First) English Proficiency Index."

A nation's EF English Proficiency Index score is based on performance on two kinds of tests: One test is open "to any internet user for free,' and is thus limited to those with easy access to the internet.  The other test is a placement test students take before enrolling for an English class at an EF Language School, a private institution. Those who take the placement test are those who can afford such classes, and who are beginners or intermediates. Those who speak English well have no need for such classes.

In other words, these tests can only be taken by upper-income citizens and misses less wealthy citizens who might speak English well, and one of the two tests is limited to lower level English speakers and thus cannot tell us about a country's overall English proficiency.

There is no way of generalizing  a country's true English proficiency from the EF Proficiency Index.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California


source: http://www.ef.com/epi/

original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/world/europe/english-proficiency-falters-among-french.html?emc=edit_tnt_20131110&tntemail0=y&_r=0

Another look at NAEP: Distortions in measuring education

LETTER

Published in the Wall Street Jouranl Nov. 17, 2013

The Heisenbergian Distortions in Measuring Education

Paul E. Peterson and Eric A. Hanushek's "Spinning America's Report Card" (op-ed, Nov. 8) claims that No Child Left Behind was responsible for a big improvement in National Assessment of Educational Progress, scores, because scores went up between 2000 and 2009.

Paul E. Peterson and Eric A. Hanushek ("Spinning America's Report Card," op-ed, Nov. 8) claim that No Child Left Behind was responsible for a big improvement in National Assessment of Educational Progress scores because scores went up between 2000 and 2009. But nearly all the gains in reading took place before NCLB was implemented. NAEP fourth-grade reading scores climbed from 213 to 219 between 2000 and 2002, accounting for most of the eight-point gain between 2000 and 2009. No Child Left Behind was signed into law in January 2002. There was no gain at all in eighth-grade reading scores between 2000 and 2009.

"Test Scores Show Small Gains" (U.S. News, Nov. 8) says that "only 42% of fourth-graders" scored at the "proficient" level. Testing experts have been pointing out for years that the term "proficient" on the NAEP really means "superior," and the results are better than they sound.

Stephen Krashen

The original version of this letter contained this sentence as well:

Gerald Bracey noted in 2007 that the terms used for the NAEP achievement levels have been rejected by the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Education, and the Center for Research on Evaluation, Student Standards and Testing.

Investment in libraries can fill the great literacy void.

Re: Christopher Lloyd, "True stories can fill the great literacy void" (Nov. 7).

I would like to recommend some nonfiction reading in reaction to Mr. Lloyd's call for more nonfiction reading: Research on literacy development.
Research tells us that young people who are dedicated pleasure readers typically choose more different kinds of reading and more complex reading as they mature, including more nonfiction.  And research also tells us that in order to become a dedicated pleasure reader, young people need to have access to reading material that they really want to read. This is confirmed by studies done in several different countries showing that access to libraries is related to reading achievement.
Children of poverty typically have the lowest scores on reading tests, and typically have little access to books. For many, the library is the only place they can find interesting reading material.
Mr. Lloyd is right when he says that nonfiction can be exciting, and he is right that readers should themselves select a great deal of what they read, but the path to reading quality nonfiction and quality fiction begins with making sure all potential readers have access to books. 
Let's change National Non-Fiction Day to International Library Day.

Stephen Krashen

Some sources:

Reading tastes develop: L. LaBrant, 1958, “An evaluation of free reading.”  Hunnicutt and Iverson (Eds.), Research in the Three R’s. Harper and Brothers.

Access: Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann and Libraries; Unlimited.
Neuman, S. & Donna Celano, D. 2001. Access to Print in Low-Income and Middle-
Income Communities: An Ecological Study of Four Neighborhoods. Reading Research
Quarterly 36 (1): 8–26.

Libraries and reading achievement: Krashen, S., Lee, SY., & McQuillan, J. 2012. Is the library important? Multivariate studies at the national and international level. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1)? 26-36. Lance, 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, K.& Helgren, J. 2010. “The Impact of School Libraries on Studenr Achievement: Exploring the School Library Impact Studies.” www.lrs.org/impact.php

Impact of self-selected reading: Lee, S.Y. 2007. Revelations from three consecutive studies on extensive reading. RELC Journal 38 (2), 150-170.

Arne's approach to education in high-poverty situations

Sent to the Miami Herald, Nov 5.

Arne Duncan's reaction to the high poverty (80%) and resulting (and well-documented) "deplorable conditions" in schools in Haiti was to recommend "clear data systems" in order to keep track of enrollment and student progress ("US Education secretary visits Haiti classrooms," Nov 5).

Next he will recommend that fire departments invest in expensive and highly precise thermometers so that firefighters get the exact temperature of dangerous and rapidly spreading fires before trying to put them out.

Stephen Krashen

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/05/3733783/us-education-secretary-visits.html

Learning standards and real life

Sent to the Baltimore Sun, Nov 6

Arnold Packer is right: "The Common Core won't help the common man," (Nov. 5). As Packer points out, the math standards are skewed to the college path. So are the English Language Arts standards: Susan Ohanian has remarked that they seem to be made for English majors. 

John Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, spoke to this problem in 1961:"The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus, University of Southern California

source: John Gardner, 1961. Excellence: Can We Be Equal and Excellent Too? WW Norton. Reprinted, 1995.
original article: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-11-05/news/bs-ed-education-policy-20131105_1_math-standards-the-common-core-basic-math-s

Common core requires too much testing (Pittsburgh-Post Gazette)

Common core requires too much testing
November 3, 2013 12:00 AM
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Poorer school districts will be hit the hardest, but every district in the country will suffer financially from the common core standards. Not mentioned in "Poorer School Districts Feel at a Loss Over New Common Core Standards" (Oct. 20) is the fact that the common core will require an astonishing amount of testing and the testing must be done online.

This means that every student must be connected with the Internet with up-to-date computers, a huge expense. After the computers are in place, there will be continual upgrades and replacements, as well as major changes as new technology is developed.

No evidence has been provided showing that online testing will benefit students in any way. What is clear is that online testing will help computer and testing companies that take no risk. We taxpayers pay for everything, and if student achievement declines, we will be told that we need even higher-tech tests, and we will be presented with national test 2.0.

STEPHEN KRASHEN

Rude and uninformed

Re: Chris Christie says story about teacher confrontation was misrepresented, Nov 4.
Sent to the NJ Star-Ledger
American schools are not the "failure factories" Gov. Christie claims they are: The only serious problem with American education is the rate of child poverty, 23%, the second highest among industrialized countries. High poverty means poor nutrition, poor health care, lack of access to books, all of which are associated with low school performance.
When researchers control for poverty, American students' international test scores rank near the top of the world.
We need to invest in food programs, health care and libraries, and support, not scream at, the teachers who are doing so well under very difficult conditions.
Gov. Christie is not only rude, he is uninformed.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus, University of Southern California

Sources:  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/).

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/chris_christie_says_story_about_teacher_confrontation_was_misrepresented.html

Evidence that "implicit learning" (subconscious language acquisition) results in L1-like brain processing: A comment on Morgan-Short, Steinhauer, Sanz & Ullman (2012)

Stephen Krashen
November, 2013

Morgan-Short, Steinhauer, Sanz and Ullman (2012) recently reported that adults using an artifical second language had different electrophysiological (ERP) responses depending on the way the language was initially presented to them.  At higher stages of competence, those who were initially "immersed" in the language  ("implicit" training," consisting of "meaningful examples" of the language) had "L1-like"  ERP responses suggesting "L1-like brain processing for syntax." This was not present for subjects whose initial exposure to the language consisted of explicit presentation of rules with examples.

This is a remarkable result: The initial exposure to the language was only 13.5 minutes for each group, and was followed by two rounds a few days apart of identical "practice sessions"  consistenting of comprehension and production activities, with feedback /correction provided. The sessions were continued until all subjects reached a predetermined level of proficiency.

At the conclusion of the study, the groups did not differ in their mastery of the artificial language.  Morgan-Short et. al. state that in some studies, implicit and explicit methods produced similar results, and also state that they "are not aware of any clear empirical evidence suggesting an advantage for implicit training," an astonishing statement in light of the many studies done over the last 45 years showing an advantage for implicit learning, usually termed "acquired" competence (as contrasted with consciously learned competence) and hypothesized to be the result of receiving comprehensible input.  

Implicit learning has been shown to be superior to explicit learning for studies contrasting comprehension-based methods with traditional methods for beginning foreign language teaching and intermediate foreign and second language teaching, as well as studies showing the superiority of self-selected reading over traditional instruction for intermediate second and foreign language students.

I present a list of these studies below: all included comparison groups subjects and subjects were high school age or older.  In addition, there are a multitude of studies that confirm these results using multivariate techniques and case histories.

It thus appears to be the case that comprehension-based methods are superior because they stimulate natural language acquisition mechanisms.

References

Morgan-Short, K., Steinhaur, K., Sanz, C. and Ulmann, M. 2012. Explicit and Implicit Second Language Training Differentially Affect the Achievement of Native-like Brain Activation Patterns. J Cogn Neurosci. 2012 April; 24(4): 933–947.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558940/#APP2

BEGINNING FOREIGN LANGUAGE

Asher, J. 1965. The strategy of the total physical response: an application to learning Russian. International Review of Applied Linguistics 3: 291-300.

Asher, J. 1969. The total physical response approach to second language learning. Modern Language Journal 53: 3-17.

Asher, J. 1972. Children's first language as a model for second language learning. Modern Language Journal 56: 133-139.

Asher, J., Kusudo, J. and De La Torre, R. 1974, Learning a second language through commands: the second field test. Modern Language Journal 58: 24-32.

Dziedzic, J. 2012. A comparison of TPRS and traditional instruction, both with SSR. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 7(2): 4-6.

Hammond, R. 1989. Accuracy versus communicative competency: The acquisition of grammar in the second language classroom. Hispania 71: 408-417

Isik, A. 2000. The role of input in second language acquisition: more comprehensible input supported by grammar instrution or more grammar instruction? ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 129-130: 225-74.

