1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,700 This is the reading instruction show. I'm your host as always Dr. Andy Johnson. 2 00:00:04,700 --> 00:00:12,780 The title of today's podcast is called Jessica Winter, Lucy Cockens, Units of Study and the 3 00:00:12,780 --> 00:00:20,200 Way to Get Good Reading Instruction. Long title I know. Jessica Winter is an editor at The New 4 00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:28,200 Yorker where she writes about family and education and she recently wrote an article for The New 5 00:00:28,200 --> 00:00:37,480 Yorker entitled The Rise and Fall of Vibes Based Literacy. Now in this series of podcasts, I'm 6 00:00:37,480 --> 00:00:46,760 analyzing this article because it describes or misdescribes reading instruction. And as I first 7 00:00:46,760 --> 00:00:53,320 started reading this article, I realized that Jessica Winter had no idea of what she was talking 8 00:00:53,320 --> 00:01:02,400 about. Her misrepresentations and ununderstanding could have a negative impact if readers actually 9 00:01:02,400 --> 00:01:10,160 took what she wrote seriously. And since The New Yorker has a circulation of over a million 10 00:01:10,160 --> 00:01:19,160 readers, I felt I should say something. But will my humble little podcast actually make a difference 11 00:01:19,160 --> 00:01:27,080 with my listenership of maybe a thousand on a good day? Will it change anyone's mind? I don't know. 12 00:01:27,080 --> 00:01:34,760 But at least I can sleep at night. Jessica Winter's article represents everything that's wrong and 13 00:01:34,760 --> 00:01:40,960 harmful about the current science of reading movement. And that's why I'm analyzing. It's a 14 00:01:40,960 --> 00:01:48,120 good representation of the whole science of reading thing. That's because it's based on a knowledge 15 00:01:48,120 --> 00:01:57,720 base related to reading instruction that's shallow and disjointed. Little knowledge. It relies like 16 00:01:57,720 --> 00:02:04,360 the science of reading on anecdotes, personal experience, and emotions to create a picture 17 00:02:04,360 --> 00:02:13,200 that's not at all accurate. And like the science of reading movement, Jessica Winter's article uses 18 00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:22,600 very unscientific processes to try to understand reading instruction. And when you use unscientific 19 00:02:22,600 --> 00:02:30,000 methodology to come to know things, you must expect to get cartoonish portrayals and misinformation. 20 00:02:30,000 --> 00:02:39,400 And I always find it a bit ironic that a movement with science in the title like the science of 21 00:02:39,400 --> 00:02:47,800 reading is in actuality so very unscientific in its methods used to understand reading reality. 22 00:02:49,480 --> 00:02:58,680 Now, Jessica Winter's article used the term vibes based literacy. It was in the title. And that's 23 00:02:58,680 --> 00:03:07,960 meant to demean those who are teaching literacy in a way that she doesn't understand. And like Emily 24 00:03:07,960 --> 00:03:15,520 Hanford, she seems to think she knows about reading instruction. After all, she's a journalist, just 25 00:03:15,520 --> 00:03:24,680 like Emily Hanford. She must know what she's talking about. Now, in an earlier podcast, I called 26 00:03:24,680 --> 00:03:31,560 Jessica Winter a clown. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. And I've referred to Emily Hanford is a 27 00:03:31,560 --> 00:03:38,360 clown. Maybe I shouldn't have said that either. I don't know. But it's the truth of the matter. 28 00:03:38,360 --> 00:03:48,480 And I'm not trying to be demeaning or pejorative here. But that's what they are. Now, they're not 29 00:03:48,480 --> 00:03:56,640 actual clowns. They don't belong to a circus or wear big shoes or rubber nose. And I don't think 30 00:03:56,640 --> 00:04:04,240 they jam themselves into small cars with other clowns. The word clown here is used as a metaphor. 