The National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL) and the U.S. Department of Education today announced a partnership to advance family engagement in education across the country.

During the yearlong partnership, the Department and NCFL will jointly develop and implement strategies to raise the awareness and understanding of effective family and community engagement in education, including how teachers and families can better collaborate to improve student engagement and learning. This will include:

• Convening community discussions on family engagement with educators, families and community leaders across the country.
• Identifying and compiling promising practices and program examples for effective family engagement in education, so schools can employ leading practices that work.
• Gathering feedback on family engagement frameworks from educators, parents, advocates, and others in the education community.
• Developing and disseminating resource materials to support family and community engagement in education. An example includes NCFL’s Wonderopolis, an award-winning online learning community that engages classrooms and families in the wonder of discovery.

The partnership will extend the Department of Education’s efforts on family engagement and NCFL’s track record of more than 20 years of providing tools and resources for educators and parents to create engaging lifelong learning opportunities for the entire family.

“Increasing family engagement is key to improving schools and neighborhoods across the country. Parents who play an active role in their children’s education – at home, at school and in the community – have a tremendous impact on factors like school readiness, motivation to learn, and study skills, as well as on high school graduation rates and college preparedness,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “We hope this partnership with NCFL will provide much needed support for efforts that will increase family and community engagement in local schools and prepare our children for lifelong success.”

“We see too many communities struggling with how to create meaningful and effective family engagement initiatives,” said Sharon Darling, NCFL president & founder. “Children need to learn in ways that are engaging and relevant to real-life situations, but educators and families tell us they need support to make this happen.

“Simultaneously, the nation’s policy-makers are awakening to the potential of learning beyond the school walls. Through years of experience and talking with parents across the country, we have the recipe for successful family engagement.”

Although no specific provisions have been earmarked for families speaking languages other than English, NCFL programs include the Toyota Family Literacy Program which serves English as a Second Language (ESL) families with children in elementary school, and the Family and Child Education program which serves Native American families with children from birth to grade three and is supported by the Bureau of Indian Education.

Recently, Carolyn Blocker, an educator from Long Beach, California with nearly 25 years of experience, received the NCFL’s 2013 Toyota Teacher of the Year award. Blocker has worked for the past seven years to improve the lives of more than 300 families as a parent education teacher at the Long Beach School for Adults. Blocker and her community’s participants boast numerous achievements, including significant parent engagement and a 90 percent retention of families, despite facing hurdles ranging from economic challenges to language barriers.

Mary Ellen Lesniak, an English as a Second Language adult and family coordinator at the Tolton Center in Chicago, was named The Toyota Teacher of the Year runner-up. Lesniak will receive a $2,500 grant, which she plans to use to purchase iPads for her classroom, as well as a scholarship to attend the conference.

U.S. 4th Grade Reading Among Best in World

Maybe our schools are better than we are being led to believe! Results of the 2011 PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) show that the only countries with better 4th Grade reading levels are Russia, Finland, and Singapore. This is a remarkable success for U.S. public education, especially when you take into account Finland’s tiny population and 5% percent poverty level, and Singapore being a city-state.

According to the PIRLS, a highly-regarded study, since the last time the exam was given in 2006, American 4th graders have increased their average score by 16 points, from 540 to 556 on a 0-to-1,000-point scale, far above the PIRLS average of 500.

Jack Buckley, the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, which analyzes the U.S. results, said he saw positive signs about how the United States is progressing compared with countries, “I tend to be quite optimistic on where the U.S. performs internationally,” he said. “We have a large and diverse set of kids to educate, and I think the results show we are doing quite well.”

Given by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, a group of research organizations, in partnership with the TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center at Boston College, PIRLS was administered to 325,000 students around the world last spring, including 12,726 in 370 schools in the U.S. It produces an overall score in reading for each education system, as well as scores in two sub-areas: reading for literary experience, and reading to acquire and use information. Students are given passages to read, and a series of multiple-choice and short constructed-response questions to answer.

