Friday, December 13, 2013

The Russian literacy crisis: Putin's solution


Everybody thinks they have a literacy crisis. Putin calls for a special commission to support "literature." The common core in the US has called for more nonfiction. There is no evidence for either of these positions. Nobody mentions poverty and lack of access to books.  There is plenty of evidence for providing access to books (libraries).

Putin blames "creative class" for decline in reading standards.  Nov 22, 2013, Calvert Journal
At a meeting with writers, publishers and literary specialists yesterday, President Vladimir Putin lamented the decline in reading standards in Russia — and put the blame at the feet of the "so-called creative class", RIA Novosti reports. 
Speaking at the First Russian Literary Gathering, which was dedicated to the question of "How to return Literature, Reading, the Book and the Word to their high mission and purpose?", The president argued that not enough time was devoted to literature and reading skills in the school timetable. The school programme had become too overcomplicated because of the interference of the "creative class": "As for all these confusions and excess complexities, which often no one understands, they are a result of the fact that representatives of the so-called creative class have worked their way into the ministry of education and there they're making all this up."
As a result, Putin suggested, Russia had lost its place as the country that reads the most. He also expressed regret at the declining standards of Russian speech and announced the creation of a special government fund to support literature. 
The literary meeting was missing some famous faces. Prominent author Boris Akunin, famous for his Fandorin series of detective stories, refused to attend. Akunin wrote on his blog that it was Putin's presence that put him off:  "While there are political prisoners, I simply cannot be near the ruler, even just in the same room as him." 
  • Text: Jamie Rann


Thursday, December 5, 2013

Language Parents for Second Language Acquisition


Language Parents for Second Language Acquisition

Stephen Krashen

International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(3): 2 (2012)



Lonsdale (2006) presents an interesting discussion of an aspect of second language acquisition many of us are familiar with but has never, to my knowledge, been discussed in print, the concept of “language parents.”

A “language parent,” like an actual parent, is somebody who will engage you in conversation in the language you are acquiring but who will not try to be your teacher, will try to understand what you say “even though you are miles away from what a native speaker would usually be able to understand” (p. 178), is interested in you as a person, and “more often than not, the person will be quite talkative” (p. 179). In other words, a language parent is someone who will give you comprehensible input.

Theory predicts that language parents are extremely helpful: They provide comprehensible input that may be hard to find elsewhere, and well as “encouragement and support and understanding” (179).

We might also expect that language parents who are the most helpful for less advanced acquirers are those who only discuss a few topics of mutual interest, that is, who provide “narrow input” (Krashen, 1996, 2004; Cho, Ahn and Krashen, 2005), while more advanced acquirers (or those who are more tolerant of incomprehensible input) will profit from “parents” who like to talk about a wide range of topics.

My “parent” in Vienna in 1961-1962 (my landlady, the wonderful Frau Novak) told the same stories again and again, but they were great stories and I understand more each time I heard them, a familiar occurrence with narrow listening (Rodrigo and Krashen, 1996; Dupuy, 1999). Lonsdale and his “parent” in China, in contrast, “spent many hours talking to each other about every possible subject one could imagine” (p. 179).

A reasonable conjecture is that one person, one solid language parent, can supply the bridge that helps low level acquirers acquire enough competence to be able to interact with many native speakers.

References

Cho, KS., Ahn, KO, and Krashen, S. 2005. The effects of narrow reading of authentic texts on interest and reading ability in English as a foreign language. Reading Improvement 42,1: 58-63. 
Dupuy, B. C. 1999. Narrow listening: an alternative way to develop and enhance listening comprehension in students of French as a foreign language. System, 27, 351-361.

Krashen, S. 1996. The case for narrow listening. System 24: 97-100.

Krashen, S. 2004. The case for narrow reading. Language Magazine 3(5): 16-20.

Londsale, C. 2006. The Third Ear: You Can Learn Any Language. Hong Kong: Third Ear Books. 
Rodrigo, V. and Krashen, S. 1996. La audicion enfocada en el aula y fuera de ella. GRETA 4(2): 71- 75.


Poverty, not teacher preparation, holds American students back


Published in Education Week, January  4, 2014

Developing and requiring a new test for teacher-candidates is based on the belief that something is wrong with teacher preparation ("Performance-Based Test for Teachers Rolls Out," Dec. 4).
The evidence suggests the opposite is the case.

When we control for the effects of poverty, American students rank near the top of the world on international tests. Also, graduates of American schools go on to perform impressively in the real world: According to the 2013 Global Innovation Index, which is based partly on new patents and the publication of scientific and technical journal articles, the US economy ranks 5th in the world out of 142.

It is hard to conclude from these results that we have a problem in teacher education or teacher quality.

Stephen Krashen

article at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/12/04/13assess_ep.h33.html?tkn=XRYFSeS0Qu0nNWa2txmYvMpdQ3ME%2FxpV1lu3&cmp=clp-edweek

This letter published in Education Week: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/15/17letter-1.h33.html

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

The common core is NOT the answer to low PISA scores.

