This is the Reading Instruction Show. I'm your host doctor, Andy Johnson.
Today we're going to talk about, among other things, six ways to make a clown-based argument.
But first of all, it is a bold new day.
Today we live in an age of clownery.
In today's clown age, radio journalists like Emily Hanford get more attention from schools and state legislatures
and even groups like the Illinois Reading Council than teachers do or serious academicians or researchers and scholars
when they're talking about reading instruction.
In this age of clownery, for-profit groups are making decisions about what gets taught in our schools
and they're making decisions about what kind of professional development teachers receive.
The voices of teachers and literacy experts, of scholars and researchers, have been silenced
while the faceless money changers from the educational industrial complex, their voices, are amplified.
So this podcast is designed to combat some of the clownery.
This is part of an anti-clown movement.
But one of the problems in combating clowns is the effectiveness of their own clownery.
Amongst the clutter of jokes disguised as facts, it can be difficult to get accurate or truthful information out to the public.
Today, no-nothing journalists, no-nothing radio journalists are considered experts in reading instruction.
Imagine that.
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
gets more attention and more legitimacy than a solid peer-reviewed article published in an academic journal.
And that's just the way of things. I understand.
That's how most come to understand reality.
And the decision-makers are bottle-fed the warm milk of distortion from the teat of American public media
when it comes to reading instruction, not research.
Research.
Jerry said to me, we don't need no stinking research.
You can make research say anything you want.
This is a commonly heard statement, but it is untrue.
You can't make research say anything you want it to say.
Now, you can misuse or misinterpret or overinterpret and distort research to make it say what you want to say.
You can find one or two outlier studies to support a particular position.
You can look at only selected bits of research that support your predetermined ideas.
Yes, this is what Emily Hanford does in the science of reading clown club.
But a broad unbiased examination of a body of research paints a fairly consistent dot-to-dot picture of reading reality.
A picture that's always evolving.
And of course, using lots of data dots creates a picture that's more focused, more of a replication of reality
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.
Thus, whenever somebody talks about reading science or the science of reading, as the clown club would say,
you have to look broadly at a wide variety of science and research related to reading instruction
and not select a few studies to support your particular point of view.
And that's what Emily Hanford of the science of reading clown club does.
An analogy.
Once there was a fellow named Pat who noticed seven dandelions in the backyard.
He went out and picked those seven dandelions, brought them to his friend in the stream, looked, my yard is full of dandelions.
Here's the analogy.
Pat is to dandelions as science of reading is to reading research.
They're picking a few dandelions.
Peer reviewed research public published in academic journals is the currency that is used in an academic economy.
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.
Last I checked teaching was an academic endeavor.
Research published in blind peer reviewed academic journals is usually the most accurate, reliable, valid and consistent source to use to know
and begin to understand reality in any field.
It's not perfect, but it's one of the best sources.
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.
All forms of research have their strengths and limitations.
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.
It's pseudo science or clown science.
So the question remains in this Hanfordian clown age in which we live.
How do we get accurate information out to the public?
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?
We want them to understand these things.
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.
That's it.
We'd write a blog and maybe throw in an adjective or two to really zing them.
Oh, we'd write a paper and we'd really let them have it with our citations.
We double and triple site things and in our conclusions, we'd apply a couple of very strongly worded assertions.
But here's the thing.
Reason only works with the reasonable to fight a clown and combat clownery.
One must sometimes act like a clown.
And that's what I'm doing with this podcast.
I'm using clownery.
Clown based podcasting.
But no, I won't distort truths.
I won't pull facts out of context to make my point.
I cannot bring myself to use that level of clownery.
I'll leave that to Emily Hanford and the science of reading clown club.
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.
I might even cross over to sarcasm and cutting remarks.
And if I'm really feeling Randy, I may even use a snarky comment or two.
Oh, no.
Glinda said, don't do that. You're better than that.
Andrew Glinda is my conscious.
And I said to her, no, I'm not better than that.
As a matter of fact, I'm worse than that.
Sadly, when dealing with clowns, reason and research doesn't work.
They only understand seltzer models and pies to the face.
Now, I want you to know I've tried other approaches.
I spent years being a nice little bald man, making polite comments, using respectful academic discourse.
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.
However, American public media, the news media, Emily Hanford and a whole host of science of reading clowns seem highly inclined to ignore even
to demean my polite reasonable overtures.
They're not willing to engage with those who might have differing ideas.
It's easier to demean and dismiss or ignore.
Thus, I am reduced to the kinds of behaviors you'd expect from a middle school kid.
I wish I were better than that, but sadly, I am not.
Now, when you engage with me individually, I will not make majority of comments about you or call you names.
On an individual letter, on the individual level, I will continue to use respectful academic discourse.
That's what I do.
I'll make my points and support them.
But on a collective level, I'm not going to hold back.
You'll get some word pies right in the face and you're going to get squirted with a souser bottle full of sarcasm.
And I'm sorry it's come to that, but you can't fight clowns with reason and research.
Now, let's talk about making friends on the Internet.
The Internet is a great place to make new friends.