31 00:04:05,440 --> 00:04:14,560 It's a bit of metaphorical shorthand. A clown in literacy terms is a person who thinks they know 32 00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:24,240 much about literacy instruction when in fact they know very little. And it's not a very complimentary 33 00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:30,480 term I know. But being a literacy clown is not something most people should aspire to be. 34 00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:40,880 But yet, here we are. So, like the science of reading advocates that I sometimes call them 35 00:04:40,880 --> 00:04:48,880 a clown club, Jessica Winter in her article gets all muddled up about things. She gets all confused 36 00:04:48,880 --> 00:04:55,440 about reading workshop and balance literacy and Lucy Cochens units of study, whole language, 37 00:04:55,440 --> 00:05:03,360 queuing systems and the look say approach. So, I'm going to try to disambiguate these things and do 38 00:05:03,360 --> 00:05:11,440 a bit of explaining on them. Because in their eyes, as their articles are written, these all seem to 39 00:05:11,440 --> 00:05:20,720 be the same things when in fact these are all distinctly different things. As I described in 40 00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:29,040 a previous podcast, reading workshop is not a method. It's an approach to teaching reading. 41 00:05:29,920 --> 00:05:37,520 And it's one of several approaches. Now, it's not a method with step by step procedures that 42 00:05:37,520 --> 00:05:44,560 have to be followed like a recipe. And as I described in another podcast, reading workshop 43 00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:51,600 looks distinctly different in each teacher's classroom. So, you cannot equate reading workshop 44 00:05:51,600 --> 00:06:00,000 with balance literacy with units of study or whatever that is. So, why does Lucy Cochens 45 00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:07,280 always get in the mix here? I don't understand that. In the 90s, I read Lucy Cochens book, 46 00:06:07,280 --> 00:06:14,080 The Art of Teaching Writing and The Art of Teaching Reading. Great books. Go read them. 47 00:06:15,200 --> 00:06:22,320 Very influential and helping us evolve our thinking about how children best learn literacy 48 00:06:22,320 --> 00:06:30,800 and how we can create the conditions to best enable all students to reach their full literacy 49 00:06:30,800 --> 00:06:40,400 potential. After all, we, meaning-based literacy instructors, are about much more than simply 50 00:06:40,400 --> 00:06:48,000 teaching children how to sound out words. We're teaching children to become literate. 51 00:06:48,000 --> 00:06:56,160 Not sound out words, but to become literate. Being literate means you're able to use reading 52 00:06:56,160 --> 00:07:03,680 and writing for authentic purposes and not to simply identify what bubble to fill in 53 00:07:04,480 --> 00:07:12,000 on a standardized test. If you are literate, you're able to use expository text to know and 54 00:07:12,000 --> 00:07:19,040 understand. You're able to read for enjoyment. You're able to use writing to think, to record, 55 00:07:19,040 --> 00:07:28,560 to transmit your ideas. We're teaching children how to be and become literate. That's what 56 00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:38,080 meaning-based teachers do. And for Jessica Winters, literacy is not a permanent state. It's a 57 00:07:38,080 --> 00:07:45,360 dynamic state. We don't reach a single point where we are in a stable place and say, now 58 00:07:45,920 --> 00:07:54,000 I am here. If we continue to read, write, and think, our literacy skills continue to evolve 59 00:07:54,000 --> 00:08:01,520 throughout our lifetimes. And this is important because if we don't do these things once we 60 00:08:01,520 --> 00:08:09,920 leave school, if we don't continue to read, write, and think, our literacy skills evolve. 61 00:08:11,360 --> 00:08:19,200 So if we create literacy programs like the science of reading seems to be advocating, 62 00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:26,240 if we create programs that are so boring, humiliating, frustrating that students never 63 00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:36,000 want to read and write once they leave school, we're promoting illiteracy, devolution, and limitations. 64 00:08:37,840 --> 00:08:46,560 Now, back to Lucy Cochens. She was one of many great writers of the time. She's got great stuff 65 00:08:46,560 --> 00:08:56,000 to say. I admire her. Lucy Cochens wrote some really good stuff, but so did a lot of other people. 