# data[].attributes.headline
Position Statement on the School Librarian's Role in Reading | American Association of School Librarians (AASL)

# data[].attributes.subject
Position Statement on the School Librarian's Role in Reading | American Association of School Librarians (AASL)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
American Association of School Librarians (AASL)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rationale: Reading is a foundational skill for 21st-century learners. Guiding learners to become engaged and effective users of ideas and information and to appreciate literature requires that they develop as strategic readers who can comprehend, analyze, and evaluate text in both print and digital formats. Learners must also have opportunities to read for enjoyment as well as for information. School librarians are in a critical and unique position to partner with other educators to elevate the reading development of our nation's youth.

Reading skills involve thinking skills. The extent to which young people use information depends upon their ability to understand what they read, to integrate their understandings with what they already know, and to realize their unanswered questions. To this end, school librarians model and collaboratively teach reading comprehension strategies: assess and use background knowledge, pose and answer questions that are appropriate to the task, make predictions and inferences, determine main ideas, and monitor reading comprehension as well as the learning process.

In addition, 21st-century learners must become adept at determining authority and accuracy of information, and analyzing and evaluating that information to synthesize new knowledge from multiple resources. School librarians model and collaboratively teach these skills and strategies.

With a deep knowledge of the wide variety of authentic reading materials available in the school library and beyond, the school librarian has a key role in supporting print and online reading comprehension strategy instruction in collaboration with classroom teachers and reading specialists. School librarians co-design, co-implement, and co-evaluate interdisciplinary lessons and units of instruction that result in increased student learning.

While the responsibility for the successful implementation of reading promotion and instruction is shared by the entire school community, library programs serve as hubs of literacy learning in the school. The following components of school library programs position school librarians in leadership roles in developing reading comprehension strategies and in promoting free independent reading:

School libraries provide students, staff, and families with open, non-restricted access to a varied high quality collection of reading materials in multiple formats that reflect academic needs and personal interests.

School librarians practice responsive collection development and support print-rich environments that reflect the curriculum and the diverse learning needs of the school community.

School librarians take a leadership role in organizing and promoting literacy projects and events that engage learners and motivate them to become lifelong readers.

Classroom teachers, reading specialists, and school librarians select materials, promote the curricular and independent use of resources, including traditional and alternative materials, and plan learning experiences that offer whole classes, small groups, and individual learners an interdisciplinary approach to literacy learning.

Classroom and library collaborative instruction is evidence-based, using research in librarianship, reading, English-language arts, and educational technology in order to maximize student learning. School librarians partner with classroom teachers, specialists and other literacy colleagues to make decisions about reading initiatives and reading comprehension instruction, and to develop all learners' curiosity in, and intellectual access to, appropriate resources in all formats and media.

When learners follow an inquiry process they assess and use reading comprehension strategies. The skills identified in the Standards for the 21st-Century Learner align with the reading process.

Opportunities for planned and spontaneous library use best serve learners as they identify, analyze, and synthesize ideas and information by using a wide range of materials in a variety of formats and media. Availability of library resources and professional staff at point of need develops intellectual behaviors that transfer to future academic pursuits and lifelong academic and public library use.

Along with classroom and reading specialist colleagues, school librarians provide and participate in continual professional development in reading that reflects current research in the area of reading instruction and promotion.

View the School Librarian's Role in Reading Toolkit.

Revised 09/01/2010

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Position Statement on the School Librarian's Role in Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rationale: Reading is a foundational skill for 21st-century learners. Guiding learners to become engaged and effective users of ideas and information and to appreciate literature requires that they develop as strategic readers who can comprehend, analyze, and evaluate text in both print and digital formats.

# data[].attributes.headline
Educational Leadership:Reading: The Core Skill:Taming the Wild Text

# data[].attributes.subject
Educational Leadership:Reading: The Core Skill:Taming the Wild Text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
March 2012 | Volume 69 | Number 6
Reading: The Core Skill Pages 16-21

Pam Allyn

We learn to do well what we learn to love; it's as true in reading as in anything else. For 10 years, I've guided a reading program for boys at the Children's Village, a residential school in New York City for children in foster care. These boys have been through bruising school and home experiences that have made them feel extra ordinarily vulnerable as readers. Many have told me that they've never once experienced pleasure in reading. But over the years, as we've built a culture for reading, I've seen many of these strugglers make a breakthrough; they stop seeing their struggles as a barrier to success and begin to see them within the larger picture of the challenges all readers experience as they learn to find pleasure in print.

One of my students told me that the first time he ever experienced joy in reading was when I read to him from Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak. With his eyes full of tears, he said, "I feel a lot like Max sometimes, all alone. But he makes me feel brave again."

The truth is, we're all struggling readers. At some time today or tomorrow, you'll be reading something and you'll feel the print sliding away from you, your sense of power over the page slipping, your comprehension becoming murkier as you press on. It doesn't feel good. There are children who feel this every day, whether looking at a street sign or a simple picture book. When the world of print lacks deep meaning for a child, the reading experience becomes like wandering in an unfamiliar universe.

These are the kids in our classrooms who search hungrily for distraction. You know them well. They'll look for any escape-using the bathroom or talking to a friend-as soon as reading time begins. Unlike Max in Where the Wild Things Are, who stands with his sword ready to fight the wild things, these students avoid encounters with text at all costs.

For language is a wild thing. Whether the words are unfamiliar, the story unusual, or the text about complex and layered information, the wild elements of language present one challenge after another to a struggling reader.

It's vital that we nurture a love for reading in all children from a young age-especially those who find reading daunting-so we eliminate the danger of illiteracy for them. The National Center for Education Statistics notes that U.S. public school students who reported reading for fun almost every day scored higher on average on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress than did students who reported doing so less frequently. Students who reported never or hardly ever reading for fun scored lowest. Adults who never become competent readers have difficulty not only with finding work or keeping jobs but also with writing letters or e-mails, filling out forms, and assisting their children with homework.

Ten Actions for Creating a Reading Culture

From my observations at the Children's Village and my decades of work with vulnerable readers, I have built a top-10 list for how teachers can create a classroom culture that ensures that all students fall in love with reading. From that love, students will build reading muscles for lifelong strength. Through these actions, we can help each struggling reader arm himself or herself for the joys of engaging with the wild thing of printed text-and taming it.

1. Don't judge the reader.

Environments that offer many reading materials at different levels and in different forms-without judging any form as superior-enable students to find the materials that work best for them. Today's reader is exposed to more media, in all forms, than any reader before. Avid readers, and some budding readers, will read anything: cereal boxes, magazines, posters, video game instructions, graphic novels. It's essential that teachers acknowledge these forms of reading as "real" and not simply validate and praise award-winning chapter books, for example.

Ask students to describe times when reading felt good to them, what they were reading at the time, and why it felt good. Don't dismiss their descriptions of the sports page, a great website, or a manual for how to build a castle. Embrace all these as signs of an inspired reading life.

Today's readers use different forms of media-e-mails, text messages, blog posts, and so on-to communicate. Name these communications as reading, too, and celebrate any minutes a child spends absorbing print. Using these methods of communication in the classroom can make the reader more aware of his or her ability as a literate person and spur confidence to read more.

Finally, never judge the older reader who needs to read books at lower levels to build stamina and fluency. Too often we fixate on titles read, when in fact the key to lifelong literacy is reading frequently and ingesting a high number of words.

2. Offer a range of materials.

Students may be reluctant readers not because they lack basic skills, but because they haven't been exposed to materials suited to their interests, ability, and temperament. A 2008 survey by Scholastic and Yankelovich found that despite the abundance of information and reading materials out there, "55 percent of the children surveyed agreed with the statement 'There aren't enough really good books for boys/girls my age'" (p. 47). A key reason that children ages 9-17 don't read more books for fun is that they have trouble finding books they like. Only 15 percent said they don't read for fun because they "don't like to read."

