Does a "transient surge" in electrical activity in rat brains disprove survival after death?

Does a "transient surge" in electrical activity in rat brains disprove survival after death?
Stephen Krashen

Borjigin et al (2013) show that rat brains experience "a transient surge" of electrical activity that corresponds to hightened consciousness beginning about 30 seconds after cardiac arrest, lasting from 30 to 60 seconds. This kind of electrical activity is not present during anesthesia.  Borjigin et al suggest that their results "provide a scientific framework to begin to explain the highly lucid and realer-than-real mental experiences reported by near death survivors."

Several media reports state that this study shows that near-death experiences are not real, eg."Near-Death Experiences Might Just Be Brain Fireworks" (The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/study-near-death-experiences-might-just-be-brain-fireworks/278723/) and "Near-death experiences are 'electrical brain surges'"(http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264740.php).

Not discussed in the study, or in the media reports, are the extensive findings supporting the reality of the near-death experience, including reports from experiencers about information they could not have learned about otherwise (eg Long and Perry, 2010). Most relevant here is the finding that near-death experiences can occur when experiences are under anesthesia, when brain activity associated with consciousness is not present (Long and Perry, 2010), and when patients have been pronounced brain-dead (Sabom, 1998). (But see comments by Sam Parnia, at  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/near-death-experiences-surge-activity-brain_n_3745339.html).

Reports of the Borjigin et. al. study are now big news in the media. Why hasn't the media reported studies strongly suggesting that near-death experiences are real with equal enthusiasm, as well as other research supporting the "survival hypothesis"? (see e.g. Wambach, 1978).

Borjigin, J. Lee, U., Liu, T. Pal, D., Huff, S., Klarr, D. Sloboda, J., Hernandez, J. Wang, M. and Mashour, G. 2013. Surge of nuerophysiological coherence and connectivity in the dying brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print August 12, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308285110  PNAS August 12, 2013
Long, J. and Perry, O. 2010. Evidence of the Afterlife. Harper One.
Sabom, M.  1998. Light and Death. Zondervan.

Wambach. H. 1978. Reliving Past Lives. Barnes and Noble.

The Journal of Near-Death Studies, begun in 1987, includes many careful studies of the near-death experience.

Librarians were in the vocabulary business long before the common core, and have been the most important part of it.

Letter to the Editor, Published in the "Feedback" section of the School Library Journal, 59, 8:8-9. 2013.

Vocabulary Development

Stephen Krashen

Paige Jaeger ("Vulcanizing Vocabulary," June 13) acknowledges the contribution of reading to vocabulary growth,  but suggests that we need more; we need to require "challenging nonfiction," "integrate academic vocabulary into our classes" and add word games.

We don't need more. School librarians know how to help students develop a large vocabulary: Provide a collection of engaging, comprehensible books, and help readers find the right books for them.

Studies show that when interesting and comprehensible books are available, young people read them, and that self-selected reading results in profound development of literacy, including vocabulary. Dedicated pleasure readers acquire thousands of words each year through reading, far more than they could from direct instruction programs or word games.

It is sometimes argued that voluntary reading may not include "the right stuff."  We know, however, that dedicated pleasure readers typically choose more different kinds of reading and more complex reading as they mature (L. LaBrant, 1958, “An evaluation of free reading.”  Hunnicutt and Iverson (Eds.), Research in the Three R’s. Harper and Brothers.). In fact, students involved in reading eventually choose what experts have decided were “good books” (R. Schoonover, 1938, “The case for voluminous reading.” English Journal 27, 114-118. 

Also, even though different kinds of writing are written in different styles there is substantial overlap; anyone who reads deeply in any area will acquire a great deal of the academic style, enough to make a considerable amount of academic reading comprehensible. A student who has read extensively from books such as Fear Street, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Harry Potter, and Hunger Games will have a much easier time with a New York Times editorial than one who has not done a lot of this kind of reading.  Self-selected reading is the bridge between conversational and academic language.