66 00:08:56,560 --> 00:09:03,840 Regie Routeman, Nancy Atwell, Donald Graves, Constance Weaver, Marie Clay, Brian Camborn, 67 00:09:04,400 --> 00:09:12,160 Richard Allenton, and Ken and Yeta Goodman. More on Goodman in just a minute because I know 68 00:09:12,160 --> 00:09:21,200 people get all riled up when they hear that name. But Lucy Cochens no more represents and speaks for 69 00:09:21,200 --> 00:09:28,720 all meaning-based instruction than I represent and speak for all neurotic bald men. She is one of 70 00:09:28,720 --> 00:09:37,600 many good writers and thinkers out there. And as I said, everything evolves. That's the thing about 71 00:09:37,600 --> 00:09:46,160 understanding literacy and literacy research and the science of reading. Everything evolves. People 72 00:09:46,160 --> 00:09:54,000 continue to study, research, learn, and change their views on things. They evolve. The field of 73 00:09:54,000 --> 00:10:02,400 literacy instruction. It's a dynamic, constantly changing thing as we get more knowledge and new 74 00:10:02,400 --> 00:10:10,560 knowledge. We never get to the place where something is proven once and for all. As science of reading 75 00:10:10,560 --> 00:10:19,600 people like to say, science has not proven this or unproven that. That represents a naive understanding 76 00:10:19,600 --> 00:10:27,520 of science and reading science. Controlled experimental research is used to support or not 77 00:10:27,520 --> 00:10:34,960 support an individual research hypothesis. And in order to control all extraneous variables, 78 00:10:35,680 --> 00:10:43,600 good research focuses on a very specific thing with a very specific problem and a very specific 79 00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:52,320 population. All of these studies are used to create research-based theory and not only controlled 80 00:10:52,320 --> 00:10:58,400 experimental research, but qualitative research, ethnographic research, all these different 81 00:10:58,400 --> 00:11:06,000 kinds of research are used to make up theories. And a theory is a way to explain a set of facts 82 00:11:06,640 --> 00:11:13,200 and we use them to understand phenomena. Different theories explain different facts 83 00:11:13,840 --> 00:11:22,080 differently. But theories continue to evolve in all manners of science. They continue to 84 00:11:22,080 --> 00:11:29,360 evolve until they no longer explain phenomena. They become inadequate or weak. Then they're 85 00:11:29,360 --> 00:11:37,760 replaced by new theories. That's the way it works in science. Now, I've written three books about 86 00:11:37,760 --> 00:11:45,520 reading instruction and you can see the evolution of my thinking with each. And even though I thought 87 00:11:45,520 --> 00:11:52,160 my last book was my best, as I hope I do with all my books, I see a need to start on another one. 88 00:11:53,520 --> 00:11:59,280 And while I thought Lucy Cochran's book about teaching writing was one of the best ones back 89 00:11:59,280 --> 00:12:06,640 in the 90s, I found recently that I couldn't use it today simply because it didn't capture what needed 90 00:12:06,640 --> 00:12:14,080 to be said today. Thus, I had to write my own book about teaching writing published by Rutledge, 91 00:12:14,080 --> 00:12:21,200 due out in 2024 sometime. That was a little commercial. Being and becoming teachers of writing, 92 00:12:21,200 --> 00:12:24,880 a meaning-based approach. Look for it on your bookshelf soon. 93 00:12:26,320 --> 00:12:34,880 All right. Now, let's go to the teachers college reading and writing project, which is a teacher's 94 00:12:34,880 --> 00:12:43,040 college is used as a short term and units of study. Somehow Jessica Witters and the science of reading 95 00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:50,160 clowns, and I say that in the most respectful way possible, have equated teachers college and units 96 00:12:50,160 --> 00:12:59,120 of study and Lucy Cochran's is a binary proposition opposite of science of reading. In other words, 97 00:12:59,120 --> 00:13:04,000 if you are not fully aligned with the science of reading propositions, whatever they are, 98 00:13:04,560 --> 00:13:11,680 then you must be following Lucy Cochran's and teacher colleges, etc. in lockstep. It's one or 99 00:13:11,680 --> 00:13:20,720 the other. And this is where it gets really, really silly. There are many manifestations and 100 00:13:20,720 --> 00:13:28,400 iterations of meaning-based literacy instruction. And that's what makes it so powerful and effective 101 00:13:29,120 --> 00:13:36,080 because it requires teachers to know and understand some important principles about literacy learning. 