Monday, August 26, 2013

How much testing? The details.


Sent the The Jewish Daily Forward, August 26.

As noted in "David Coleman, the Most Influential Education Figure You've Never Heard Of" (August 25), critics such as Diane Ravitch have indeed indicated that the common core standards could lead to more testing at a time when there is too much testing already.  But few know the details:

In addition to end-of-year tests in language arts and math, we will soon be testing children in all subjects, and will be adding "interim" tests, to be given during the academic year. There is also discussion of pre-tests to be given in the fall.

Currently, our students are tested in grades three through eight and once in high-school. But we will soon be testing in all grades, K to 12, and there are plans to "pre-screen" children before they enter kindergarten.

The common core will bring more testing than we have ever seen on this planet. And there is no evidence at all that this increase will improve academic achievement.

I have documented this astonishing increase in testing from documents available at the US Department of Education. Please see: "How much testing?" available at two places: http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen- krashen-how-much-testing/
and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://forward.com/articles/182587/david-coleman-the-most-influential-education-figur/?p=all#ixzz2d8xYzI36

Friday, August 23, 2013

Why support the core?




Why support the core?
Sent to the NY Times, August 23, 2013

Charles Blow ("The Common Core and the Common Good," August 21),  tells us that education leaders he has talked to agree that we need to  support teachers,  provide “wrap-around” services for poor and struggling students; make schools safe, welcoming, fun places with recess and art and music and nutritious food, and promote parental engagement.

If Mr. Blow agrees with these sensible ideas, why does he support the common core? The common core, characterized by Susan Ohanian as "a radical untried curriculum overhaul and … nonstop national testing," costs billions and will cost billions more, while worthwhile programs, such as those Mr. Blow approves of, are underfunded.

Stephen Krashen


Original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/blow-the-common-core-and-the-common-good.html

Monday, August 19, 2013

Comments on a sloppy op-ed

Comments on a sloppy op-ed.
Sent to the NY Times, August19, 2013

Bill Keller ("War on the core," August 18) hasn't done his homework.

There has been no "embarrassing decline" in American education; in fact, studies have shown that when we control for poverty, American students rank near the top of the world. 

Contrary to Keller's claim, the  common core is in fact "new and untried": There is no evidence that imposing tougher standards and increasing testing improves achievement.

Also, liberals don't "hate testing." This liberal hates inappropriate and excessive testing: The common core is increasing the amount of testing to astonishing levels: In addition to end-of-year tests in language arts and math, there will be tests in all subjects, "interim tests" to be given during the academic year, and there is discussion of pre-testing in the fall. Under No Child Left Behind, our students are tested in grades three through eight and once in high school. Common core is planning testing for all grades, K to 12, and there are plans to "pre-screen" children before they enter kindergarten.

Stephen Krashen

Some sources:

No decline: Loveless, Tom. How Well are American Students Learning? The 2010 Brown Center Report on American Education. The Brown Foundation: Houston. 2011.

Control for poverty: Carnoy, Martin and Richard Rothstein. 2013, What Do International Tests Really Show Us about U.S. Student Performance. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute. 2012. http://www.epi.org/).

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.

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

Original op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/opinion/keller-war-on-the-core.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Why parents give high ratings to their child's school but not to American schools in general


Sent to the Fresno Bee, August 18, 2013
Reports of the results of the recent AP-NORC poll ("AP-NORC Poll: Parents back high-stakes testing," August 17), missed an important finding: 75% of those interviewed rated the school their child attends as excellent or good, but only 38% rated public schools in the US in general as excellent or good. 

An obvious explanation: Parents know a lot about the school their child attends, but their opinion of American education comes from the media. For decades, the media has been presenting a biased view. 

In a column accompanying the 2009 Gallup poll on education, which produced nearly identical results, Gerald Bracey stated it this way: "Americans never hear anything positive about the nation's schools ... negative information flows almost daily from media, politicians, and ideologues." 
In reality, American schools are doing quite well: When researchers control for poverty, American students' international test scores rank near the top of the world. 
I wonder how many of those interviewed know this?
Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/08/17/3446446/ap-norc-poll-parents-back-high.html

The coming increase in testing


The coming increase in testing
Sent to the Times Union (Albany NY), August 18
According to a recent poll, 61% of parents think that the number of standardized tests their child has to take is appropriate ("Poll: Parents support standardized tests for students," August 18).
I wonder how parents would react if they knew that the common core plans to increase the current amount of testing more than 20-fold? 

