1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,200
This is the Reading Instruction Show. I'm your host doctor, Andy Johnson.

2
00:00:04,200 --> 00:00:10,400
Today we're going to talk about, among other things, six ways to make a clown-based argument.

3
00:00:10,400 --> 00:00:14,400
But first of all, it is a bold new day.

4
00:00:14,400 --> 00:00:17,900
Today we live in an age of clownery.

5
00:00:17,900 --> 00:00:26,700
In today's clown age, radio journalists like Emily Hanford get more attention from schools and state legislatures

6
00:00:26,700 --> 00:00:34,000
and even groups like the Illinois Reading Council than teachers do or serious academicians or researchers and scholars

7
00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:37,700
when they're talking about reading instruction.

8
00:00:37,700 --> 00:00:46,200
In this age of clownery, for-profit groups are making decisions about what gets taught in our schools

9
00:00:46,200 --> 00:00:53,200
and they're making decisions about what kind of professional development teachers receive.

10
00:00:53,200 --> 00:01:00,700
The voices of teachers and literacy experts, of scholars and researchers, have been silenced

11
00:01:00,700 --> 00:01:08,900
while the faceless money changers from the educational industrial complex, their voices, are amplified.

12
00:01:08,900 --> 00:01:14,600
So this podcast is designed to combat some of the clownery.

13
00:01:14,600 --> 00:01:19,500
This is part of an anti-clown movement.

14
00:01:19,500 --> 00:01:27,800
But one of the problems in combating clowns is the effectiveness of their own clownery.

15
00:01:27,800 --> 00:01:39,500
Amongst the clutter of jokes disguised as facts, it can be difficult to get accurate or truthful information out to the public.

16
00:01:39,500 --> 00:01:49,700
Today, no-nothing journalists, no-nothing radio journalists are considered experts in reading instruction.

17
00:01:49,700 --> 00:01:52,300
Imagine that.

18
00:01:52,300 --> 00:02:03,400
As well, an article or column in a newspaper or magazine written by a reporter who is hired to just write about stuff about everything

19
00:02:03,400 --> 00:02:12,500
gets more attention and more legitimacy than a solid peer-reviewed article published in an academic journal.

20
00:02:12,500 --> 00:02:16,300
And that's just the way of things. I understand.

21
00:02:16,300 --> 00:02:21,400
That's how most come to understand reality.

22
00:02:21,400 --> 00:02:29,500
And the decision-makers are bottle-fed the warm milk of distortion from the teat of American public media

23
00:02:29,500 --> 00:02:34,400
when it comes to reading instruction, not research.

24
00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:35,600
Research.

25
00:02:35,600 --> 00:02:39,200
Jerry said to me, we don't need no stinking research.

26
00:02:39,200 --> 00:02:43,300
You can make research say anything you want.

27
00:02:43,300 --> 00:02:48,800
This is a commonly heard statement, but it is untrue.

28
00:02:48,800 --> 00:02:53,000
You can't make research say anything you want it to say.

29
00:02:53,000 --> 00:03:02,600
Now, you can misuse or misinterpret or overinterpret and distort research to make it say what you want to say.

30
00:03:02,600 --> 00:03:09,100
You can find one or two outlier studies to support a particular position.

31
00:03:09,100 --> 00:03:15,100
You can look at only selected bits of research that support your predetermined ideas.

32
00:03:15,100 --> 00:03:22,200
Yes, this is what Emily Hanford does in the science of reading clown club.

33
00:03:22,200 --> 00:03:34,000
But a broad unbiased examination of a body of research paints a fairly consistent dot-to-dot picture of reading reality.

34
00:03:34,000 --> 00:03:37,400
A picture that's always evolving.

35
00:03:37,400 --> 00:03:48,500
And of course, using lots of data dots creates a picture that's more focused, more of a replication of reality

36
00:03:48,500 --> 00:03:59,500
than the picture used by Emily Hanford in the science of reading clown club that uses just one or two dots on their dot-to-dot picture of reality.

37
00:03:59,500 --> 00:04:08,400
Thus, whenever somebody talks about reading science or the science of reading, as the clown club would say,

38
00:04:08,400 --> 00:04:16,200
you have to look broadly at a wide variety of science and research related to reading instruction

39
00:04:16,200 --> 00:04:22,400
and not select a few studies to support your particular point of view.

40
00:04:22,400 --> 00:04:26,600
And that's what Emily Hanford of the science of reading clown club does.

41
00:04:26,600 --> 00:04:28,400
An analogy.

42
00:04:28,400 --> 00:04:34,900
Once there was a fellow named Pat who noticed seven dandelions in the backyard.