102 00:13:36,080 --> 00:13:44,480 However, they must then adopt and adapt only those research-based strategies that meet the needs of 103 00:13:44,480 --> 00:13:52,080 their students and align with their own teaching styles and philosophy. There is no such thing 104 00:13:52,080 --> 00:14:01,120 as a one size fits all program. What works for one may not work for another. There are no magic 105 00:14:01,120 --> 00:14:10,320 bullets. There's only magic teachers with teacher toolboxes filled with research-based tools, 106 00:14:11,200 --> 00:14:20,000 and they are empowered to use those tools. Now, thinking that a school could buy a particular 107 00:14:20,000 --> 00:14:28,480 program or a curriculum or even units of study is the antithesis of good meaning-based literacy 108 00:14:28,480 --> 00:14:35,440 instruction. It's Falderal being promoted by the science of reading clown club. And I mean that in 109 00:14:35,440 --> 00:14:42,720 the most complimentary way. To think that you're going to solve all reading problems by purchasing 110 00:14:42,720 --> 00:14:52,800 and then mandating a particular program or curriculum is just silly. It's foolish. It represents 111 00:14:52,800 --> 00:15:00,160 clown-based thinking. And then to force teachers, as the science of reading clown club wants to do, 112 00:15:00,960 --> 00:15:08,160 to teach in a particular way, disempowers them and disallows them to create instruction that best 113 00:15:08,160 --> 00:15:18,400 meets the needs of all their students. These top down mandates serve only to force teachers to 114 00:15:18,400 --> 00:15:26,880 commit educational malpractice on a daily basis. And any school superintendent who's silly enough 115 00:15:26,880 --> 00:15:32,800 to think that he or she can buy a product to solve their reading problems probably shouldn't be a 116 00:15:32,800 --> 00:15:38,720 superintendent. They should probably look for a position on the home shopping network instead. 117 00:15:40,560 --> 00:15:48,160 If you think you have to pay for very expensive special training that you can use only if you 118 00:15:48,160 --> 00:15:54,320 been trained like letters or orton ghillie n' em. You can't use it if you haven't been trained. 119 00:15:55,680 --> 00:16:01,280 If they think you need that to get good reading instruction, well, you're just misinformed. 120 00:16:02,880 --> 00:16:09,600 The way to get good reading instruction is and always has been very simple to understand. 121 00:16:09,600 --> 00:16:20,000 Again, we need knowledgeable literacy teachers. That's the answer, not some silly product or curriculum. 122 00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:28,480 Expert reading teachers, knowledgeable reading teachers, expert reading teachers have six 123 00:16:28,480 --> 00:16:34,000 kinds of knowledge. And here they are. If you're an expert reading teacher, you have knowledge 124 00:16:34,000 --> 00:16:40,800 of how humans learns. Human learning, that's number one. Number two, expert reading teachers 125 00:16:40,800 --> 00:16:45,920 have knowledge of how the brain creates meaning with print, how it operates during the reading 126 00:16:45,920 --> 00:16:53,040 process. Three expert reading teachers have knowledge of literacy teaching and learning. 127 00:16:54,560 --> 00:16:58,560 Number four, expert reading teachers have knowledge of literacy research. 128 00:16:58,560 --> 00:17:04,880 Number five, expert reading teachers have knowledge of literacy assessment and diagnosis. 129 00:17:06,160 --> 00:17:12,960 And six expert reading teachers have knowledge of literacy pedagogy, different strategies. 