[PEN-L:30697] Re: War Against Literacy=$$$$

[Charles Jannuzi <b_rieux@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>  The Bushite teach-to-the-test Bushwa is a
> disaster (as is the whole "Leave
> No Child Behind" nonsense, which seems aimed at
> helping the private
> schools), but here's a good word for phonics:
> different children have
> different "learning styles," some learning to
> read better with phonics and
> others with other methods. The problem with
> phonics is _not_ really about
> phonics _per se_. Rather, it's about forcing
> all kids into the same mold.
> Here in California, the school system did the
> same thing with a different
> teaching method ("whole language") that may or
> may not have benefitted
> McGraw-Hill. We need more pluralism in teaching
> techniques, more
> individual-oriented approaches.
>
> BTW, I wonder if BUSINESSWEEK and other
> McGraw-owned media outlets reported
> on this?
> Jim

BW is a McGraw Hill mouthpiece on issues like
this (it's also so pro-US on all issues, it makes
the Economist seem like a model of fairness).

California was the center of the conflict once
Florida and Texas were bought out. Yes indeed,
McGraw Hill through its Open Court brand was the
main beneficiary of changes made in California.
Whole Language could never be encompassed by the
publishers, hence their need to switch to
phonics. See Krashen on this below.

I've been reading quite a few interesting
articles on the topic. NYT, as usual, is
laughable (that's always interesting), but here
is the better stuff:

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0206kra.htm

Whole Language and the Great Plummet of 1987-92:
An Urban Legend from California

There is compelling evidence that California's
low reading scores are related to California's
impoverished print environment, not to the
introduction of the whole-language approach to
literacy, Mr. Krashen points out.

By Stephen Krashen



THERE ARE a number of ways to define an urban
legend. Here's one from the Urban Legends
Research Centre: "An Urban Legend is usually a
(good/captivating/titillating/engrossing/incredible/worrying)
story that has had a wide audience, is circulated
spontaneously, has been told in several forms,
and which many have chosen to believe (whether
actively or passively) despite the lack of actual
evidence to substantiate the story."1

I wish to add another urban legend to those that
already exist, a legend that I believe ranks with
the legend of the alligators living in the sewers
of New York City.2 I will refer to it as the
"Plummet Legend." It goes like this. After whole
language was introduced in California in 1987,
test scores "plummeted" to the point where
California's fourth-graders were last in the
country in 1992. It makes a good story, if we can
judge by the number of times it has been
repeated. But this sudden plummet never happened.
It is an urban legend, a captivating and
worrisome story that has been told in several
forms and that many people have chosen to believe
despite the lack of actual evidence.

The Plummet Legend has had serious consequences.
It has led to the discrediting of the
whole-language approach to literacy and has
nurtured a strong movement promoting a
"skill-building" approach.3 I will try to show
here both that the evidence does not support this
legend and that the legend is inconsistent with
the results of studies of literacy development.

Did Test Scores Plummet in California?

Here is a more complete version of the Plummet
Legend. In 1987 a group of whole-language
advocates took over the California Language Arts
Framework Committee and brought in whole
language. Phonics instruction and other forms of
direct teaching were banned, and language scores
plummeted to the point where California's
fourth-graders scored last in the country in
reading in 1992. California is now recovering
from this damage, thanks to a rational, sensible
phonics-based approach to reading.

This is not what happened. I served on the
California Language Arts Framework Committee in
1987. Phonics teaching was not banned. We simply
proposed that language arts should be
"literature-based." This is hardly controversial.
In fact, I regarded it as part of the definition
of language arts.

Did teachers change their ways in California?
Nobody really knows. There have been no empirical
studies comparing methodology in language arts
teaching before and after the 1987 committee met.

