These are the footnotes for a brief excerpt from the Introduction to
The Read-Aloud Handbook (Penguin, 2006, 6th edition).

Footnotes for CHAPTER ONE

(WHY READ ALOUD?)

1. Tom Bradshaw and Bonnie Nichols, Kelly Hill, and Mark Bauerlein, “Reading At Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America,” Research Division Report #46 (Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, June 2004), online at http://www.nea.gov/pub/ReadingAtRisk.pdf.
2. "National Household Education Survey" (NHES), National Center for Education Statistics, 1999.
3. M. Perie, R. Moran, and A. D. Lutkus, (2005). NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics.
4. Richard C. Anderson, Elfrieda H. Hiebert, Judith A. Scott, Ian A.G. Wilkinson, Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading (Champaign-Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading, 1985), p. 23.
5. Ibid., p. 51.
6. Keith E. Stanovich, “Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy,” Reading Research Quarterly, Fall 1986, pp. 360–407; Richard Anderson, Linda Fielding, and Paul Wilson, “Growth in Reading and How Children Spend Their Time Outside of School,” Reading Research Quarterly, Summer 1988, pp. 285–303.
7. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Natural History of the Brain (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 59–60.
8. Keith E. Stanovich, “Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy”; Richard Anderson, Linda Fielding, and Paul Wilson, “Growth in Reading and How Children Spend Their Time Outside of School,” Reading Research Quarterly, Summer 1988, pp. 285–303; Richard L. Allington, “Oral Reading,” in Handbook of Reading Research, P. David Pearson, ed. (New York: Longman, 1984), pp. 829–64; also: Warwick B. Elley and Francis Mangubhai, “The impact of reading on second language learning,” Reading Research Quarterly, Fall 1983, pp. 53–67; also: Irwin Kirsch, John de Jong, Dominique LaFontaine, Joy McQueen, Juliette Mendelovits, and Christian Monseur, Reading For Change: Performance and Engagement Across Countries, Results From Pisa 2000, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), online at http://213.253.134.29/OECD/pdfs/browseit/9602071e.pdf; also: Mary A. Foertsch, Reading In and Out of School.
9. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction: Reports of the Subgroups (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, Publication 00-4754, 2000. Online at: www.nationalreadingpanel.org, or:
   www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.pdf
10. Joanne Yatvin, "Babes in the Woods: The Wanderings of the National Reading Panel," Phi Delta Kappan, January 2002, pp. 364-369; also: Joanne Yatvin, "I Told You So! The Misinterpretation and Misuse of the National Reading Panel Report," Education Week, April 30, 2003, pp. 56, 44; Yatvin was far from alone in her misgivings about the panel's findings. Dr. Richard Allington, a leading reading researcher for 35 years, compiled an entire book on the erroneous assumptions of the panel—Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum: How Ideology Trumped Evidence (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002); in addition, Dr. Elaine M. Garan found so many inconsistencies in the panel's report that she was able to build a small handbook on how to circumvent many of the questionable federal mandates — using the NRP's own words and recommendations—Resisting Mandates, (Portsmouth, NH Heinemann, 2002), as well as a second volume on the politics behind government imposed reading reforms—In Defense of Our Children: When Politics, Profit, and Education Collide, (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2004; also: Dr. Stephen Krashen, "The NRP Report on Fluency: More Smoke and Mirrors—A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Fluency," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 83, no. 2 (October 2001), pp. 119-123.
11. Denton, Kristen and Gerry West, Children's Reading and Mathematics Achievement in Kindergarten and First Grade, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2002), p. 20, p. 16; pdf file available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002125.pdf.
12. There are several versions of the NRP report, all available at:
    http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/publications.htm.