130 00:17:14,480 --> 00:17:20,720 Now, you can't bypass this knowledge by trying to buy the right program with a strip that must be 131 00:17:20,720 --> 00:17:30,000 followed with fidelity. And you can't treat teachers as if they're mindless zombies waiting 132 00:17:30,000 --> 00:17:36,880 for the directors of educational management. And you can't expect that teachers will learn all 133 00:17:36,880 --> 00:17:43,840 this stuff in three semesters of any teacher preparation program. It's just not possible. 134 00:17:43,840 --> 00:17:51,440 The only way to improve reading instruction is by providing legitimate and mandated teacher 135 00:17:51,440 --> 00:17:58,240 professional development that occurs over time. It's not a one stop kind of thing. It's not 136 00:17:58,240 --> 00:18:07,040 a drive through experience. Now, you might think that you need to pay the leeches and bloodsuckers 137 00:18:07,040 --> 00:18:09,920 to come to your school to get everyone all trained up. 138 00:18:09,920 --> 00:18:15,840 But training is what we do with dogs and seals. We don't train people. We educate them. 139 00:18:16,720 --> 00:18:23,040 We need good, legitimate professional development for teachers, not the one and done after school 140 00:18:23,040 --> 00:18:30,240 workshop. And there are ways to do this without wasting thousands and even millions of dollars 141 00:18:30,720 --> 00:18:36,560 that could be spent instead on good books. And I'll describe this in another video. 142 00:18:36,560 --> 00:18:48,400 But two things I want to finish up with. First, the science of reading. What exactly? 143 00:18:49,520 --> 00:18:54,800 My clown friends insist that science of reading based teaching should occur in classrooms. 144 00:18:55,440 --> 00:19:02,880 And I actually agree with them. I do. That's exactly what I describe in my books. 145 00:19:02,880 --> 00:19:08,480 What I'd like Emily Hanford and Jessica Winter and other clowns to tell me is this. 146 00:19:09,280 --> 00:19:17,280 What exactly do you want to see more of? What strategies and teaching practices specifically 147 00:19:17,280 --> 00:19:22,320 are not there that should be there? And how do you know they're not there? 148 00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:31,360 And two, what exactly do you want to see less of? What strategies and teaching practices are there 149 00:19:31,360 --> 00:19:39,680 that should not be there? And if we would limit the conversation to specific teaching strategies 150 00:19:39,680 --> 00:19:47,440 and teaching practices, we might get somewhere. But instead, look what you're doing. You're forcing 151 00:19:47,440 --> 00:19:55,680 me to call you clowns. And I don't enjoy calling you clowns. But when you won't engage in a meaningful 152 00:19:55,680 --> 00:20:04,000 way, I'm left to use this very childish type of metaphorical shorthand. I don't want to do it. 153 00:20:04,720 --> 00:20:11,840 All right, let's talk about Ken Goodman. My science of reading friends disagree. They know they should 154 00:20:11,840 --> 00:20:17,840 disagree vehemently with Ken Goodman, not because they've read anything he's written, but because 155 00:20:17,840 --> 00:20:24,560 they've been told they should disagree with him. They've been told he's wrong. He's bad. He's crazy. 156 00:20:24,560 --> 00:20:33,040 And many of these same adjectives, I'm sure, are being applied to me. That's okay. I'm a big boy. 157 00:20:33,040 --> 00:20:39,280 I can take it. But that's not good scientific thinking. Now, I don't agree with everything 158 00:20:39,280 --> 00:20:46,000 that Ken Goodman wrote. I agree with much of it. I don't agree with everything that anybody wrote. 159 00:20:46,000 --> 00:20:51,440 I don't even agree with everything that I wrote. That's why I keep changing and evolving. 160 00:20:51,440 --> 00:20:58,800 And like all good thinkers, Ken Goodman continued to evolve throughout his life. His later material 161 00:20:58,800 --> 00:21:05,760 on eye movement and miscue analysis should be required reading for all teachers of reading. 162 00:21:07,040 --> 00:21:13,840 And before you make any pronouncement about Ken Goodman, you owe it to yourself to actually read 163 00:21:13,840 --> 00:21:20,320 what he wrote and tell us exactly what it is you disagree with. That's good scientific thinking. 