Letters: NEA ‘Reading’ debate continues
NEA ‘Reading’ debate continues
January 2, 2008
Substance:
The NEA as a Messenger of Complacency?
In his discussion of the suppression of the Sandia Report in December’s Substance, Gerald Bracey notes that “It amazes me that each time someone points out that the educational sky is not actually falling, those who say it is lose all capacity for logic and accuse all the non-Chicken Littles of being messengers of complacency” (p. 7).
Here is another example to add to Bracey’s list: I recently concluded that the “decline” of reading habits and ability reported by the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) did not take place (Substance, January, 2008). The NEA director of research and analysis, Sunil Iyengar, disagreed and concluded a letter to the editor with: “I urge Mr. Krashen to be less complacent where American reading habits and skills are concerned.”
(His letter and my response will be published in District Administration Magazine, January, 2008; for a copy, please write me at skrashen@yahoo.com).
Of course, I am not complacent about reading habits and reading ability in the US or anywhere else. My major concern is access to books for children of poverty. These children have little access to reading material at school, at home, and in their communities, and have the lowest reading scores. The NEA appears to be quite complacent about this issue, which is not mentioned in their report.
Stephen Krashen
Malibu, CA
Skrashen@yahoo.com