Kunihara A, S. and Asher, J. 1965. The strategy of the total physical response: an application to learning Japanese. International Review of Applied Linguistics 4: 277-289.

Nicola, N. 1989. Experimenting with the new methods in Arabic. Dialog on Language Instruction. 6: 61-71.

Swaffer, J. and Woodruff, M. 1978. Language for comprehension: Focus on reading. Modern Language Journal 6:27-32.

Varguez, K. 2009. Traditional and TPR Storytelling instruction in the Beginning High School Spanish Classroom. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 5 (1): 2-11.

Watson, B. 2009. A comparison of TPRS and traditional foreign language instruction at the high school level. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 5 (1): 21-24.

Winitz, H. 1996. Grammaticality judgments as a function explitict and implicit instruction in Spanish. Modern Language Journal 80 (1): 32-46.

Wolfe, D. and Jones, G. 1982. Integrating total physical response strategy in a level 1 Spanish class. Foreign Language Annals 14: 273-80.

INTERMEDIATE  FOREIGN LANGUAGE: SHELTERED

Burger, S. 1989. Content-based ESL in a sheletered psychology course: Input, output, and outcomes. TESL Canada Journal 6:45-59.

Edwards, H., Wesche, M., Krashen, S., Clement, R., and Kruidenier, B. 1984. Second language acquisition through a subject-matter learning: A study of sheltered psychology classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review 41: 268-282.

Hauptman, P., Wesche, M., and Ready, D. 1988. Second language acquisition through subject-matter teaching: a follow-up study at the University of Ottawa. Language Learning 38: 433-71.

Lafayette, R. and Buscaglia, M. 1985. Students learn language via a civilization course – a comarison of second language acquisition environments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7: 323-42.

Sternfeld, S. 1993. Immersion in first-year language instruction for adults. In J. Oller (Ed.) Methods That Work. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

INTERMEDIATE FOREIGN LANGUAGE: SUSTAINED SILENT READING

Bell, T. 2001. Extensive reading: Speed and comperhension. The Reading Matrix, 1 (1)

Beglar, D., Hunt, A., and Kite, Y. 2012. The effect of pleasure reading on Japanese university EFL learners’ reading rates. Language Learning, 62, 665–703.

Hitosugi, C. I., and Day, R. 2004. Extensive reading in Japanese.  Reading in a Foreign Language 16 (1).  http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2004/abstracts.html#hitosugi

Hafiz, F., and I. Tudor. 1990. Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning. System 18(1): 31-42.

Lao, C.Y. and Krashen, S. 2000. The impact of popular literature study on literacy development in EFL: More evidence for the power of reading. System 28: 261-270.

Lee, S.Y. 2007. Revelations from three consecutive studies on extensive reading. RELC Journal 38 (2), 150-170.

Lee, S. Y. and Hsu, Y. Y. 2009.  A three-year longitudinal study of in-class sustained silent reading with Taiwanese vocational college students. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(1): 15-29.

Lituanas, P. M., Jacobs, G. M., and Renandya, W. A. 1999. A study of extensive reading with remedial reading students. In Y. M. Cheah & S. M. Ng (Eds.) Language instructional issues in Asian classrooms (pp. 89-104). Newark, DE: International Development in Asia Committee, International Reading Association.

Liu, C.K. 2007. A reading program that keeps winning. Selected Papers from the Sixteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, English Teachers’ Association – Republic of China. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.

Mason, B. 2006. Free voluntary reading and autonomy in second language acquisition: Improving TOEFL scores from reading alone. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 2(1), 2-5.

Mason, B. and Krashen, S. 1997. Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System 25: 91-102.

Robb, T. N. & Susser, B. 1989. Extensive reading vs skills building in an EFL Context. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5, 2, 239-51.

Rodrigo, V., Krashen, S., and Gribbons, B. 2004. The effectiveness of two comprehensible-input approaches to foreign language instruction at the intermediate level. System 32(1): 53-60.

Sheu, S. P-H. 2004. Extensive reading with EFL learners at beginning level. TESL Reporter, 36(2), 8-26.

Sims, J. 1996. A new perspective: Extensive reading for pleasure. The Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on English Teaching, pp. 137-144. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.

Smith, K. 2006. A comparison of “pure” extensive reading with intensive reading and Extensive Reading with Supplementary Activities. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching (IJFLT), 2(2): 12-15.

Smith, K. 2007. The effect of adding SSR to regular instruction. Selected Papers from the Sixteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, English Teachers’ Association – Republic of China. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.

Smith, K. 2011. Integrating one hour of in-school weekly SSR: Effects on proficiency and spelling. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(1): 1-7.

Tudor, I., and Hafiz, F. 1989. Extensive reading as a means of input to L2 learning. Journal of Research in Reading 12(2): 164-178.

Tsang, W-K., 1996. Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing performance. Applied Linguistics 17(2): 210-233.

Yuan, Y. P., and Nash, T. 1992. Reading subskills and quantity reading. Selected papers from The Eighth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, pp. 291-304. Taipei: Crane.