43
00:04:34,900 --> 00:04:44,700
He went out and picked those seven dandelions, brought them to his friend in the stream, looked, my yard is full of dandelions.

44
00:04:44,700 --> 00:04:46,300
Here's the analogy.

45
00:04:46,300 --> 00:04:52,700
Pat is to dandelions as science of reading is to reading research.

46
00:04:52,700 --> 00:04:56,200
They're picking a few dandelions.

47
00:04:56,200 --> 00:05:07,000
Peer reviewed research public published in academic journals is the currency that is used in an academic economy.

48
00:05:07,000 --> 00:05:19,900
And the last time I checked before Emily Hanford and Louisa Mott's came around to stinky up the place teaching reading was an academic endeavor.

49
00:05:19,900 --> 00:05:26,000
Last I checked teaching was an academic endeavor.

50
00:05:26,000 --> 00:05:36,700
Research published in blind peer reviewed academic journals is usually the most accurate, reliable, valid and consistent source to use to know

51
00:05:36,700 --> 00:05:40,000
and begin to understand reality in any field.

52
00:05:40,000 --> 00:05:44,800
It's not perfect, but it's one of the best sources.

53
00:05:44,800 --> 00:05:54,500
Now, I'll discuss what is and isn't research in another podcast, but for now understand that research comes in a variety of forms.

54
00:05:54,500 --> 00:05:59,500
All forms of research have their strengths and limitations.

55
00:05:59,500 --> 00:06:14,500
There is no such thing as a gold standard to eliminate some forms of research because you don't understand it or it doesn't align with what you think the research should say is not science.

56
00:06:14,500 --> 00:06:18,800
It's pseudo science or clown science.

57
00:06:18,800 --> 00:06:25,400
So the question remains in this Hanfordian clown age in which we live.

58
00:06:25,400 --> 00:06:30,200
How do we get accurate information out to the public?

59
00:06:30,200 --> 00:06:47,400
How do we inform the public so that they understand things like the reading process and educational research and science reading science evidence based practice teacher professional development and human learning?

60
00:06:47,400 --> 00:06:51,200
We want them to understand these things.

61
00:06:51,200 --> 00:07:05,700
Now, in the past, the answer was to write a book that would use research and reason to make a strong case using objective third person academic language or maybe a blog.

62
00:07:05,700 --> 00:07:06,300
That's it.

63
00:07:06,300 --> 00:07:11,700
We'd write a blog and maybe throw in an adjective or two to really zing them.

64
00:07:11,700 --> 00:07:16,700
Oh, we'd write a paper and we'd really let them have it with our citations.

65
00:07:16,700 --> 00:07:28,100
We double and triple site things and in our conclusions, we'd apply a couple of very strongly worded assertions.

66
00:07:28,100 --> 00:07:29,800
But here's the thing.

67
00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:38,100
Reason only works with the reasonable to fight a clown and combat clownery.

68
00:07:38,100 --> 00:07:41,400
One must sometimes act like a clown.

69
00:07:41,400 --> 00:07:44,200
And that's what I'm doing with this podcast.

70
00:07:44,200 --> 00:07:46,000
I'm using clownery.

71
00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:49,200
Clown based podcasting.

72
00:07:49,200 --> 00:07:53,400
But no, I won't distort truths.

73
00:07:53,400 --> 00:07:57,100
I won't pull facts out of context to make my point.

74
00:07:57,100 --> 00:08:01,500
I cannot bring myself to use that level of clownery.

75
00:08:01,500 --> 00:08:06,700
I'll leave that to Emily Hanford and the science of reading clown club.

76
00:08:06,700 --> 00:08:22,100
Instead, in these podcasts, I'll shamelessly use storytelling and sensationalism, anecdotal evidence and blatant pandering to capture and hold the attention of my listeners and to make my points.

77
00:08:22,100 --> 00:08:26,000
I might even cross over to sarcasm and cutting remarks.

78
00:08:26,000 --> 00:08:32,400
And if I'm really feeling Randy, I may even use a snarky comment or two.

79
00:08:32,400 --> 00:08:33,400
Oh, no.

80
00:08:33,400 --> 00:08:36,800
Glinda said, don't do that. You're better than that.

81
00:08:36,800 --> 00:08:39,500
Andrew Glinda is my conscious.

82
00:08:39,500 --> 00:08:42,500
And I said to her, no, I'm not better than that.

83
00:08:42,500 --> 00:08:45,900
As a matter of fact, I'm worse than that.

84
00:08:45,900 --> 00:08:52,600
Sadly, when dealing with clowns, reason and research doesn't work.