These findings imply that we must introduce kids to a wide range of reading materials. Finding books and other reading resources that will match your most struggling readers' interests and passions might be easier than you think. Many educators have created websites, blogs, and Facebook pages that discuss ways to engage reluctant readers and suggest books to tempt them. Looking at the websites of Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and indie booksellers, one can often find new titles. Local librarians-those trustworthy and stalwart supporters of reading-if asked, will also provide lots of guidance.

3. Provide time for dialogue.

Just because students appear to be reading independently doesn't mean teachers can forsake the social aspect of reading.

Often, reluctant readers are given less time than fluent readers to be social and interactive about reading because they're thought to need more practice time. The absence of this vital dialogue only contributes to struggling readers' feeling of isolation and rarely inspires them to pursue more challenging texts.

Dialogue is a window into another person's reading experience and is an effective way to get people excited about reading. And dialogue doesn't always mean traditional discussion about comprehension or plot summaries. It can also mean asking students what they're wondering about or what they're hoping will surprise them as they read on. Or encouraging students to use Twitter or text messaging to share ideas from their reading. Rather than a dry Q and A with the teacher having the "right" answer and students guessing at it, dialogue should accomplish some genuine purpose.

With boys at the Children's Village, I led a unit of study on social issues and debate. Boys met in small groups and read articles on subjects that interested them; then each of them developed a question to pursue together, incorporating their different points of view.

When a teacher and student read together or talk one-on-one about a reading selection, they can enter into a safe, nurturing dialogue that builds a literacy bond. And one way to create dialogue among peers is to create text clubs. Talking about graphic novels, comics, short stories, or poems offers struggling readers a chance to explore big ideas in depth through text that's not necessarily "big."

We can model how we delve into text of all sorts and develop our own complex thinking through reading a few pages in a comic book or a one-page blog post. Read aloud from easier texts and celebrate the genius of Dr. Seuss or Arnold Lobel, valuing their sophisticated approach to language even in texts that are easier to read.

4. Give readers a tool kit.

Max's sword is his tool and his protection; he's ready to face the wild things because he's got what he needs. Our struggling readers often feel defenseless around print. Let's arm them with everything they need. We give vulnerable readers a chance to jump over hurdles when we equip them with resources like alphabet charts, word boxes, word walls, or a key ring holding cards printed with commonly challenging words and pictures or clues to meaning. Many digital devices can help, such as word lists and other reading-relevant applications on cell phones or smartphones, e-readers, and tablet computers.

5. Let readers read at their comfort level.

Too often, parents and teachers assume a student is at a certain reading level because of his or her age; they may even say things like "this is where he should be now." Instead, we should assess the independent reading level of each student and guide him or her to read texts at that level as well as texts at a slightly lower and slightly higher level. This practice encourages comfort with many different reading materials and validates the fact that authentic readers read at a variety of levels.

Books slightly below the student's reading level encourage that student to read faster and more confidently. Such books should never be underestimated, and a student should never be ashamed to read them. Texts at a slightly higher level should be on subjects or by authors whom students truly love, motivating them to push themselves as readers and thinkers.

Students should never be locked into one level. In one classroom, I encountered a student unhappily reading the Junie B. Jones series. I asked him why he was reading it if he didn't like it, and he said, "It's at my level; it's all I'm allowed to read." This book is never going to motivate this kid. I'd much rather he read one book about something he loves, like sharks, skimming the parts he doesn't quite comprehend, to build his sense of himself as a reader who asks questions, gets excited about new information, and wanders through new territory.

6. Dive deep.

Literature gives us all an opportunity to think about the world we live in and react to it in a deeply personal way. Talking to students about their reactions allows them to express their feelings in safe and nonthreatening ways. Start by having students share their favorite reading places-and celebrate the sheer fact that they chose to read.

Struggling readers need ways to discuss books deeply with dignity; this helps them see that a text doesn't have to be super-long to be worth a deep response. You might read simpler texts aloud to demonstrate weighty thinking. For example, read from a picture book like Fox by Margaret Wild, then ask students to sketch their response to one part that moved or inspired them and share the response with a partner.

Thoughtful dialogue makes the reading experience social and deepens comprehension. Challenged readers often welcome going through a process I refer to as the LitLoop: reading, writing, speaking, and listening-some of the time with others who are reading the same material. Rather than waiting for a show of hands from your active participants, let all students communicate about a book through journaling and blogging within your class or across different classrooms. This inspires reluctant readers to share ideas.

Two ways to engage readers are to highlight purpose (when reading feels hard, a struggler wants to know why he or she is doing it) and to broaden audience. Reading the same text with other students in different grades, schools, or countries and sharing experiences through writing (often using technology) combines both methods and is extraordinarily motivating. I've arranged for a class of students in Harlem, New York, to regularly chat through Skype with students in Kibera, Kenya. The New York students' motivation for reading their assigned poems is extremely high now because they know they'll be talking about these poems across many miles.

7. Value browsing and rereading.

Browsing and rereading are signs of a strong reader. Rereading builds comprehension; a person is reading differently every time he or she comes to the text. Find moments to praise your students who spend time browsing, and compliment them on rereading.

Encourage learners to reread a favorite story in another form; for instance, many classics texts have been rewritten as graphic novels. Poems such as "Honey, I Love" by Eloise Greenfield have been retold in picture books. Finding stories told in different guises can appeal to the struggling reader who's looking for ways to enjoy reading across multiple genres.

8. Build stamina.

"Quick reads" give a challenged student a successful reading experience without making that student wait weeks to feel successful. Using a timer is a great way to get a resistant reader to commit to small increments of reading. For some reason, setting the timer to odd times, such as 13 minutes, really helps! And keep your commitment; don't ever add time even if your readers seem totally settled in. The students will come to trust that you keep your word and will be able to add more minutes as they build their reading muscles.

Challenge reluctant readers to read further on topics they enjoy and have explored already rather than to try new topics, which requires wading through a lot of new vocabulary. Reading within one's "passion zone" is motivational. Tell students that practicing reading fast will help them build stamina and that reading different texts on one subject will help them learn how people talk about the same ideas in different ways.

Kyle, one boy at the Children's Village, loved cars, so those of us working with him created a collection of texts at different levels that reflected this passion-a poem, a magazine article, a website, and an excerpt from The Phantom Tollbooth in which the main character sits in an amazing little car. Kyle read from that basket for hours.

9. Teach students to curate their own reading lives.

In this era, reading is varied and rich with possibility. We should empower students to choose what they read and to see themselves as readers who sample widely across genres. Show kids different ways to keep a record of the material they read-from writing book lists on bookmarks to keep in their current paperback, to saving book titles in a computerized database, to creating e-files of books that include information about the author, characters, and other books in a series. Upload these files onto a wiki or class blog so others can dip in. Encouraging students to use their mobile devices to record the authors and titles of books they liked (or didn't) motivates them.

10. Remember, joy matters.

Most reluctant readers have experienced a great deal of anxiety and stress around reading in their lives. What will it take for such readers to experience the joy of reading? Getting to joy is important, because the prize of reading competence comes at great cost. What too many challenged readers remember, even once they read well, is the hardship and loneliness of that long trek uphill.

Let's create a world for all readers that's full of the joy of discovery, imagination, and information. The only way to do this is to make the world come alive with stories students will love and texts that connect to their passions. Let's hand reluctant readers the sword with which to conquer the wild things of language-and learn to love reading.

Endnotes

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Reading 2011: National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 4 and 8. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Scholastic & Yankelovich. (2008). Kids and family reading report: Reading in the 21st century: Turning the page with technology. New York: Scholastic.

Anita Silvey; Leonard Marcus; Franki Sibberson and Mary Lee Hahn; and Mr. Schu are a few advocates with blogs or websites that provide guidance on children's reading.