    The full report is called Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction—Reports of the Subgroups, (449 pages). It was accompanied by a 32-page summary report (with the same title as the larger report but without the words "Reports of the Subgroups.") Since nobody expected local, state, or federal offices to read 449 pages, the summary, coupled with some slick 60-page, full color booklets with titles like "Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read," were distributed to legislators, school districts, and child care centers throughout the U.S. The summary and booklets, produced in conjunction with a public relations company (Widmeyer-Baker) that has been a major client of McGraw-Hill/Open Court, ended up contradicting, warping, or misinterpreting much of the larger report and repositioning it to agree with the curriculum in certain highly scripted commercial reading series. For example, Elaine Garan noted in her 2004 book In Defense of Our Children: When Politics, Profit, and Education Collide (Heinemann, 2004) that the NRP summary said, “Across all grade levels, systematic phonics instruction improved the ability of good readers to spell.” The full report, on the other hand, said: “The effect size for spelling [for children in 2nd through 6th grade] was not statistically different from zero . . . [Phonics was] not more effective than other forms of instruction in producing growth in spelling.” See also" Steven L. Strauss, “Challenging the NICHD Reading Research Agenda,” Phi Delta Kappan, February 2003, pp. 438-442; Elaine M. Garan, Resisting Reading Mandates [Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002], pp. 8, 23, 41, 70-72. The "unscientific" accusations didn't stop with the National Reading Panel. There was so much evidence of conflict of interest between education publishers and people either working for Reading First or contracted to them that the inspector general of the Education Department opened a full scale investigation of the charges in late summer 2005 that many of the consultants for Reading First were consulting for private publishing houses on their reading programs and then evaluating programs for the Department of Education. See: Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "States Pressed to Refashion Reading First Grant Designs; Documents Suggest Federal Interference," Education Week, September 7, 2005, online at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/09/07/02read.h25.html; also Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, "Publishers Question Fairness of ‘Reading First' Process," Education Week, September 7, 2005, online at:
    www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/09/07/02readside.h25.html/ew/articles/2005/09/07/02read.h25.html; also: "Special Report: Reading First Under Fire, IG Targets Conflicts of Interest, Limits on Local Control," and "When Research Goes to Market, Is It a Good Thing for Education?" both by Andrew Brownstein and Travis Hick, Thompson TITLE I ONLINE, August, 2005, online at:
    www.titleionline.com/libraries/titleionline/news_desk/tio050826.html; and
    www.titleionline.com/libraries/titleionline/news_desk/tio050825.html. (WEB UPDATE: Responding to years of complaints, in September 2006 the Department of Education's Inspector General issued a report of its investigation of Reading First—see IG Report for the results.)
13. Denton, Kristen et al.
14. Adriana G. Bus, Marinus H. van Ijzendoorn, and Anthony D. Pellegrini, "Joint Book Reading Makes success in Learning to Read: A Meta-Analysis on Intergenerational Transmission of Literacy, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 65, 1, Spring 1995, pp. 1-21.
15. Warwick B. Elley, "Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories," Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 24, Spring 1989, pp. 174-187.
16. Ina V.S. Mullis, Michael O. Martin, Eugene J. Gonzalez, and Ann M. Kennedy, PIRLS 2001 International Report.
17. Betty Hart and Todd Risley, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children (Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing, 1996). For a downloadable 6-page condensation of the book: Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley, “The Early Catastophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3,” American Educator (American Federation of Teachers), Spring 2003, online at: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2003/catastrophe.html. This can be freely disseminated to parents, according to the AFT Web site. See also Paul Chance, “Speaking of Differences,” Phi Delta Kappan, March 1997, pp. 506–7.
18. George Farkas and Kurt Beron, "Family Linguistic Culture and Social Reproduction: Verbal Skill From Parent to Child in the Preschool and School Years," paper delivered March 31, 2001, to Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Washington, DC, online at:
    http://www.pop.psu.edu/~gfarkas/paa301.pdf; also: Karen S. Peterson, “Moms’ poor vocabulary hurts kids’ future,” USA Today, April 12, 2001, pg. D8.
19. Here's what is printed at the bottom of the article: "Articles may be reproduced for noncommercial personal or educational use only; additional permission is required for any other reprinting of the documents." That entire Spring issue is an easy to understand treasure of research on children's language and reading comprehension—free for downloading at:
    http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2003/index.html.

Chapter one — p. 1  p. 2  p. 3

Footnotes by chapter — 1   2   3   5   7   8   9