Sustained Silent Reading: The effects are substantial, it works, and it leads to more reading. A response to Shanahan (2016).
Stephen Krashen
Shanahan (2016) makes three unsubstantiated claims about sustained silent reading (SSR).
A "tiny" effect?
Shanahan states that "the effects of DEAR, SSR, SQUIRT or any of the other 'independent reading time' schemes are tiny when it comes to reading achievement."
Shanahan does not cite any sources for this claim. Several meta-analyses of studies done with second language acquirers, however, show that effect sizes for SSR are quite respectable and the results for readers of different ages are similar. Table 1 summarizes these studies.
Vocabulary
R.C.
Effect size(N)
Effect size(N)
Nakanishi (2014)
0.18 (9)
0.68(15)
Krashen (2007)
0.87 (9)
Cho and Hey J. Kim, (2004)
0..32 (1)
0.46 (1)
Elley & Mangubhai (1983)
0.73 (1)
0.88 (2)
Elley (1991)
0.36 (2)
0.27 (2)
N = number of studies
Calculations for Cho and Kim (2004), Elley and Mangubhai (1983) and Elley (1991) are included in Cho and Krashen (2015).
In Tse, Xiao, Ko, Lam, Hui, and Ng (2016), fourth grade children in Taiwan and Hong Kong who reported doing more independent reading in their first language in school scored higher on the PIRLS 2006 reading test, controlling for students' reading attitude, parents' reading attitude, home education resources, the amount of outside schol informational reading done, and the amount of in-class reading aloud done by students.
Students indicated how much SSR they were doing on a four point scale where 1 = none at all and 4 = every day or nearly every day. The results predict that a school moving from doing no SSR to an every day or nearly every day program will experience a PIRLS gain of 20 points for Hong Kong schools and 45 ponts for Taiwan schools, which is substantial.
The "failure" of SSR?
Shanahan also states "As it became obvious and research accumulated showing the lack of learning from unaccountable reading (e.g., DEAR, SSR) ...".
At least 22 states make it a crime to disturb school in ways that teenagers are wired to do. Why did this happen?
ONe monday morning last fall, at Spring Valley High School in Columbia, South Carolina, a 16-year-old girl refused to hand over her cellphone to her algebra teacher. After multiple requests, the teacher called an administrator, who eventually summoned a sheriff’s deputy who was stationed at the school. The deputy walked over to the girl’s desk. “Are you going to come with me,” he said, “or am I going to make you?”
Niya Kenny, a student sitting nearby, did not know the name of the girl who was in trouble. That girl was new to class and rarely spoke. But Kenny had heard stories about the deputy, Ben Fields, who also coached football at the school, and she had a feeling he might do something extreme. “Take out your phones,” she whispered to the boys sitting next to her, and she did the same. The girl still hadn’t moved. While Kenny watched, recording with her iPhone, Fields wrenched the girl’s right arm behind her and grabbed her left leg. The girl flailed a fist in his direction. As he tried to wrestle her out of her chair, the desk it was attached to flipped over, slamming the girl backwards. Then he reached for her again, extracting her this time, and hurled her across the classroom floor.The other kids sat unmoving, hunched over their desks. The teacher and the administrator stood in silence. As Fields crouched over the girl to handcuff her, Kenny tried to hold her phone steady. Her legs were shaking and her heart was hammering in her chest. If this was really happening, she thought, someone needed to know about it—someone, apparently, outside that room. “Put your hands behind your back,” Fields ordered the girl, sounding excited, out of breath. “Gimme your hands! Gimme your hands!”
Finally, in an unnaturally high voice, Kenny blurted: “Ain’t nobody gonna put this shit on Snapchat?” The administrator tried to quiet her down, saying her name over and over, but she would not be silenced. “What the fuck?” she said, her voice rising further. “What the fuck?” Then she hit the Post button on her phone’s Snapchat app.
Videos taken by Kenny and other students ended up online, and the story went viral that night. The girl who was thrown was black, like Kenny, and the footage of her being flung across the classroom by a white police officer inflamed debates about race and law enforcement. Hillary Clinton tweeted that there was “no excuse” for such violence, while the singer Ted Nugent praised Fields for teaching a lesson to “a spoiled, undisciplined brat.”