Pam Allyn is executive director of Lit-World and author of many books on teaching reading and writing, including Pam Allyn's Best Books for Boys (Scholastic, 2011). She founded Books for Boys, a reading program for children in foster care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March 2012 | Volume 69 | Number 6 Reading: The Core Skill Pages 16-21 Pam Allyn We learn to do well what we learn to love; it's as true in reading as in anything else. For 10 years, I've guided a reading program for boys at the Children's Village, a residential school in New York City for children in foster care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
March 2010 | Volume 67 | Number 6
Reading to Learn Pages 36-41

Kelly Gallagher

One major drawback of having students spend their formative years memorizing facts is that facts change. Robert J. Sternberg, former president of the American Psychological Association, notes that the "facts" he learned years ago in his introductory psychology course matter little today. Instead of pounding facts into students' heads, Sternberg (2007/2008) suggests, schools should nurture attributes and skills that are foundational to becoming expert citizens, such as solving problems creatively, working well in teams, and knowing how to lose as well as win.

I fear that in the rush to prepare students for the next round of exams, schools are neglecting attributes like these. And if we are to guide students to become thoughtful adults who possess such qualities, we must face the elephant in the room: U.S. students' lack of reading proficiency and their general disinclination to read.

The signs are not encouraging. Consider the following points taken from a 2006 report on adolescent literacy by the National Council of Teachers of English:

The 2004 National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that U.S. secondary school students are reading at a rate significantly below expected levels.

The Alliance for Excellent Education points out that 8.7 million secondary students-one in four-are unable to read and comprehend the material in their textbooks.

The 2005 ACT College Readiness Benchmark for Reading found that only one-half of the students tested were ready for college-level reading. Reading scores were the lowest in a decade.

Young people in the United States are not just substandard readers, they are increasingly reluctant readers-even in their free time. In the National Endowment for the Arts' comprehensive 2007 survey of American reading, To Read or Not to Read, researchers found that a "calamitous, universal falling off of reading" occurs for many students at around age 13 and often continues through the rest of these students' lives.

Educators know the commonly cited culprits behind the decline of reading: poverty, lack of parent education, print-poor environments at home, second-language issues, the overscheduling of children, and competition from electronic media. To this list, I would like to add a factor I call readicide, meaning practices educators employ to raise reading scores that actually kill students' love of reading. Readicide is occurring, ironically, in the one place where a love of reading should be fostered-schools.

How have schools become coconspirators in the decline of reading? I suggest four contributing factors: (1) Schools act as though they value the development of test takers more than the development of readers, (2) Schools are limiting authentic reading experiences, (3) Teachers are overteaching books, and (4) Teachers are underteaching books. Let's look at how each of these practices leads to readicide, and examine steps teachers can take to counteract them.

Factor 1: Schools develop test takers instead of readers.

A curriculum steeped in test preparation drives shallow teaching and learning. Consider, for example, the monumental task confronting social science teachers in California, who must teach the following standard from the 10th grade curriculum:

Compare and contrast the Glorious Revolution of England, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution and their enduring effects worldwide on the political expectations for self-government and individual liberty.

How long would it take to teach this standard so that students acquire in-depth understanding? A teacher could easily spend an entire year on this single standard-but this is only one of 49 similar standards 10th grade teachers must cover.

I purposefully use the word cover because that is what teachers must do to get students through the amount of material required to generate test scores that will appease administrators, school board members, and parents. Breadth is now winning out over depth in most subjects. Science curriculum frameworks in the United States, for example, are loaded with more topics than frameworks of other countries (Cavanagh, 2009).

It's good to have standards for what students should know, of course. But when there are too many standards, in-depth teaching gets thrown out the window, and schools start producing memorizers instead of thinkers. And when coverage trumps depth, close reading-the kind students need to develop their ability to read critically- gives way to surface-level, "one and done" reading.

Reversing the Trend

We must ask whether teaching in a coverage mode serves the long-term interests of our students as readers. If we look at students' critical reading scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) from 2002 to 2009, during the time NCLB has been in effect, we see a slight increase in points for several years, followed by a decline to below the average score for 2002 (Gewertz, 2009). Isn't it interesting that although many districts tout rising test scores at the local level, reading scores on a key national assessment are in decline?

One recent study, in fact, found that nearly one-third of states have lowered their academic proficiency standards in reading and mathematics to make it easier for schools to make adequate yearly progress under NCLB (Dillon, 2009). Reading scores may be "rising" in districts across the country, but when one looks at a national assessment like the SAT, it seems our brightest students are actually regressing.

Clearly, the "coverage" approach is not working. It's time to bring depth back into the curriculum. Our students would be much better served if we taught them fewer concepts, slowed down, and taught them to think.

Factor 2: Schools limit authentic reading experiences.

I currently teach five periods of 9th grade English at Magnolia High School in Anaheim, California. More than one-half of my students are socio-economically disadvantaged. The student body is 68 percent Hispanic; more than one-third are English language learners, and nearly 40 languages are spoken on campus.

Although my students have passed innumerable tests in their journey to high school, they are shockingly unaware of what is happening in the world. For example, only a small percentage can tell me the name of the vice president of the United States. Not a single student can name the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and only a handful can define the rights protected by the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, almost every student can name the four judges on American Idol. More than half of my seniors last year did not understand that newspapers have editorial sections. These students have since passed all their tests and graduated; they are the next generation in charge.

I point this out not to bash my students, many of whom are exceptionally bright. My concern is simpler: Schools are not doing the job they once did of engaging students in the kinds of reading that enable them to become literate, well-informed adults. Instead, as students progress through our schools, they are forced to read more and more worksheets focused on isolated facts.

Reversing the Trend

Teachers should be guiding students in real-world reading, assigning critical reading of magazines, newspapers, Web sites, and blogs that provide background knowledge about U.S. society, key political players and issues, and students' own role as informed participants. At Magnolia High, for example, all students are given an article of the week to read every Monday. These articles are selected to shore up students' lack of prior knowledge about life outside high school.

Factor 3: Teachers overteach books.

On my desk is a copy of the Los Angeles Unified School District's guide to teaching To Kill a Mockingbird. This guide contains overarching questions, chapter study questions, essay questions, vocabulary lessons, activities for specific chapters, guided reading lessons, directions for setting up a writer's notebook, literary analysis questions, collaborative activities, handouts, transparencies, 20 detailed lessons, quizzes, and projects. The guide is 122 pages long and includes numerous pages listing goals and "habits of thinking" that teachers should foster in students.

Why is this guide so exhaustive? Because it's aligned to the massive number of standards found on California's standardized exams each spring. As a result, teachers are driven into a "teach all things in all books" approach.

I am not suggesting that the goals in this unit of study are not worthy; they are. But using all these lessons to teach one novel, which teachers must do if they are to prepare their students for standardized exams, is a recipe for readicide. If I were to follow this curriculum guide step-by-step in my own classroom, there is little doubt my students would exit my class hating To Kill a Mockingbird -and possibly all reading-forever.

In the quest to prepare students for every standard that might be covered on this year's exams, teachers now chop great books into so many pieces that the books cease to be great. One teacher I observed, for example, required students to share their thinking on a sticky note on every page of Romeo and Juliet. As a result, this timeless work became an extended worksheet. Its beauty-its value-got lost in a sea of sticky notes. Imagine going to see a great movie, only to have the projectionist stop the film every four minutes to see if you are taking notes. Now imagine being forced to read a novel this way, and you'll see how overteaching destroys students' desire to read.

The antidote to this practice is not to simply assign great books and turn students loose-this practice leads to its own dangers-but to find what I call the sweet spot of instruction that gives students just the right amount of support for complex texts. Let's look at the flip side of how many schools introduce students to literature.

Factor 4: Teachers underteach books.

This may seem strange coming on the heels of my argument that too much teaching can kill a book, but underteaching a book can have equally devastating consequences.

At the end of her 10th grade year, my daughter was handed The Grapes of Wrath and told to read it over the summer. Her teacher did not "frame" the novel for her in any way; she provided little, if any, background information or support, and she communicated no purpose for reading the book other than to prepare for an exam on the first day of school. The assumption was that, as an honor student, my daughter could handle the task. You might guess what happened. My daughter started to read the novel, became frustrated, turned to a summary on Spark Notes, passed the test, and grew into an adult who still thinks The Grapes of Wrath is a lousy book.