Did test scores decline? It is certainly true
that California fourth-graders scored last in the
country in the fourth-grade National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading in
1992. But this was the first time NAEP scores had
been presented by state. It was assumed that
there had been a decline, but there was no
evidence that this was so, for no comparison with
earlier test scores was made. Jeff McQuillan
examined CAP (California Achievement Program)
reading comprehension scores from 1984 to 1990,
which I present in Table 1. There is no clear
pattern of increases or decreases during these
years, which leads to the conclusion that
California's reading problem existed well before
"whole language" was introduced in 1987. There
was no Great Plummet of 1987-92.4

TABLE 1.
CAP Scores in California, 1984-90
Grade 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
3 268 274 280 282 282 277 275
6 249 253 260 260 265 262 262
8 250 240 243 247 252 256 257
12 236 241 240 246 250 248 251

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Jeff McQuillan, The Literacy Crisis:
False Claims and Real Solutions (Portsmouth,
N.H.: Heinemann, 1998).


McQuillan also provides a convincing explanation
for the low scores. There is strong evidence that
California's poor performance is related to its
print-poor environment. California ranks last in
the country in the quality of its school
libraries and ranks near the bottom in the
quality of its public libraries. In addition,
many of its children have very little reading
material at home. California ranked ninth in the
country in the percentage of children between the
ages of 5 and 17 who lived in poverty in 1995,
and it ranked near the bottom in the percentage
of homes with more than 25 books.5

McQuillan's analysis was based on school library
data published in 1990 and public library data
published in 1995. There has been little change
in California since that time.

A study published in 1990 reported that
California's school libraries had 13 books per
child; the national average was 18 books per
child.6 In 2001, California elementary schools
had only 12 books per child. Although some of
this decline was due to the pruning of old books,
there is no sign of improvement.7

The same 1990 study reported 4,595 students per
school librarian in California. The national
ratio was 900 to 1.8 In 1998 California had 4,673
students per school librarian.9
California's public libraries are not impressive.
According to data published in 1997, California's
public libraries had 1.9 volumes per capita. The
national average was 2.8. Only three states were
worse. California's public libraries circulate
4.9 books per capita, per year. The national
average is 6.6. Only 10 states are lower.10
California now ranks in the bottom eight among
states in terms of percentage of children between
the ages of 5 and 17 who live in poverty.11
What's more, print-access variables are strongly
correlated with NAEP reading scores. McQuillan
reported a correlation of .85 between measures of
print access (books and other forms of print
available in the home, school, and community) and
1994 NAEP scores.12 Controlling for poverty, the
correlation remained high (r=.63).13 California's
problem is not whole language but a lack of
reading material.

Independent research supports McQuillan's
analysis. There is excellent evidence that
children with more access to books read more and
that children who read more make superior gains
in literacy development.

Access Leads to Reading

There is a great deal of evidence showing that
children with more access to books read more.
Children with more books in the home read more.14
Barbara Heyns reported that children who live
close to public libraries read more than those
who live far away.15 Leslie Morrow and Carol
Weinstein found that installing well-designed
library corners in kindergartens resulted in more
use of books by the children during intervals of
free play.16 In a study of high school libraries,
Rachel Houle and Claude Montmarquette reported
that students take more books out of school
libraries that have more books and that stay open
longer.17 McQuillan and Julie Au reported that
high school students did more reading when their
teachers took them to the school library more
often on planned library visits.18

Reading Leads to Literacy Development

Until recently, it was considered obvious that
actual reading helps readers get better and helps
them improve their vocabulary, grammar, spelling,
and writing. The U.S. government disagrees. The
National Reading Panel (NRP) concluded that there
is insufficient research to support the
hypothesis that reading itself is beneficial and
concluded that we should concentrate our efforts
on phonemic awareness training, intensive
phonics, and having children read aloud so that
their errors can be corrected.19

The NRP overlooked a tremendous amount of
research. The case for recreational reading is
overwhelming. It consists of many case histories
in which it is clear that reading was the
causative factor in helping individuals -- such
as Richard Wright, Malcolm X, and Ben Carson --
increase their level of literacy development.20
It includes studies in which strong and
consistent correlations are found between the
amount of reading done and gains in reading
development.21 It includes experiments in which
readers show modest but reliable gains in
vocabulary and spelling knowledge after only one
or two exposures to an unfamiliar word in a
meaningful context.22