After Fields handcuffed the girl, another deputy arrived to escort her out of the classroom. She would be released to her guardian later that day. Then, according to Kenny, Fields turned to her. “You got so much to say?,” Fields asked. “Come on.”Kenny did not speak. She got up and put her hands behind her back.
The next day, theprincipal called the incident “horrific,” and the school-board chair said it represented an “outrageous exception to the culture, conduct, and standards in which we so strongly believe.” Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, who oversees the officers at Spring Valley, said he was sickened by the videos and was investigating his deputy’s actions. He added in passing that Niya Kenny had been arrested for “contributing to the chaos.” None of the other officials mentioned her name.
Is This What Our Children Will Learn? Donald Trump’s campaign for the presidency introduces a new challenge for teachers.
At first, education looked like it might actually play a role in the second presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as they faced off Sunday evening at Washington University in St. Louis.
In a rare move, the candidates fielded a question about education—a natural topic for Hillary Clinton, but a subject that placed Donald Trump in an awkward position amid the focus on his recent comments about women.
The first question came from a teacher: Do you think you’re modeling appropriate behavior for the students watching tonight?
Clinton, who has spoken at length about education and has made the welfare of children a priority for some three decades, responded that she would “make clear to our children that our country really is great.” She mentioned respecting and building each other up.
Trump, who is facing criticism from educators and parents that his actions and comments are not suitable for young ears, largely skirted the question.
In the past several months, teachers have grappled with how to handle Trump’s comments in class. One elementary-school student said, “If I talked like Donald Trump, I’d get sent to the principal’s office immediately.”
Beyond the initial question, education was largely absent, which frustrated debate watchers on Twitter.
Even Katy Perry wanted to hear more about the topic ...
Proponents of teaching cursive say students need to learn it to be able to read historical documents, such as the U.S. Constitution. Without knowing cursive, students "will be locked out of doing research with literary papers and archival collections," Valerie Hotchkiss, a library director at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education in 2014. "They will not even be able to read their grandmother's diary or their parents' love letters."
Others say cursive helps students write faster than print, and that they need it to develop a signature.
Technology Took Priority
So why didn't the common-core writers include cursive? In a recent interview, Sue Pimentel, one of the lead writers of the English/language arts standards, explained that the decision was about priorities—and that learning to use technology took precedence.
"We thought that more and more of student communications and adult communications are via technology. And knowing how to use technology to communicate and to write was most critical for students," she said. "The idea is you have to pick things to put in there. .... It really was a discussion."
Anchor standard No. 7 for writing asks students to "produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others."
The decision to exclude cursive was also based on feedback from teachers, according to Pimentel.
"One of the things we heard from teachers around the country—in some cases, obviously not all—was that sometimes cursive writing takes an enormous amount of instructional time," she said. "You could be spending time on other things rather than students practicing cursive writing. It's really a matter of emphasis."
Proposition 55: How taxing the wealthy could support public education
California is a state that both mints millionaires and relies heavily on taxing them to fund its education and provide basic state government services.
Both of those Californias feature in Proposition 55, which asks voters to extend higher income tax rates they passed four years ago on the wealthiest residents for another 12 years. Most of the money would fund public schools, though the Medi-Cal insurance program for the poor also would benefit, as would the state’s financial emergency fund.
The proposition’s supporters, unions that are far better funded and organized than the opposition, say letting the increased rates of up to 3 percent lapse is the equivalent of cutting school funding by several billion dollars each year.
Opponents argue that the state cannot continue soaking its richest residents — lest they move away — and that the real proposition should be a politically unpalatable revamp of a tax code in tatters.
If the arguments sound familiar, they should.
In 2012, as the state reeled from the lingering effects of the Great Recession, voters increased income taxes on residents who each year earn more than $263,000 for single filers and $526,000 for families. Backers led by Gov. Jerry Brown pushed Proposition 30 as a temporary, necessary way to reinvest in schools whose budgets had been hammered.
The cash infusion has boosted schools, raising more than $31 billion since 2012.
If approved in November, Proposition 55 would extend the higher income tax rates through 2030, though in a nod to the state’s stabilized finances it would not re-up sales tax increases that Proposition 30 included. The nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that continuing the income taxes would fetch between $4 billion and $9 billion annually.
A coalition backed by teachers’ unions and hospitals is spending big to ensure that Californians don’t “go back” to the lower tax rates.