American students did better on the literary (563) than the informational (553) parts of the test, although PIRLS officials caution against comparing one to the other. The U.S. outshone more of its PIRLS competitors on the literary aspect of reading than on the informational as well. Only Finland had higher literary reading scores, but Russia, Singapore, and Finland all outscored the U.S. on informational reading.

Even more remarkable, Florida, taking part in PIRLS for the first time, outperformed every country and all but one other jurisdiction (Hong Kong) taking the exam, by producing an average reading score that was 13 points higher than that of its own country: 569.

Florida joins other participants in the exam that are referred to in PIRLS documents as “education systems,” since they are parts of countries, such as the Canadian province of Ontario, and Hong Kong, an administrative region of China. Hong Kong was the only participant to outscore Florida. The state also outdid the United States as a whole in other aspects of PIRLS performance, such as the showing by its minority students.

Analyzing the results according to achievement level, only Singapore, with 24 percent of its students reaching the “advanced” level, significantly outperformed the United States, which had 17 percent of students at that level. Students must score a 625 or higher to reach “advanced.”

At that level, students can interpret figurative language, distinguish and interpret complex information from different parts of a text, and integrate ideas across texts to interpret characters’ feelings and behaviors. Five other countries-Russia, Northern Ireland, Finland, England and Hong Kong-produced results in the “advanced” category similar to those of the United States.

Fifty-six percent of U.S. students reached the “high” category by scoring 550 or better, and 86 percent reached the “intermediate” level, which requires a score of 475. Students at that level can identify central events, plot sequences and relevant story details in a text, make straightforward inferences, and begin to make connections across parts of a text. All but two percent of U.S. students scored the 400 necessary to make it into the “low” level of achievement.

Significant achievement gaps showed across gender, wealth, and racial lines. Girls outperformed boys in the United States by 10 points, although that was a smaller gap than the average 16-point gap among participating PIRLS systems. U.S. schools where fewer than 10 percent of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunches averaged 605 points, while those where more than three-quarters qualified for such assistance averaged 520.

White, Asian, and multiracial students in the United States scored above the U.S. average, and outperformed their black and Hispanic peers, who scored below that mark.

All racial subgroups scored higher in Florida than in the United States overall. Asian students’ reading scores, for instance, averaged 604 in Florida and 588 in the United States overall. Hispanic students’ scores averaged 32 points higher, and black students 15 points higher, in Florida than in the nation overall. White and multiracial students also scored higher in Florida than did their peers nationwide.

The PIRLS scores represented a rosier picture of 4th grade reading than did the National Assessment of Educational Progress results one year ago, which showed little progress. The analysis by the NCES, the statistical branch of the U.S. Department of Education, offers some insight into why.

While both exams include about the same proportions of literary and informational text passages, NAEP includes poetry and requires students to compare two different texts, the report says. Reading passages on PIRLS are shorter than on NAEP, and are set at about one grade level lower than those on NAEP, it says.

PIRLS focuses more on assessing readers’ skills in analyzing information within the text and drawing text-based inferences, while NAEP puts more emphasis on how readers develop inferences and personal interpretations by utilizing personal knowledge or perspectives to examine and evaluate the text, the report says.

“Overall, these differences suggest that the NAEP 2011 reading assessment may be more cognitively challenging than PIRLS 2011 for U.S. 4th grade students,” the NCES report says.

“Take a stand for teachers!” is the 2012 motto for World Teachers’ Day. Celebrations are being organized around the world. UNESCO calls on everyone to consider undertaking a special celebration for World Teachers’ Day. Contact us at the address indicated to tell us what you are planning.

“Teachers… ultimately determine our collective ability to innovate, to    invent, to find solutions for tomorrow. Nothing will ever replace a good teacher. Nothing is more important than supporting them.” (Irina Bokova, UNESCO Director General).
World Teachers’ Day is held annually on 5 October to celebrate the essential role of teachers in providing quality education at all levels. It also commemorates the anniversary of the 1966 signature of the UNESCO/ILO Recommendation Concerning the Status of Teachers.

