Back in 1985, author Frederick Duffelmeyer warned of the "aura of precision" in using computerized readability formulas and assessments, and he encouraged more teacher judgment and common sense in choosing reading material for young students.  Alas, that sentiment is forgotten history.

Readington has approved the purchase of new library software to the tune of $18,000 and one of its features trumpeted by the administration is the ability to handle Lexile scores.  The Lexile scale is a readability formula which attempts to quantify the difficulty level of text with a number, such as "200L" for beginning levels or "1700L" for advanced levels.  Not incidentally, the NWEA student testing implemented by the current administration provides Lexile assessments for students taking the computerized tests.  With this circle complete, we can expect an emphasis on using Lexile scores to "help" students pick appropriate reading material.  That's a shame.

All readability formulas are essentially mathematical equations which factor in the easily measurable attributes of a text passage, such as sentence length, word frequency, the number of syllables or the number of multi-syllabic words, etc.  What the Lexile framework and similar formulas do not take into account is the content or subject matter of the text.  Therefore, the age-appropriateness of a book with a particular Lexile score for young student is not part of the equation at all and that often perplexes parents.  But, the danger of using Lexile scores to pick reading material for students goes far deeper than that.

Even when sticking strictly to the readability issue and ignoring the issue of content, the Lexile measure misses the mark.  For example, there are physical features of books which contribute to readability, such as font type and size or photographs and visuals which support the text.  Some books have reader aids like an appendix, glossary or index to support the text, some do not.  These things are not reflected in a Lexile measure.

What is more, some writers are better than others at pacing the introduction of new concepts or they may be writing in a style which is clearer or more coherent for certain readers.  Some text is easier for a reader to understand simply because of his or her background or experience.  As University of Deleware Professor John Pikulski puts it:

"prior knowledge will greatly influence how well a reader can understand text dealing with a particular topic. While a coastal engineer might easily read a technical report on the topic of tidal erosion, most of us would find the same text incomprehensible."

Lexile measurements focus on semantic and syntactic variables in the text but simply ignore format factors, conceptual factors, and style factors.

If this all sounds esoteric and possibly irrelevant, consider what is at stake here.  Readington is about to push the use of Lexile measurements, through the use of computerized student testing and a computerized library system, to choose reading material for our students.  By relegating the professional judgment of teachers and librarians to secondary status, the district is putting at risk the development of reading skills in our kids and their intrinsic motivation to read.

Readers develop stronger skills by stretching their capacity.  They choose harder books to read because they are interested in a particular subject, or because they like an author's style, or because the pages look interesting at first glance, or because somebody they trust liked the material.  If our educators are to use Lexile scores to help locate reading material for our students or to put together purchasing requests for new books, then we will be handicapping our students without cause.  Pikulski notes:

"The Lexile framework does not include provision for addressing factors such as motivation, interest, graphic supports, text structure or other factors that broadly affect text difficulty and student reading performance."

Stephen Krashen, writing in the California School Library Journal in 2002, considered the absurdity of the Lexile approach this way:

"There is an easy way to select texts that does not involve the use of readability formulae: try reading them. Recreational readers will not continue reading texts if they are not comprehensible or if they are dull. ...claiming that children aren't very good at selecting their own recreational reading...cannot be right. It amounts to the claim that children, left to their own resources, will plod through books that are incomprehensible or boring and are not aware of when they are understanding or when a text is interesting."

And that gets to the heart of the matter:  use of the Lexile framework in the rigid way Readington schools apparently intend to implement is paramount to second-guessing the professional judgment of teachers and librarians and it takes away the joy and the responsibility of student readers to discover for themselves what makes for a good book.  We will be telling students that they can read any book they want, as long as it falls in the narrow Lexile range with which they are labeled.  Instead of occasionally stretching their skills for the sake of a good read, they will be encouraged to stay right where they are.

Krashen continues:

"The use of systems such as the Lexile Framework can limit choices. Studies show that children often select books both above and below their current reading level, and this is a good thing. Children can often understand large sections of books that are 'too hard' because of their interest in and knowledge of the topic, and 'easy' books often provide valuable background in a new genre that encourages subsequent reading and makes it more comprehensible (Carter, 2000).  Left on their own, children engage in a "back and forth movement" between easy and hard books, reading both below and above their current reading levels (Fresch, 1995). In addition, children gradually read books that are more challenging, without the use of reading levels (Krashen, 2001a). The back and forth movement is actually a sine wave that gradually moves upward."

Unfortunately, the techno-lust of administrators and the obsession with relying on the supposed precision of computerized assessments over human judgment continues to push aside common sense in our district.  While our administration may claim that the Lexile framework will only be one part of the process to determine reading material for students, it cannot be denied that the expense of the NWEA testing suite and the new library software will need to be justified.  After all, the support of Lexile scores was a primary selling point when the school board was asked to approve the purchase of the new library software.  That likely means that the Lexile framework will continue to receive special attention and that the professional judgment of educators and the desires and developmental needs of student readers will be minimized.  All that can come from this new emphasis on the Lexile framework is to limit student progress in reading.