If students could read academic texts or challenging literary works by themselves, they would not need teachers. But, of course, most cannot gain the full benefit from-and enjoy-difficult books when they read such books on their own. Assigning a book is not the same as teaching a book. When too much assigning and not enough teaching occurs, students are on the road to readicide.

Reversing the Trend

Realizing that neither chopping up books nor handing students a classic and wishing them good luck are the way to get students to read deeply, teachers must constantly search for the sweet spot of just enough reading instruction. To help find this balance, I ask myself as I assign texts, How much do my kids need me at this juncture of reading? How much support would be too much right now-or not enough?

One thing I have learned is that students need most of my help up-front, often before they even begin reading the text. To understand why, read the following passage:

The pitcher's stuff was filthy. He was bringing cheese. He mixed in some chin music. Along with the heat, Uncle Charlie would occasionally show his face, producing a number of bowel-lockers. Only two batters got a knock. No one came close to dialing 8. (Gallagher, 2009, p. 95)

You probably understood every word in the above passage, but I am guessing that unless you know baseball well, you had a tough time comprehending it. Your inability to understand the passage is not a phonemic awareness problem, a fluency problem, or a vocabulary problem. You can read the words; you just lack the proper prior knowledge to make meaning.

Many students have this problem when approaching a difficult text, be it a primary source document or a Shakespeare play. This is where teaching (as opposed to assigning) becomes crucial; students need a teacher to supply the context. Before reading Chapter 1 of To Kill a Mockingbird, for instance, students should have an understanding of Herbert Hoover, the Great Depression, the Scottsboro Case (which inspired Harper Lee to write the novel), and the kind of racism that existed in the U.S. South at the time. On a more concrete level, many of my students do not know what a veranda is. They need vocabulary support before reading Lee's classic.

This kind of framing, however, is not in itself enough to generate the level of motivation required for my students to tackle a classic. Students today need more than history recaps and vocabulary lessons; they need to have some idea from the start of what they will gain from reading a text. I don't teach To Kill a Mockingbird because it's a great book. I teach To Kill a Mockingbird because it's a great book that puts my students in a place where they can examine racism today.

In a similar vein, when I teach 1984, it doesn't overly concern me that some of my students are not going to like the novel. What concerns me is that all my students understand the value of the reading experience. As they read George Orwell's classic, I want my students to gain awareness of government surveillance today. I want them to understand that the torture site "Room 101" is not simply limited to Orwell's world-that many believe it has been recreated in Abu Ghraib and the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I want them to recognize the degree of language manipulation and propaganda they will confront for the rest of their lives. But I must make this value visible before my students commence reading. In introducing novels like these, I always address the central question my students bring to the book: Why should I care?

Before reading Romeo and Juliet, for example, I begin by having my students explore the question of whether long-term feuds can ever be buried. This question resonates with these learners, many of whom live in neighborhoods where gangs are a way of life. Although Shakespeare asked this question more than 400 years ago, it still holds value for the modern teenager. As the reading progresses and my students begin to connect with the play, I gradually release more of the meaning-making responsibility to them.

Promote Close Reading

A key element to finding this instructional sweet spot is teaching students to read closely. Teaching close reading is not the same as chopping up a book into so many pieces that it becomes unrecognizable. It is accomplished better by having students read large, uninterrupted chunks of text and then strategically having them return to key passages for second- or third-draft reading and thinking.

If the only reading our students do is "one-and-done" reading, they will never develop a critical reading lens. One cannot read James Madison's Federalist papers or Toni Morrison's Beloved once and reach a deep level of understanding. If we are to sharpen students' critical thinking, we need to require them to read longer chunks of text and commit to giving them more close reading practice.

Another important way to promote close reading is to bring reading for pleasure back into students' lives. Our intense focus on testing has brought an intense focus on academic reading, so that students have little exposure to reading for enjoyment in school. Many teachers have pushed aside recreational reading, which may be one reason that so few youth read for enjoyment on their own.

The lack of recreational reading has dire consequences. Brain researcher Maryanne Wolf (2007) has discussed "word poverty," noting that "by kindergarten a gap of 32 million words already separates some children in linguistically-impoverished homes from their more stimulated peers" (p. 20). If students are to have any chance to develop their vocabulary or build the background knowledge needed to become effective readers, they must develop recreational reading habits early in life. And reading habits are not built by handing students reading passages buried in test booklets.

Teachers and administrators who are squeezing recreational reading out of the day have forgotten an important finding: Students who read for fun have higher reading scores than students who rarely read for enjoyment (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). I have never had a student receive a high SAT verbal score who was not a voracious reader. And I doubt that any student I run into on the street 20 years from now will thank me for helping him or her recognize symbolism in The Scarlet Letter. In fact, I'd be happier if that student wanted to discuss the contemporary book he or she was carrying.

Pulling Out of the "Reading Recession"

Thomas Friedman (2009) claims that recessions have historically been great times for opportunities to arise. With apologies to Friedman, may I suggest that the United States is in a reading recession. I believe that the critical thinkers we so desperately need will emerge from classrooms where teachers have eschewed the coverage approach in favor of fostering deeper thinking- and where the development of lifelong reading habits has remained as important as next month's test.

References

Cavanagh, S. (2009, March 11). "Depth" matters in high school science studies. Education Week, pp. 1, 16-17.

Dillon, S. (2009, October 30). Federal researchers find lower standards in schools. The New York Times, p. A22.

Friedman, T. (2009, June 28). Invent. Invent. Invent. The New York Times, p. WK8.

Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Gewertz, C. (2009, August 25). 2009 SAT scores declined or stagnated, college board reports. Education Week. Available: www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/08/25/02sat.h29.html

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2006). NCTE principles of adolescent literacy reform: A public policy research brief. Urbana, IL: Author.

National Endowment for the Arts. (2007). To read or not to read: A question of national consequence (Research Division Report 47). Washington, DC: Author.

Sternberg, R. (2007/2008). Assessing what matters. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 20-26.

Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York: HarperCollins.

Kelly Gallagher teaches English at Magnolia High School in Anaheim, California, and is the author of Readicide (Stenhouse, 2009); kellygallagher@cox.net.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March 2010 | Volume 67 | Number 6 Reading to Learn Pages 36-41 Kelly Gallagher One major drawback of having students spend their formative years memorizing facts is that facts change. Robert J. Sternberg, former president of the American Psychological Association, notes that the "facts" he learned years ago in his introductory psychology course matter little today.

# data[].attributes.headline
FYI | Meeting Readers Where They Are: Mapping the intersection of research and practice - Google Groups

# data[].attributes.subject
FYI | Meeting Readers Where They Are: Mapping the intersection of research and practice - Google Groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FYI | Meeting Readers Where They Are: Mapping the intersection of research and practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Posted by Pralhad Jadhav, Nov 3, 2010 2:52 AM

# data[].attributes.headline
A Closer Look at Reading Incentive Programs - Alfie Kohn

# data[].attributes.subject
A Closer Look at Reading Incentive Programs - Alfie Kohn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993/1999)

By Alfie Kohn

All those reading incentive campaigns inflicted on elementary school children across the country provide sobering evidence of just how many parents and educators are trapped by Skinnerian thinking. They also illustrate the consequences of extrinsic motivators more generally. Asked about the likely results of "Book It!", Pizza Hut's food-for-reading program, educational psychologist John Nicholls replied, only half in jest, that it would probably produce "a lot of fat kids who don't like to read."

Consider the following excerpt from a recent article in USA Today:

When school let out for the summer, a Philadelphia mother was concerned her 9-year-old son would take a three-month vacation from reading. "He has not learned to love books," Christina Long said then. "He only reads what's required of him." That was before Greg Prestegord learned he could earn packs of baseball cards and other prizes by reading books through his library's summer reading programs. Two days later the avid baseball fan checked out six books. "That's why I'm doing it," Greg says. "I must have a million baseball cards."

