THE SCORE: 24 to 3

If we discard the "no difference" studies in the NRP report, we are still left with a good case for in-school free reading: 4 comparisons positive, none negative. If we discard all the no difference studies from my review, we are left with 24 positive studies and three negative studies. And all three negative studies had a short duration, less than seven months. This is a very strong case for in-school free reading.

ACCELERATED READER?

A statement by Shanahan (p. 248) could be interpreted as my showing support for Accelerated Reader, a reading management program that tests children on what they have read and rewards children for points earned on the tests. It is not clear that Shanahan intended to say that I support Accelerated Reader, but just for the record, I don’t. I have been critical of Accelerated Reader, and have concluded that there is no clear evidence supporting it (Krashen, 2004).

NO INDEPENDENT REVIEW?

Shanahan claimed that eight of the studies I claimed were omitted from the National Reading Panel report were not published in refereed journal papers. In Shanahan’s view, this means "they had no independent quality review" (p. 248) I counted only five in Krashen (2001) not published in journals. Of the five, four underwent peer review: One appeared in the National Reading Conference Yearbook, one in conference proceedings of the International Reading Association, another from an edited collection published by the International Reading Association, and one from the Claremont Conference Yearbook.

AN ABSURD ACCUSATION

Shanahan claims that I selected studies that agreed with my views but ignored those that did not (p. 248, 249), an absurd and false accusation. This would be a serious violation of professional ethics. It would also be a stupid thing to do, as any critic with access to a library could easily find the studies with counterevidence.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES?

Shanahan dismisses studies I cited that were done in Singapore, India, Fiji and Malaysia, saying that "Krashen’s approach assumes that cultural differences don’t matter" (p. 249). It is hard to see how cultural differences could modify the impact of reading on language and literacy development. In addition, the NRP panel cheerfully accepted the results of studies of phonemic awareness done in Israel, Norway, and Spain using languages other than English. The studies I cited all examined the impact of reading in English (on the development of proficiency in English as a foreign language). It is also of interest that these studies provided powerful support for the efficacy of free reading.

3