85
00:08:52,600 --> 00:08:57,800
They only understand seltzer models and pies to the face.

86
00:08:57,800 --> 00:09:02,000
Now, I want you to know I've tried other approaches.

87
00:09:02,000 --> 00:09:11,300
I spent years being a nice little bald man, making polite comments, using respectful academic discourse.

88
00:09:11,300 --> 00:09:20,800
And if my polite overtures had been attended to even a little bit, I would have no need to get all truthful on your ass.

89
00:09:20,800 --> 00:09:31,840
However, American public media, the news media, Emily Hanford and a whole host of science of reading clowns seem highly inclined to ignore even

90
00:09:31,840 --> 00:09:36,740
to demean my polite reasonable overtures.

91
00:09:36,740 --> 00:09:42,040
They're not willing to engage with those who might have differing ideas.

92
00:09:42,040 --> 00:09:45,640
It's easier to demean and dismiss or ignore.

93
00:09:45,640 --> 00:09:52,740
Thus, I am reduced to the kinds of behaviors you'd expect from a middle school kid.

94
00:09:52,740 --> 00:09:57,640
I wish I were better than that, but sadly, I am not.

95
00:09:57,640 --> 00:10:05,440
Now, when you engage with me individually, I will not make majority of comments about you or call you names.

96
00:10:05,440 --> 00:10:14,840
On an individual letter, on the individual level, I will continue to use respectful academic discourse.

97
00:10:14,840 --> 00:10:16,140
That's what I do.

98
00:10:16,140 --> 00:10:19,440
I'll make my points and support them.

99
00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:23,940
But on a collective level, I'm not going to hold back.

100
00:10:23,940 --> 00:10:32,640
You'll get some word pies right in the face and you're going to get squirted with a souser bottle full of sarcasm.

101
00:10:32,640 --> 00:10:40,440
And I'm sorry it's come to that, but you can't fight clowns with reason and research.

102
00:10:40,440 --> 00:10:43,240
Now, let's talk about making friends on the Internet.

103
00:10:43,240 --> 00:10:46,740
The Internet is a great place to make new friends.

104
00:10:46,740 --> 00:10:49,640
All day long, I'm busy making friends.

105
00:10:49,640 --> 00:10:53,540
And I really, I do, I say this seriously.

106
00:10:53,540 --> 00:11:00,040
I appreciate all the comments people post and especially those who disagree with me.

107
00:11:00,040 --> 00:11:03,840
It's important to hear these ideas.

108
00:11:03,840 --> 00:11:09,240
Hearing other ideas, especially those who disagree with me, does three things.

109
00:11:09,240 --> 00:11:12,340
First, it expands my thinking.

110
00:11:12,340 --> 00:11:18,240
Second, sometimes I actually change or evolve my thinking.

111
00:11:18,240 --> 00:11:24,640
Not overnight, it's not a rioting to Damascus experience, but I do change.

112
00:11:24,640 --> 00:11:25,640
I'm not the same.

113
00:11:25,640 --> 00:11:27,940
I don't believe the same things I did five years ago.

114
00:11:27,940 --> 00:11:30,340
It's a matter of evolution and change.

115
00:11:30,340 --> 00:11:42,340
And the third thing is sometimes it invites me to go back and review the research and look to support my ideas to see if I, what I'm really saying.

116
00:11:42,340 --> 00:11:56,440
Now, if I've gotten something wrong in a post, in a podcast or video, I'm always willing to go back and redo it to make another one to correct the mistakes I've made.

117
00:11:56,440 --> 00:12:06,040
However, listeners who disagree with me, I invite you to make your case, support it with reason and research.

118
00:12:06,040 --> 00:12:09,640
And let's have the discussion.

119
00:12:09,640 --> 00:12:14,440
Now, let's talk about clown based discourse.

120
00:12:14,440 --> 00:12:27,640
When the clowns disagree with some of the points I've raised or when they take issue with my podcasts or videos, rarely do they tell me exactly what points they disagree with?

121
00:12:27,640 --> 00:12:32,440
Rarely do they make a case and support their case.

122
00:12:32,440 --> 00:12:42,440
If you were to go to clown college, you would learn six ways to make a persuasive argument, none of which are very persuasive.

123
00:12:42,440 --> 00:12:46,440
And here's what they teach you in clown college.

124
00:12:46,440 --> 00:12:51,140
Ways to make a persuasive argument that aren't very persuasive at all.

125
00:12:51,140 --> 00:12:57,640
Number one, name calling and pejorative statements to make a case in support of their ideas.