The article goes on to note that this summer program is similar to others around the country that offer movie parties, zoo passes, and other prizes to children who pick up enough books. Presumably the librarians who administer them and the parents who support them have the very best of intentions. But if Ms. Long is typical, they are not listening to what their children are telling them. Greg is both candid and unequivocal: baseball cards are "why I'm doing it," he says. Thus, he is still reading (as his mother puts it) "only . . . what's required of him"; the only thing that has changed is that reading is now required to get a card instead of a grade. A program that turns vacation reading into something one has to do to obtain a reward is hardly likely to produce children who have "learned to love books." Quite the contrary.

"But at least he's reading now," Ms. Long might protest. "At least he's being introduced to new books!" And this is true. The reward buys us a behavior - in this case, the act of checking out a book and reading it. But at what price? The quality of performance in general and of learning in particular tend to decline significantly when people are extrinsically motivated (see chapters 3 and 8). Moreover, once the library runs out of baseball cards, children are not only unlikely to continue reading; they are less likely to read than they were before the program began. Think about it: reading has been presented not as a pleasurable experience but as a means for obtaining a goody.

The experience of children in an elementary school class whose teacher introduced an in-class reading-for-reward program can be multiplied hundreds of thousands of times:

The rate of book reading increased astronomically . . . [but the use of rewards also] changed the pattern of book selection (short books with large print became ideal). It also seemed to change the way children read. They were often unable to answer straight-forward questions about a book, even one they had just finished reading. Finally, it decreased the amount of reading children did outside of school.[1]

Notice what is going on here. The problem is not just that the effects of rewards don't last. No, the more significant problem is precisely that the effects of rewards do last, but these effects are the opposite of what we were hoping to produce. What rewards do, and what they do with devastating effectiveness, is to smother people's enthusiasm for activities they might otherwise enjoy.

*

.... As if grades weren't doing enough damage, tens of thousands of schools now use corporate-sponsored reading incentives. At least as disturbing as Pizza Hut's "Book It!" is something called Accelerated Reader. Here, a school purchases (from a corporation called Advantage Learning Systems, Inc.) a packaged program in which students must choose their reading from a list of accepted titles and then take a fact-based computerized quiz on each book in order to earn points and prizes. Many educators who spend scarce funds on this program simply (and understandably) wish to encourage reading. But what matters more than the fact that children read is why they read and how they read. With incentive-based programs, the answer to "why" is "To get rewards," and this, as the data make painfully clear, is often at the expense of interest in reading itself. The answer to "how," meanwhile, at least with Accelerated Reader, is "superficially": they're skimming for facts they will need for the quiz, which is altogether different from the sort of thoughtful engagement we'd like to see kids come to adopt when they open a book.[2]

In 1997, Jeff McQuillan at California State University published a review of the available research on the effects of reading incentives. He found that the few investigations that did turn up positive effects tended to rely on self-selected samples of students, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about what actually led to the results. Typically, the studies also failed to compare these students to others who were not in such programs, much less to others who were in programs that didn't involve rewards. (For example, other research has shown that time set aside for free voluntary reading in school is effective at promoting both skills and interest). McQuillan concluded that none of the available studies "showed any clearly positive effect on reading comprehension, vocabulary, or reading habits that could be attributed solely to the use of rewards and incentives, and in one case the practice [of offering rewards] may have led to a decline." He recommended that schools spend money on books rather than on packaged programs that offer extrinsic inducements for reading.[3]
NOTES
1 Barry Schwartz, "Reinforcement-Induced Behavioral Stereotypy: How Not to Teach People to Discover Rules," Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111 (1982): 53 n 5.

2 For a similar criticism, see Betty Carter, "Hold the Applause: Do Accelerated Reader and Electronic Bookshelf Send the Right Message?" School Library Journal, October 1996: 22-25. This article elicited a number of letters to the editor. One fan wrote in to defend Accelerated Reader on the following basis: "If the program is so ineffective, then why are 25,000 schools participating?" In the same issue, however, another librarian reported seeing "parents take books away from children because they didn't have a high point value and therefore weren't worth reading." Other educators have pointed out to me that the Accelerated Reader program has a demoralizing effect on students who don't read as fluently as their peers, driving home their relative failure in a painfully public way.

3 Jeff McQuillan, "The Effects of Incentives on Reading," Reading Research and Instruction 36 (1997): 111-25. Quotation appears on p. 122.
ADDENDUM (2009)
More recent research has confirmed the basic trend. For example, see Linda M. Pavonetti et al., "Accelerated Reader: What Are the Lasting Effects on the Reading Habits of Middle School Students Exposed to Accelerated Reader in Elementary Grades?", Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, vol. 46, no. 4, December 2002/January 2003: 300-311. This study found that "students who did not have AR in elementary school in these two districts are reading more relative to their AR-exposed peers" (p. 308).

Also see: Stephen Krashen, "The (Lack of) Experimental Evidence Supporting the Use of Accelerated Reader," Journal of Children's Literature, vol. 29, 2003: 16-30.

And, more generally: Barbara A. Marinak and Linda B. Gambrell, "Intrinsic Motivation and Rewards: What Sustains Young Children's Engagement with Text?", Literacy Research and Instruction, vol. 47, 2008: 9-26, which confirmed that students who received a reward for reading subsequently showed less interest in doing so (on three separate measures of intrinsic motivation) than those who received nothing. The only exception in this study was that children who received books as a reward remained as interested in reading as those who didn't get a reward at all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Closer Look at Reading Incentive Programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993/1999) By Alfie Kohn All those reading incentive campaigns inflicted on elementary school children across the country provide sobering evidence of just how many parents and educators are trapped by Skinnerian thinking. They also illustrate the consequences of extrinsic motivators more generally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Courtney Pentland, AASL President 2023-2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Dr. Erin Bailey, RIF's Director of Literacy & Content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Association for Library Service to Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Sylvia Knight Norton, AASL Executive Director

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Knowledge Quest provides news from the American Association of School Librarians and thought-provoking blog posts, with opportunities for community discussion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guess My Lexile - The Book Whisperer - Education Week Teacher

# data[].attributes.subject
Guess My Lexile - The Book Whisperer - Education Week Teacher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What do Jeff Kinney's popular Diary of a Wimpy Kid and Ray Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451 have in common? What about Gossip Girl: A Novel, Cicely von Ziegesar's catty romance and The Great Gilly Hopkins, Katherine Paterson's 1979 Newbery Honor book? While clear distinctions exist between each book's literary merit, age appropriateness, and reader appeal, these titles possess one similarity--they sit within the same Lexile text complexity band.**

Well-meaning educators, concerned about increasing text complexity and reading rigor, engage in this game of "Guess My Lexile" when denouncing the low-reading level of young adult literature, elevating certain titles over others, or dictating book purchases and recommended reading lists. But looking at just a few examples reveals problems when narrowly evaluating texts by readability number alone.

The Lexile Framework for Reading by Metametrix provides quantitative assessment of both students' reading levels and texts' complexity. Students receive a Lexile measure from certain reading tests. Books and other texts receive a Lexile measure from a software tool, the Lexile Analyzer, which evaluates word frequency and sentence length. Many schools use Lexile measures to assess students' reading levels and match students with appropriately rigorous reading material.

I have no issue with assessing students' reading levels and identifying text complexity. As a teacher, I find such information helpful when determining my students' reading ability and what books might fit them. What concerns me is that in many situations, Lexile measures become the sole factor in book selection and recommendation.

While identifying readability can be useful when evaluating textbooks, guided reading texts, or other teaching materials, selecting books for classroom instruction and recommending books for independent reading are two different processes. Avid readers do not always read at the edge of their competence, traveling through increasingly more difficult texts as leveling systems proscribe (Carter, 2000). Given free choice, readers select reading material according to their interests, preferences, background knowledge, purposes for reading, and personal motivation.

