Whole language and the great plummet of 1987-92: An urban legend from California

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 83, Issue 10, 1999, Pages 748-753

  Krashen, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039700333     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003172170208301008     Document Type: Article

References (59)

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. 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.
5. Jeff McQuillan, The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions (Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, 1998).
6. Ibid., p. 83.
7. Howard D. White, "School Library Collections and Services: Ranking the States," School Library Media Quarterly, vol. 19, 1990, pp. 13-26.
8. For verification of this claim, readers are invited to visit www.cde. ca.gov/library/libstats.html.
9. White, op. cit.
10. www.cde.ca.gov/library/libstats.html
11. Digest of Educational Statistics (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 2001 ), Table 422.
12. Ibid., Table 20.
13. McQuillan, p. 77.
14. 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.
15. 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 Creaney and Mary Hagerty, "Correlations of Leisure Time Reading," Journal of Research in Reading, vol. 10, 1987, pp. 3-20.
16. 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 Creaney and Mary Hagerty, "Correlations of Leisure Time Reading," Journal of Research in Reading, vol. 10, 1987, pp. 3-20.
17. 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 Creaney and Mary Hagerty, "Correlations of Leisure Time Reading," Journal of Research in Reading, vol. 10, 1987, pp. 3-20.
18. Barbara Heyns, Summer Reading and the Effects of Schooling (New York: Academic Press, 1978).
19. 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.
20. Rachel Houle and Claude Montmarquette, "An Empirical Analysis of Loans by School Libraries," Alberta Journal of Educational Research, vol. 30, 1984, pp. 104-14.
21. 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 play ing 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).
22. 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 play ing 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).
23. 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 play ing 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).
24. 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 play ing 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).
25. 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 play ing 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).
26. 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 play ing 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).
27. 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 play ing 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).
28. 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 play ing 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).
29. 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 play ing 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).
30. 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 play ing 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).
31. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read, available at www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm.
32. These cases are reviewed in Stephen Krashen, The Power of Reading (Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1993).
33. 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.
34. These experiments are reviewed in Krashen, The Power of Reading, chap. 1.
35. Stephen Krashen, "More Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Fluency," Phi Delta Kappan, October 2001, pp. 119-23.
36. Stephen Krashen, Three Arguments Against Whole Language and Why They Are Wrong (Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, 1999).
37. Report of the National Reading Panel.
38. Stephen Krashen, "The National Reading Panel Comparison of Whole Language and Phonics: Ignoring the Crucial Variable in Reading," Talking Points, in press.
39. 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).
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Warwick Elley, How in the World Do Children Read? (Hamburg: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 1992).
43. 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, III.: 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.
44. 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, III.: 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.
45. 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, III.: 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.
46. 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, III.: 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.
47. 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, III.: 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.
48. 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, III.: 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.
49. 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, III.: 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.
50. Frank Smith, Understanding Reading (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1994).
51. Richard Anderson et al., Becoming a Nation of Readers (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1985), p. 38.
52. 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.
53. Ibid., p. 73.
54. Ibid.
55. Patricia Donahue et al., NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1999).
56. 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]).
57. 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).
58. 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).
59. 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).