A hypothetical example may help us understand whether AR should be used or not. Drug A and Drug B are both designed to cure a specific disease. A is known to be effective with highly beneficial long-term effects. There is little evidence for or against B, but suggestive evidence that it may be harmful in the long run. A drug company produces AB, more expensive than A alone, and justifies it by providing studies showing that AB tends to be effective. A scientist reviewing the research shows that no study has compared AB to A alone. Clearly such studies are called for before the medical establishment endorses or even approves AB. A is providing access and time to read. B is tests and rewards. Accelerated Reader is AB.

Obviously our first priority should be to make sure that high-interest reading material is easily available to students, and that students have time to read and a place to read. Ironically we have not even done this for many students. Instead, we rush off to purchase a more expensive, complex package that may have long term harmful effects.

References

Allen, L., Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. 1992. Multiple indicators of children's reading habits and attitudes: construct validity and cognitive correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 489-503.

Blok, H. 1999. Reading to young children in educational settings: A meta-analysis of recent research. Language Learning, 49(2), 343-371.

Bus, A., van IJzendoorn, M., & Pellegrini, A. 1995. Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis of intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research 65, (1), 1-21.

Cawalt, G. 2000. Portrait of a benchmark school. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 42-44.

Cipielewksi, J. & Stanovich, K. 1992. Predicting growth in reading ability from children's exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 74-89.

Facemire, N. 2000. The effect of the accelerated reader on the reading comprehension of third graders. ERIC Document ED 442 097

Goodman, G. 1999. The Reading Renaissance/Accelerated Reader Program. Pinal County School-to-Work Evaluation Report. ERIC Document ED 427 299

Howard, C. 1999. An evaluation of the Accelerated Reader program in grades three, four, and five on reading vocabulary, comprehension, and attitude in an urban southeastern school district

Krashen, S. 1993. The Power of Reading. Inglewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Krashen, S. 2001. More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 119-123.

Krashen, S. 2001b. Current research: The positive impact of libraries. California School Library Journal 25/1, 21-24.

Linn, R., Graue, E., and Sanders, N. 1990. Comparing state and district test results to national norms: The validity of claims that "everyone is above average." Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 10: 5-14.

Mathis, D. 1996. The effect of the Accelerated Reader program on reading comprehension. ERIC Document ED 398 555

14