Is the study of Latin an English vocabulary enhancer?

Stephen Krashen  DRAFT

December, 2016, revised April 2017

There are excellent reasons for the study of Latin in schools, including the rich culture, literature,  and history of Rome,   as well as the opportunity to see the results of language change and borrowing, and the chance to study the litergical use of language.

But it is not clear that improving students' English vocabulary is a good reasons for studying Latin.  Studies done over the last century confirm that students who study Latin do better on tests of English vocabulary (1, 2).  The effect, however, may be swamped by another, far more efficient way of building vocabulary.

In every study of the impact of Latin, the tests of English vocabulary were given soon after Latin study ended, typically at the end of the academic year. There are no studies confirming the impact of Latin study in school on adult vocabulary later in life. In fact, there is reason to suspect that this impact may not exist for dedicated readers or be very weak.

There is strong evidence that self-selected reading for pleasure is a powerful predictor of adult vocabulary, no matter when it is done during the lifespan (up to age 42 that is; Sullivan and Brown  2014): Reading for pleasure, especially fiction, is a significant predictor of adult vocabulary size, and there is no critical age – more reading as an adult is strongly related to vocabulary size, controlling for earlier reading.

In other words, older readers who continue to read for pleasure and interest continue to increase their vocabularies. There are no studies I know of directly comparing the long-term effect of Latin study in school on vocabulary with the development of a reading habit.  (But see appendix 1.)

What needs to be investigated: Does Latin study in school have  a positive impact on adult vocabulary size independent of pleasure reading?  In other words, given two equally well-read adults, one who has studied Latin and one who has not not, will the former Latin student have a larger vocabulary?  My prediction is that the amount of reading will predict vocabulary size, but that Latin study will make no significant additional contribution.   

I am suggesting, in other words, that the power of reading alone is so strong that Latin study will make little difference.  This is, of course, only a prediction that needs to be confirmed by research, but if it is true, the argument that Latin is a vocabulary enhancer is only valid in the short run.

Appendix 1

Starch (1930) presents data that supports the prediction that the effect of Latin study wears off, but only compares high school juniors and college students, the sample is small, and no significance testing was done. Nevertheless, the trend is clear: University students have larger vocabulary test scores than high school students, and the "Latin advantage" is smaller for them (2% versus 4.5%).  In fact, university students with no Latin did better than high schools who had Latin.

level	n	Latin	percent
University	139	yes	60.9
University	50	no	58.9
HS junior	14	yes	54.7
HS junior	32	no	50.2

From Starch, 1930, table 61.

Bowker (1975), also discussed in footnote one, reported that high-school students with two years of Latin study outscored those without Latin study, but the difference was modest, only 6% on a 150 item test: On a subset of the test contained only Latin-derived words, the Latin student advantage was only 2%.

My hypothesis is that a reading habit will eventually wipe out any advantage for Latin study on English vocabulary.  This hypothesis also predicts that there will be less of a Latin advantage if students have developed a pleasure reading habit. These privledged private school students most likely had the advantage of a print-rich environment, and most likely many were dedicated pleasure readers, which explains the weak results for Latin study.

Notes.

1: The earliest studies I could find were Harris (1915) and Otis (1922). Some additional details about the studies:  Bassman and Ironsmith (1984) claim that Latin study resulted in "significantly greater gains in vocabulary than did the control students" (p. 41). But a close look at the data shows that the control students made no gain at all over the academic year, and the gain for the Latin students was about a normal year's growth (effect size = .31 on the Vocabulary Portion of Stanford Achievement Test).

In some studies, vocabulary tests contained only words of Latin origin (e.g.  Otis, 1922) and in some studies the list was not restricted, but Latin origin  words make up about half of English vocabulary (Fromchuck, 1984; Barber, 1985). Strangely, the Latin advantage for Bowker's subjects, high school students from a private school, was larger for a test containing both Latin origin and non-Latin origin words than for only the Latin origin subset. Latin students had only a 2% advantage over non-Latin students on the subset.

