Is In-School Free Reading Good for Children? Why the National Reading Panel Report is (Still) Wrong

Stephen Krashen
http://www.sdkrashen.com
Submitted for Publication
May be shared and cited

In Krashen (2001) I reviewed the section of the National Reading Panel (NRP) report (NCIHD, 2000) that dealt with fluency. I argued that in their review of in-school free reading research, the NRP missed a number of studies (they included only 14 comparisons of in-school free reading and regular instruction; I found 53), and made serious errors in reporting the studies they did include. I noted that some of the studies showing no difference between readers and comparisons involved students that were already advanced and had already established a reading habit. I pointed out that the NRP did not include long-term studies, which I found to be more supportive of SSR than short-term studies, and they also included one study in which students were highly constrained on what they could read. I argued that the case for free reading rests on more than experimental studies, that case histories also provided compelling evidence for the power of reading. I concluded that the evidence in support of free reading in school was strong, contrary to the panel’s conclusion.

Shanahan (2004) and Stahl (2004) both members of the NRP, attempted to respond to my criticisms. Their papers contain serious misrepresentations of my position as well as inaccuracies in reporting the literature.

"JUST LETTING KIDS READ ..."

Shanahan (p. 245) states my position as follows: "Krashen (2001) argued that just letting kids read is better than instruction ... ".

This is not an accurate description of what I wrote. I discussed "sustained silent reading" (SSR) and other in-school free reading programs. These programs include more than "just letting kids read." They set aside time to make sure children have a chance to read, provide access to good books, and do things that encourage reading. I strongly suspect that that "just letting kids read" is better than many kinds of instruction, but SSR does more than that.

There is evidence that many of the strategies used in SSR do in fact result in more reading. Modeling reading, or teachers reading while children are reading, results in more reading (Wheldall, and Entwhistle, 1988), as do providing more access to reading material, and activities done in conjunction with SSR, such as teachers recommending books, and teachers reading aloud to children (Von Sprecken and Krashen, 1998).