126
00:12:57,640 --> 00:13:01,840
Clowns engage in name calling and pejorative statements.

127
00:13:01,840 --> 00:13:05,840
I'm wrong. They say I'm ignorant, misdited, lazy, ignorant.

128
00:13:05,840 --> 00:13:07,740
I have an agenda.

129
00:13:07,740 --> 00:13:09,040
Well, I do have an agenda.

130
00:13:09,040 --> 00:13:16,740
It's called giving teachers the tools so they can help each kid reach his or her full potential.

131
00:13:16,740 --> 00:13:18,440
That's my agenda.

132
00:13:18,440 --> 00:13:23,640
Or sometimes they say, I don't know what it's like down in the trenches.

133
00:13:23,640 --> 00:13:30,140
Degrading the other does not make a strong case for your idea.

134
00:13:30,140 --> 00:13:36,140
You can't be right simply because someone else is wrong.

135
00:13:36,140 --> 00:13:40,140
But, but isn't that what you're doing here?

136
00:13:40,140 --> 00:13:43,640
Aren't you calling us clowns?

137
00:13:43,640 --> 00:13:48,140
Well, if the large rubber shoe fits.

138
00:13:48,140 --> 00:13:52,740
But again, you can't fight clowns with reason and research.

139
00:13:52,740 --> 00:14:00,940
The second way to make a persuasive argument, which isn't very persuasive is the have you read strategy?

140
00:14:00,940 --> 00:14:03,740
The have you read question?

141
00:14:03,740 --> 00:14:09,040
Here, somebody tells me to read a book that someone else has written.

142
00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:11,340
Have you read Stanislaw Dihon?

143
00:14:11,340 --> 00:14:13,440
You need to read that book.

144
00:14:13,440 --> 00:14:15,640
Yes, I've read Stanislaw Dihon.

145
00:14:15,640 --> 00:14:21,440
I've read lots of books and articles published in peer reviewed academic journals,

146
00:14:21,440 --> 00:14:26,440
but simply telling somebody to read a book by somebody else

147
00:14:26,440 --> 00:14:30,840
does not build a strong argument for your case.

148
00:14:30,840 --> 00:14:34,240
Lots of people write books and articles.

149
00:14:34,240 --> 00:14:41,040
This would be like writing an article using the have you read strategy.

150
00:14:41,040 --> 00:14:45,840
It would be like writing an article in which you'd make a declarative statement in the article.

151
00:14:45,840 --> 00:14:54,140
One statement and then say you need to read followed by the 40 or 60 books and articles in the reference section.

152
00:14:54,140 --> 00:14:56,640
That's what it's like.

153
00:14:56,640 --> 00:15:04,340
Again, telling somebody to read something somebody else has written does not strengthen one's argument.

154
00:15:04,340 --> 00:15:09,040
The third, my favorite one, my absolute favorite, it's been debunked.

155
00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:12,340
Still makes me giggle every time I see or hear this one.

156
00:15:12,340 --> 00:15:13,640
It's been debunked.

157
00:15:13,640 --> 00:15:19,840
They'll unilaterally declare that theory idea approach a strategy or even a person.

158
00:15:19,840 --> 00:15:22,240
They say has been debunked.

159
00:15:22,240 --> 00:15:24,340
The queuing system has been debunked.

160
00:15:24,340 --> 00:15:26,140
Whole language has been debunked.

161
00:15:26,140 --> 00:15:29,040
Balance literacy has been debunked.

162
00:15:29,040 --> 00:15:32,240
And they know it's been debunked because somebody said it was debunked.

163
00:15:32,240 --> 00:15:35,840
Therefore, it's debunked.

164
00:15:35,840 --> 00:15:39,340
Well, I hear by debunked the theory of gravity.

165
00:15:39,340 --> 00:15:41,440
It's just a theory.

166
00:15:41,440 --> 00:15:46,340
Sometimes I see things going up in the air instead of coming down.

167
00:15:46,340 --> 00:15:52,340
Therefore, the grab the theory of gravity has been debunked.

168
00:15:52,340 --> 00:15:56,340
But here's the thing saying it so doesn't make it so.

169
00:15:56,340 --> 00:16:00,940
Even if a famous person says it doesn't make it anymore true.

170
00:16:00,940 --> 00:16:09,540
Statements like it's been debunked demonstrate a naive understanding of reading research and reading instruction.

171
00:16:09,540 --> 00:16:18,840
The fourth persuasive idea that isn't very persuasive that comes from Clown College is the research says strategy.

172
00:16:18,840 --> 00:16:30,540
The nameless, sightless research that they have conducted is used to make the case for something to be true or something else to be disproved.