I hear horror stories about teachers and librarians rigidly enforcing Lexile bands--preventing children from reading books that aren't at their Lexile level: Students can't read an entire series because every book isn't at their Lexile. Students can't use sections of school and classroom libraries because the books are too easy or too hard (according to Lexile measures). Parents receive Lexile reading lists for their children with strict instructions to exclusively use these lists when purchasing books.

In cynical moments, I picture a Lexile store selling tattoo kits, so over-zealous educators can brand students with their Lexiles. Wouldn't this make trips to the library easier for everyone?

Investigating Lexile measures further, imagine my surprise when I found this information on Metametrix's website:

"Many other factors affect the relationship between a reader and a book, including its content, the age and interests of the reader, and the design of the actual book. The Lexile text measure is a good starting point in the book-selection process, with these other factors then being considered."

Addressing questions such as, "What do Lexile measures tell me about grade appropriateness?" "Why do some great books have low Lexile measures?" and "What is the relationship between grade equivalents and Lexile measures?" I found several informative videos and researched-based responses on Metametrix's website, which reinforce that Lexile measures do not tell us everything we need to know about texts or students. With Lexile measures touted as a key indicator of text complexity as defined by Common Core State Standards, we must critically consider what Lexile bands offer teachers and students, and what they don't.

Overreliance on reading level systems hinders children from learning how to self-select books. Bookstores, libraries, and Grandma's bookshelf aren't leveled. Beyond students' and books' reading levels, we must consider content and interests when selecting materials and recommending books for independent reading. Slavish devotion to numbers doesn't benefit readers.

Is this practice employed because it's better for kids or just easier for adults? What about children who find their reading experiences limited when Lexile numbers dictate their book access and choices? Looking at a child's face or a book's cover, I see possibility, not a number.We can't shortcut or disregard knowing books, knowing readers, and building connections between them.

Reading leveling systems like Lexile, DRA, and Guided Reading provide teachers and librarians with one measure for making book recommendations and supporting students as they self-select books, but children shouldn't wear their reading levels like a badge and become defined by them.

Do we teach children how to preview and evaluate books for themselves or teach them that reading and book selection belong to school and we can't trust them with it?

For additional commentary about Lexile, reading level systems, and text complexity:

" The Lexile Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful " by Dr. Stephen Krashen

From ASCD's Educational Leadership, " The Challenge of Challenging Texts " by Timothy Shanahan, Douglas Fisher, and Nancy Frey

" Lamentations from the Lex-aisle " by Paul W. Hankins

From School Library Journal, " Formula for Failure: Reading Levels and Readability Formulas Do Not Create Lifelong Readers " by Betty Carter

**According to Titlewave:
The Diary of a Wimpy Kid 950
Fahrenheit 451 890
Gossip Girl 820
The Great Gilly Hopkins 800

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What do Jeff Kinney's popular Diary of a Wimpy Kid and Ray Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451 have in common? What about Gossip Girl: A Novel, Cicely von Ziegesar's catty romance and The Great Gilly Hopkins, Katherine Paterson's 1979 Newbery Honor book?

# data[].attributes.headline
The 18 Reasons Not to Use Accelerated Reader | Pennington Publishing Blog

# data[].attributes.subject
The 18 Reasons Not to Use Accelerated Reader | Pennington Publishing Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Accelerated Reader™ (AR) is a simple software concept that was at the right time (late 1980s) and right place (public schools during a transition from whole language to phonics instruction) that has simply grown into an educational monolith. From an economic standpoint, simple often is best and AR is a publisher's dream come true. Renaissance Learning, Inc.(RLI) is publicly traded on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol RLRN and makes a bit more than pocket change off of its flagship product, AR. As is the case with many monoliths, detractors trying to chip away at its monopolistic control of library collections, computer labs, and school budgets are many. Following are short summaries of the most common arguments made by researchers, teachers, parents, and students as to why using AR is counterproductive. Hence, The 18 Reasons Not to Use Accelerated Reader . But first, for the uninitiated, is a brief overview of the AR system.
What is Accelerated Reader?
From the Renaissance Learning website, A Parent's Guide to Accelerated Reader™, we get a concise overview of this program: "AR is a computer program that helps teachers manage and monitor children's independent reading practice. Your child picks a book at his own level and reads it at his own pace. When finished, your child takes a short quiz on the computer. (Passing the quiz is an indication that your child understood what was read.) AR gives both children and teachers feedback based on the quiz results, which the teacher then uses to help your child set goals and direct ongoing reading practice."
How is the Student's Reading Level Determined?
Renaissance Learning sells its STAR Reading™ test to partner with the AR program. The STAR test is a computer-based grades 1-12 reading assessment that adjusts levels of difficulty to student responses. Among other diagnostic information (such as percentile ranking and grade equivalency, the test establishes a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) reading range for the student.
How are AR Books Selected?
Students are encouraged (or required by some teachers) to select books within their ZPD that also match their age/interest level. AR books have short multiple choice quizzes and have been assigned a readability level (ATOS). Renaissance Learning provides conversion scales to the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) test and the Lexile Framework, so that teachers and librarians who use these readability formulae will still be able to use the AR program. Additionally, Renaissance Learning provides a search tool to find the ATOS level.
What are the Quizzes? What is the Student and Teacher Feedback?
AR quizzes are taken on computers, ostensibly under teacher or librarian supervision. They consist of multiple choice questions, most of which are at the "recall" level. Students must score 80% or above on these short tests to pass and receive point credit for their readings. When students take AR quizzes, they enter information into a database that teachers can access via password. The TOPS Report (The Opportunity to Praise Students) reports quiz results after each quiz* is taken.

Both teachers and students have access to the following from the Renaissance Learning programs:

Name of the book, the author, the number of pages in the book

ATOS readability level (developed from word difficulty, word length, sentence length, and text length i.e., the number of words)

Renaissance Learning has also "partnered with the creators of the Lexile Framework, MetaMetrics, Inc., to be able to bring Lexile Measures into" their programs.

Percentage score earned by the student from the multiple choice quiz

The number of points earned by students who pass the quiz. AR points are computed based on the difficulty of the book (ATOS readability level) and the length of the book (number of words).

*Quizzes are also available on textbooks, supplemental materials, and magazines. Most are in the form of reading practice quizzes, although some are curriculum-based with multiple subjects. Magazine quizzes are available for old magazines as well as on a subscription basis for new magazines. The subscription quizzes include three of the Time for Kids series magazines, Cobblestone, and Kids Discover. www.renlearn.com
What about the Reading Incentives?
"Renaissance Learning does not require or advocate the use of incentives with the assessment, although it is a common misperception." However, most educators who use AR have found the program to be highly conducive to a rewards-based reading incentive program.
Criticisms Book Selection
1. Using AR tends to limit reading selection to its own books. Teachers who use the AR program tend to limit students to AR selections because these have the quizzes to maintain accountability for the students' independent reading. Although much is made by Renaissance Learning of the motivational benefits of allowing students free choice of reading materials, their selection is actually limited. Currently, AR has over 100,000 books in its database; however, that is but a fraction of the books available for juvenile and adolescent readers.

2. Using AR tends to limit reading selection to a narrow band of readability. A concerned mom recently blogs about her experience with her sixth grade daughter (Lady L) who happens to read a few years beyond her grade level:

I'm not trying to be a whining, complaining parent here. I'm simply trying to highlight a problem. At our public library, there are bookmarks in the youth department that list suggested books for students in each grade (K-12th). We picked up an 8th grade bookmark to get ideas for Lady L's acceptable reading-leveled book. Found a book. Looked up the reading level and found that it was a 4.5 (not anywhere near the 8.7-10.7 my daughter needed). http://inthemomzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/accelerated-readermy-take.html

3. Using AR tends to discriminate against small publishing companies and unpopular authors. Additionally, valid concerns exist about the appropriateness of a private company effectively dictating the materials which children within the program may read. Although teachers may create custom quizzes for reading material not already in the Accelerated Reader system, the reality is that teachers will not have the time nor inclination to do so in order to assess whether an individual student has read a book that is not already in the system. Thus, the ability for a student to explore books which are neither currently commercially popular nor part of major book lists is severely restricted in reality by the Accelerated Reader program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Reader

In fact, many teachers are inadvertently complicit in this discrimination as they require students to read only books that are in the AR database. Many teachers include the TOPS Report as a part of the students' reading or English-language arts grade, thus mandating student participation in AR.