For more visit www.5oct.org/

Linguists, sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists want you to donate your text messages to science. The text4science project, also known as sms4science, aims to build a large corpus of text messages in different languages and dialects to examine the way in which text messaging is changing language and the way we learn to read and write. The project is coordinated by CENTAL, the Centre for Natural Language Processing at the Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium and includes researchers from Canada’s University of Montreal, University of Ottowa.

Researchers are interested in abbreviation patterns in text messages within different dialects of the same language, among men and women and across generations. According to Forbes Magazine, researchers theorize that abbreviated words are a consequence of laziness, rather a testament to linguistic creativity. Research out of Australia’s University of Tasmania links the ability to interpret and form “textisms” to improved literacy in children.

If you would like to donate you text messages to science, click here.

The National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) at the University of
California, Los Angeles has released a new report comparing student
enrollment history, achievement gaps, and persistence in school of
English Language Learning (ELL) students to non-ELL students. The
results show large achievement and socioeconomic gaps.
A major question that arose is the difficulty of knowing when to exit
an ELL student. Another important issue is the difficulty in providing
sufficient English language proficiency (ELP) curriculum in mainstream
classrooms. The report hopes to curb detriment that may result from
reclassifying an ELL student earlier than necessary.
High school dropout rates are 25 percent for ELL students and 15
percent for non-ELL students. Also, among ELL students, academic
achievement and grade retention are stronger predictors than behavioral
issues or differences in background. These findings may suggest
that school persistence in the ELL population may be a different
process than for non-ELL students. Results show that after accounting
for academic achievement, behavioral issues, background, and
district contexts, the longer a student is designated as an ELL, the
more likely he or she is to drop out.
CRESST focuses on research that may improve the quality of
learning and education in the U.S. This report is part of a larger study
to assess the validity of states’ existing systems of reclassifying ELLs
in terms of gross consequences of reclassification. The motivation of
this project arises from the simple question of when to exit ELL students.
To download the full report, visit www.cse.ucla.edu

“Doctors, nurse practitioners, and other medical professionals incorporate Reach Out and Read’s evidence-based model into regular pediatric checkups, by advising parents about the importance of reading aloud and giving developmentally-appropriate books to children.” (reachoutandread.org).

Reach Out and Read (henceforth ROR) is a simple and inexpensive program. While in waiting rooms for well-child pediatrician’s appointments, hospital staff shows parents reading activities they can do with their children, with a focus on reading aloud to the child, and discusses the importance of reading, which the physician does as well. The families receive free books at each doctor visit. ROR is typically aimed at lower-income groups.

Departing from traditional academic style, I present first the results of ROR evaluations, focusing on the impact of ROR on vocabulary development. I will then try to make the point that ROR is a modest and inexpensive intervention; even though “more ROR” appears to produce better results, vigorous interventions are small-scale. Finally, I note that the crucial component of ROR appears to be reading aloud to children, a practice that already has an excellent track record (Trelease, 2006). The implication is that these simple approaches deserve more attention.

Positive Impact on Vocabulary Development
The ROR website (reachoutandread.org) includes three evaluations in which children were tested on their acquisition of vocabulary (table 1). The design of two of the studies (Mendelsohn et al. and Sharif et al.) is nearly identical, with children tested at about 4 years of age after three years of experience with ROR.

Families in all three studies were low-income. Subjects in Mendelsohn et al. were characterized as “poor and undereducated with a preponderance of Latino immigrants” (p. 131) who had come to inner-city pediatric clinics for “routine well-child care.” Participants in Sharif et al. attended pediatric clinics in the Mott Haven section of the South Bronx, “the poorest congressional district in the United States” (p. 172). Participants in the High et al. study were described as “multicultural, low income families.” In Sharif et al. and Mendelsohn et al. a significant percentage of the families were Spanish-speaking and interviews, orientation and testing were done in Spanish when families preferred it.