The case for recreational reading also includes
studies of sustained silent reading. I reviewed
the research on sustained silent reading and
concluded that it works. In 51 out of 54
comparisons, students who read for pleasure
gained as much as or more than comparison
students on tests of reading comprehension. In
addition, programs that lasted longer were more
effective. For programs lasting one academic year
or longer, those in sustained silent reading
classes outperformed comparison students in eight
out of 10 comparisons, and in two other cases
there was no difference. The NRP report included
only controlled studies of sustained silent
reading, included no long-term programs,
contained only a dozen comparisons, and
misinterpreted and misreported some of the
studies that it did include.23

In an earlier publication I presented a narrative
review of studies that claimed to compare the
efficacy of a whole-language approach and a
"skills" approach to the teaching of reading. I
concluded that, when whole language was defined
correctly -- that is, as including a great deal
of real reading -- students in these classes
performed as well as or better than children in
skills classes on tests of reading comprehension,
were equivalent to children in skills-based
classes on tests of "skills" (e.g., reading
nonsense words), had more positive attitudes
toward reading, and read more on their own.24

Once again, the federal government thinks
otherwise. The NRP concluded that skills-based
methods were superior to whole-language methods
(d=.31).25 In my reanalysis, I considered
performance on tests of reading comprehension,
and I also considered the amount of reading done.
I found an overall advantage for whole language
(d=.17). For the four studies in which it was
clear that one group did more real reading, the
advantage for the readers was substantial
(d=.70).26

Better Libraries Lead to Better Reading

If more access to books results in more reading
and more reading results in more literacy
development, it follows that more access to books
will result in more literacy development, and
research confirms that this is the case. A
particularly important aspect of this research
deals with the impact of libraries. Research on
the impact of libraries over the last decade has
shown that better school libraries -- those with
more books and better staffing -- are associated
with greater literacy development.

The seminal study in this area was done by Keith
Curry Lance and his associates, who found that
school libraries in Colorado with better staffing
and better collections had higher reading scores,
even when factors such as poverty and
availability of computers were controlled.27
These results were confirmed by other studies
that showed that states with better school and
public libraries earned higher scores on the NAEP
fourth-grade reading examination.28 In addition,
Warwick Elley reported a positive association in
32 different countries between the quality of a
school's library and the reading achievement of
students.29 The Colorado results have been
replicated in several other states, by Lance
himself as well as by other scholars.30

The Role of Phonics

The conclusions reached here do not exclude a
role for the direct teaching of phonics. Frank
Smith has argued that some conscious knowledge of
sound/spelling correspondences can help make
texts comprehensible. However, there are severe
limits on how much phonics can be taught
directly: the rules are complex and have numerous
exceptions. Smith argues that most of our
knowledge of phonics is the result of reading,
not the cause.31 Smith's view is nearly identical
to the view presented in Becoming a Nation of
Readers, often cited as supporting heavy, early
phonics:

Phonics instruction should aim to teach only the
most important and regular letter-to-sound
relationships . . . once the basic relationships
have been taught, the best way to get children to
refine and extend their knowledge of letter-sound
correspondences is through repeated opportunities
to read. If this position is correct, then much
phonics instruction is overly subtle and probably
unproductive.32

What Does a Low NAEP Score Mean?

