Arne Duncan responds to Krashen criticisms, sort of, on The Situation Room (CNN) (Jan 4, 2011)

Wolf Blitzer asks Arne Duncan about my criticisms of his Washington Post article. Duncan responds, sort of. My comments are included.
Duncan Washington Post article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010202378.html?referrer=emailarticle
My criticisms at: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/a- response-to-arne-duncan.html?wprss=answer-sheet
Both available at: http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.php?id=4085
THE SITUATION ROOM: Interview With Education Secretary Arne Duncan Aired January 4, 2011 –
...
BLITZER: All right. Let's talk about this article you wrote in "The Washington Post," because you suggested that there was an opportunity to improve education by dealing with poverty, which is the huge source ....
There was criticism of your article coming in from Professor Stephen Krashen of the University of Southern California, saying, "Duncan gives the impression that overcoming poverty happens all the time under his administration. There is no real evidence that it happens at all."
Is there any evidence that you are overcoming this?
DUNCAN: Wolf, that's one of the biggest challenge our country is still -- folks to believe, that somehow poverty is destiny. I spent my whole life working in the inner city in a desperately poor community. I know those challenges as well or better than anyone.
Bright stars and young people from very poor communities, very tough family situations, lots of violence in the neighborhood. Despite those very real obstacles, with long-term support and guidance and real education opportunity, people go on to do extraordinarily well.
BLITZER: Is there any, like, real scientific evidence of that other than anecdotal evidence?
DUNCAN: There's evidence all over the country. You look at what Geoffrey Canada is doing to the Harlem Children's Zone, where they're basically closing the achievement gap. We've never had more high- performing, high-poverty schools around the country. That's why I'm so hopeful.
[SK COMMENT: (1) Duncan simply repeats his assertion that the evidence is there. It isn't. (2) In my response to Duncan, I specifically mentioned the Promise Academy of the Harlem Children's Zone, and Bracey's conclusion that the "success" was due to one grade, one subject and for one year. Bracey presents a through analysis of the research on this school. (3) There is no published analysis that I know of that supports Duncan's statement "We've never had more high- performing, high-poverty schools around the country." What we do know is that the number of high-performing high-poverty schools claimed to exist has been exaggerated. See the references in my commentary.]

The challenge, Wolf, is those kinds of opportunities aren't at scale yet. We have to invest in those best practices, we have to create more of those opportunities. Great principals, great teachers make a huge difference in students' lives.
BLITZER: The other criticism, he says, more of this testing is a disaster. He says, "We are about to make a mistake that will cost billions and make school life even more miserable for millions of teachers and students. The only ones who will profit are the testing companies. We should be talking about reducing testing, not increasing it."
DUNCAN: We need better evaluations. And right now, in part thanks to Race to the Top, we have 44 states working together and two consortia coming up with the next generation assessments.
Teachers, parents, students want real information. They need to know, are students learning? Where are they improving? Where are they not? Where do they need more help?
Those next generation of assessments are going to help us to get there. That leadership is being provided at the local level, not by us in Washington.
[SK: His answer: We need new tests! Teachers, parents and students already have real information. This real information is being discarded in favor of more tests imposed by outsiders.]
Those next generation of assessments are going to help us to get there. That leadership is being provided at the local level, not by us in Washington.
[SK: Duncan does not mention that the next generation of assessments will mean more testing that we have ever done before. According to the Department of Education Blueprint, it will include summative (end of year) testing, interim testing, and will encourage testing more subjects. Since the Blueprint also calls for value-added testing, we can also expect pre-tests at the start of the school year. And this "leadership" comes from Washington, from the Department of Education, not for the local level. ]

A Fundamental Principle: No Unnecessary Testing (NUT)

A Fundamental Principle: No Unnecessary Testing (NUT)

Stephen Krashen

(An earlier version of this paper was published in The Colorado Communicator vol  32,1. Page 7, 2008)

Summary: Do not invest billions on new standards and tests. Instead, work on improving the NAEP to get a picture of how our students are performing, and continue to use teacher evaluation to evaluate individual student performance.  We should begin by cutting back testing, not adding testing.

No Unnecessary Testing (NUT) is the principle that school should include only those tests and parts of tests that are necessary, that contribute to essential evaluation and learning. Every minute testing and doing “test preparation” (activities to boost scores on tests that do not involve genuine learning) is stolen from students’ lives, in addition to costing money that we cannot afford these days.

If we accept the NUT principle, it leads to this question: Do we need yearly standardized tests closely linked to the curriculum? Do they tell us more than teacher evaluation does?  This issue must be looked at scientifically. If, for example, standardized tests given in every stage are shortened, given less frequently or abandoned, will student performance be affected? Would NAEP scores be affected, or high school graduation rates, or life success?

My prediction is that teacher evaluation does a better job of evaluating students than standardized testing: The repeated judgments of professionals who are with children every day is more valid that a test created by distant strangers. Moreover, teacher evaluations are “multiple measures,” are closely aligned to the curriculum, and cover a variety of subjects.