4. Using AR tends to encourage some students to read books that most teachers and parents would consider inappropriate for certain age levels. Although Renaissance Learning is careful to throw the burden of book approval onto the shoulders of teachers and parents, students get more points for reading and passing quizzes on higher reading levels and longer books. Although an interest level is provided as is a brief synopsis/cautionary warning on the AR site, students often simply select books by the title, cover, availability, or point value. Thus, a fourth grader might wind up "reading" Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye (4.7 ATOS readability level) and a sixth grader might plow through Camus' The Stranger (6.2 ATOS readability level). Hardly appropriate reading material for these grade levels! Content is not considered in the AR point system and students are, of course, reading for those points.

For my own amusement, I decided to use the ATOS Analyzer to compare two books: Madeleine L'Engle's classic children's tale and hit movie, A Wrinkle in Time, and Fyodor Dostoevsky's decidedly-adult story, Crime and Punishment. For the former book I searched "a wrinkle in time grade level" and got these results: Scholastic 3-5, 6-8, Guided Reading Level W, and Book Source grades 3-5. I pretended to read Crime and Punishment as a senior in high school and passed the final only with the help of CliffsNotes® (I read it years later after earning my master's degree as a reading specialist.)

I searched for excerpts for both books and copied text from the middle of each book at random. I followed the minimum word guidelines of the ATOS Analyzer and following were the admittedly non-scientific results: The 8.4 level for A Wrinkle in Time corresponds to a seventh-grade reading level, while the 5.7 level for Crime and Punishment corresponds to a fourth-grade level. Now, to be fair, the ATOS level for the entire A Wrinkle in Time is listed at 4.7, which would fall into the third-grade reading level, yet Accelerated Reading lists it interest level as Middle Grades (MG 4-8). Suffice it to say that the ATOS measure and AR readability levels cannot not take thematic maturity into consideration, nor are all sections of a book equal in terms of readability.
Reader Response 5. Using AR tends to induce a student mindset that "reading is a chore," and "a job that has to be done."
"As a teacher and a mom of 4, I do NOT like AR. As a parent, I watched my very smart 9 year old work the system. He continually read books very much below his ability NOT because he likes reading them, but because he could read them quickly and get points. Other books that he told me he really wanted to read, he didn't either because they were longer and would take "too long to read" or they weren't on the AR list. I finally told him to stop with the AR stuff, took him to the bookstore and spent an hour with him finding books he would enjoy. We have never looked back and I will fight wholeheartedly if anyone tries to tell any of my kids they 'have' to participate in AR."
6. Using AR tends to replace the intrinsic rewards of reading with extrinsic rewards.
AR rewards children for doing something that is already pleasant: self-selected reading. Substantial research shows that rewarding an intrinsically pleasant activity sends the message that the activity is not pleasant, and that nobody would do it without a bribe. AR might be convincing children that reading is not pleasant. No studies have been done to see if this is true.
Stephen Krashen Posted by Stephen Krashen on December 17, 2009 at 10:40pm http://englishcompanion.ning.com/profiles/blogs/does-accelerated-reader-work?xg_source=activity&id=2567740:BlogPost:161876&page=2#comments

Again, Renaissance Learning does not endorse prizes for points; however, its overall point system certainly is rewards-based. Following is an excerpt from a post on the Elementary Librarian Community site:

Here are some AR reward ideas - things I've done in the past and a few things I've heard of others doing:

A trip to a local park

A trip to a local inflatable place

Popcorn, soft drink, and movie party

Ice cream sundae party (complete with fun toppings like gummy worms, marshmallows, various syrups, etc.)

Pizza party

Extra play time outside with bubbles and sidewalk chalk

Sock hop in the gym

Special lunch in the library

Breakfast with the principal

Most of those ideas have minimal costs. I've done an AR store in the past, where students "purchase" items with their points, but I don't recommend it. It's very expensive to buy the gifts, time consuming, and stressful helping the students figure out how many points they've used and how many they have left.

7. Using AR tends to foster student and/or teacher competitiveness, which can push students to read books at their frustrational reading level or create problems among students. In some situations, this competitiveness can lead to hard feelings or outright ostracism. Some students mock other students for not earning enough points, or "making us lose a class pizza party." Here are two recent blog postings by moms who happen to be educators:

My son is a voracious reader, but AR had him in tears more than once. I had to encourage him to NOT participate in AR (which meant that his class didn't get the stuffed cougar promised as a reward to the class with the most AR points!) in order to protect that love. He took a hit for his non-participation in school (he started reading books off the list and not getting points for them) but it preserved his love of reading. In my estimation, this love of reading will take him further in the long run. Stupid that he had to choose between school and what was best for his reading life. http://englishcompanion.ning.com/profiles/blogs/does-accelerated-reader-work?xg_source=activity&id=2567740:BlogPost:161876&page=5#comments

As an educator, it concerns me when I see students being punished with reading, as can be the case when I visit sites on a Friday afternoon, a day many grade levels offer students "Fun Friday" activities. Students who've completed their class and homework assignments for the week and have had no behavioral problems get to sign-in for fun activities. One teacher volunteers to monitor those who did not earn a Fun Friday, including students who did not meet their AR requirement for the week - and as a result, will be punished with staying in the non-FF room to read.

http://englishcompanion.ning.com/profiles/blogs/does-accelerated-reader-work?xg_source=activity

Note: Teacher comments regarding this section tend to be quite critical and can be summed up as "It's not AR's fault, but the teacher's misuse of the program." Interestingly, parent and student comments tend to blame the program, more so than the teachers.

8. Using AR tends to turn off some students to independent reading. Countless posts on blogs point to the negative impact of this program on future reading. From my own survey of sixty blogs, using the "accelerated reading" search term, negative comments and/or associations with the AR program far outweigh positive ones in the blogosphere. Of course there are those who credit AR for developing them into life-long readers; however, would other independent reading programs have accomplished the same mission? In Kelly Gallagher's Readicide, he cites a few studies that demonstrate that after exiting an AR program, students actually read less than non-AR students. Plus, all instructional activities are reductive. Having students spend hours skimming books in class to prepare for AR test takes away from other instruction. Check out why sustained silent reading in the classroom doesn't work .

9. Using AR tends to turn some students into cheaters. Many students skim read, read only book summaries, share books and answers with classmates, select books that have been made into movies that they have already seen, or use web cheat sites or forums to pass the quizzes without reading the books. Pervasive among many students seems to be the attitude that one has to learn how to beat the AR system, like one uses cheat sites and codes to beat video games. Both are on the computer and detached from human to human codes of conduct. Students who would never dream of cheating on a teacher-constructed test will cheat on AR because "it's dumb" or "everyone does it."

In order to take Accelerated Reader tests without any reading at all, many students use sites such as Sparknotes to read chapter summaries. Other websites offer the answers to Accelerated Reader tests. Students regularly trade answers on yahoo.com. Renaissance Learning has filed lawsuits against some of the offending websites and successfully closed them down after a short time. An AR cheat site is currently the ninth Google™ listing on the first page for the "accelerated reader" search term.

10. Using AR tends to supplant portions of established reading programs. In my experience, teachers who use AR spend less time on direct reading instruction. Some teachers even consider AR to be solid reading instruction. However, AR does not teach reading; AR tests reading. The expectation of many teachers is that students are learning to read on their own or are dutifully practicing the reading strategies that their teachers have taught them.

Note: As an M.A. Reading Specialist, this is my biggest problem with AR. Teachers can teach reading to their students, Accelerated Reader tends to devolve the learning responsibility to children. The AR tests quiz students; the tests do not teach students. Now, I certainly value independent reading; however, there are plenty of other options than using AR which don't supplant reading instruction.

