This is the Reading Instruction Show. I'm your host as always, Dr. Andy Johnson, or
trying something a little bit different when adding a video component to this. This is part
three of a series of podcasts focusing on an article that Jessica Winter has written
called The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy. This was published in The New Yorker on September
1. Now, Jessica Winter is an editor at The New Yorker where she also writes about family
and education. She wrote this article. I'm spending time analyzing it in this series
of podcasts because it misdescribes reading instruction on a way that is hard to imagine.
So doing it perfectly represents the misdescriptions and ununderstandings of the science of reading
movement. Now, normally I wouldn't waste a lot of time on a clown like Jessica Winter
as stated in an earlier podcast. A clown in literacy terms is one who thinks they know
a great deal about literacy when, in fact, they know relatively little. They know so
little that they don't even know how little they know. And what makes a clown a clown is
that they go around making decisions, promoting policies and advocating change based largely
on personal anecdotes, I thinkisms, and selected bits of research. Now, if one limits one's
clownism to the privacy of one's own home, clownery would not be a problem. But when
clowns with large platforms like Jessica Winter and Emily Hanford use their large platforms
to spread clownery like an infectious disease, we must waste our time and energy creating
an intellectual prophylactic. This is time that could have been spent actually helping
children achieve their full literacy potential. Now, Jessica Winter and Emily Hanford's intention
may be good, but intent doesn't negate impact and intent is not a free ticket to ignorance.
So let me do some explaining here. The International Literacy Association was formerly known as
the International Reading Association. It was founded in 1956. It's been around for
67 years and currently has over 300,000 members. The National Council of Teachers on English
founded in 1911 has been around 112 years and has over 25,000 members. That's 325 current
members of these two organizations consisting of researchers, scholars, teachers, writers,
educators, professors, and parents from all over the world. And along comes Emily Hanford
who says, I think I know more than these people. After all, I'm a journalist. And along comes
Jessica Winter who says, I think I know more than all these people. After all, I'm a journalist
and I watched my kindergarten daughter try to sound out words in an online lesson. So
they unpack their journalistic, I think, ism kits and go about infecting the masses. Meanwhile,
I'm left here and try to offer a little clown penicillin with my little, little tiny podcast.
So let's take a look first at what Jessica Winter got right. In her article in the New
Yorker, Jessica Winter describes what she calls vibe-based literacy. And this again
is based on her experience watching her kindergarten daughter's reading instruction, online reading
instruction during COVID. So she writes in her article and I'm quoting here, it seems
to me that rather than learning to decode a word using phonics by matching sounds to
letters with close adult guidance, a reader following this method, and I don't know what
she's referring to in method, a reader following this method is conditioned to look away from
the word in favor of the surrounding words or accompanying illustration to make a quasi-educated
guess, perhaps all on her own. It seems possible that my kid's scattered self-directed reading
style wasn't entirely a product of her age or her temperament. To some extent, it had
been taught to her. Now let's start, unquote by the way, let's start with what Jessica
Winter got right. In the first second, she wrote, it seemed to me. And later she wrote,
it seemed possible. Those are the two things that Jessica Winter got right. It seemed to
her. She's doing a bunch of seeming here and we can all agree on that. She came to conclusions
about all of New York's literacy instructor based on what she seemed. And these seemed-based
conclusions are what's called an I think-ism. Instead of relying on a body of research related
to child development and reading instruction, she came to a conclusion based on what she
seemed to think should or shouldn't be. I think-isms is a common cognitive operation
used in the clown club to come to understand reading instruction. So let's unpack Jessica
Winter's first I think-ism. She, in a sense, is saying this. She's saying I seem to think
that kindergarten students reading instruction should consist of learning to decode words using
phonics and she's seeming here. And she is saying I seem to think kindergarten students should learn
to match sounds to letters with close adult guidance. And again she's seeming here. And
Jessica Winter goes on to write a reader following this method. I don't know what method she's
referring to here, but since the opening paragraph in her article is talking about reading workshop,
we have to assume that this is what she's talking about. However, as I said and I need to repeat it
because she doesn't seem to get it, reading workshop is not a method with step by steps.
It's an approach to reading instruction. It's not a method with specific steps. Reading workshop
does not dictate a specific method. And most teachers using reading workshop, I would say all
of them teach letter-style relationships using very direct and very explicit instruction.
In fact, in reading workshop it's more direct because phonics instruction occurs directly
in the context of which phonics is used in real reading. Jessica Winter's second I think-ism
is this. She says I think students in readers workshop are conditioned, not taught. They are
conditioned like a mouse in a skinner box to look away from individual words instead of looking at
surrounding words or illustrations. They're conditioned to look away from individual words and
instead look at surrounding words or illustrations. That's what Jessica Winter's saying with this
I think-ism. And she uses the word conditioned. Really? Is it operant condition or classical
conditioning? Operant conditioning or classical conditioning are rewards given every time your
child looks away from a word? Is your child given a mild electric shock every time she looks at the
word? Jessica Winter says these students are conditioned. I want to know exactly what this
conditioning might look like. Or perhaps it's not conditioning at all. Perhaps she didn't mean to use
that buzzword. Perhaps she meant to use the word taught. That it's a lesson taught to kindergarten
students using direct instruction. Okay, fair enough, but what would this lesson look like? What would
the input be? Would it be something like this? Boys and girls, see this word? Look away! Look away
from it! Today we're going to teach you how to look away from words. Or maybe it went like this.
Boys and girls, see this word? Guess what it is? Or boys and girls, see this word? Don't look at the
letters. No matter what you do, don't look at the letters. Instead, guess what you think it might be.