There is evidence supporting this view for high school students: In a study published in 2007, UC Berkeley scholars Saul Geiser and Maria Veronica Saltelices found that adding SAT scores to high school students grades in college prep courses did not provide much more information than grades alone, which suggests that we may not need standardized tests at all. More recently, Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson  (2009) reached similar conclusions.

For those who argue that we need national standardized tests in order to compare student achievement over time and to compare subgroups of students, we already have an instrument for this, the NAEP.

The NAEP is administered to small groups of children who each take a portion of the test every few years. Results are extrapolated to estimate how the larger groups would score. No test prep is done, as the tests are zero stakes: There are no (or should be no) consequences for low or high scores.  Our efforts should be to improve the NAEP, not start all over again, and go through years of fine-tuning with new instruments.

Gradually improving the NAEP will also solve the "standards" problem, as the NAEP is adjusted to reflect competencies experts in education consider to be important.

If we are interested in a general picture of how children are doing, this is the way to do it.  If we are interested in finding out about a patient’s health, we only need to look at a small sample of their blood, not all of it.

My predictions, however, need to be put to the empirical test. A conservative path is to start to cut back on standardized tests, both in length and frequency, and determine if this has any negative consequences. 

A radical path is to throw everything we have out, without any evidence that it is inadequate, and waste billions on new standards and new tests, tests for all subjects and to be given to every child every year.

The conservative path is the only rational option, when funds are so scarce, and it is an essential exercise of our responsibility to students.  It is also the solution to those who are calling for a longer school year and a longer school day: less time testing and doing test-prep means more time for instruction and learning.

Bowen, W., Chingos, M., and McPherson, M. 2009. Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Geiser, S. and Santelices, M.V., 2007. Validity of high-school grades in predicting student success beyond the freshman year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators of four-year college outcomes. Research and Occasional Papers Series: CSHE 6.07, University of California, Berkeley. http://cshe.berkeley.edu

Advanced math: Offer, don't require

Sent to the Denver Post, Dec. 19, 2013

Sandra Stotsky thinks that the "Common Core fails to prepare students for STEM" (Dec. 17), and that all students should be required to go way beyond Algebra II to be ready for the brave new world of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math.

Even if the STEM crisis were real, this is not a good idea. Of course, advanced math classes should be offered, but there is no reason to require them of everybody: Michael Handel of Northeastern University has concluded that only about 10% of the work force uses math beyond algebra II. 

Also, it is not clear that the crisis is real. It is not clear that there is a compelling need for more STEM workers. Some studies conclude that there are too many qualified candidates. Rutgers University professor Hal Salzman has reported that there are approximately three qualified graduates annually for each science or technology opening, and recent studies have also shown the United States is producing more Ph.D.s in science than the market can absorb.

I love math. I took math courses through advanced calculus and differential equations, I use complex statistics in my work and I like reading about Fermat's Last Theorem. But I think that requiring Algebra II is already more than enough.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

original article: Original article: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_24743742/common-core-fails-prepare-students-stem#ixzz2nyo6XjX8



Some sources:
Math in work force: Handel, M. 2010. What do people do at work? OECD, forthcoming. Available at www.northeastern.edu/socant/wp-content/.../STAMP_OECD2a_edit2.doc‎
Three graduates for each opening:
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.
Salzman, H. 2012. No Shortage of Qualified American STEM Grads (5/25/12) http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-foreign-stem-graduates-get-green-cards/no-shortage-of-qualified-american-stem-grads.
See also: 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
More Ph.D's than the market can absorb: Weissman, Jordan. The Ph.D Bust: America's Awful Market for Young Scientists—in 7 Charts. The Atlantic, Feb 20, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-americas-awful-market-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339/



Show us the evidence

Posted on State Impact: Ohio - Eye on Education - http://tinyurl.com/ltoc4xq

In the class described in "How the Common Core is Changing How Kids Learn in English Class," (Dec 16), the teacher urges students to "cite evidence" for their statements, part of the push for increased nonfiction in the schools.
Ironically, there is no scientific evidence that anyone can cite that supports the increased emphasis on for nonfiction, or, for that matter, for the common core state standards and tests. There is, however, plenty of evidence supporting the value of fiction, and an impressive amount of evidence showing that national standards and nonstop testing have no positive impact on student achievement.

Stephen Krashen

Some sources:
Evidence for fiction: Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Libraries Unlimited.
No evidence for national standards and nonstop testing: 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.

Common core: Krashen, S. 2013. Access to books and time to read versus the common core standards and tests.  English Journal 103(2): 21-39.
Ohanian, S. 2013, Woo Hoo! Occupy the schools. Daily Censored. (Feb 19, 2013) http://www.dailycensored.com/woo-hoo/

Do other countries teach better?

