Confusion about whole language and phonics

Sent to the Missourian

Much of the confusion about the “reading wars” (“Reading wars pit literacy instruction methods against each other,” May 14) is a confusion of terminology.

What the article calls “phonics-based instruction” is actually “intensive systematic phonics instruction,” a view of phonics that insists we teach all children all the major rules of phonics in a strict order.

Whole language is NOT look-see (or look-say). It is firmly based on the hypothesis that we learn to read when we understand what is written, when we understand the text.  Some knowledge of phonics can be helpful in making print more comprehensible, but there are severe limits on how much phonics can be directly taught and consciously learned: many of the rules are very complex with numerous exceptions. They cannot be taught but are gradually acquired, or absorbed, through reading.

Research supports whole language: Published scientific studies show that intensive systematic phonics is effective only for performance on tests in which children pronounce lists of words presented in isolation. It has only a microscopic influence on tests in which children have to understand what they read -- tests of reading comprehension given after first grade. Prof. Elaine Garan concluded that this was the case in The National Reading Panel Report and other studies show this as well.

Study after study has shown that performance on tests of reading comprehension is heavily influenced by the amount of self-selected free voluntary reading that children do, strong evidence for whole language.

The whole language position described here is very similar to the position of authors of Becoming a Nation of Readers, a book widely considered to provide strong support for phonics instruction:  “...phonics instruction should aim to teach only the most important and regular of letter-to-sound relationships ... once the basic relationships have been taught, the best way to get children to refine and extend their knowledge of letter-sound correspondences is through repeated opportunities to read. If this position is correct, then much phonics instruction is overly subtle and probably unproductive.”

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/161650/reading-wars-pit-literacy-instruction-methods-against-each-other/

The Common Core will require far more testing than NCLB

 Sent to The Nation

David Kirk (“The rebellion against high-stakes testing,” May 27)  feels that the common core offers “an opportunity to recognize the mistakes of the No Child Left Behind era.”

Unlikely.

Enforcing the new standards will require testing far beyond the already excessive levels demanded by NCLB. Documents from the US Department of Education and PARCC, one of the organizations developing the tests, make it clear that testing done at the end of the school year will be expanded to include all subjects that can be tested and more grade levels (K-12!). There will be “interim” tests given through the year and there may be pretests in the fall to measure growth through the school year.

This means about a 20-fold increase in testing over NCLB.

The cost of implementing these electronically delivered national tests will be enormous and we can expect it to increase, as computer upgrades and replacements are inevitable, bleeding money from legitimate and valuable school activities.

There is no evidence that all this testing will improve things. In fact, the evidence we have now strongly suggests that increasing testing does not increase achievement.

Stephen Krashen

Original article:  http://www.susanohanian.org/core.php?id=484

Some sources:

Testing in more subjects: The Blueprint A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. United States Department of Education  March 2010

In earlier and later grades: PARCC document:  http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCC%20MCF%20Response%20to%20Public%20Feedback_%20Fall%202011%20Release.pdf

K-12 testing: http://www.achieve.org/parcc

Interim tests: Duncan, A. September 9, 2010. Beyond the Bubble Tests: The Next Generation of Assessments -- Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks to State Leaders at Achieve's American Diploma Project Leadership Team Meeting: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/beyond-bubble-tests-next-generation-assessments-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-state-l. The Blueprint, (op. cit.) p. 11.

Measuring growth:

http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-statehouse-convention-center-little-rock-arkansas (August 25, 2010). The Blueprint (op.cit.), p. 9.

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.

An easier, more pleasant, less expensive path

Sent to the Springfield (MO) News-Leader

Missouri plans intensive remediation for students a year or more behind in reading (“Holding children back called 'the last option',” May 12).

I hope the remediation includes improving access to interesting reading material. 