Recall that it was California fourth-graders' low
scores on the NAEP examination that stimulated
the movement toward heavy phonics-based
instruction. It is impossible to know for sure if
a low score on the NAEP means that a child cannot
read or lacks knowledge of important
sound/spelling correspondences. In fact, I
suspect that a substantial number of children who
received low scores on the NAEP exam can read
reasonably well. The NAEP reading comprehension
examination is not just a test of literacy; it is
also a test of literature. A glance at the
evaluation criteria reveals that readers have to
be able to interpret passages the way an
"educated" person would. It is quite possible to
understand a passage perfectly well but have a
nonstandard (or very creative) interpretation or
way of answering questions.33

An example of the scoring criteria for the 1992
NAEP supports this possibility. In a discussion
of the "short constructed response" items of the
NAEP, a sample passage was presented that dealt
with Amanda Clement, the first paid woman umpire
in baseball. Fourth-graders were asked, "If she
were alive today, what question would you like to
ask Mandy about her career? Explain why the
answer to your question would be important to
know." Here are two answers that were considered
"unacceptable":

"How old are you? Can I have a picture of you."

"Did you real like basket ball did you have any
friends or fans. Was you ever at any basketball
games? The reason I would ask these questions is
because I like basket, ball to. Was you ever a
cherleader? What color is your hair because if
she ever got lost or anything you or people would
have to (know) what color here hair is."

The best answers, according to the authors of the
NAEP report, indicated that "the student has
considered the more complex social or personal
issues suggested by the passage."34 I am not
arguing that the unacceptable examples presented
here show high levels of literacy achievement.
They don't. But it is clear to me that the
writers were not completely illiterate; they have
obviously acquired basic sound/spelling
correspondences. It should also be noted that 17%
of California fourth-graders wrote "unacceptable"
answers to this question and 6% did not write
anything. This means that 77% wrote answers that
were considered to be of higher quality than
these two.35

Postscript: What Happened After 1992?

What has happened to California's NAEP scores
since 1992? Now that a skills-oriented approach
that relies on a heavy dose of phonics is being
aggressively pushed by the state government, have
NAEP scores risen? Not so far. California's
fourth-graders scored 202 on the NAEP reading
exam in 1992; 197 in 1994; and 202 in 1998.
(National norms for these years were 215, 212,
and 215 respectively).36



So the Great Plummet of 1987-92 never happened.
California's reading scores were low well before
the California Language Arts Framework Committee
met in 1987. Moreover, there is compelling
evidence that the low scores are related to
California's impoverished print environment.
There is also strong and consistent evidence that
the availability of reading material is related
to how much children read and that how much
children read is related to how well they read. A
close look at the evidence suggests that the
skills-and-testing hysteria that has gripped
California and other states has been unnecessary.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Urban Legends Research Centre,
www.ulrc.com.au.

2 Other urban legends include: Humphrey Bogart
was the original Gerber baby in the baby-food
ads; the FBI monitors public libraries and notes
who is reading "subversive" books; and, my own
favorite, if the entire population of China
jumped up at the same time, the U.S. would be
swamped by a tidal wave. None of these are true.

3. The more recent skill-building approaches to
literacy have been labeled "balanced" approaches,
balancing reading for meaning and skills.
However, Gerald Coles, in Reading Unmentionables:
Damaging Reading Instruction While Seeming to Fix
It (Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, in press),
points out that "a close look reveals that the
comprehension end of the seesaw remains close to
the ground for a long time." The approach is
essentially skill-building, with some real
reading used as a means of practicing skills. For
evidence, see Every Child a Reader (Sacramento:
California Department of Education, 1995), the
state of California's report of its Reading Task
Force, which contains very little mention of real
reading but gives birth-to-grave (actually K-8)
time lines for phonics instruction and the
teaching of other skills.

4. Jeff McQuillan, The Literacy Crisis: False
Claims and Real Solutions (Portsmouth, N.H.:
Heinemann, 1998).

5. Ibid., p. 83.

6. Howard D. White, "School Library Collections
and Services: Ranking the States," School Library
Media Quarterly, vol. 19, 1990, pp. 13-26.

