9486 in the collection  

Comments on The California Striving Readers State Plan

Ohanian Comment: Instead of inflicting this massive unproven, destructive skill assessment on children, starting in infancy, the State would do much better by assessing and remediating lead poisoning. See Michael T. Martin's definitive A Strange Ignorance: The Role of Lead Poisoning in Failing Schools.

by Stephen Krashen

We were assured that the California version of Striving Readers would be an improvement. I have just read the draft. It is even worse than the LEARN Act and Race to the Top. Here are my comments, sent to the California Striving Readers Literacy Team (they requested feedback). If you want to download the document go to: http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/rl/srclhomepage.asp

Nearly everything is wrong with this plan.

Role of poverty

There is discussion of the performance of racial and ethnic groups, but practically no mention of the role of poverty. In several studies, when poverty is considered, racial and ethnic differences are vastly reduced, and in some cases eliminated. Of special concern to language arts is the consistent finding that children of poverty have very little access to books.

Self-selected reading

There is no mention of the crucial element in literacy development: self-selected reading. Only two statements ever refer to it vaguely.

"Provide all students with frequent opportunities for independent reading, including complex texts and close reading of text to develop strong written and oral arguments." It is not clear what "independent" reading means in this sentence; reading "complex tests and close reading of text" does not seem to refer to self-selected reading.

The plan also mentions "extensive opportunities for reading and writing" which may or may not include self-selected reading.

Access to books

There is no mention of the problem of access to books, which is severe in California. California has among the worst-supported school libraries in the country, and five California cities rank in the bottom ten (out of 75) in public library quality in the 2010 America's Most Literate Cities report.

Explicit, systematic instruction

The plan appears to support "explicit and systematic literacy instruction," (goal 2), an approach that is not supported by empirical research.

Testing

The plan includes a staggering amount of testing, including summative, interim testing, and diagnostic testing. The plan also calls for testing children at the end of kindergarten and first grade. In addition, the plan includes "aligned assignments to monitor accountability statewide" for infants and toddlers! (goal 4). California wants to assess infants.

Similarly, the plan requires testing preschool students, even during play: "Preschool administrators and teachers will understand assessments (including capturing children's demonstration of skills and knowledge during play, daily routines, and activities) ..."

The focus of this plan is on measuring, not on providing real solutions.

Sources

Summary of research:


on the effect of intensive, systematic instruction: Krashen, S. 2011. Comments on the LEARN Act.http://sdkrashen.com/index.php?cat=4

on poverty, access to books, libraries:

Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, and Westport, CONN: Libraries Unlimited (second edition).





— Stephen Krashen
NCTE Open Forum
2011-04-01
http://www.NCTE.org

---

INDEX OF OUTRAGES

Pages: 380   
[1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next >>    Last >>