GEN: Accelerated Reader vs. Reading Counts

[Barb Engvall <engvallb@wolfenet.com>]

There has been much discussion on an off about Accelerated Reader and
the new Scholastic program Reading Counts (previously Electronic
Bookshelf). Our school hasn't yet used either program, but I have been
investigating both. Here are some of the things I have discovered:

The major problem with Reading Counts, at least for my building, is the
Lexile (TM) levels  which are used for identifying student reading
levels. These levels come as a number from 100-1700, which is not easily
comparable to other reading tests. This is what is termed a 'closed'
system, meaning that you can only use a Lexile-based test, not any other
norm-reference reading test with the program. One of the other problems
with this comes when you try to create your own tests...there is no way
to determine the Lexile Level of a book on your own. (I asked RC about
this specifically...they said you would just have to figure it out with
the grade level equivalency on the book, thus having to use 2 separate
systems.) In checking the web, there does appear to be some software
available for Lexile Framework, but I have no idea about cost. It
appears to be proprietary.

AR on the other hand uses the Flesch-Kincaid formula for readability.
This is a standand that is widely established and recognized, using
direct grade level equivilents. If you want to create your own tests for
AR, you can easily determine the reading level by typing the book or
passages from it into MS Word and run the grammar checker, which will
give you the readability on the Flesch-Kincaid scale.

One speculation about AR has been that they have been paid by or have
been paying book publishers/jobbers to have books added to AR's growing
list of quizzes. I have it in writing and have asked them specifically
about this and they assure me that there is no money exchanged either
way. Except for the initial purchase of disks (when you first purchase
the program), you can only purchase the 'publisher' disks directly from
the publisher or jobber (Perma-Bound or Follett, for example).

The comparison of the two programs goes on and on in a similar manner.
AR has loads of research (granted some of it doesn't say much, and some
of it is in-house); Electronic Bookshelf/RC doesn't have any. Training
materials (both kits, and in school and hotel seminars) are quite
extensive for AR; RC says they will have some out in the fall.

It seems to me that the only thing RC has going for it is that it is
less expensive than AR. However, another important thing: Reading Counts
isn't even released yet!!! MAYBE at the end of the week for the reading
quiz portion, MAYBE at the end of the month for Scholatic Reading
Inventory (which takes twice as long (20 min) as a S.T.A.R. test). They
have been dangling the carrot out there since February, so who knows
when it will be out.

Based on this information, we have decided to join the other 40,000
schools and jump on the AR wagon. I have done my best to wade through
all the sales pitches from both companies and have asked my district
curriculum and testing professionals for their interpretations. IMHO
Reading Counts, at least at this point, appears to be a flashy lookalike
but with some potential problems that they will not tell you about if
you don't ask or understand. Perhaps it really is ok, but I am not
willing to risk time, money and kids' education to be a pioneer.

DISCLAIMER:
NO, I do not work for AR nor am I or my school getting any financial
gain from this posting. I know that there will be those out there that
disagree with me; that's fine, but please don't flame this attempt at
analyzing these two programs.

Hope this helps those who are trying to make similar decisions. Sorry
this is so long. Thanks for sticking with it!

--
Barb Engvall
Library Media Specialist
John Campbell Elementary School
Selah, WA   98941

engvallb@wolfenet.com

Check out the Washington Library Media Association web site: http://www.wlma.org
Or the Selah School District web site: http://www.selah.wednet.edu

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=
    All postings to LM_NET are protected under copyright law.
To quit LM_NET (or set-reset NOMAIL or DIGEST), send email to:
 listserv@listserv.syr.edu         In the message write EITHER:
 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL or 3) SET LM_NET DIGEST
 3) SET LM_NET MAIL  * Please allow for confirmation from Listserv
 For LM_NET Help & Archives see:  http://ericir.syr.edu/lm_net/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=