Jaeger notes that "Within the CCSS framework, everyone is in the vocabulary business."  Librarians were in the vocabulary business long before the common core, and have been the most important part of it.  Young people get a lot of their reading material from libraries, and for those living in poverty, the library is often their only source of books.  

The common core only prepares students for taking tests.

Sent to the Yakima Herald August 13, 2013

The cartoon accompanying "Common Core standards will help prepare students for real world" (August 12) shows a parent asking a child what she learned in school today. The answer is a multiple-choice bubble sheet, a perfect response to the article. 

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the common core is calling for more standardized testing than we have ever seen on this planet, far more than the already excessive amount required by No Child Left Behind. In addition to final tests, there will be interim tests given throughout the year and perhaps even pretests in the fall. Instead of only testing math and reading in grades 3 through 8 and once in high-school, the common core will test more subjects and more grades. I estimate at least a 20-fold increase in standardized testing. 

The common core will not help prepare students for anything except tests.

Stephen Krashen

Source: Krashen, S. 2012. How much testing?  Posted on Diane Ravitch’s blog: http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen- krashen-how-much-testing/
Posted on The Answer Sheet, Valerie Strauss’ Washington Post blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/

Original op-ed: http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/sunday/1391393-8/common-core-standards-will-help-prepare-students-for

This op-ed has appeared in several newspapers. Please see http://www.susanohanian.org/core.php?id=547.

The Common Core Disrespects Self-Selected Pleasure Reading

The Common Core Disrespects Self-Selected Pleasure Reading 

Stephen Krashen, August 13, 2013

I have seen this quote in several places:

“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.”   

This quote appears in "Common Core Learning Standards, Appendix A" on page 11, a section with the title "Research supporting key elements of the standards." It is typically interpreted as evidence that the common core supports free voluntary reading. 

The common core does not support free reading, but disparages it, and other discussions of free reading in common core documents confirm the disrespect the common core has for free reading.

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."  

Common Core'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 Language Arts 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, and barely acknowledges that vocabulary is the result of reading, maintaining that "direct instruction is … essential"(p. 35). (Appendix A states that "at most between 5 and 15 percent of new words encountered upon first reading are retained" (p. 34), which is slightly inaccurate: Studies actually show that when you see a new word in print, you typically pick up a small part of its meaning, about 5-15%, and as you read more, you encounter the word more and gradually acquire the meaning. What Appendix A doesn't point out are research results, including those cited in Appendix A, showing that if people read enough, 5-15% is more than enough to account for vocabulary growth.)

The common core standards do not allow “easy reading”: Appendix A insists that independent reading must remain within a certain "complexity band," or slightly above (pp. 13-14). Nothing below the readers' current official level is allowed. The Publisher's Criteria agrees: The materials available 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.” (Publisher's Criteria, K-3, p. 4, see also p. 14). But 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; easy reading can increase enthusiasm for more reading (Krashen, 2005). 

Krashen, S. “Is In-School Free Reading Good for Children? Why the National Reading Panel Report is (Still) Wrong.” Phi Delta Kappan 86.6 (2005): 444-447. (available at http://www.sdkrashen.com/index.php?cat=2)

The jobs of tomorrow

Published in the Deseret News, August 15

To the editor:

In "Teachers trained on new STEM learning technologies" (August 9), the director of the STEM Action Center is quoted as saying: "In our global economy, we need to focus on STEM if we want to fill the jobs of tomorrow."

I am all for high quality math/science education. Educators should know, however, that a number of studies have concluded that there is no shortage of STEM-trained potential workers.

Rutgers University professor Hal Salzman has concluded that there are approximately three qualified graduates annually for each science or technology opening.

Recent studies have also shown 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.

In short, we are well-prepared to "fill the jobs of tomorrow."

Stephen Krashen

original  article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865584404/Teachers-trained-on-new-STEM-learning-technologies.html

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

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.

Article: : http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/walcott-issues-test-score-warning-article-1.1417474#ixzz2bAQ1kkHd