Two studies (table two) used identical measures, the Expressive and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary tests. Test scores were standardized for age (100 = 50th percentile). In both studies, children were at a similar age when tested, and durations of treatment were similar. In both cases, ROR children did better on the vocabulary measures and the ROR advantage was larger on receptive than expressive vocabulary tests. In Sharif et al, however, the difference between the ROR and comparison groups was not statistically significant for the expressive test (p = .26).

Because all subjects were from low socio-economic families, it is not surprising that the children scored below the national median (100). The ROR children, however, closed from about one-fourth to one-half of the gap on the receptive test (table two).
High et al. used a modified version of a standardized test, the MacArthur Communi­cative Develop­mental Invent­ory, testing both expressive and receptive vocabulary. One part of each test contained 50 words that appeared in the books that were distributed and one part contained 50 words that did not appear in the books that were distributed. As the children in this study were very young, the children themselves were not tested but parents were asked if the child could produce or understand the words.

The data in table three presents only the results for children who were between 1.5 to 2 years old at the time of testing (n = 88). For children ages 13 to 17 months, the ROR children were slightly but not significantly better in receptive vocabulary and the comparisons were better in expressive vocabulary, with the difference approaching significance. For the older children, however, the ROR group was clearly better, both for words appearing in the books and words not appearing in the books. The superiority of the ROR children for words not appearing in the books suggests that parents brought in other books for the children (see discussion of Theriot et al. below).

Golova et al. (1999) used a similar measure and obtained similar results, finding no difference in vocabulary with children under 18 months at the time of testing, but a trend for ROR children older than 18 months to do better, with the difference reaching statistical significance for receptive vocabulary. Golova et al. did not provide details, however.

Fortman et al. (2003) reported no impact of ROR in middle class families. The positive impact of ROR may be limited to low-income families, those with less access to books and less likely to read to their children.

A modest treatment
The data present above shows that a modest and inexpensive intervention produced consistent results in vocabulary development in three separate studies. The entire treatment consisted of a few well-child pediatrician visits, providing some information about reading aloud to children, and providing a small number of books. For example, over a three-year span, subjects in one study (Mendelsohn et al.) had an average of only three well-child appointments in which their doctors discussed books and received an average of four books.

Of course there are limits as to how modest Reach out and Read can be and still be effective. Merely providing information or a book just once (during an emergency room visit) has not been shown to have an effect on family reading practices (Nagamine et al.
2001). Providing additional books, either through physician visits or parents’ buying books, results in better gains in vocabulary (Theriot et al), and the combined effect of books and information-providing sessions is very strong.

Theriot et al. examined the impact of books provided by parents (in addition to those given by ROR; the average number of ROR books was five) and the number of information sessions parents attended on vocabulary development. The children were three years old and had been involved with ROR since they were two months old. With only few books available (10), more information sessions resulted in a modest increase in performance on a receptive vocabulary test (PPVT). But when more books were available (40), a similar increase in sessions had much larger impact (table four).

The maximum treatment in Theriot et al., 40 additional books and eight sessions, is still a modest intervention. It is also noteworthy that the difference between children with the fewest books and sessions and those with the most was about 10 points, or 2/3 of a standard deviation (sd = 15), an effect size of about .67, similar to the advantage seen of ROR in general over comparison groups on receptive vocabulary tests (table two).

The importance of Read-Alouds
As mentioned earlier, ROR information sessions include encouragement of and information about reading aloud to children. Studies of the impact of ROR consistently show that ROR children are read to more than comparison children (table five).

