Friday, August 9, 2013

California test scores: the real problem and the real solution



The real problem
Published in the Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2013

John Rogers, quoted in "State sees a surprise drop in test scores" (August 9) is right: There shouldn't be too much concern about blips, tiny changes, in standardized test scores.

If we are interested in real gains, let's attack the real problem: Poverty.  Nearly 25% of students in school in the US live in poverty, which means inadequate diet, lack of health care, and little or no access to books. The best teaching in the world is of little help when students are hungry, ill, and have nothing to read. 

Forget the untested, expensive common core: Let's invest more in food programs, health care, and libraries. 

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-test-scores-20130809,0,5883250.story

Monday, August 5, 2013

Why test scores fall, rise, and then level off


Sent to the New York Daily News, August 5, 2013
We have been warned that New York test scores will drop because of new and more difficult math and reading examinations ("New York City Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott warns that release of 2012 state and math test scores will show sharp declines," August 4).
Robert Linn of the University of Colorado and his colleagues have shown that test scores are typically low when a new test is introduced. Then the scores improve, about one to two points a year, as students and teachers get more familiar with the test. This is not because of brave new "rigorous" curricula; the improvements stop after a few years, after students and teachers have adapted to the new measures.

The improvement, in other words, may be due to a change in test-preparation strategies, not to improved learning.

Stephen Krashen

Source: Linn, R., Graue, E., & Sanders, N. 1990. Comparing state and district test results to national norms: The validity of claims that “everyone is above average.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 5-14.


Tuesday, July 30, 2013

The Bookmooch Plan


The Bookmooch plan: An easy way to help close the access-to-books gap and clean up your clutter at the same time
Stephen Krashen

Published in Language Magazine as  Re-gifted reading. Language Magazine, 13(5): 17. 2014

There is overwhelming evidence that those who live in poverty have little access to books at home, in schools and in public and school libraries, and that the lack of access to books impacts literacy development, and also results in less knowledge of the world. Research, in fact, strngly suggests that lack of access to books is the major reason for the literacy “achievement gap,” the difference in reading ability between children coming from higher and lower income families. 

Someday, ebooks might be available at a reasonable cost for everybody. But until this happens, I would like to suggest one way we help close the access-to-books gap. It requires no special funding from the government or the Gates Foundation, no paperwork, and no sacrifice. In fact, we can do it in a way that benefits everybody. 

Most middle-class people have extra books in their homes, books they would like to give away. We often do this by donating to goodwill-type organizations, but there is a problem: There is no way we can insure that the books get to those who really need or want them. 

An organization called “bookmooch,” founded by John Buckman, has solved this problem. Bookmooch (bookmooch.com) is a book swap club. You list the books you want to give away. Another bookmooch memberscan claim one of these books. You then send the book to the person and pay the postage (media mail). When you do this, you get one point. You can then use this point to claim somebody else’s book and they pay the postage. You can thus get books you want for only the cost of postage.  (You get more points for mailing to another country, and pay more points when ordering books from another country.) There is no cost to join or use bookmooch.

And now the interesting part: Bookmooch lists charities you can donate your points to if you have some left over.  Those of us bookmooch users who have built up huge book collections always have a surplus of points. Bookmooch supplies a list of “worthy causes”: They include school libraries, classroom libraries, public libraries, and prison libraries. 

Bookmooch members exchange about 2000 books a day and donate about 2% of their points to charities, about 10,000 books a year. As of 2012, bookmooch had about 25,000 active members. If bookmooch had 2.5 million active members, this means that the charities would get about a million books a year, assuming that 2% of members points are donated.  If bookmooch members get a little more generous and donate even a mere four points a year, with a million members this means ten million books given to libraries and therefore available to those who really need them but cannot get them elsewhere. 

The crucial fact is that the bookmooch charity libraries can order precisely the books they want: They can select ANY of the half million books listed on bookmooch. 

There are about 50 million people living at or under the poverty line right now, 50 million people who can’t afford books and who are dependent on libraries.  An extra million books a year will not completely close the access-to-books gap, but it will be a big help, especially because they will be the books these libraries need for their members.

And now the advantage to you: You get to clean up your home library.  As you children and grandchildren get older, you can give away all those wonderful children’s books to libraries so that children of poverty can enjoy them just as much as the children in your family did. You can give away that extra copy of that Jane Austin novel that has been on your shelf for ten years, or that popular romance or spy novel that you know you don’t want to reread. 

You also will have the satisfaction of knowing that your book will go to somebody who wants that particular book, and you have made a donation to a real charity.

Finally, as a bookmooch member, you will have access to a lot of books you might want or need at very very low cost. 

PS: I got on bookmooch because I read light fiction in other languages, mostly German and French. Other bookswap groups I looked at are not international. Bookmooch keeps me well-supplied. This is particularly important for foreign language teachers who are not native speakers of the language they teach - light fiction is an easy, pleasant way to not only keep your competence but actually improve when native speakers are not around (and even when they are). 