7. For verification of this claim, readers are
invited to visit
www.cde.ca.gov/library/libstats.html.

8. White, op. cit.

9. www.cde.ca.gov/library/libstats.html

10. Digest of Educational Statistics (Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics,
2001), Table 422.

11. Ibid., Table 20.

12. McQuillan, p. 77.

13. Poverty has profound effects on literacy
development. This is consistent with the claim,
discussed below, that access leads to more
reading and that more reading leads to better
literacy development; children of poverty have
far less access to books than more privileged
children do (see Susan B. Neuman and Donna
Celano, "Access to Print in Low-Income and
Middle-Income Communities," Reading Research
Quarterly, vol. 36, 2001, pp. 8-26). McQuillan's
finding that literacy development is related to
access even when proverty is controlled shows
that access itself is an important factor in lack
of literacy development.

14. Leslie Morrow, "Home and School Correlates of
Early Interest in Literature," Journal of
Educational Research, vol. 76, 1983. pp. 221-30;
Susan B. Neuman, "The Home Environment and
Fifth-Grade Students' Leisure Reading,"
Elementary School Journal, vol. 86, 1986, pp.
335-43; and Vincent Greaney and Mary Hagerty,
"Correlations of Leisure Time Reading," Journal
of Research in Reading, vol. 10, 1987, pp. 3-20.

15. Barbara Heyns, Summer Reading and the Effects
of Schooling (New York: Academic Press, 1978).

16. Leslie Morrow and Carol Weinstein,
"Increasing Children's Use of Literature Through
Program and Physical Changes," Elementary School
Journal, vol. 83, 1982, pp. 131-37.

17. Rachel Houle and Claude Montmarquette, "An
Empirical Analysis of Loans by School Libraries,"
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, vol. 30,
1984, pp. 104-14.

18. Jeff McQuillan and Julie Au, "The Effect of
Print Access on Reading Frequency," Reading
Psychology, vol. 22, 2001, pp. 225-48. Of course,
simply providing access is not always enough. Sam
Pack, in a study of children's after-school
activities, identified a group of children he
labeled "library latch-key kids," children whose
parents used the public library from one to six
hours a day as a "free source of after-school
care." Pack reported that the children did
"little more than 'hang out' at the library."
They did not read but passed the entire time
socializing with other children and playing on
the computer (Sam Pack, "Public Library Use,
School Performance, and the Parental X-Factor: A
Bio-Documentary Approach to Children's
Snapshots," Reading Improvement, vol. 37, 2000,
p. 166). Modest interventions on the part of
teachers and librarians, however, can remedy this
indifference. Many readers report that one
positive experience with reading -- a "home run"
book experience -- was enough to make them
dedicated pleasure readers. See Jim Trelease, The
Read-Aloud Handbook, 5th ed. (New York: Penguin,
2001). For empirical evidence, see Debra Von
Sprecken, Jiyoung Kim, and Stephen Krashen, "The
Home Run Book: Can One Positive Reading
Experience Create a Reader?," California School
Library Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, 2000, pp. 8-9;
and Jiyoung Kim and Stephen Krashen, "Another
Home Run," California English, vol. 6, no. 2,
2000, p. 25.

There are many ways to help ensure that home run
experiences will happen, among them, conducting
read-alouds (Trelease, op. cit.); modeling
reading (see, for example, Kevin Wheldall and
Judy Entwhistle, "Back in the USSR: The Effect of
Teacher Modeling of Silent Reading on Pupils'
Reading Behavior in the Primary School
Classroom," Educational Psychology, vol. 8, 1988,
pp. 51-56); holding interesting book discussions;
and just providing time to read. There is
consistent evidence showing that, when students
are provided time to read, they will take
advantage of it. When observations of sustained
silent reading classes are made in the middle of
the school year and when students have adequate
access to interesting reading material, the vast
majority of students are involved in reading
during the designated time (see Debra Von
Sprecken and Stephen Krashen, "Do Students Read
During Sustained Silent Reading?," California
Reader, vol. 32, no. 1, 1998, pp. 11-13; Kera
Cohen, "Reluctant Eighth-Grade Readers Enjoy
Sustained Silent Reading," California Reader,
vol. 33, no. 1, 1999, pp. 22-25; and Rene Herda
and Francisco Ramos, "How Consistently Do
Students Read During Sustained Silent Reading?,"
California School Library Journal, vol. 24, no.
2, 2001, pp. 29-31).