In addition to end-of-year tests in language arts and math, we will soon be testing children in all subjects, and will be adding "interim" tests, to be given during the academic year. There is also discussion of pre-tests to be given in the fall. 

Currently, our students are tested in grades three through eight and once in high-school. But we will soon be testing in all grades, K to 12,  and there are plans to "pre-screen" children before they enter kindergarten. 

There will be more testing than we have ever seen on this planet. And there is no evidence at all that this increase will improve academic achievement.

I have documented this astonishing increase in testing from documents available at the US Department of Education. Please see: "How much testing?" available at two places: http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen- krashen-how-much-testing/
and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/

Stephen Krashen

A bad way to evaluate teachers


A bad way to evaluate teachers      Sent to the Dallas Morning News August 18
According to a current poll ("AP-NORC poll: Parents back high-stakes testing" August 17), parents support the use of standardized tests for evaluating teachers.   
Would parents respond this way if they were aware of the research?
Different tests of the same subject often produce different ratings, and the same teacher’s ratings can vary from year to year, sometimes quite a bit.
The idea of using test scores to evaluate teachers seems like common sense, but it just doesn't work. 
Stephen Krashen

Sources:
Different tests produce different ratings: Papay, J. 2010. Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal 47,2.
Vary from year to year: Sass, T. 2008. The stability of value-added measures of teacher quality and implications for teacher compensation policy. Washington DC: CALDER. (National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research.) Kane, T. and Staiger, D. 2009. Estimating Teacher Impacts on Student Achievement: An Experimental Evaluation. NBER Working Paper No. 14607 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14607.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Does a "transient surge" in electrical activity in rat brains disprove survival after death?



Does a "transient surge" in electrical activity in rat brains disprove survival after death?
Stephen Krashen

Borjigin et al (2013) show that rat brains experience "a transient surge" of electrical activity that corresponds to hightened consciousness beginning about 30 seconds after cardiac arrest, lasting from 30 to 60 seconds. This kind of electrical activity is not present during anesthesia.  Borjigin et al suggest that their results "provide a scientific framework to begin to explain the highly lucid and realer-than-real mental experiences reported by near death survivors."
Several media reports state that this study shows that near-death experiences are not real, eg."Near-Death Experiences Might Just Be Brain Fireworks" (The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/study-near-death-experiences-might-just-be-brain-fireworks/278723/) and "Near-death experiences are 'electrical brain surges'"(http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264740.php).
Not discussed in the study, or in the media reports, are the extensive findings supporting the reality of the near-death experience, including reports from experiencers about information they could not have learned about otherwise (eg Long and Perry, 2010). Most relevant here is the finding that near-death experiences can occur when experiences are under anesthesia, when brain activity associated with consciousness is not present (Long and Perry, 2010), and when patients have been pronounced brain-dead (Sabom, 1998). (But see comments by Sam Parnia, at  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/near-death-experiences-surge-activity-brain_n_3745339.html).

Reports of the Borjigin et. al. study are now big news in the media. Why hasn't the media reported studies strongly suggesting that near-death experiences are real with equal enthusiasm, as well as other research supporting the "survival hypothesis"? (see e.g. Wambach, 1978).


Borjigin, J. Lee, U., Liu, T. Pal, D., Huff, S., Klarr, D. Sloboda, J., Hernandez, J. Wang, M. and Mashour, G. 2013. Surge of nuerophysiological coherence and connectivity in the dying brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print August 12, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308285110  PNAS August 12, 2013
Long, J. and Perry, O. 2010. Evidence of the Afterlife. Harper One.
Sabom, M.  1998. Light and Death. Zondervan.
Wambach. H. 1978. Reliving Past Lives. Barnes and Noble.

The Journal of Near-Death Studies, begun in 1987, includes many careful studies of the near-death experience.





Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Librarians were in the vocabulary business long before the common core, and have been the most important part of it.


Letter to the Editor, Published in the "Feedback" section of the School Library Journal, 59, 8:8-9. 2013.
Vocabulary Development
Stephen Krashen

Paige Jaeger ("Vulcanizing Vocabulary," June 13) acknowledges the contribution of reading to vocabulary growth,  but suggests that we need more; we need to require "challenging nonfiction," "integrate academic vocabulary into our classes" and add word games.

We don't need more. School librarians know how to help students develop a large vocabulary: Provide a collection of engaging, comprehensible books, and help readers find the right books for them.

Studies show that when interesting and comprehensible books are available, young people read them, and that self-selected reading results in profound development of literacy, including vocabulary. Dedicated pleasure readers acquire thousands of words each year through reading, far more than they could from direct instruction programs or word games.

It is sometimes argued that voluntary reading may not include "the right stuff."  We know, however, that dedicated pleasure readers typically choose more different kinds of reading and more complex reading as they mature (L. LaBrant, 1958, “An evaluation of free reading.”  Hunnicutt and Iverson (Eds.), Research in the Three R’s. Harper and Brothers.). In fact, students involved in reading eventually choose what experts have decided were “good books” (R. Schoonover, 1938, “The case for voluminous reading.” English Journal 27, 114-118. 
Also, even though different kinds of writing are written in different styles there is substantial overlap; anyone who reads deeply in any area will acquire a great deal of the academic style, enough to make a considerable amount of academic reading comprehensible. A student who has read extensively from books such as Fear Street, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Harry Potter, and Hunger Games will have a much easier time with a New York Times editorial than one who has not done a lot of this kind of reading.  Self-selected reading is the bridge between conversational and academic language.

Jaeger notes that "Within the CCSS framework, everyone is in the vocabulary business."  Librarians were in the vocabulary business long before the common core, and have been the most important part of it.  Young people get a lot of their reading material from libraries, and for those living in poverty, the library is often their only source of books.  






Tuesday, August 13, 2013

The common core only prepares students for taking tests.


Sent to the Yakima Herald August 13, 2013
The cartoon accompanying "Common Core standards will help prepare students for real world" (August 12) shows a parent asking a child what she learned in school today. The answer is a multiple-choice bubble sheet, a perfect response to the article. 
Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the common core is calling for more standardized testing than we have ever seen on this planet, far more than the already excessive amount required by No Child Left Behind. In addition to final tests, there will be interim tests given throughout the year and perhaps even pretests in the fall. Instead of only testing math and reading in grades 3 through 8 and once in high-school, the common core will test more subjects and more grades. I estimate at least a 20-fold increase in standardized testing. 
The common core will not help prepare students for anything except tests.
Stephen Krashen
Source: Krashen, S. 2012. How much testing?  Posted on Diane Ravitch’s blog: http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen- krashen-how-much-testing/
Posted on The Answer Sheet, Valerie Strauss’ Washington Post blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/
Original op-ed: http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/sunday/1391393-8/common-core-standards-will-help-prepare-students-for
This op-ed has appeared in several newspapers. Please see http://www.susanohanian.org/core.php?id=547.