2. Could the Latin advantage be due to pre-existing differences between those who take Latin and those who do not?  If this were the case, we would expect that  those taking Latin as an elective would score better on English vocabulary tests than those who did not on tests given before Latin instruction begins.. There is evidence that this is true (Carr, 1921; Wilcox, 1917), but it was also the case that the gap between the groups increased with Latin study (Carr, 1921; Wilcox, 1917). 

Also, when students are matched for initial competence, some researchers report that Latin still has a positive effect on vocabulary test scores (Carr, 1919;  Perkins, 1914, who matched for English and foreign language grades; Paroughian, 1942, matched for IQ).

In contrast, Douglass and Kittelson (1935) matched students for SES, years of foreign language study, and English grades, and reported that Latin made only a small, but positive difference on an English vocabulary test, and Pond (1938), who also matched students on a variety of factors, reported similar results.

In summary, Latin students could indeed have an initial advantage, but Latin study still appears to have a positive effect on scores of English vocabulary tests.

3: It has been argued that the Latin advantage comes from knowledge of Latin roots and affixes. But the effect of context on comprehension (clues to meaning outside the word) may be more powerful than knowledge of  roots and suffixes (clues to meaning inside the word).

Even if knowledge of roots and affixes are of significant help to young readers, it is likely that well-read adults who have never studied Latin will have acquired much of  this knowledge through reading.

Test yourself: If you have never studied Latin, how many of these roots and suffixes do you know, without having studied them formally?  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0907036.html

My guess is that you have acquired the meaning of least half of them.

References.

Bassman, M. and Ironsmith, M. 1984. An experimental FLES program in Latin. ADFL Bulletin 14, 39-41

Barber, G. 1986.  Latin as a practical study. The Classical Journal 81, 158-60.

Bowker, R. 1975. English vocabulary comparison of Latin and non-Latin students.  Technical Report 831 Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation, Human Engineering 

 

W. L. Carr, W. L. 1919. English vocabulary of high school freshmen. Classical Journal 15:20-29.

Douglass, H. and Kittelson, C. 1935. The transfer of training in high school Latin to English grammar, spelling, and vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Education 4(1): 26-33

Fromchuck, A. 1984. The measurable benefits of teaching English through Latin in elementary School. Classical World 78: 25-29.

Harris, J. 1915. A study in the relation of Latin to English composition. School and Society 2: 251-52.

Otis, A. 1922. The relation of Latin to the study of English vocabulary and composition.  School Review 30: 45-50.

Parounagian, M. 1942. The Portland derivatives test. Classical Outlook, 19: 84-95.

Perkins, A, 1914, Latin as a vocational study in the commercial course. Classical Journal 10: 716.

Pond F. 1938. Influence of the study of Latin on word knowledge. The School Review, 46: 611-618

Starch, D. 1915. Some experimental data on the value of studying foreign languages. School Review 23: 697-703.

Starch, D. 1923. Educational Psychology. New York: MacMillan.

Sullivan, A. & Brown, M. (2014). Vocabulary from Adolescence to Middle Age.
 London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London.

Wilcox, M. 1917. Does the study of high-school Latin improve high-school English? School and Society, 6 (132): 58-60.

Don't trust Ed Trust when they talk about overoming povery

Don't trust Ed Trust. Substance 27 (6): 3. 2002.

Stephen Krashen
The powerful impact of poverty on literacy development has been well documented. Children of poverty, in addition to the obvious problems they face, have very little access to reading material ; they have fewer books in the home, inferior public libraries, inferior school libraries,and inferior classroom libraries, (e.g. Duke, 2000; Neuman and Celano, 2001). This means, of course, that they have fewer opportunities to read, and therefore make less progress in developing literacy.
The recent report from Educational Trust West (Ali and Jerald, 2001) appears, at first glance, to show that a significant number of children in poverty have overcome this problem. The report claimed to find 3,592 schools in the US that were "high- performing-high poverty" schools. In California alone, there were 355 high- performing-high poverty school. This result was considered sufficient to "dispel the myth" about the relationship between poverty and educational achievement, and was followed by newspaper articles proclaiming that these high-scoring schools can "offer a lesson" (New York Times, December 17, 2001; Los Angeles Daily News, December 16, 2001).
The Ed Trust Report deserves another look. It has serious flaws, and, in fact, shows exactly the opposite of what it says it shows.
Very few schools qualify. The number of schools classified as high-poverty high- scoring represents about 4% of the nation and state school population. Moreover, a closer look shrinks even this number to considerably. In fact, it shrinks it to nearly zero.
It is easy to qualify as high-scoring. A high-performing school was defined as one in which students in ANY grade scored in the upper third of the schools in its own state in EITHER math or reading. Thus, a good performance by one grade level (in some schools only one classroom) on one test can qualify a school as "high performing."
Consider the case of California. Of the 355 "high-scoring" schools in California, only 134 were high-scoring in reading. There are 8761 schools in California. This means that about 1.5% qualify as "high-flying schools." Of these 134, 83 managed to qualify because of children in only one grade level! This could be due to the performance of a few students in one classroom, perhaps even those from higher- income families (see below). We are now down to 51 schools, about half of one percent.