All day long, I'm busy making friends.
And I really, I do, I say this seriously.
I appreciate all the comments people post and especially those who disagree with me.
It's important to hear these ideas.
Hearing other ideas, especially those who disagree with me, does three things.
First, it expands my thinking.
Second, sometimes I actually change or evolve my thinking.
Not overnight, it's not a rioting to Damascus experience, but I do change.
I'm not the same.
I don't believe the same things I did five years ago.
It's a matter of evolution and change.
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.
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.
However, listeners who disagree with me, I invite you to make your case, support it with reason and research.
And let's have the discussion.
Now, let's talk about clown based discourse.
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?
Rarely do they make a case and support their case.
If you were to go to clown college, you would learn six ways to make a persuasive argument, none of which are very persuasive.
And here's what they teach you in clown college.
Ways to make a persuasive argument that aren't very persuasive at all.
Number one, name calling and pejorative statements to make a case in support of their ideas.
Clowns engage in name calling and pejorative statements.
I'm wrong. They say I'm ignorant, misdited, lazy, ignorant.
I have an agenda.
Well, I do have an agenda.
It's called giving teachers the tools so they can help each kid reach his or her full potential.
That's my agenda.
Or sometimes they say, I don't know what it's like down in the trenches.
Degrading the other does not make a strong case for your idea.
You can't be right simply because someone else is wrong.
But, but isn't that what you're doing here?
Aren't you calling us clowns?
Well, if the large rubber shoe fits.
But again, you can't fight clowns with reason and research.
The second way to make a persuasive argument, which isn't very persuasive is the have you read strategy?
The have you read question?
Here, somebody tells me to read a book that someone else has written.
Have you read Stanislaw Dihon?
You need to read that book.
Yes, I've read Stanislaw Dihon.
I've read lots of books and articles published in peer reviewed academic journals,
but simply telling somebody to read a book by somebody else
does not build a strong argument for your case.
Lots of people write books and articles.
This would be like writing an article using the have you read strategy.
It would be like writing an article in which you'd make a declarative statement in the article.
One statement and then say you need to read followed by the 40 or 60 books and articles in the reference section.
That's what it's like.
Again, telling somebody to read something somebody else has written does not strengthen one's argument.
The third, my favorite one, my absolute favorite, it's been debunked.
Still makes me giggle every time I see or hear this one.
It's been debunked.
They'll unilaterally declare that theory idea approach a strategy or even a person.
They say has been debunked.
The queuing system has been debunked.
Whole language has been debunked.
Balance literacy has been debunked.
And they know it's been debunked because somebody said it was debunked.
Therefore, it's debunked.
Well, I hear by debunked the theory of gravity.
It's just a theory.
Sometimes I see things going up in the air instead of coming down.
Therefore, the grab the theory of gravity has been debunked.
But here's the thing saying it so doesn't make it so.
Even if a famous person says it doesn't make it anymore true.
Statements like it's been debunked demonstrate a naive understanding of reading research and reading instruction.
The fourth persuasive idea that isn't very persuasive that comes from Clown College is the research says strategy.
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.
Of course, clowns don't cite any research.
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.
The fifth way of making a persuasive argument in Clown College, making a cartoon.
This is sometimes called a straw man argument.
Here you make an argument against the thing.
That's not the thing.
Before you create a cartoonish version of the thing, that's not the thing at all.
And you say the thing is bad based on what is not the thing.
Whole language is wrong because it doesn't teach phonics.
That's not true.
Balance literacy is bad because it doesn't use direct instruction.
Again, not bad, not true.
The queuing system teaches children to guess at words.
Again, that's not true. You're making an argument against something that isn't true.
It's often done with whole language.
They present a perverted view of whole language and they say it's a bad thing.
And the last one is called the their ranting strategy.
Ranting is somewhat like name calling and pejorative comments in the first one in the first strategy.
But I've been accused of going on rants and that's an interesting choice of words.
I'm ranting about this, that, or the other thing.
That's a type of pejorative word used to demean or delegitimize the views of those who may differ from you.
Now, a rant is to declare a decline extravagantly or violently to talk in a wild vehement way
or to exclaim incoherently and one associates ranting with somebody over the edge unreasonable, fully lit up.
And here's an interesting thing.
If a clown says that balance literacy is ruining America, that children are being harmed by professors like me
and the three queuing system has been debunked, well, they're just stating the facts and protecting our children.
But if I point out that Emily Hanford has no background in literacy and no obvious understanding of reading science
and she's driving good teachers from the classroom, somehow I am ranting.
And I know using all using my voice tone right now.
It's hard for me to make a case that I'm not ranting.
I understand.
But one is a true teller.
The other is a renter still trying to figure out how that works.
So here is the big finish in this podcast.
I don't mind when people use these six clown arguments.
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.
You call people names or say they're stupid.
I understand.
You use one or all of the six ways to make a clown based argument.
But in an academic economy, peer review is the currency used.
Blind peer reviewed research is the currency used in an academic economy and teaching reading.
Last I checked was an academic endeavor.
This is the reading instruction show.
I'm your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.