173
00:16:30,540 --> 00:16:35,240
Of course, clowns don't cite any research.

174
00:16:35,240 --> 00:16:46,240
They'll cite a person or a book or they'll just say things, you know, kind of like saying Simon says research says stand on one foot.

175
00:16:46,240 --> 00:16:53,540
The fifth way of making a persuasive argument in Clown College, making a cartoon.

176
00:16:53,540 --> 00:16:56,240
This is sometimes called a straw man argument.

177
00:16:56,240 --> 00:16:58,740
Here you make an argument against the thing.

178
00:16:58,740 --> 00:17:01,040
That's not the thing.

179
00:17:01,040 --> 00:17:05,540
Before you create a cartoonish version of the thing, that's not the thing at all.

180
00:17:05,540 --> 00:17:10,540
And you say the thing is bad based on what is not the thing.

181
00:17:10,540 --> 00:17:13,840
Whole language is wrong because it doesn't teach phonics.

182
00:17:13,840 --> 00:17:15,940
That's not true.

183
00:17:15,940 --> 00:17:19,540
Balance literacy is bad because it doesn't use direct instruction.

184
00:17:19,540 --> 00:17:24,040
Again, not bad, not true.

185
00:17:24,040 --> 00:17:27,540
The queuing system teaches children to guess at words.

186
00:17:27,540 --> 00:17:36,040
Again, that's not true. You're making an argument against something that isn't true.

187
00:17:36,040 --> 00:17:37,840
It's often done with whole language.

188
00:17:37,840 --> 00:17:43,340
They present a perverted view of whole language and they say it's a bad thing.

189
00:17:43,340 --> 00:17:47,940
And the last one is called the their ranting strategy.

190
00:17:47,940 --> 00:17:57,340
Ranting is somewhat like name calling and pejorative comments in the first one in the first strategy.

191
00:17:57,340 --> 00:18:04,340
But I've been accused of going on rants and that's an interesting choice of words.

192
00:18:04,340 --> 00:18:07,340
I'm ranting about this, that, or the other thing.

193
00:18:07,340 --> 00:18:15,640
That's a type of pejorative word used to demean or delegitimize the views of those who may differ from you.

194
00:18:15,640 --> 00:18:24,340
Now, a rant is to declare a decline extravagantly or violently to talk in a wild vehement way

195
00:18:24,340 --> 00:18:35,340
or to exclaim incoherently and one associates ranting with somebody over the edge unreasonable, fully lit up.

196
00:18:35,340 --> 00:18:37,140
And here's an interesting thing.

197
00:18:37,140 --> 00:18:44,340
If a clown says that balance literacy is ruining America, that children are being harmed by professors like me

198
00:18:44,340 --> 00:18:53,040
and the three queuing system has been debunked, well, they're just stating the facts and protecting our children.

199
00:18:53,040 --> 00:18:59,940
But if I point out that Emily Hanford has no background in literacy and no obvious understanding of reading science

200
00:18:59,940 --> 00:19:06,540
and she's driving good teachers from the classroom, somehow I am ranting.

201
00:19:06,540 --> 00:19:10,040
And I know using all using my voice tone right now.

202
00:19:10,040 --> 00:19:12,440
It's hard for me to make a case that I'm not ranting.

203
00:19:12,440 --> 00:19:14,440
I understand.

204
00:19:14,440 --> 00:19:16,140
But one is a true teller.

205
00:19:16,140 --> 00:19:22,040
The other is a renter still trying to figure out how that works.

206
00:19:22,040 --> 00:19:25,540
So here is the big finish in this podcast.

207
00:19:25,540 --> 00:19:30,640
I don't mind when people use these six clown arguments.

208
00:19:30,640 --> 00:19:40,140
I understand that if you can't make a case for yourself or if reason and research are unavailable to you, you use what you've got.

209
00:19:40,140 --> 00:19:42,240
You call people names or say they're stupid.

210
00:19:42,240 --> 00:19:44,340
I understand.

211
00:19:44,340 --> 00:19:50,640
You use one or all of the six ways to make a clown based argument.

212
00:19:50,640 --> 00:19:58,440
But in an academic economy, peer review is the currency used.

213
00:19:58,440 --> 00:20:07,740
Blind peer reviewed research is the currency used in an academic economy and teaching reading.

214
00:20:07,740 --> 00:20:12,340
Last I checked was an academic endeavor.

215
00:20:12,340 --> 00:20:14,040
This is the reading instruction show.

216
00:20:14,040 --> 00:20:31,240
I'm your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.