Study after study shows that students of all ages can make remarkable progress if they develop a reading habit.  The research literature is filled with cases of those who started to read late, often around ages 10 to 12, but became voracious readers. Learning to read late did not prevent many eminent people from reaching the highest levels of literacy. Einstein is reported to have learned to read at age 9, Rodin at 10 and Woodrow Wilson at 11.

In all of these cases, readers made rapid progress once they began reading material they were genuinely interested in of their own volition, and all had the advantage of having easy access to books.

The real problem is that many children do not have easy access to books. Children in poverty are the most likely to be behind in reading, and they also have the least access to books. For these children the only source of books is the library.  Studies consistently show that better libraries, staffed with qualified librarians, are associated with higher reading achievement.

Let’s at least include this more pleasant, less expensive path, demonstrated again and again to be highly effective.

Stephen Krashen

Article: http://www.news-leader.com/article/20130512/NEWS01/305120055/Holding-children-back-called-the-last-option-?nclick_check=1

Some sources:

Krashen, S. and McQuillan, J. 2007. Late intervention. Educational Leadership 65 (2): 68-73.

Krashen, S., Lee, SY., and McQuillan, J. 2012. Is the library important? Multivariate studies at the national and international level. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1): 26-36. 

Lance, Keith. The Impact of School Libraries on Student Achievement. http://www.lrs.org/impact.php

Let’s put out the fire, not measure the temperature of the blaze.

Sent to USA Today

The government is planning to collect an astonishing amount of detail in order to get a more precise measure of student poverty  (“Plans aim to determine students’ socioeconomic status,” May 9).

This will cost millions in data gathering, and analysis, followed by changing guidelines and evaluating the results of the changes.

We have more than enough data to accurately identify which students live in poverty and a great deal of evidence showing that students living in poverty do poorly in school because they suffer from hunger and malnutrition, have inadequate health care and have little access to reading material.  Instead of measuring the problem, we need to invest in solving it, improving food programs, health care and school libraries.

The building is obviously on fire. Lets put out the fire now, without first developing expensive and more precise ways of measuring the temperature of the blaze. 

Stephen Krashen

Original article at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/09/obama-administration-education-free-lunch/2144137/

And also at: http://www.susanohanian.org/outrage_fetch.php?id=1606

Susan Ohanian’s comment:

I find it fascinating that the Feds want to further detail the conditions of poverty--instead of doing something about poverty, such as raising the minimum wage, providing housing support, and so on.

The Value of Read-Alouds

Posted as a comment at Brookfield Now  (WI)

http://www.brookfieldnow.com/news/elmbrook-turns-page-with-new-literacy-curriculum-l39s9n8-206506701.html

Reading aloud to Kindergartners at Dixon Elementary in Elmbrook is being reduced, because it is “passive.” (“Elmbrook turns page with new literacy curriculum,” May 7).

Hardly.

The research on reading aloud to children is very impressive: Children who are read to regularly outperform children not read to on a wide variety of measures of language and literacy: they develop higher levels of vocabulary, grammar, and a better knowledge of how stories are constructed, which helps make book reading more comprehensible.

Even more important, read-alouds increase enthusiasm for reading. Anyone who has worked in elementary school (anyone who has been to elementary school) has seen this: The teacher reads Charlotte’s Web to the class; the book disappears from the school library and local bookstores. Children go from there to Stuart Little and The Trumpet of the Swan, and eventually to fine authors such as Judy Blume. The result is a lifetime reading habit, and very high levels of literacy.

Stephen Krashen

Some sources:

Brassell, D. 2003. Sixteen books went home tonight: Fifteen were introduced by the teacher. The California Reader 36 (3): 33-39.

Bus, A., M. Van Ijzendoorn, and A.Pellegrini. 1995. Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research 65: 1-21.

Krashen, S. 2011. Reach Out and Read (Aloud): An inexpensive, simple approach to closing the equity gap in literacy.  Language Magazine 10 (12): 17-19.

Trelease, J. 2006. The Read-aloud Handbook. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Wang, F. Y., and S.Y. Lee. 2007. Storytelling is the bridge. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(2), 30-35.