19. Report of the National Reading Panel:
Teaching Children to Read, available at
www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm.

20. These cases are reviewed in Stephen Krashen,
The Power of Reading (Englewood, Colo.: Libraries
Unlimited, 1993).

21. Stephen Krashen, "Do We Learn to Read by
Reading? The Relationship Between Free Reading
and Reading Ability," in Deborah Tannen, ed.,
Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation
and Understanding (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1988),
pp. 269-98.

22. These experiments are reviewed in Krashen,
The Power of Reading, chap. 1.

23. Stephen Krashen, "More Smoke and Mirrors: A
Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on
Fluency," Phi Delta Kappan, October 2001, pp.
119-23.

24. Stephen Krashen, Three Arguments Against
Whole Language and Why They Are Wrong
(Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, 1999).

25. Report of the National Reading Panel.

26. Stephen Krashen, "The National Reading Panel
Comparison of Whole Language and Phonics:
Ignoring the Crucial Variable in Reading,"
Talking Points, in press.

27. Keith Curry Lance, Lynda Welborn, and
Christine Hamilton-Pennell, The Impact of School
Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement
(San Jose, Calif.: Hi Willow Research and
Publishing, 1993).

28. Stephen Krashen, "School Libraries, Public
Libraries, and the NAEP Reading Scores," School
Library Media Quarterly, vol. 23, 1995, pp.
235-38; and McQuillan, op. cit.

29. Warwick Elley, How in the World Do Children
Read? (Hamburg: International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 1992).

30. Replication studies by Lance and his
colleagues include a second Colorado study (Keith
Curry Lance, Marcia Rodney, and Christine
Hamilton-Pennell, How School Librarians Help Kids
Achieve Standards: The Second Colorado Study [San
Jose, Calif.: Hi Willow Research and Publishing,
2000]); and replications in Alaska (Keith Curry
Lance et al., Information Empowered: The School
Librarian as an Agent of Academic Achievement in
Alaska Schools [Juneau: Alaska State Library,
1999]), Oregon (Keith Curry Lance, Marcia Rodney,
and Christine Hamilton-Pennell, Good Schools Have
Good Librarians [Terrebone: Oregon Educational
Media Association, 2001]), and Pennsylvania
(Keith Curry Lance et al., Measuring to
Standards: The Impact of School Library Programs
and Information Literacy in Pennsylvania Schools
[Greensburg: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better
Libraries, 2000]). Similar studies have been done
in Texas (Ester Smith, Texas School Libraries:
Standards, Resources, Services, and Students'
Performance, Texas State Library and Archives
Commission, 2001, available at
www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/pubs/schlibsurvey/index.html);
Massachusetts (James Baughman, School Libraries
and MCAS Scores, 2000, available at
http://web.simmons.edu/baughman/mcas-school-libraries/);
and Indiana (A Study of the Differences Between
Higher- and Lower-Performing Indiana Schools in
Reading and Mathematics [Oak Brook, Ill.: North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2000]).

In all these studies, poverty was a predictor of
achievement. The number of books per student and
the level of library staffing were also
consistent predictors of achievement. In most
studies, these relationships held even when
poverty was controlled (the Colorado replication
and the Oregon, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Texas
studies); in the Alaska and Pennsylvania studies,
only staffing predicted reading scores, and in
the Alaska study this was the case only when
poverty was not controlled. The Colorado
replication and the Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Oregon studies used tests of reading
comprehension only. In Alaska and Indiana, math
was included, and in Massachusetts, the measure
included language arts, math, and science.