Sent to the San Francisco Chronicle, Dec 3, 2013

The media has learned nothing from the extensive research done on international test scores in the last decade ("U.S. Students Get Stuck in Middle of the Pack on OECD Test," December 3). Study after study shows that the strongest predictor of high scores on these tests is poverty, a conclusion that is backed by a number of other studies showing that students who live in poverty have poor diets, insufficent health care, and lack access to books, all of which contribute to low academic performance.  When researchers control for the effect of poverty, the US ranks near the top of the world.
In contrast, no studies show that increased testing, increased rigor, and a more controlled curriculum help school achievement.  The solution, in other words, is not the common core, which Susan Ohanian has described as  “a radical untried curriculum overhaul and … nonstop national testing.”   The solution is to protect our youngsters from the impact of poverty.
Stephen Krashen

" ...control for the effects of poverty": 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/).

"…students who live in poverty have poor diets, insuffient health care, and lack access to books, all of which contribute to low academic performance.":  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.

" …no studies show that increased testing, increased rigor, and a more controlled curriculum help school achievement."  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.
Nonstop testing: Krashen, S. 2012. How much testing? http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen-­‐ krashen-­‐how-­‐much-­‐testing/
 and: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Asian-Teenagers-Top-World-in-Tests-for-Math-5030518.php

Monday, November 25, 2013

EF English Proficiency Index not the way to measure a nation's English language proficiency

Index not a valid guide to English skills
Published November 16, South China Morning Post

I refer to the article by William Wang ("Hongkongers need to learn English from an early age", November 11). He makes the recommendation highlighted in your headline because of Hong Kong's ranking on the Education First (EF) English Proficiency Index.
Policy decisions about English education should not be based on this index. Countries with low scores should not despair and countries with high scores should not rejoice. I do not think the EF index is a valid measure of a country's English competence.
Half of a country's score on the index is based on a test given only to those enrolled in private English-language schools. It therefore only tests beginners and intermediates, and excludes those who speak English well, who have no need to take such a course. It also excludes those who cannot afford to take a private course.
The other half of a country's score is based on an internet exam that is freely open to anybody who wants to take it, which means it is limited to those with easy access to computers and the internet, and who are curious about their level of English.
This is not the way to measure a nation's English language proficiency.

Stephen Krashen, professor emeritus,
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, US

Rushing into high-tech testing

Sent to the Buffalo News, Nov. 25.

Buffalo educators are concerned about whether students are tech-savvy enough to take the new computerized tests, and whether districts will have up-to-date equipment ("Pencils out, keyboards in for future exams," Nov, 25). But only a few people are asking whether we should be rushing into high-tech testing.

Williamsville Superintendent Martzloff points out that the tests will be expensive. The cost of setting up online testing, replacement equipment regularly will indeed be enormous and will continue to escalate as new "progress" is made in technology.

Nobody has asked whether there is any evidence that high-tech testing will do any good. So far, there is no evidence that it will help anyone except the testing and computer companies. No small scale studies have even been planned, to my knowledge.

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/buffalo-public-schools/pencils-out-keyboards-in-for-future-state-exams-20131124


Thursday, November 21, 2013

Feds want to help schools by rushing to buy imperfect technology

The Feds have decided schools are bad and that the solution is spend billions on imperfect technology as fast as we can.

Stephen Krashen

In The National Education Technology Plan, released in 2010, the US Department of Education insists that we introduce massive technology into the schools immediately, because of the "the pressing need to transform American education ...",  even if this means doing it imperfectly: Repairs can be done later: "... we do not have the luxury of time: We must act now and commit to fine-tuning and midcourse corrections as we go."

These statements assume that (1) our schools are really really inadequate, and we must rush to fix them; (2) technology is the major part of the fix; and (3) imperfect technology is better than no technology.

None of these assumptions are supported by evidence. 


(1) There is no evidence that there is a crisis in American education. When researchers control for poverty, American students' international test scores rank near the top of the world. Also, the products of our educational system do very well: The U.S. economy is ranked as the fifth most innovative in the world out of 142, according to the 2013 Global Innovation Index, which is based in part on the availability of education, new patents and the publication of scientific and technical journal articles.

(2) There is no evidence that the kinds of technology involved will improve school achievement.  A major part of the new technology is a gigantic increase in testing. Research shows that increasing testing does not increase achievement, and there is no evidence that the kind of brave new tests our students will take under the common core will be any better than the kind we have now.

(3) Imperfect technology: Jumping in without proper preparation wastes our students' time and will cost more money in the long run (which may be exactly what the private sector wants; taxpayers pay the bill for the "corrections" while the .01% profit.) Studies on the spread of innovation show that very early first-wave adoption of innovations is not a good strategy. The best strategy is to be part of the second wave, waiting to see the problems in the first wave and apply after they are corrected. The DOE is insisting that American education be early adopters.

Sources:
 

Technology Plan: Transforming Education: Learning Powered by Technology. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.  http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 Quotes here are from the Executive Summary.
 

Control for effect of poverty: 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/).
 

Increase in testing: Krashen, S. 2012. How much testing? http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen- krashen-how-much-testing/ and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/
 

Increasing testing does not increase achievement: 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.

Innovation: Rogers, E. 2003. The Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press.