Scores can be based on students NOT considered high poverty. Ed Trust may claim that a grade in a high poverty school reached the upper 1/3, but not all the children at that grade level were high poverty. Consider the case of fourth graders at the Language Academy, a (magnet) school in San Diego. Academy fourth graders scored in the upper 1/3 of the state in reading, averaging 61. But the subset of economically disadvantaged children (n = 27) scored 42, while the advantaged children (n = 36) averaged 73. Fourth graders at Language Academy were classified as high scoring high poverty not because of the scores of its disadvantaged children but because of the scores of its advantaged children. Ed Trust does not present this kind of a breakdown of scores.
Ed Trust used a low standard for classification as "high poverty." A high- poverty school was defined as one in which at least 50% of the students were from low-income families. The California average is 46%.
The report has numerous inaccuracies. For California, several schools listed as high-poverty were not, and in many cases grade levels Ed Trust said were high scoring were not. The alternative analysis below presents details, as well as confirming that the number of "high-poverty high-scoring schools" is very very small.
An alternative analysis
If we define truly exceptional schools as those with at least three grade levels scoring in the upper one-third in reading, we are down to 20 schools in California. Let's take a closer look at the 20: In two cases, the schools did not qualify as high- poverty, even according to the very modest standard set by Ed Trust.1 For the other 18, a look at SAT9 scores shows that only four of the schools actually had all three classes in the upper one-third in reading, based on California's standards, and none qualified as a high-scoring school using national standards. Of the four that qualified in California, one was a magnet school. The high-scoring classes in the three other schools had a total of 391 children. In one, the Steinbeck school, high scorers in two grades (3 and 6) scored much lower on the language portion of the SAT9 (36 and 30).2

Poverty has a powerful effect

The Ed Trust report is actually a stunning confirmation of the overwhelming effect of poverty. Even with a very loose definition of high performance, few schools perform in the upper one-third and a careful look at one state reveals that even fewer qualify. California has about five million children in school. Ed Trust claimed that about 230,000 were in high-poverty high-scoring schools for reading. According to this analysis, the real figure is less than 400. It is extremely difficult to "defy the odds." Poverty has a powerful effect on educational attainment.
Notes

1. The Raoul Wallenberg school reported only 41.5% and Richmond only 36.4% of their students on free or reduced price lunch. Wheatland Union had 50.5% and Pescadero had 50.8% on free and reduced lunch. These were included as "high-poverty" schools.
   
2. It is a lot easier to place in the upper 1/3 in California than in the most other states; California ranks at the bottom in reading among states in the USA. State averages are really low in grade 2 (30th percentile), 9 (33rd), 10 (33rd) and 11 (37th). The fifth, sixth and eighth grade CA average is 43. All are under the national average of 50.
   Even using this lower standard, only four schools in California had three grade levels that actually scored in the upper 1/3 for reading: Borrego Springs (81 children), Bravo Magnet (about 1000 children), Steinbeck (193 children) and Kernville (117). Three out of four grades nominated by Ed Trust actually qualified at Steinbeck and Kernville. For Kernville, grades 4, 5 and 6 met the standard, but there were few disadvantaged children in grade 5.
   Ten of the 18 schools had no grade levels meeting the California standard for the upper 1/3: Costano, Cottonwood, Florence, Happy Camp High, Hayfork High, Kernville, Muir, Surprise Valley, Surprise Valley High, Van Duzen.
   In five schools, results were mixed: At Clairemont, grades 9 and 10 qualified, but grade 11 did not. For the Language Academy, grades 3 and 4 qualified, but not the subset of disadvantaged children. Grade 7 did not. For Pescadero, two of the three grades did not qualify. Grade 5 did, but not the subset of disadvantaged children. For Perry: grade 3 qualified but not grades 5 and 6. At Wheatland, grade 9 qualified, but not the subset of disadvantaged children. Grade 10 qualified but grade 11 did not.
   (California scores were calculated from mean scores (percentile ranks) provided by the State of California Department of Education website, and converting to NCE's.)
   Here are SAT9 scores for those grades in "high-poverty" schools categorized as achieving in the upper 1/3.
   