The crucial role of read-alouds was confirmed by High et al.’s analysis (High et al., 2000) showing that frequency (days per week) of read-alouds was a strong predictor of scores on both vocabulary measures, controlling for demographic variables, including parental language proficiency. In fact, when frequency of read-alouds was considered, High et al. reported that participation in ROR had no additional impact on vocabulary test performance. These results are consistent with research showing the positive impact of read-alouds on literacy development (Bus, Van Ijzendoorn and Pellegrini. 1995; Blok, 1999) and in stimulating interest in reading (Brassell, 2003; Trelease, 2006; Wang and Lee, 2007; Cho and Choi, 2008).
The results also suggest that the impact of additional books and information sessions, as demonstrated by Theriot et al., was due to increased reading aloud to the children.

Discussion
ROR (or more properly, RORA, for Reach Out and Read Aloud) has been shown to increase the frequency of reading aloud in low-income families and results in substantial gains in vocabulary, especially in receptive vocabulary. It requires only a modest investment in time and material (books), but results so far indicate that it can substantially help close the equity gap in literacy, the difference in literacy competence between children from high and low-income families.

This is a contrast to the much more expensive and elaborate solutions currently under consideration, thus far lacking in clear empirical support (e.g. The LEARN Act, see Krashen, 2010). The results also mean that we need to pay more attention to the obvious and well-attested means of increasing literacy, read-alouds (Trelease, 2006), and continue to study the effects of ROR as well as similar projects (e.g. Imagination Literacy and Book Trust,* the latter providing books to older children. It also means reversing the current trend of defunding libraries, a major source of books for readers of all ages.

References
Blok, H. 1999. “Reading to Young Children in Educational Settings: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Research” Language Learning 49 (2): 343-371.
Brassell, D. 2003. “Sixteen Books Went Home Tonight: Fifteen Were Introduced by the Teacher” The California Reader 36 (3): 33-39.
Bus, A., M. Van Ijzendoorn, and A.Pellegrini. 1995. “Joint Book Reading Makes for Success in Learning to Read: A Meta-Analysis on Intergenerational Transmission of Literacy” Review of Educational Research 65: 1-21.
Cho, K. S., and D. S. Choi. 2008. Are Read-Alouds and FreeReading “Natural Partners”? Knowledge Quest 36(5): 69-73.
Fortman, K., Fisch, R., Phinney, Defor, T. 2003. “Books and Babies: Clinical Based Literacy Programs” Journal of Pediatric Health Care 17: 295-300.
Golova N., Alario A., Vivier P., Rodriguez M., and High P. 1999. “Literacy Promotion for Hispanic Families in a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial” Pediatrics. 103: 993-997.
High P., LaGasse L., Becker S., Ahlgren I., and Gardner A. 2000. “Literacy Promotion in Primary Care Pediatrics: Can We Make a Difference?” Pediatrics. 104: 927-934.
Krashen, S. 2010. “Comments on the LEARN Act” http//www.sdkrashen.com
Mendelsohn A., Mogiler L., Dreyer B., Forman J., Weinstein S., Broderick M., Cheng K., Magloire T., Moore T. and Napier C. 2001. “The Impact of a Clinic-Based Literacy Intervention on Language Development in Inner-city Preschool Children” Pediatrics 107(1): 130-134. Nagamine, W., Ishida, J., Williams, D., Yamamoto, R., and Yamamoto, L. 2001. “Child Literacy Promotion in the Emergency Clinic” Pediatric Emergency Care 17(1):19-21.
Sharif I., Rieber S., and Ozuah P.O. 2002. “Exposure to Reach Out and Read and Vocabulary Outcomes in Inner City Preschoolers” Journal of the National Medical Association. 94: 171-177.
Theriot J., Franco S., Sisson B., Metcalf S., Kennedy M. and Bada H. 2003. “The Impact of Early Literacy Guidance on Language Skills of 3-Year-Olds” Clinical Pediatrics 42: 165-172.
Trelease, J. 2006. The Read-Aloud Handbook. New York: Penguin. Sixth Edition.
Wang, F. Y., and S. Y. Lee. 2007. “Storytelling is the Bridge” International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 3(2): 30-35.

Stephen Krashen currently serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Book Trust (Fort Collins, Colorado). All members of the Book Trust board serve without pay.