Inaccuracies in “Read it and Weep”

[Stephen Krashen's Mailing List]

Sent to the Weekly Standard, July 13, 2007

Inaccuracies in “Read it and Weep”

Charlotte Allen’s “Read it and Weep” (July 16)
deserves some comment.  The following deals with some,
but not all, of the points Allen made. 

Allen describes Richmond as a “success story,” based
on Sol Stern’s claim that African-American children in
Richmond, under Reading First, improved more than
those in Fairfax County, which did not embrace Reading
First.  But this is only true if you look just at one
year, from 2004 to 2005. When we add 2006, Fairfax
children gained slightly more.  Examining scores of
all children in poverty, Richmond’s and Fairfax’s
scores were identical in 2006.

Allen writes that the introduction of whole language
in California was responsible for a drop in test
scores in reading.  Jeff McQuillan showed that
California’s scores were very low well before whole
language (actually “literature-based instruction”) was
introduced.  Also, since whole language was purged and
intensive systematic phonics introduced, there has
been no improvement in California’s reading scores.
What has also not improved is California’s school and
public libraries, still the worst in the country.
Study after study has confirmed that library quality,
and access to books in general, is a strong predictor
of reading achievement.  
Allen characterizes the whole language position on
spelling as learning from mistakes. Not so: Spelling
competence comes largely from doing massive amounts of
reading.  A great of evidence relates reading and
spelling proficiency, and also shows that instruction
has limited or zero effects.

Allen claims that whole-language proponents would not
consider reading a story from a commercial reader as
“real reading”: This is incorrect. A good story is a
good story, no matter where it is published. 

Allen describes recent criticisms of test scores
reported by the Department of Education and “doubts
about the efficiency of instruction in phonemic
awareness” as “grasping at straws.” Hardly. The
criticisms of test scores include pointing out that
gains on national tests, which the Department of
Education attributes to NCLB, all occurred before NCLB
went into effect, and, most recently, an analysis
showing that NCLB did not increase the rate of
improvement for reading scores.  The “doubts” about
phonemic awareness include showing that empirical
studies show little impact of phonemic awareness
training on reading comprehension, a conclusion that
members of the National Reading Panel agreed with.

Allen’s characterization of independent silent reading
includes the use of leveled books and word walls. This
is inaccurate. Neither is required in silent reading
session. Unmentioned is the fact that research shows
that independent silent reading has been successful. 

Allen claims that research supporting whole language
is “almost uniformly 
 anecdotal.”  Not so. The
research includes many scientific studies, as well as
detailed analyses of published research.  

Finally, Allen says I am currently teaching in a
suburb of Portland. Also false. I am not currently
teaching anywhere, and have never lived in Portland or
in a suburb of Portland. 


Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

Weekly Standard article at: http://www.weeklyst
andard.com/ Utilities/ printer_preview. asp?idArticle=
13850&R=1143719A 8D.


Richmond and Fairfax: Krashen, S. 2007. Reading First
and the Evidence: A Response to Sol Stern.
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse Posted May
13, 2007

California Test Scores: McQuillan, J. 1998. The
Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 

Spelling: Krashen, S. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and
spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input
hypothesis. Modern Language Journal 73: 440-464.

Phonemic Awareness:  Krashen, S. 2001. Does “pure”
phonemic awareness training affect reading
comprehension? Perceptual and Motor Skills 93:
356-358; Ehri, L., T. Shanahan, and S. Nunes. 2002.
Response to Krashen. Reading Research Quarterly,
37(2), 128-129. 

“did not increase the rate of improvement 
”: Krashen,
S. 2007. NCLB: No Impact on State Fourth Grade Reading
Test Scores
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=19497

Reports analyzing national test scores:
1. Bracey, G. 2006. “The 16th Bracey Report on the
Condition of Public Education,” Phi Delta Kappan,
October.
2. Crawford, J. 2007. “Selling NCLB: Would You Buy a
Used Law From This Woman?,”
www.elladvocates.org/nclb/spellings2.html.
3. Fuller, B., Gesicki, K., Kang, E. and Wright, J.
2006. “Is the No Child Left Behind Act Working? The
Reliability of How States Track Achievement,” Policy
Analysis for California Education, at the University
of California, Berkeley.
4. Krashen, S. 2006. “Did Reading First Work?”
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=17349
5. Lee, J.  2006. “Tracking Achievement Gaps and
Assessing the Impact of NCLB on the Gaps: An In-Depth
Look Into National and State Reading and Math Outcome
Trends,” Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

“ 
independent silent reading has been successful.”
Krashen, S. 2001. More smoke and mirrors: A critique
of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi
Delta Kappan, 83, 119–23.

Detailed analyses: Garan, E. 2001.  What does the
report of the National Reading Panel really tell us
about teaching phonics? Language Arts, 79(1), 61-70;
Coles, G. 2003. Reading the Naked Truth. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.