The Lexile
Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful
Stephen Krashen
CSLA
(California School Library Association) Journal 24(2): 25-26, 2001 http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/lexile_framework.pdf
The Lexile Framework attempts to solve a
problem that doesn't exist. It is a readability formula that "stands
firmly in the tradition of classic readability formulas" (Stenner, 1996,
p. 23) that assigns reading levels to texts based on word frequency and
sentence length. The Lexile Framework is intended to help teachers and
librarians recommend supplementary reading that is at the right reading level:
"For example, an eighth-grade girl
who is interested in sports but is not reading at grade level might be able to
handle a biography of a famous athlete. The teacher may not know, however,
whether that biography is too difficult or too easy for the student. " All
the teacher has to do is use the Lexile Framework on the text and the student
and select a book at the right level. Then, "as the reader improves, new
titles with higher text measures can be chosen to match the growing person
(sic) measure, thus keeping the comprehension rate at the chosen level."
(Stenner, 1996, p. 22).
Not Necessary
None of this is necessary, and it is
probably harmful. There is a much easier way for readers to select texts: Are
they comprehensible and interesting? It doesn't take long for a reader to
determine this: All it takes is sampling a little of the text (reading it). Our
eighth grader simply needs to have a look at a few biographies.
Teachers and librarians can certainly help
in text selection and they do this all the time, with great success. A teacher
or librarian who knows children's literature (and most do, it is part of the
job), and knows the child (and most know the children they deal with quite
well, it is also part of the job) can most likely recommend several biographies
without too much trouble. If they can't, a quick glance at several usually
leads to a reasonable recommendation.
We need not be concerned with carefully
matching the student's level for free reading, and need not be concerned with
accurately monitoring the increasing difficulty level as the child reads more
and improves. Childrens' own experiences with texts does a much better job than
any formula can.
Potentially
Harmful: Restriction of Reading
A narrow application of the Lexile
Framework will needlessly limit readers' choices, keeping readers in a narrow
range of texts (Carter, 2000). While children may select easy books for free
reading, they often select books that are considered too hard (Southgate,
Arnold and Johnson, 1981; Bader, Veatch, and Eldrige, 1987). These
"hard" texts might be very meaningful for readers with special
interests and who are willing (and eager) to focus on the parts that are
relevant to them.
Also, reading "easy" books is not
a waste of time; It may be that the "lighter" reading we are denying
readers contains text that could be meaningful and important to the reader.
Kathleen Sespaukas has pointed out to me that "easy" books may
contain sections well above their indicated level, i.e. a book considered to be
at the fourth grade level may contain quite a bit of material at the fifth and
sixth grade level. Reading level is an average and this average does not apply
to every sentence. In addition, easy reading may help readers to get started in
an unfamiliar topic or genre. Carter (2000) points out that librarians
frequently suggest that adults read books written for younger readers when
dealing with unfamiliar material. This builds background knowledge that makes
subsequent reading more comprehensible.
We don't have to worry that readers will
languish at lower levels of reading material: students who do plenty of
self-selected reading gradually expand their reading interests as they get
older (LaBrant, 1937) and there is evidence that light reading, such as comic
book reading, serves as a conduit to heavier reading. Ujiee and Krashen (1996)
reported that seventh grade boys who reported more comic book reading also
reported more pleasure reading in general, greater reading enjoyment and tended
to do more book reading (see Krashen, 1993, for case histories).
The Lexile Framework claims other goals,
such as helping teachers select the right texts for read alouds, recommending
that teachers select books slightly harder than the students' lexile levels.
Such precision is completely unnecessary. Students' interest and attention will
tell teachers when a book is at the right level, and not every book need be
precisely at the edge of the students' competence.
Potentially
Harmful: A Waste of Money
The real problem in the "literacy
crisis" remains access to reading material (Krashen, 1993; McQuillan,
1998). Many children simply have little or no access to reading material
(Feitelson and Goldstein, 1986; Smith, Constantino and Krashen, 1997; Di Loreto
and Tse, 1999). When books are supplied to school and classroom libraries in
areas where they were not plentiful, the increase in reading test scores is
dramatic (Elley, 1998).
We seem willing to devote time and money
to nearly any other "solution" than simply supplying good books and a
comfortable place to read them. The research cost of the Lexile Framework was
approximately two million dollars and the research was supported by the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Metametrics, no
date). This money would have been much better invested in our school and
classroom libraries. While prices are not mentioned in the literature I have
seen, the full kit comes with the Lexile Framework Map, "with examples of
books, magazines, tests, and educational levels," software (the Lexile
Analyzer), and "an item bank for measuring reading performance, conversion
formulas for commonly used reading texts, and a technology for linking existing
reading tests to the Lexile Framework." In addition to the cost of this
material, one must also consider the time invested in making sure all texts
have a lexile rating and making sure that we know at every moment each
student's lexile rating!
As Carter (2000) points out, readability
formulae may be of some use when dealing with assigned group reading
(textbooks), but they are out of place when dealing with individual pleasure
reading. Using the Lexile Framework to select supplemental reading is like
using an elaborate device to precisely measure the calories and vitamins in
foods, and the specific nutritional state of each child, and recommending that
children eat those foods that meet their current biological needs, rather than
making sure the children have enough good food to eat, and a reasonable variety
to choose from.
Postscript
This year, every student in California in
grades 2 through 11 will receive a California Reading List number, based on
STAR test results (Lexile Framework, no date). This number is derived from the
Lexile Framework, and will "provide a way for students and their parents
to obtain a list of California State approved books that are at their reading
level." The approved reading list will be available on the internet. The
State of California has paid for this effort, at a time when California's
libraries are still vastly underfunded. In addition, it is based on the results
of one test, a test that many consider to be flawed. California is spending
valuable money in an effort that may restrict students' choice of reading.
References
Bader, L., Veatch, J, and Eldridge, J.
(1987). Trade books or basal readers? Reading Improvement 24: 62-67.
Carter, B. (2000). Formula for failure. School
Library Journal, July 1, 2000.
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.
Elley, W. (1998). Raising Literacy
Levels in Third World Countries: A Method that Works. Culver City, CA:
Language Education Associates.
Feitelson, D. and Goldstein, Z. (1986).
Patterns of book ownership and reading to young children in Israeli
school-oriented and nonschool-oriented families. Reading Teacher, 39(9):
924-930.
Krashen, S. (1993). The Power of
Reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
LaBrant, L. (1937). The contents of a free
reading program. Educational Research Bulletin,16: 29-34.
Metametrics. The 3 R's: Using the
Lexile Framework. Durham, NC: Metametrics, Inc. (no date)
McQuillan, J. (1998). The Literacy
Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Smith, C., Constantino, R., and Krashen,
S. (1997). Differences in print environment for children in Beverly Hills,
Compton and Watts. Emergency Librarian, 24(4): 8-9.
Southgate, V., Arnold, H., and Johnson, S.
(1981). Extending Beginning Reading. London: Heinemann Educational
Books.
Stenner, A.J. (1996). Measuring reading
comprehension with the Lexile Framework. Durham, NC: Metametrics, Inc.
Ujiie, J. and Krashen, S. (1996). Comic
book reading, reading enjoyment, and pleasure reading among middle class and
chapter I middle school students. Reading Improvement, 33,1: 51-54.