Alternatives to the Accelerated Reading Program
Marsha Grace
The Accelerated Reading program is a system of 1) assigning readabilities to chosen pieces of children's literature, 2) requiring children to select and read one of these AR books at the "child's AR level," 3) testing the children on the computer with a list of computer-scored questions after the child has read the book, and 4) rewarding the children with points earned from their computer tests.
Many schools use this program, and I know that I am one of the few people who do not recommend the program. After an ERIC search to review the literature on AR, I find there is simply no research base to support the wide use of AR over other valid and research supported programs like readers workshop or literature circles. But even in spite of what research might or might not be able to tell us, the accelerated reading program simply does not meet my own philosophical needs for how books and children should be brought together. Using an external reward system for getting children to read books while simultaneously reducing some of our best children's literature to a readability formula and a computer test is a process that reduces reading to a set of behaviors that I believe is counterproductive to lifelong reading and learning. Again, I believe I am one of the few people who feel this way. I prefer more powerful and profound reading programs where authentic methods of reading instruction, language development, concept formation, and writing engagements have solid ideological as well as research validity.
Betty Carter voices her objections to the AR program and says it best in
a recent article in the School Library Journal (v42 n10 p22-25 Oct 1996)
titled "Hold the Applause!: Do Accelerated Reader (TM) and Electronic
Bookshelf (TM) Send the Right Message?" She says,
Although the computerized reading management programs, Accelerated Reader and Electronic Bookshelf, increase library circulation and standardized test scores, they have drawbacks. Both programs devalue reading, diminish motivation, limit title choice, restrict materials selection and collection development, discourage independent selection of books, emphasize testing rather than needs, and fail to make the best use of school resources.
Even with the wide popularity of this AR program, I hope to pursue my interests
in authentic reading and writing programs that focus on open access to all
literature, teacher/student book conferences, guided reading, literature
discussions, and reading and writing connections.
My view of AR is not a popular one, I know. I have lately been recommending the AR program as a home-reading program that can be used by parents with their children while leaving more advanced reading programs to the teachers and schools. Perhaps this is a reasonable compromise.
For those looking for guidance in developing an authentic literacy program for your classroom and your school, you will want a copy of Regie Routman's Conversations. It's available from http://www.heinemann.com and well worth your time and energy. Happy reading.