No Evidence American Science Education is “Failing” & No Evidence of a Shortage of Qualified STEM Professionals

 No Evidence American Science Education is “Failing” & No Evidence of a Shortage of Qualified STEM Professionals

Posted on Science website.

http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.340.6130.292

“Transformation is possible …”  (April 19) contains ideas for improvement, but the suggestions should not be framed as a response to the accusation that the US has been failing in science education:  “…. universities are squandering talent at a time when U.S. higher education is being criticized for not turning out enough science-savvy graduates to keep the country competitive”  (p. 292).

There is good evidence that this accusation is false: There is no evidence that American science education is failing and no evidence that we face a shortage of qualified STEM professionals.

American students are doing well not only in science and math but in other subjects as well.  Our unspectacular scores on international tests are because we have so many students living in poverty, 23%, the second-highest among all industrialized countries. When researchers control for poverty, American international test scores are at the top of the world. In fact, middle class American students in well-funded schools outscore students in nearly all other countries on international tests. Poverty means poor nutrition, poor health care, and little access to books: All of these have powerful effects on school performance.

The US produces more top science students than other countries: On the 2006 PISA math and science tests, 60,000 American students scored in the top category, compared to 34,000 Japanese students. Also, American students are taking more math and science than the economy needs: In 2007, 30% of college-bound high-school seniors had taken calculus, but only 5% of new openings require a math/science background.

According to Rutgers Professor Hal Salzman, there is no shortage of science and technology graduates. In fact, Salzman has concluded that there are two to three qualified graduates for each science/tech opening. Studies have also shown the US is producing more Ph.D.s in science than the market can absorb.  

There is good evidence that contrary to popular opinion, we are turning out more than enough “science-savvy graduates.”

Stephen Krashen

Professor Emeritus

University of Southern California

Sources:

Impact 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/).

Levels of poverty: Levels of child poverty: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012), ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

“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.

No STEM crisis: 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.; 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 ;Toppo, G. and Vergano, D. 2009.  Scientist shortage? Maybe not. USA Today, August 9, 2009; The Ph.D Bust: America's Awful Market for Young Scientists—in 7 Charts. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-americas-awful-market-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339/

A weapon of mass distraction

A Weapon of Mass Distraction

Stephen Krashen

PARCC* is now inviting us to review performance level descriptions and an “accommodation” manual” to help them develop more tests (http://parcconline.org/reminder-parcc-seeks-public-comment).

As usual, we are not invited to discuss whether we need these tests. For those who haven't been paying attention, the US Department of Education, through PARCC, is planning to impose more testing than has ever been seen on this planet, far more than is helpful or necessary.

Those who accept the invitation to discuss performance level descriptions and the accommodation manual will have the impression they have a seat at the table. In reality, these kinds of invitations are a means of control, diverting attention from the real issues.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum … That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate" (N. Chomsky, The Common Good, p. 42, 2002)

The problem in American education is not a lack of appropriate tests. The problem is poverty. Our students from middle-class families who attend well-funded schools score at the top of the world on international tests, and when poverty is controlled statistically, American students rank near the top of the world.

The US has the highest level of child poverty among all industrialized countries. If all our children were protected from the effects of poverty our overall international test scores would be spectacular.

Poverty means little health care, poor nutrition and little access to books and has a devastating effect on school achievement. The best teaching is ineffective when children are hungry, ill, and have nothing to read. The impact of poverty could be profoundly reduced if we invested more on food programs, health care, and libraries, instead of on useless standards and tests.

We have been told not to worry about these things but support the movement to invest instead in more testing, and to debate whether the proposed rubrics for the fourth-grade writing assessment are appropriate.

Susan Ohanian notes that issuing standards is like presenting menus to starving people. Now PARCC is inviting us to discuss what should be on the menu.

“PARCC is an alliance of states working together to develop common assessments serving nearly 24 million students.”