A terrible solution to a non-existent problem

It's time to start testing two and a half year olds to make sure they are acquiring academic language. Really. 

WIDA has announced " Early English Language Development Standards," designed to help "dual language learners" ages 2.5 to 5.5 develop "appropriate academic language." 

The new standards cover: The language of Social-Emotional Development, Early Language and Literacy, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies and Physical Development. 

Standards means tests.

WIDA stands for "World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment" and it is clearly deeply involved with assessment – see http://www.wida.us/aboutus/partners.aspx.

WIDA makes it clear that the standards can be used "to help inform standards-based assessments" (WIDA E-ELD Standards, p. 11), and you can be sure this will happen. The result will be testing based on the standards, and efforts will be made to make sure children pass the tests. This means direct instruction in phonemic awareness, story grammars, etc, all elements of these new standards.

 (Despite an "important note" in WIDA E-ELD Standards explaining that there are many factors that "significantly affect the rate and pattern of language development" and that we need to "take great care" when determining language level, WIDA presents detailed descriptions of what children should be able to do at each age.)

WIDA's standards are a terrible solution to a non-existent problem. Academic language comes easily when children become readers, and the best way to make sure this happens is reading stories to children and providing access to lots of books in the first and second language. Instead, we are turning pre-school into test-prep.

Early English Language Development Standards, Ages 2.5–5.5, 2013 Edition (“WIDA E-ELD Standards”). Available at wida.us.

Adjuncts better than tenured profs? Don't just read the headline.

A misleading headline
Sent to the Chronicle of Higher Education
"Adjuncts Are Better Teachers Than Tenured Professors, Study Finds," (Sept. 9) does not tell us until deep into the article that the difference was only "slightly more than one-tenth of a grade point" in a subsequent course in the same subject. Those taught by adjuncts were only 7.3% more likely to take a subsequent course in the subject.
Buried even deeper in the article is a report of another study showing that full-time instructors got better results than part-time instructors at a community college.
I hope readers did not just scan the headline.
Stephen Krashen
original article: http://chronicle.com/article/Ad-juncts-Are-Bet-ter/141523/?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

The "core' or the whole thing?

Sent to the Oregonian, Sept 9.

Limiting grades only to "academic mastery" ("Missing homework, late assignments matter little, as Oregon schools grade exclusively on academic mastery," Sept. 7) means limiting school only to preparation for tests based on the standards.

It means, in other words, that the "common core" is not just the core, not just the basic minimum that all students should learn. Rather, the common core is the whole thing. Gone are all other goals of education, including the goal of helping students discover their interests and explore ideas.

Stephen Krashen

Hat-tip: Ashley Hastings

original article: http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2013/09/missing_homework_late_assignme.html

The attack on the Master's Degree requirement for teachers

Sent to the Baltimore Sun, Sept 9, 2013

"Md.'s teaching certification law (is) criticized as too tough" (Sept 6) announces that according to a think tank report, requiring a master's degree for teachers is causing a teacher shortage in "crucial subjects." But data presented in the second half of the article indicates that this isn't so: The Maryland State Education does not report significant shortages in these "crucial subjects," and Baltimore City and Baltimore County report few vacancies. I hope readers did not just scan the headline.

Also, the article's opening anecdote does not support the point: It is about a prospective teacher who got into the wrong master's program, not suited to his speciality. He clearly did not examine the college's catalog very carefully. This case has nothing to do with the issue of whether requiring a master's degree is causing a teacher shortage.

Stephen Krashen
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

Original article: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/bs-md-teacher-certification-20130829,0,5261314.story

Do poll results support tough math standards?

According to the latest Gallup Poll of 2000 adults, ages 18 and older, "Americans grade math as the most valuable school subject." (http://www.gallup.com/poll/164249/americans-grade-math-valuable-school-subject.aspx).  Math beat English/Literature/Reading easily, with 34% voting for math and 21% voting for English.

I predict that common core supporters will use these results as evidence that tough math standards are a good idea. 

The Gallup Poll did indeed say that math was considered the most valuable school subject. But Gallup did not ask what level of math. 

Those who had a high school education or less were the most enthusiastic about math (43% voted for math, compared to 19% of those with post-graduate college.).  This suggests that people find basic math valuable. I doubt that many people were thinking about calculus or even algebra when they voted for math. I suspect that they were thinking about addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, decimals, and percentages.

The testing boondoggle

Sent to the Daily Breeze, Torrance, CA Sept. 6 2013

The new tests that California students may be taking next spring are to be administered online ("Bill would overhaul testing in California schools", Sept. 5). In this year's planned trial run, only districts with enough "technical capacity" will take the tests.

But many districts lack enough up-to-date or even working computers (LA Times, "State speeds shift in student testing," Sept. 5).  If only half of our five million students need new computers, California needs to spend at least an extra 5 billion dollars for the next round of tests.

Also, even if computers are in place, there will be continual upgrades and replacements, as well as major changes as new technology is developed. We taxpayers will have to pay for all of them.

Because no evidence has been provided showing that online testing will benefit students in any way, this adventure must be considered to be a boondoggle: Whether the tests help students or not, computer and testing companies will make a lot of money taking no risk – if student achievement declines, we will be told that we need even higher-tech tests, and we will be presented with nationaltest 2.0.

Stephen Krashen

article at: http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20130905/bill-would-overhaul-testing-in-california-schools

The never-ending and increasing cost of testing

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 5

The state hopes that the brave new tests will be covered by the $64 million  California budgeted for the old tests ("State speeds shift in student testing," September 5). But the new tests must be administered online. As the Times notes, many students only have access to out-of-date or nonfunctional computers. It will cost far more than $64 million just to supply up-to-date computers, and the computers will need to be regularly upgraded. And as we know, computers become obsolete within a few years and need to be replaced. And as we know, innovations in technology require a complete change of equipment every few years (remember ethernet?). 

The common core testing program means a continuing and increasing boondoggle for testing and publishing companies forever.  When the new tests fail to produce  improvement in student achievement, teachers will be blamed, and the "experts" will call for more testing and more use of technology.

Stephen Krashen

original article, on-line version: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-state-tests-20130905,0,6459120.story