“Without maintaining these taxes, we know we’re going to face cuts,” said Jennifer Wonnacott, a spokeswoman for the Yes on 55 campaign. “We are making progress in our schools, but there is still a lot of progress to go.”
Polling conducted in mid-September by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 54 percent of likely voters said they would vote for Proposition 55.
As of late September, Yes on 55 reported raising $49 million, according to campaign finance reports . The California Hospitals Association contributed $25 million and the California Teachers Association $19 million.
Influential business associations and wealthy Republican donors who fought the tax in 2012 have kept their distance this year, at least financially.
The only opposition was organized in July by David Kersten, an independent researcher tapped by state and local officials for his fiscal expertise. Kersten, a former lobbyist, said he decided to rally after realizing no one else was stepping up.
“This money’s not being used well, based on what I know about the union side of the street,” Kersten said. He doesn’t want to give the education bureaucracy “blank checks” before teachers and administrators show they can spend money more efficiently.
Other criticisms of Proposition 55 include that it would prolong California’s over-reliance on capital gains taxes that the wealthy pay as they get wealthier — but do not pay when the stock market slumps. The top 1 percent of earners provide roughly half of the state’s income tax revenue in recent years, according to state statistics. Proposition 55 would affect the top 1.5 percent of taxpayers.
A 2015 analysis by Forbes concluded that, powered by Silicon Valley and Hollywood, California alone has more billionaires than any country but the United States and China.
One concern Proposition 55 opponents float is that wealthy Californians will get fed up and relocate, prompting a downward spiral in state finances.
“The argument that wealthy people leave the state due to tax rates is a political argument. It doesn’t have facts behind it,” said Chris Hoene, executive director the independent California Budget & Policy Center, a left-of-center think tank.
He cited a 2016 study led by a Stanford University professor which analyzed 45 million tax records to find out whether the “transitory millionaires” theory was real. That study concluded it was uncommon for the wealthy to move due to taxes, and that a 10 percent increase in the top rate leads to a 1 percent loss of the millionaire population.Proposition 55: How taxing the wealthy could support public education:
Massachusetts Court: School Choice Is Not a “Civil Right”
Judge Heidi Brieger sun/lisa redmond
On October 06, 2016, Massachusetts education blogger, Jennifer Berkshire, posted that the Massachusetts Superior Court had tossed a lawsuit arguing that raising the charter school cap was an issue of student civil rights.
The argument that school choice is a “civil right” is not exclusive to Massachusetts. However, the ruling that student civil rights are not violated if the student applies for charter school admission and is not accepted due to applications outnumbering available seats– even if the school that the student currently attends has a low rating on the state rating system for public schools– is worth noting even for those residing in other states.
On October 04, 2016, Massachusetts Superior Court Associate Justice Heidi Brieger signed this motion to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that charter school attendance is a civil right.
A number of points in Brieger’s decision are worth noting.
First of all, Brieger dismisses the idea of a low-scoring school as “failing” its students. She turns this idea on its head, noting that the purpose in grading schools is to help those with low scores, and that an education department designation does not equal the state’s abandoning the school:
Plaintiffs allege that each attends a school that has been designated as a Level 3 or Level 4 school by the Commonwealth. Further, these schools fail to teach a significant number of its students to be “proficient or higher” in the MCAS examination subjects. Thus, Plaintiffs claim each has been deprived of a constitutionally “adequate” education. Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, however, does not mean that the court must find that because a school has been designated as a Level 3 or 4 school, and the students have low MCAS examination scores, that there has been a kind of “Statewide abandonment” demonstrating a constitutional violation. To the contrary, the Department classifies schools by level so it can identify the schools most in need of assistance and then provide such schools with the ways and means to improve the school. … The Attorney General argues that a Level 4 designation is not an admission that the school or school district has abandoned its constitutional duty to provide an education to its students. The court agrees. The five-level regulatory framework is a policy-driven measurement tool designed to single out schools for extra scrutiny and improvement so as to ensure the Commonwealth is in fact fulfilling its constitutional mandate to provide “a public education system of sufficient quality” (pages 17-18). …
Teachers, next to parents, are the strongest advocates for students and against the cuts to classroom supports that disrupt teaching and learning. Public school educators love the work we do and never want to go on strike. However, we believe that we must take a stand to fight for the schools our students deserve. Chicago is not broke. Chicago’s political leaders must develop the political will to properly fund our schools.