Sent to the New York Times, Dec. 19, 2013

The Times asks "Why Other Countries Teach Better?" (Dec. 18). But there is no clear evidence that they do.
The most powerful factor in developing well-educated citizens, not mentioned by the Times, is poverty: When researchers control for the effects of poverty, our students score near the top on international tests. A survey from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), cited by the Times, confirms that socio-economic status is a very strong predictor of literacy development and that this effect is much stronger in the US than in other countries (OECD report, page 10).
Poverty in the US is much higher than in the high-flying countries described by the Times: In the US, the child poverty rate is 23%; in Finland, it is only 2.5%.
Children of poverty suffer from hunger, malnutrition, inferior health care, and lack of access to books. The best teaching in the world will not help when children are hungry, ill, and have little or nothing to read.

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/opinion/why-students-do-better-overseas.html?_r=0

Sources:
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.

Control for the effect of poverty: 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/). 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;

Impact of poverty:  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.

Are readers nerds?

ARE READERS NERDS?

Adrienne Schatz, Amy Panko,  Kim Pierce, and Stephen Krashen

                             Reading Improvement 47 (3): 151-153, 2010

Some people think that readers are nerds, "book-worms" who don't get out much, don't do much, and are simply boring, dull people.  The research, however, does not agree with this characterizaton. In fact, the results of a number of studies of adult readers show that readers are "active and social" (Bradshaw and Nichols, 2004).

Table 1 presents data originally published in1982, from Zill and Wingate (1990), comparing literature readers (those who reported reading "any creative writings, such as stories, poems, plays and the like" for the last 12 months), those who read any kind of a book or magazine, and those who reporting no reading.  The results are remarkably consistent, with readers reporting being more active in all categories.

Table 1: Leisure Activities of Literature Readers, Non-Literature Readers, and Non-Readers (1982); adults 18 and older

LEISURE ACTIVITIES	literature readers	readers, not of literature	non-readers
Amusements
Play card, board games	77%	62%	27%
Attend movies	75%	59%	25%
Visit amusement park	57%	49%	19%
Attend sports events	59%	43%	17%
Exercise, Sports
jog, exercise	65%	43%	18%
play sports	48%	36%	14%
camping, hiking	43%	34%	14%
Home-based activities
Repari home, car	66%	60%	28%
Gardening	69%	53%	34%
Gourmet cooking	38%	22%	8%
Collect stamps, coins	20%	10%	3%
Charitable work
Volunteer, charty work	36%	21%	9%
Cultural attendance
Visit historic sites	50%	28%	8%
Go to zoo	41%	25%	11%
Visit museums	32%	15%	4%
Art  & Crafts
Weaving, needlework	42%	29%	18%
Pottery, ceramics	17%	9%	3%
Photography, video	14%	6%	2%
Painting, drawing, sculpture	14%	6%	2%

From:  Zill and Winglee, table 2, page 15.

We cannot, however, conclude that reading is directly associated with being active and social. As Zill and Wingate point out, the amount of leisure reading done is also closely associated with education and affluence (for confirming data, see Bradshaw and Nichols, 2004). It may be the case that those who are more affluent have more time and money to engage in these activities.  (This is probably not the case for visiting museums. Bradshaw and Nichols (2004) present a multiple regression analysis showing a relationship between reading and visiting art museums and attending performing arts events, even when income and education were statistically controlled.)

To control for education, income and other related variables, we approached the question in a different way: The subjects in our study came from one social class, children in schools with high levels of poverty (90% or more free or reduced price lunch). All children were in grades four and five in four different schools in Austin, Texas. 

We present here the results of only one item from a longer questionnaire we asked the children to fill out. We asked the children about people they knew who read a lot, whether they were "not interesting and fun," "kind of interesting and fun," or "very interesting and fun."  

Table 2: Responses to: People I know who read are interesting and fun: grade four

school	n	very	kind of	not
1	44	68%	25%	7%
2	101	62%	32%	6%
3	43	69%	29%	2%
4	48	74%	26%	0%

Table 3: Responses to: People I know who read are interesting and fun: grade five

school	n	very	kind of	not
1	43	53%	44%	2%
2	99	62%	32%	6%
3	49	67%	27%	6%
4	51	68%	32%	0%

As presented in tables 2 and 3, the results are clear and consistent. Very few children felt that readers were not interesting and fun, and about two-thirds felt they were very interesting and fun. The percentages are nearly the same in all four schools and in both grades.

Conclusion

Our question was somewhat vague.  We did not indicate to the children whether "people I know" referred to children or adults or both. Nevertheless, the results suggest that the results of previous findings are not simply an artifact of income and affluence. Attitudes may change as children get older, but our data suggests that fourth and fifth graders do not think that readers are nerds.

REFERENCES

Bradshaw, T. and Nichols, B. 2004. Reading At risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America.  Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Research Division Report #46

Zill, N. and Winglee, M.  1990. Who Reads Literature? Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.

Adrienne Schatz, Amy Panko, Kim Pierce are on the staff of Book Trust, Fort Collins, Colorado

Stephen Krashen is Professor Emeritus, University of Southern California