31. Frank Smith, Understanding Reading
(Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1994).

32. Richard Anderson et al., Becoming a Nation of
Readers (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of
Education, 1985), p. 38.

33. Judith Langer et al., Reading Assessment
Redesigned: Authentic Texts and Innovative
Instruments in NAEP's 1992 Survey (Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics,
Report No. 23-FR-07, 1995), p. 74.

34. Ibid., p. 73.

35. Ibid.

36. Patricia Donahue et al., NAEP 1998 Reading
Report Card for the States (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Meanwhile,
SAT 9 (Stanford Achievement Test) scores have
increased in California since 1998. Does the
increased emphasis on phonics deserve the credit?
Recall that NAEP scores up to 1998 reveal no
increases for fourth-graders in California and
that there have been no NAEP results analyzed for
individual states since that time. One could
argue that the impact of phonics became apparent
only after 1998, because it took time for changes
to be made. The new approaches to reading were
announced only in 1995 (see Every Child a Reader
[Sacramento: California Department of Education,
1995]).

It is premature to grant credit for SAT 9
increases to intensive phonics instruction,
however. There are other plausible reasons for
the gains. The SAT 9 was introduced in California
in 1998. Research has shown that, after new tests
are introduced, test scores rise, which is why
commercial tests need to be recalibrated every
few years (see Robert Linn, Elizabeth Graue, and
Nancy Sanders, "Comparing State and District Test
Results to National Norms: The Validity of Claims
That 'Everyone Is Above Average,'" Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, vol. 10, 1990,
pp. 5-14). Typical test score inflation is about
1.5 to 2 points per year, which accounts for a
great deal of the gain seen in California. "Test
inflation" is especially prevalent in California
where the same test has now been given for four
years in a row, punishments for lower scores are
severe, and rewards for higher scores are
generous. This pressure has resulted in
districts' using unusual and extraordinary means
for raising test scores, some of which have
nothing to do with increased competence.

Among the bogus means of increasing test scores
are extensive training in certain test-taking
skills and selective testing -- that is,
excluding low-scoring children from the tested
group. San Francisco Chronicle reporter Nanette
Asimov reported that selective testing may have
occurred in California (Nanette Asimov, "Test
Scores Up, Test-Takers Down: Link Between
Participation, Improvement on School Exam
Promotes Concern," San Francisco Chronicle, 22
July 2000). Asimov reported that in many cases in
which SAT 9 scores increased from year to year,
the number of students tested decreased.
According to Asimov, "questionable pairings"
appeared in 22 San Francisco area school
districts. And of course some test-taking skills
will raise scores without an increase in
competence. If there is no penalty for guessing,
for example, simply encouraging guessing will
raise scores. Using these means to raise scores
is like claiming to raise the temperature of the
room by lighting a match under the thermometer.

No study has been conducted of teaching practices
before and after the new phonics emphasis, and no
attempt has been made to search for a specific
link between increased phonics teaching and
improvement in test scores. A detailed look at
experimental research comparing intensive versus
"regular" phonics teaching shows that the phonics
advantage is limited only to phonetically regular
words presented in isolation -- with only a weak
impact on tests of reading comprehension for
older children (grades 2-6). SAT 9 tests are
given only to grades 2 and higher (see Elaine M.
Garan, "Beyond the Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique
of the National Reading Panel Report on Phonics,"
Phi Delta Kappan, March 2001, pp. 500-506).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN KRASHEN is professor emeritus of
education at the University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.
----------------------------

Postscript:

See also these articles. They include details
about big business publishing in California; it's
the same companies. With McGraw-Hill and Pearson
Education you are talking about global publishers
in textbooks and testing.


http://www.cta.org/cal_educator/v6i7/feature_gov.html

http://www.trelease-on-reading.com/whatsnu_jfriday.html

Posted by C. Jannuzi. I'll follow up with my own
take on the phonics vs. whole language debate,
which I find in and of itself an interesting
topic in 'applied linguistics'.










__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com