Above: (Then) Illinois State Senator Barack Obama with Chicago Teachers Union members at the October 25, 2002 Chicago Teachers Union LEAD (Legislators Educators Appreciation Dinner). Despite the fact that members of Lynch’s opposition (the United Progressive Caucus) were boycotting LEAD events in an attempt to embarrass Lynch and her administration, Obama received the early backing of then CTU  leaders in his bid for the Democratic Party nomindation for the U.S. Senate seat he now holds. Obama’s earliest supporters  included President Deborah Lynch and Vice President Howard Heath, who helped ensure that Obama recieved more widespread support within the Illinois labor movement. CTU support offset some Democratic Party leaders in Chicago who at the time were backing Controller Dan Hynes for the nomination for the U.S. Senate seat Obama now holds (Substance photo by George N. Schmidt).

Obama believes in the proficiency levels that accompany the NAEP exam, a test given to children throughout the US: “During the last 20 years or so, over 10 million Americans reached the 12th grade without learning to read at a basic level … In 2000 only 32% of fourth-graders tested as reading proficient …” (p. 50).

As Gerald Bracey (e.g. Bracey, 1999) has pointed out many times, measurement experts have agreed that NAEP “proficiency levels” such as “basic level” and “reading proficient” have no actual basis. The NAEP categories appear to be arbitrary.

Obama also appears to accept the National Reading Panel report: “We know that children who start kindergarten with awareness of language and basic letter sounds become better readers …” (p. 51). Several scholars have argued is that “awareness of language and basic letter sounds” are the result of a more general competence in reading, which is really the result of interaction with comprehensible text, real reading (Goodman, 1993; Smith, 2005).

Obama notes that “the more reading material children are exposed to at home, the better they score in reading tests throughout their lives” but feels that the implications of this finding is to fund family literacy programs, ignoring the obvious fact that school and public libraries can also be of tremendous help in solving the problem of providing access to books for children.

Obama is apparently unaware of data showing that better libraries mean higher reading scores. He is also unaware of the many studies showing that children of poverty attend schools with inferior school libraries and live in communities with inferior public libraries (research reviewed in Krashen, 2004).

Obama repeats the common view that TV and computers are threats to reading: “When you’re at home, you might try to get your kids to read, but you’re competing with other by-products of the technology revolution, TV, DVDs and video-games ..” (p. 52). “Children can’t achieve unless they raise their expectations and turn off television sets …” (p. 50).

Obama is clearly unaware of research findings showing no relationship between time spent watching TV and time spent reading, and studies showing no relationship between computer use and reading. One study, in fact, concluded that more computer use was related to slightly more reading (research reviewed in Krashen, 2004). The bottom-line on TV and computers is this: The problem is not the presence of distractions but the lack of access to books.

Like nearly all politicians and media columnists, Obama ignores the real problem in literacy. Studies tell us that those with more access to books read more, and those who read more, read better. Children of poverty have very little access to books, and as everybody knows, they score poorly on reading tests. The first step in dealing with this obvious problem is to improve school and public libraries in high-poverty areas.

Obama said some very good things about libraries in his presentation; he feels that “libraries are a critical tool ..” (p.51). They are more than this. They are the core of the solution to ensuring that all children become highly literate. As Obama notes, “it should be as easy to pick up a book as is to rent a DVD or pick up McDonalds” (p. 51). Agreed. In fact, it should be a lot easier.

Notes: Bracey, G. 1999. Problems with NAEP writing proficiency levels. http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA/EDDRA9.htm.

Goodman, K. 1993. Phonics Phacts. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Portsmouth: Heinemann and Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Obama, B. 2005. Bound to the word. American Libraries August vol 36 (7): 48-52.

Smith, F. 2004. Understanding reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sixth Edition

Above: Chicago Schools CEO Arne Duncan (right)  reviews his prepared remarks alongside sparsely equipped library shelves at Chicago’s Farragut High School on September 19, 2005.  That day, the Chicago Board of Education held a media event to announce another “Redesign” plan for Chicago’s general high schools. To the left above is Farragut Principal Edward Guerra. A careful review of the Farragut library in early September showed that it has a large collection of law books (in a fancy special section named the “David Cerda Legal Clinic”) but a relatively small collection of the general circulation books that most high school students need. For the September 19 media event, Duncan’s podium (marked “United States Army”—  not “Chicago Board of Education”) was placed in front of the law library, rather than before the much more sparsely equipped general library. The Farragut library is typical of those in Chicago’s general high schools. The general high schools take the majority of students from their communities. They are not allowed to require high standardized test scores or set other criteria for admission. Stephen Krashen’s articles have long criticized the lack of  adequate libraries in public schools today. (Substance photo by George N. Schmidt).