11. Using AR tends to train students to accumulate facts and trivia as they read in order to answer the multiple choice recall questions. Students receive no extrinsic "rewards" for making inferences, connections, interpretations, or conclusions as they read. Reading is reduced to a lower higher order thinking process. Students read to gain the gist of characterizations and plots. The Florida Center for Reading Research noted the lack of assessment of "inferential or critical thinking skills" as weaknesses of the software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Reader

12. Using AR tends to takes up significant instructional time. Students have to wait their turn to take quizzes on the classroom computer(s) or the teacher has to march the class down to the library or computer lab to allow the students to do so.

The incentives schools develop with the AR program also take away from instructional time. One parent details her frustrations with the program:

When the librarian tallies up all of the people who have passed a book (not a goal, but just ONE book), everybody gets a chance to come to the library to select a prize (these are dollar store purchases to include child-like toys and snacks). The English teachers are asked to send the students when the coupons come (a disruption of classroom time). The reason for this is to send a clear message to the students who did not pass a book. It is to make them feel bad, I presume. Tell me how this fits into anything that looks like motivation. This includes students who took a quiz the day before coupons were made and distributed who now have to sit in class while all of their classmates go down to collect a prize.

AR recommends a minimum of 20 minutes per day of in-class reading on its website. The National Reading Panel's conclusion of programs that encouraged independent reading was "unable to find a positive relationship between programs and instruction that encourage large amounts of independent reading and improvements in reading achievement, including fluency." p.12). There are other options for independent reading, such as reading at home, that do not take up significant amounts of class time.

13. Using AR tends to reduce the amount of time that teachers spend doing "read-alouds" and teaching class novels. Jim Trelease, chief advocate of the "read-aloud" was an early advocate of AR, even keynoting three national conferences for AR. However, in his sixth edition of his popular The Read-Aloud Handbook, Trelease turns quite critical. AR teachers tend teach fewer core novels and to limit class discussions because of the time considerations or because a discussion would give away AR quiz answers. Besides, the computer can ask the questions instead.

14. Using AR tends to make reading into an isolated academic task. With each student reading a different book, the social nature of reading is minimized. Research on juvenile and adolescent readers emphasizes the importance of the book communities in developing a love for reading. Fewer Literature Circles with small groups sharing the same book and discussing chapter by chapter, fewer Book Clubs focused on Harry Potter or Twilight novels, fewer class Book Talks, and fewer oral book reports (well, maybe AR does have some value here :))

15. Using AR tends to drains resources that could certainly be used for other educational priorities. The program is not cheap. As librarians are losing their jobs in the current economic downturn, the pressure to build up the AR library collection grows. For each $15 hardback purchase, there is an additional cost of close to $3 for the AR quiz (minimum purchases of 20). This amounts to a de facto 20% tax on library acquisitions. Another way to look at this is that a school library able to purchase 300 new books a year will only be able to purchase 250 because of the AR program. AR costs that library and those students 50 books per year.

16. Using AR tends to minimize the teaching and instructional practice in diagnostically-based reading strategies. The STAR Test is hardly diagnostic in terms of the full spectrum of reading skills, despite its flimsy claims to point out potential reading issues in the teacher reports. AR neither assesses, nor teaches phonemic awareness, decoding/word attack, syllabication, vocabulary, or reading comprehension strategies.

17. Using AR tends to limit differentiated instruction. Students are not grouped by ability or skill deficits with AR. The teacher does not spend additional time with remedial students for AR. Students do not receive different instruction according to their abilities. Worse yet, many teachers wrongly perceive AR as differentiated instruction because all of their students are reading books at their own reading levels. Again, there is no reading instruction in AR.
Research Base
18. Although a plethora of research studies involving AR are cited on the Renaissance Learning website, few of the AR studies meet the strict research criteria of the Institute of Education Services What Works Clearinghouse. Noodle around the What Works Clearinghouse site and see other programs with much higher gains.
Author's Summary
There simply are far superior and effective reading programs for beginning and older, struggling readers. Additionally, plenty of other independent reading plans or programs work well without the excess baggage of the AR program detailed above. Click here to learn How to Develop a Free Schoolwide Reading Program.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Pennington, MA Reading Specialist, is the author of the comprehensive reading intervention curriculum, Teaching Reading Strategies. Designed to significantly increase the reading abilities of students ages eight through adult within one year, the curriculum is decidedly un-canned, is adaptable to various instructional settings, and is simple to use-a perfect choice for Response to Intervention tiered instruction. The program provides multiple-choice diagnostic reading and spelling assessments (many with audio files), phonemic awareness activities, blending and syllabication activities, phonics workshops with formative assessments, 102 spelling pattern worksheets, comprehension worksheets, multi-level fluency passages recorded at three different reading speeds and accessed on YouTube, 644 reading, spelling, and vocabulary game cards, posters, activities, and games.

Also get the accompanying Sam and Friends Guided Reading Phonics Books. These 54 decodable eBooks (includes print-ready and digital display versions) have been designed for older readers with teenage cartoon characters and plots. Each book introduces focus sight words and phonics sound-spellings aligned to the instructional sequence found in Teaching Reading Strategies. Plus, each book has a 30-second word fluency to review previously learned sight words and sound-spelling patterns, five higher-level comprehension questions, and an easy-to-use running record. Your students will love these fun, heart-warming, and comical stories about the adventures of Sam and his friends: Tom, Kit, and Deb. Oh, and also that crazy dog, Pug.

Or why not get both programs as a discounted BUNDLE? Everything teachers need to teach an assessment-based reading intervention program for struggling readers is found in this comprehensive curriculum. Ideal for students reading two or more grade levels below current grade level, tiered response to intervention programs, ESL, ELL, ELD, and special education students. Simple directions, YouTube training videos, and well-crafted activities truly make this an almost no-prep curriculum. Works well as a half-year intensive program or full-year program.

accelerated reader, AR quizzes, ATOS, degrees of reading power, dibels, independent reading, lexiles, readability, reading assessments, reading comprehension, Reading Counts, reading incentive programs, reading levels, reading programs, Renaissance Learning, Sam and Friends Guided Reading Phonics Books, STAR reading test, Teaching Reading Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Accelerated Reader™ (AR) is a simple software concept that was at the right time (late 1980s) and right place (public schools during a transition from whole language to phonics instruction) that has simply grown into an educational monolith. From an economic standpoint, simple often is best and AR is a publisher's dream come true.

# data[].attributes.headline
Choice Literacy - Articles & Videos - Full Article

# data[].attributes.subject
Choice Literacy - Articles & Videos - Full Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Choice Literacy - Articles & Videos - Full Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I felt my shoulders relax and I exhaled my worries through the sunroof of my VW Bug into the dusky October sky. By trusting my instincts, Anna's mistake became the opportunity she needed at this point in her reading life. She created a meaningful, living definition of "just-right" books for herself.

# data[].attributes.headline
"The 20 Stages of Reading" - Google Search

# data[].attributes.subject
"The 20 Stages of Reading" - Google Search

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"The 20 Stages of Reading" - Google Search

# data[].attributes.headline
Choice Literacy - Articles & Videos - Full Article

# data[].attributes.subject
Choice Literacy - Articles & Videos - Full Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Choice Literacy - Articles & Videos - Full Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Education has produced a vast population able to read, but unable to distinguish what is worth reading. G. M. Trevelyan Once upon a time, there was a third-grade girl, Daisy, who loved to read. She read all the time. While she liked to read about horses and outer space, she especially loved to read stories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Classroom teachers and teacher-librarians facilitate collaborative planning and coteaching by sharing a common language. The following matrix shows how reading comprehension strategies and AASL's Standards for the 21st-entury Learner are related.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Classroom teachers and teacher-librarians facilitate collaborative planning and coteaching by sharing a common language. The following matrix shows how reading comprehension strategies and AASL's Standards for the 21st-Century Learner are related.