1) Borrego Springs; grade 9 = 60; grade 10 = 44; grade 11 = 46; only nine disadvantaged

students were tested in grade 9
2) Bravo Magnet: grade 9 = 43 (493); grade 10 = 43 (389); grade 11 = 36 (400); for disadvantaged students only, grade 9 = 44 (434); grade 10= 43 (314); grade 11 = 34 (320).
3) Clairemont; grade 9 = 43 (493); grade 43 (389) ;grade 11 = 36 (400). For disadvantaged students, grade 9 = 44 (434); grade 10 = 43 (314); grade 11 = 34 (320).
4) Costano; grade 3 = 60 (37); grade 4 = 41 (72); grade 7 = 39 (49); for disadvantaged children only, grade 3 = 63 (40); grade 4 = 39 (41); grade 7 = 30 (34). Note that this school reported more disadvantaged children tested than total children tested for grade 3.
5) Cottonwood; grade 3 = 42 (28); grade 5 = 33 (24); grade 7 = 41 (19); for disadvantaged children only, grade 3 = 23 (19); grade 5 = 43 (15); grade 7, no score reported, 10 tested.
6) Florence; grade 3 = 39 (26); grade 4 = 30 (23), grade 5 = 31 (23), grade 6 = 39 (13); for disadvantaged only, grade 3 = 33 (16); grade 4 = 79 (21); grade 5 = 33 (13); grade 6 = 61 (12). Note that the grade 4 and grade 6 scores are mathematically impossible.
7) Happy Camp High; grade 9 = 37 (24); grade 10 = 34 (33); grade 11 = 33 (19). All students were disadvantaged.
8) Hayfork High; grade 9 = 23 (43 students tested); grade 10 = 41 (36 tested); grade 11 = 43 (33 tested); for disadvantaged students only; grade 9 = 30 (23); grade 10 = 22 (23); grade 11 = 24 (32)
9) Kernville; grade 3 = 37 (28 students tested); grade 4 = 70 (31 tested); grade 5 = 73 (23); grade 6 = 63 (30 tested); for disadvantaged students only, grade 3 = 23 (13 tested); grade 4 = 66 (13 tested); grade 5 = no score given, 10 tested; grade 6 = 60 (16)
10) Language Academy (San Diego): grade 3 = 62 (34); grade 4 = 61 (63); grade 7 = 43 (21); for disadvantaged children only: grade 3 = 34 (44); grade 4 = 42 (27); grade 7 = 42 (13) 11) Muir; grade 4 = 43 (26); grade 8 = 43 (34); grade 11, not reported, only ten students tested. For disadvantaged children only, grade 4 = 37 (130; grade 8 = 41 (23); no scores reported for grade 11, only 3 children tested.
12) Pescadero: This school has 50.8% disadvantaged children. grade 3 = 20 (39 students tested); grade 4 = 37 (28 tested); grade 5 = 60 (21 tested); disadvantaged only, grade 3 = no scores given, 9 tested; grade 4 = no scores given, 3 tested; grade 5 = 12 (23 tested).
13) Perry: grade 3 = 68 (31); grade 4 = 39 (43); grade 5 = 43 (43); grade 6 = 43 (32); for disadvantage children only, grade 3 = 74 (33), grade 4 = 60 (33); grade 5 = 43 (29); grade 6 = 30 (31).
14) Steinbeck; grade 3 = 69 (34), grade 4 = 61 (60); grade 5 = 32 (30), grade 6 = 67 (63). All children were disadvantaged.
15) Surprise Valley; grade 4 = 38 (14); grade 7 = 39 (16), grade 8 = 33 (16). No scores reported for disadvantaged children. Only 9 tested in grade 4, 3 tested in grade 7, 10 tested in grade 8.
16) Surprise Valley High School; grade 9 = 37 (13); grade 10 = 30 (14), no scores reported for grade 11, only 10 students tested. No scores reported for disadvantaged students; grade 9 had 7, grade 10 had 6 and grade 11 had 2.
17) Van Duzen; grade 4 = 44 (13); grade 5 = 38 (17); grade 8 = 30 (11); no scores reported for disadvantage children. Ten tested in grades 4,5 and 3 in grade 8.
18) Wheatland Union High School; grade 9 = 44 (179); grade 10 = 40 (133); grade 11 = 42 (147); for disadvantaged children, grade 9 = 33 (61); grade 10 = 40 (32); grade 11 = 36 (36)
Acknowledgment: My thanks to Gerald Coles for numerous insights and suggestions.

