Accelerated Reader research misses the point, again

Accelerated Reader research misses the point, again

Stephen Krashen April, 2015

Still another study has been published claiming that Accelerated Reader (AR) works (Shannon, Styers, Wilkerson, and Peery, 2015).  And once again, the study fails to provide a real comparison group. *

All we are told is that the comparison group had "traditional" instruction that included independent reading, but we have no idea of how much reading time was set aside.  Those in the AR group (grades 1 through 4) averaged more than 30 minutes per day self-selected reading over 24 weeks "as a supplement to their core reading program" (p. 24).  ("Classrooms in both the treatment and comparison condition had the same amount of class time devoted to reading and language arts instruction" p. 24).

As pointed out elsewhere (Krashen, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007), it is no surprise that AR produces gains in reading achievement. The important question is whether the tests and awards contribute to these gains. To determine this, AR needs to be compared not with traditional programs, but with programs in which equal time is spent in self-selected reading, without the AR tests and prizes.  This has not yet been done.

*The study was paid for by Renaissance Learning, the parent company of Accelerated Reader.

References

Krashen, S. (2003). The (lack of) experimental evidence supporting the use of accelerated reader. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29 (2), 9,16-30.
Krashen, S. (2004). A comment on Accelerated Reader: The pot calls the kettle black. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 47(6): 444-445.
Krashen, S. (2005). Accelerated reader: Evidence still lacking. Knowledge Quest, 33(3), 48-49.
Krashen, S. (2007). Accelerated reader: Once again, evidence still lacking. Knowledge Quest 36 September/October. Available at: http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/knowledgequest/kqwebarchives/v36/361/361krashen

Shannon, L. C., Styers, M. K., Wilkerson, S. B., & Peery, E. 2015. Computer-assisted learning in elementary reading: A randomized control trial. Computers in the Schools 32(1): 20-34

Opt out - NOT anti-testing

Sent to the New York Post, April 13, 2015

David Bradford ("Opt out of tests – kids will suffer," April 13) thinks that parents who opt their children out of the current tests are opposed to assessment. Wrong. They are opposed to excessive and inappropriate assessment.

Students in New York and across the country are now being tested more than any time in history, far more than is necessary and far more than is helpful. In addition, the tests have been made arbitrarily too difficult, resulting in high failure rates that do not reflect reality, and are inaccurate measures of students' abilities.

The opt out movement is a rational reaction to overtesting, and unresearched, unreasonable standards. 

Stephen Krashen

original article http://nypost.com/2015/04/12/opt-out-of-tests-kids-will-suffer/

No need to test every student

Sent to the Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2015

I do not share the Times' cheerful interpretation of the Alexander-Murray compromise for the new education law ("A new No Child Left Behind," April 10).  As long as schools continue annual high-stakes testing for every student in grades 3-8 (and once in high school), the "fretful anxiety and teach to the test mentality" will remain.  The huge cost of testing will also remain, and will increase now that testing is done online. 

There is no need to test every student. We can get the same information from low-pressure testing of small samples of students, each student taking only a part of the test, and extrapolating the results to larger groups.  This will save money, reduce anxiety, and give teachers more time to teach.

When you go to the doctor, they don't take all your blood. They only take a sample.

Stephen Krashen


Original article: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-no-child-left-behind-20150408-story.html.
On line title of article: No Child Left Behind overhaul should keep states accountable

Seattle Sun Times one of the few newspapers to say why opting out is taking place.

Submitted to: http://seattle.suntimes.com/sea-news/7/79/104519/seattle-students-expected-deny-common-core-testing#comments

Nearly every newspaper story I have read about opting out of common core tests fails to include the reasons why many parents across the country are refusing these tests for their children. "More Seattle students are expected to deny Common Core testing," (April 8) is a welcome exception. The tests are indeed too hard, with passing levels set much too high, resulting in high failure rates that do not reflect reality. Also, as the Sun Times points out, the tests are an inaccurate measures of students' abilities: The tests are based on a rigid, incompletely researched and often developmentally inappropriate set of standards.

Parents across the country are not protesting all testing; they are protesting the common core testing program.

http://seattle.suntimes.com/sea-news/7/79/104519/seattle-students-expected-deny-common-core-testing#comments

Opting out of common core tests: The rest of the story

Sent to the Seattle Times, April 6, 2015.

Not mentioned in "More Seattle students opt out of new Common Core tests," (April 6) is the fact that the opt out movement is nation-wide: The article mentions only Washington State and New Mexico, but parents are refusing the common core tests for their children in record numbers throughout the country.
The article barely mentions why. Opting out is not simply because of a desire for local control or fears of children getting a low score: For many parents, it is because the common core has increased the amount of testing far beyond anything experienced before, and because the tests are based on a rigid, untested and often developmentally inappropriate set of standards. 
The parents are doing what the educational establishment should have done when the common core was first presented to the American public.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/more-seattle-students-opt-out-of-new-common-core-tests/

Do education officials understand why the opt out movement is so strong?

Posted at: http://www.sfgate.com/…/Education-commissioner-Students-can…
In response to: "Education commissioner: Students can't opt out of testing"
Missing from this article is why parents are refusing to allow their children to be tested: the parents are not against assessment but are against excessive and inappropriate assessment. This is the reason the opt-out movement is so widespread. I wonder if those imposing penalties for opting out understand this.
S Krashen

Opt out is not "anti-testing"

Sent to Education Week, April 3, 2015

Contrary to "States Seek Guidance in Face of 'Opt Out' Push" (April 1), the Opt Out movement (http://unitedoptout.com/) is not "an anti-testing" movement. No education professionals and no parents are opposed to proper assessment. Rather, the opt-out movement opposes excessive and inappropriate testing. Students are now being tested more than any time in history, and the tests are based on unresearched, unreasonable standards. 

There is good reason why the Opt Out movement is so widespread.

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/04/01/states-seek-guidance-in-face-of-opt-out.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1-RM