The Common Core Disrespects Self-Selected Pleasure Reading


The Common Core Disrespects Self-Selected Pleasure Reading 
Stephen Krashen, August 13, 2013
I have seen this quote in several places:
“Students need opportunities to stretch their reading abilities but also to experience the satisfaction and pleasure of easy, fluent reading within them, both of which the Standards allow for.”   
This quote appears in "Common Core Learning Standards, Appendix A" on page 11, a section with the title "Research supporting key elements of the standards." It is typically interpreted as evidence that the common core supports free voluntary reading. 
The common core does not support free reading, but disparages it, and other discussions of free reading in common core documents confirm the disrespect the common core has for free reading.
The quote sends the message that hard reading requiring grim determination is the real stuff, the true way to "stretch reading abilities." Easier, more comprehensible reading that we actually enjoy is fine for a break, but only to experience some "satisfaction and pleasure."  
Common Core's Appendix A does not cite any of the plentiful research that strongly indicates that reading that does not require struggle is the source of nearly all of our literacy competence, that it is the bridge between "conversational" language and "academic" language.
Appendix A, along with the rest of the Language Arts standards, has very little respect for the power of reading. It assumes that grammar must be taught directly, even though many studies show that our grammatical competence is largely the result of reading, and barely acknowledges that vocabulary is the result of reading, maintaining that "direct instruction is … essential"(p. 35). (Appendix A states that "at most between 5 and 15 percent of new words encountered upon first reading are retained" (p. 34), which is slightly inaccurate: Studies actually show that when you see a new word in print, you typically pick up a small part of its meaning, about 5-15%, and as you read more, you encounter the word more and gradually acquire the meaning. What Appendix A doesn't point out are research results, including those cited in Appendix A, showing that if people read enough, 5-15% is more than enough to account for vocabulary growth.)
The common core standards do not allow “easy reading”: Appendix A insists that independent reading must remain within a certain "complexity band," or slightly above (pp. 13-14). Nothing below the readers' current official level is allowed. The Publisher's Criteria agrees: The materials available for independent reading “need to include texts at students’ own reading level as well as texts with complexity levels that will challenge and motivate students.” (Publisher's Criteria, K-3, p. 4, see also p. 14). But reading below one's current official level can be beneficial; reading level is an average – "easy" texts often contain plenty of language above one's level; easy reading provides background knowledge; easy reading can increase enthusiasm for more reading (Krashen, 2005). 
Krashen, S. “Is In-School Free Reading Good for Children? Why the National Reading Panel Report is (Still) Wrong.” Phi Delta Kappan 86.6 (2005): 444-447. (available at http://www.sdkrashen.com/index.php?cat=2)


Monday, August 12, 2013

The jobs of tomorrow

Published in the Deseret News, August 15
To the editor:
In "Teachers trained on new STEM learning technologies" (August 9), the director of the STEM Action Center is quoted as saying: "In our global economy, we need to focus on STEM if we want to fill the jobs of tomorrow."
I am all for high quality math/science education. Educators should know, however, that a number of studies have concluded that there is no shortage of STEM-trained potential workers.
Rutgers University professor Hal Salzman has concluded that there are approximately three qualified graduates annually for each science or technology opening.
Recent studies have also shown the United States is producing more Ph.D.s in science than the market can absorb.
Also, about 1/3 of college-bound high-school students take calculus, and only abour 5% of jobs require this much math.
In short, we are well-prepared to "fill the jobs of tomorrow."
Stephen Krashen
original  article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865584404/Teachers-trained-on-new-STEM-learning-technologies.html



Friday, August 9, 2013

California test scores: the real problem and the real solution



The real problem
Published in the Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2013

John Rogers, quoted in "State sees a surprise drop in test scores" (August 9) is right: There shouldn't be too much concern about blips, tiny changes, in standardized test scores.

If we are interested in real gains, let's attack the real problem: Poverty.  Nearly 25% of students in school in the US live in poverty, which means inadequate diet, lack of health care, and little or no access to books. The best teaching in the world is of little help when students are hungry, ill, and have nothing to read. 

Forget the untested, expensive common core: Let's invest more in food programs, health care, and libraries. 

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-test-scores-20130809,0,5883250.story

Monday, August 5, 2013

Why test scores fall, rise, and then level off


Sent to the New York Daily News, August 5, 2013
We have been warned that New York test scores will drop because of new and more difficult math and reading examinations ("New York City Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott warns that release of 2012 state and math test scores will show sharp declines," August 4).
Robert Linn of the University of Colorado and his colleagues have shown that test scores are typically low when a new test is introduced. Then the scores improve, about one to two points a year, as students and teachers get more familiar with the test. This is not because of brave new "rigorous" curricula; the improvements stop after a few years, after students and teachers have adapted to the new measures.

The improvement, in other words, may be due to a change in test-preparation strategies, not to improved learning.

Stephen Krashen

Source: Linn, R., Graue, E., & Sanders, N. 1990. Comparing state and district test results to national norms: The validity of claims that “everyone is above average.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 5-14.