References

Ali, R. and Jerald, C. 2001. Dispelling the Myth in California: Preliminary Findings from a State and Nationwide Analysis of "High-Flying" Schools. The Education Trust - West.
Neuman, S. and Celano, D. 2001. Access to print in low-income and middle- income communities. Reading Research Quarterly 36(1): 8-26.
Duke, N. 2000. For the rich it's richer: Print experiences and environments offered to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status first-grade classrooms.American Educational Research Journal 37(2): 441-478.
Los Angeles Daily News. 2001. No more excuses. Dec. 16, 2001
New York Times. 2001. School defies the odds and offers a lesson. Dec. 17, 2001

The reason for “lousy” performance on international tests: Poverty.

Published in the Miami Herald, Dec. 15, 2016, as "Kids in Poverty"

Does Andres Oppenheimer want to know why "Latin America, U.S. do lousy on student math tests" (Dec. 8)? It's not because of the family culture or lack of commitment: Research consistently concludes that the real problem is poverty.

High poverty means food deprivation, lack of health care, and lack of access to reading material, all of which have to shown to have devastating effects on school performance and test scores.

Until we eliminate poverty, let's invest in food programs, school nurses, and libraries and at least protect children from some of the effects of poverty.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Original article: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article119670753.html
Published letter:  http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article120972928.html

Some sources on the effect of poverty on on test performance (not included in published letter)
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. Berliner, D. 2011. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. Tienken, C. 2010. Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa Delta Phi Record 47 (1): 14-17. 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/). 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. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential,  Krashen, S. 1997. Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership  55(4): 18-22.

How California can save $550 million a year

Sent to the Ventura County Star, Dec 7, 2016
Hat-tip: Mary Mayhew
The California High School Exit Exam (CAHEE), suspended for two years, will be re-instated in 2018. Columnist Tom Elias ("Don't dump high school exit exam," Dec. 4) wants it back. Superintendent Tom Torlakson does not. The research clearly supports Superintendent Torlakson.
A thorough review of research on the impact of high school exist exams done by researchers at the University of Texas in 2010 concluded that state exit exams do not provide short-benefits, such as increased learning, or long-term benefits, such as increased college attendance or higher employment. An earlier review done by the Center on Educational Policy in Washington DC found "no evidence that exit exams increase student learning," as measured by standardized tests/
In 2011, analyst Jo Ann Rupert Behm wrote that "…Californians easily shell-out over $550 million a year to administer, defend, tutor, and teach to the CAHSEE beginning in 7 th grade."
I am sure we can find better ways of spending this money.
Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus, University of Southern California

Original article: Elias, T. Don't dump high school exit exam. Ventura County Star, December 4, 2016
Reviews of research: Holme, J., Richards, M., Jimerson, J., and Cohen, R. 2010. Assessing the effects of high school exit examinations. Review of Educational Research 80 (4): 476-526; Chudowsky, N., Kober, N., Gayler, K. and Hamilton, M. 2002.  State High School Exit Exams: A Baseline Report. Washington DC: Center on Educational Policty.
$550 million: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/04/test_expenditures_climb_in_cal.html