NAEP Scores, Reading First, and Whole Language


In a recent blog, Michael Petrilli states that "NAEP scores in fourth-grade reading jumped significantly, especially for the low-income, low achieving students who were Reading First’s focus."
I discussed this claim in Krashen (2006), pointing out, as others have, that the jump was not related to Reading First. In addition, I discuss other cases in which Reading First was considered to be succussful, and point out that the data is not clear at all. 
Krashen, S.  2006. Did reading first work? ninglunbooks.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/krashen_reading_first.pdf‎
(To access this article, please google "Did reading first work? Krashen" and click on the pdf.) I will post it on www.sdkrashen.com soon.)

Petrilli also refers to whole language as "discredited" and "ineffectual."  There is plenty of evidence that whole language (not "whole-word") is effective, reviewed in these papers and in one book:
Krashen, S. 1999. Three Arguments Against Whole Language and Why They are Wrong. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishing Co.
Krashen, S. 2002. The NRP comparison of whole language and phonics: Ignoring the crucial variable in reading. Talking Points, 13(3): 22-28.
Krashen, S. 2002. Defending whole language: The limits of phonics instruction and the efficacy of whole language instruction. Reading Improvement 39 (1): 32-42.
Krashen, S. 2002. Whole language and the great plummet of 1987-92: An urban legend from California. Phi Delta Kappan 83 (10): 748-753.
Petrilli blog: "On Tony Bennett’s “grading-gate,” avoid the rush to judgment" Michael J. Petrilli / July 30, 2013 http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/2013/on-tony-bennetts-grading-gate-avoid-the-rush-to-judgment.html

Monday, July 29, 2013

We don’t need threatening and useless tests, and we don't need "fluency training."


Sent to the East Valley Tribune (Arizona), July 29, 2013
Arizona requires children to read “proficiently” by grade three. If they do not, they will be retained. East Valley's strategy to help children pass the grade three test is a greater emphasis on "fluency" training and testing ("East Valley teachers turn to 1-on-1 learning, reading groups," July 28).
There is an easier, more pleasant way to improve reading achievement.
First, studies show that there is nothing magic about third grade: Poor reading at any grade predicts poor reading later on. 
Second, research shows that students of all ages can make remarkable progress if they develop a reading habit. "Fluency" is the result of extensive reading for pleasure, not direct training. 
For many students, the only source of books is the library. Studies consistently show that better libraries, staffed with qualified librarians, are associated with higher reading scores.
We don’t need threatening and useless tests, and we don't need "fluency training." We need to improve our school libraries and support our librarians. 
Stephen Krashen
Some sources: 
“Nothing magic ..”: Krashen, S. 2011. Need children read “proficiently” by grade 3? Language Magazine 11,2: 24-27. 2011
Fluency the result: Goodman, K. 2006. The Truth about Dibels. Portsmouth: Heinemann
Students at all ages: Krashen, S. and McQuillan, J. 2007. Late intervention. Educational Leadership 65 (2): 68-73.
Better libraries ….: 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


Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Consider other ways of teaching (English as a foreign language)


Published in the Korea Times, July 31, 2013

The negative reactions to English class in Korea documented in "What English means for children," (July 22) are not limited to Korea, They are found everywhere in world where traditional methods are used, methods that are painful and not supported by any research. Educators in Korea might consider trying methods that are not only supported by decades of scientific studies, but are also much more pleasant for both students and teachers. 

Students in beginning level classes that utilize TPRS (Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling) and other comprehension-based methods, and intermediate students in classes that include interesting subject matter and provide an opportunity for students to do self-selected reading in English, develop much better second language proficiency, and, most important, develop a positive attitude toward English language acquisition.

Many of the scholars investigating these more successful approaches are in Asia, including Prof. Kyung-Sook Cho of Busan National University of Education, who has published numerous studies documenting the positive effect of pleasure reading on English language development.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/07/116_139689.html
this letter published at: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2013/08/161_140262.html

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

No proof technology boosts achievement (original title: Technology boondoggle)


Published in the Orlando Sentinel, July 25, 2013
Regarding the article "Common Core test costs: Less than current FCAT expenses, estimates show (but that doesn't include needed technology, other factors," July 22). 
The "needed technology" is the problem: It is a boondoggle that will never end – billions to make sure all students are connected to the internet with up-to-date computers, followed by billions for constant upgrading, billions for constant replacement of obsolete equipment, and billions more for the never-ending new technologies. Moreover, there is no evidence that the brave new technology is "needed," no evidence that it will result in better student achievement. 
Stephen Krashen

article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/blogs/school-zone/os-common-core-test-costs-less-than-current-fcat-expenses-but-that-doesnt-include-needed-technology-est-20130722,0,1280700.post