164 00:21:20,320 --> 00:21:28,240 Don't rely on misquoted statements pulled out of context. Ken Goodman did some incredible work 165 00:21:28,240 --> 00:21:34,560 in his life. And if you disagree with him, fine. Tell us exactly what it is you disagree, 166 00:21:34,560 --> 00:21:45,440 make your statement and support it. All right. I'm going to end with four terms. And I don't know if 167 00:21:45,440 --> 00:21:54,400 this is a good way to end or not. If it's positive or not, but I'm going to end. These are metaphorical 168 00:21:55,440 --> 00:22:03,120 bits of metaphorical shorthand to quickly pull up what I mean when I say certain things. First 169 00:22:03,120 --> 00:22:10,720 of all, I've used the term leeches and bloodsuckers in literacy terms. These are people who exist to 170 00:22:10,720 --> 00:22:17,360 suck the financial blood out of our educational system. All right. Very objective about this. 171 00:22:17,360 --> 00:22:22,720 Their goal is to become fat and bloated on the hopes and dreams of our parents who want the best 172 00:22:22,720 --> 00:22:28,480 for their children. And they come to town like Professor Harold Hill and the Music Man selling 173 00:22:28,480 --> 00:22:35,040 a dream with their slick tables and graphs promising fantastic results. If we buy their method or their 174 00:22:35,040 --> 00:22:42,640 product or their program, very much like Harold Hill's think method, they tell us their shiny 175 00:22:42,640 --> 00:22:49,280 new products are the answers to all our problems. But these are often solutions to problems that 176 00:22:49,280 --> 00:22:57,040 don't exist. And if a problem doesn't exist, they'll make up a problem like the reading crisis to sell 177 00:22:57,040 --> 00:23:03,280 their product because their problem, the leeches and bloodsuckers are is this. How can we make more 178 00:23:03,280 --> 00:23:10,480 money? How can we garner more resources? The second term is penguins. Penguins are more 179 00:23:10,480 --> 00:23:15,840 accurately phonics. Penguins are those who squawk and wave their flippers in the air saying, 180 00:23:15,840 --> 00:23:22,480 phonics, phonics, we need more phonics. If we just had more phonics, all reading would be solved. 181 00:23:22,480 --> 00:23:28,480 All reading problems would be solved. All right. That is a penguin. Someone who thinks that phonics 182 00:23:28,480 --> 00:23:34,160 is the only thing and the answer for everything. That is a penguin. And in the most objective and 183 00:23:34,160 --> 00:23:40,960 respectful terms, I use that. Number monkeys, again, objective and respectful, try to explain the 184 00:23:40,960 --> 00:23:48,720 world in terms of numbers. They try to explain learning in terms of numbers. If it can't be 185 00:23:48,720 --> 00:23:54,560 quantified, it doesn't exist. The only learning that's valued is that which can be tested or 186 00:23:54,560 --> 00:24:00,720 quantified. If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is there to assess us, 187 00:24:01,360 --> 00:24:10,480 we can't say that tree fell. And they've convinced, not us, but you, that we can test our way to better 188 00:24:10,480 --> 00:24:18,240 reading. And of course, a clown is someone who thinks they know a great deal about literacy 189 00:24:18,240 --> 00:24:24,320 instruction when in fact they know very little. Clowns go around making decisions, promoting 190 00:24:24,320 --> 00:24:31,040 policies and programs, and advocating change based on personal anecdotes, I thinkisms, 191 00:24:31,040 --> 00:24:36,720 and documentaries and articles written by journalists. Clowns don't waste their time 192 00:24:36,720 --> 00:24:43,200 getting facts if they can make up their own. This has been the reading instruction show. I'm your 193 00:24:43,200 --> 00:24:50,640 host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Today, we've looked, analyzed, this was part two of a series of podcasts 194 00:24:50,640 --> 00:24:59,280 looking at an article written by Jessica Winter in the New York Times. And this article was called 195 00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:08,160 The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy. And I'm analyzing this article in a series of podcasts 196 00:25:08,160 --> 00:25:15,680 because it so clearly illustrates what is going on in the science of reading movement. 197 00:25:15,680 --> 00:25:39,680 Stay tuned for the next part.