"Failing" schools, poverty and libraries

S.Krashen: www. sdkrashen.com; twitter = skrashen; skrashen.blogspot.com

Presentation at Budget, Facilities and Audit Committee, Board of Education, LAUSD 

December 6, 2016

"Failing" schools, poverty, and libraries: "We are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished.” (Martin Luther King, 1967) Why Dr. King was right:

1. Evidence for failure? Scores on international tests.

But: Raw scores not horrible – when poverty controlled statistically, US scores near top of the world.

Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13;Berliner, D. 2011. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changingschools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. Tienken, C. 2010. Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa Delta Phi Record 47 (1): 14-17. 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/).

2. The US has a very high percentage of children living in poverty: 21%. Highest of all industrialized countries.  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. Inner city (LAUSD) = 80% Finland = 4%.
- The problem is poverty. NOT: teaching, schools of ed, unions, parents, lack of national standards/tests

http://home.lausd.net/apps/news/article/344072

3. Devastating effects of poverty on school achievement (Berliner, 2009)

a. Food deprivation/nutrition


b. Lack of health care (eg school nurses in high and low poverty schools)

c. Lack of access to books (1) home; (2)  school: classroom libraries, school libraries; (3)  community: public libraries, bookstores

Beverly Hills/Watts study: (Smith, Constantino & Krashen)
Available books in the home: BH = 200; Watts = .4; Classroom libraries: BH = 400; Watts = 5 Philadelphia study (Neuman & Celano): middle-class children "deluged" with books, high poverty have difficulty getting any access

Part of the cure: libraries and librarians.

THE PIRLS Study: 4th graders in 40 countries, tested in their own language

Krashen, Lee and McQuillan (2012)

Multiple Regression Analysis: predictors of achievement PIRLS 2006 reading test

Predictor	Beta	P
SES	0.41	0.005
independent reading	0.16	0.143
library: 500 books	0.35	0.005
Instruction	-0.19	0.085

r2 = .61

Children of poverty: Library is their only source of books.

Better access to public libraries > more recreational reading

Children get many of their books for recreational reading from libraries.

Children who live in low-income neighborhoods have fewer books at home, less access to books at school, access to fewer libraries that have what they want to read.

Libraries don’t always have what children like to read; children from high-income families can find these books elsewhere but children of poverty cannot.

Impact of school librarian: Kachel and Lance, http://www.slj.com/2013/03/research/librarian-required-a-new-study-shows-that-a-full-time-school-librarian-makes-a-critical-difference-in-boosting-student-achievement/

Los Angeles: 68th in the US out of 77 cities in library quality (America's Most Literate Cities, 2014). CA captures 7 of bottom ten places.

Rankings are based on
1. Number of branch libraries per 10,000 library service population
2. Volumes held in the library per capita of library service population
3. Number of circulations per capita of library service population
4. Number of library professional staff per 10,000 library service population
5. Number of media specialists per 10,000 students service population

"These numbers were then divided by the city population in order to calculate ratios of library services and resources available to the population."

School libraries: LAUSD ratio of librarians to students: 1 to 7000; US 1 to 1000

The power of reading:  Self-selected reading > the source of our reading ability, writing ability (writing style), vocabulary, spelling, grammar).

Sustained silent reading

The Fiji Island study (RRQ, 1983): Elley & Mangubhai: gains in RC

Grade	ALM	SSR	Big Books
4	6.5	15	15
5	2.5	9	15

year 2: larger differences, readers better in writing, listening and grammar

Case histories: Elizabeth Murray (Breaking Night) & her dad's unusual habit

Multivariate studies: Beniko Mason: 1.0 = .6

Source of knowledge: literature, history, science, practical matters (Stanovich)

Simonton (1988) "omnivorous reading in childhood and adolescence correlates positively with ultimate adult success" (p. 11). 

> career path: Michael Faraday, Thomas Edison, Abraham Lincoln

ELLs: problem is academic language/poverty/access to books

Dedicated readers – never long term ELL (prediction), prepared for more "academic" reading