Or maybe it went like this. Boys and girls, we learn to read using the guess method. We just
guess at every word we see. Yeah, Jessica, I bet you it went like that. By the way, Jessica,
I'm guessing this is how you learn to do journalism. When doing journalism, were you conditioned
to look away from the facts and then focus instead on surrounding conditions and the emotional picture?
Is that what you are conditioned to do? Well, here is the facts. Jessica, in a
meaning-based approach to reading instruction, such as reading workshop, very direct and explicit
phonics instruction occurs. And it's not the what of phonics instruction, rather it's the how
and the how much of phonics instruction. That's an issue here. And just because you don't understand
the how or can't perceive the how or can't imagine the how doesn't mean the how doesn't exist.
A famous philosopher and thinker once said, send in the clowns, don't bother there here.
Now, let's look at kindergarten and developmentally appropriate practice. Another thing to consider
about Jessica Winters, I think, is that she used her daughter's COVID kindergarten online
reading experience to generalize to all of New York's reading curriculum. Her daughter was in
kindergarten and kindergarten looks much different from first grade. And there's a reason for this.
It's because kindergarten is not first grade. In kindergarten, children are at a developmentally
different place than they are in first grade. And what's developmentally appropriate in first
grade is often not appropriate in kindergarten. Now, a little bit of learning here for you, Jessica
and Emily. Jean Pieds-Jay did some foundational research back in the 30s and 40s, looking at the
thinking of children. This was good qualitative research where he observed actual children.
It didn't involve controlled experimental research. And according to the science of reading criteria
on what constitutes scientifically based research, this wouldn't even be research. And according to
the national reading panel, this would not be scientifically based research. It wouldn't count.
Yet in 1936, Pieds-Jay's research fundamentally changed the way we think about education and go
about educating children. He influenced education in a very profound way. Yet there wasn't a control
or experimental group in sight. How is that possible? But Pieds-Jay found that children
think in fundamentally different ways than adults do. He also found that intelligence and thinking
develop in a series of stages as we move through infancy, infancy through adults. And he identified
four stages. The first one, sensory motor from birth or age two. Here, one's thinking is based on
the senses. What one sees, hears, feels, tastes, and it's influenced by the child's ability to move
about to see the world in three dimensions. This impacts how the brain develops. They know the
world through seeing, tasting, feeling. Pre-operational, about ages two to seven. Pre-operational stage
and operation here is a thinking process. It's the ability to take in information and use it,
versus simply responding to it. This pre-operational stage is a pre-reasoning stage. The child is not
able to use logic in a formal way. If A, then B, they're not quite able to do that. Pre-operational.
And that's kindergarten, ages two to seven or so. And these ages are approximations.
Concrete operational, this is first grade, ages seven to 11. This is the beginning,
the beginning of formal logic. Here, you're able to use a cognitive operation, a thinking process,
to manipulate knowledge. And formal operation, ages 11 through adulthood, this is the beginning
of the ability to use abstractions and more advanced forms of logical thinking. There's a
monumental shift in students' ability to think as they move from kindergarten to first grade.
They move from the pre-operational before logic to concrete operational logic. That's very concrete.
That's why reading instruction in kindergarten should look much different than reading instruction
in first grade. To be effective, instruction must be developmentally appropriate. In kindergarten,
children will not learn effectively if instruction is not developmentally appropriate.
So let's take a look at the push-down curriculum in kindergarten. What you don't want in any
circumstances in kindergarten, but what the Science of Reading Clown Club is pushing,
is what's called the push-down curriculum. This is when a first grade curriculum is pushed down
into kindergarten. This is based on a whole lot of I thinkisms or seems to me kind of thinking.
I guess you could call it pre-operational thinking. The pre-operational thinking here
is that if you start children earlier, that they'll be further along down the road. This is very
pre-operational. Jessica Winter seems to be wallowing in pre-operational thinking. And I'm sure
that seems to make good sense. It seems to be right if you've never read any Piaget or anything
about child development. It makes good sense to start formalized reading instruction in kindergarten.
However, research shows that children do not benefit from formalized reading instruction
until around age seven in first grade. Starting formalized worksheets-based first grade reading
instruction at the age of five is of little benefit. As a matter of fact, it can be detrimental,
creating experiences of failure and frustration for some. It can result in learning experiences
that are forced upon young children that aren't natural or enjoyable and create an aversion to
learning. What do you say? No reading instruction? What? What? No, I didn't say no reading instruction.
I said formalized worksheets-based first grade reading instruction. Reading instruction should
be started in developmentally appropriate ways at birth. Well, what about filets? We must teach
phonics. What about the children? Who's going to protect the children? And before you get all
wopped up about it, start waving your penguin flippers in the air. Let me say that this does
not mean you don't teach reading or you don't teach phonics. Quite the opposite. Phonics is taught
very directly and very explicitly in good kindergarten classrooms in developmentally
appropriate ways. Well, what would that look like? Well, let me tell you what it would look like.
For example, the D sound might be taught in the context of a book about Dave the dog.
Children would be asked to manipulate letters on cookie sheet activities. You might write
and read stories about dogs. You might look for D words in books. There might be D games
and manipulatives. There'd be D songs and riddles and poems. This is how children learn. There might
even be activities such as dance or movement in which children would be asked to move their bodies
in certain D waves. The point is young children learn through play and exploration and talk.
There'd be planned and systematic play, exploration and talk based on the letter D. There'd be short
bits of very explicit and very direct instruction lasting one to two minutes. This would take place
in the context of authentic reading, writing, thinking, and play activities. This is what
research says. A full gamut of research, not one or two controlled experimental studies.
And many of the effects of play based types of learning activities have a very strong
basis in research. These don't transfer to an online environment. Now, if you knew nothing about
literacy, early literacy, or child development and had no intention of finding out, I could see
why this stuff may have seemed to you other than it is. But there you have it. It's not the stuff
that is the problem. It's rather your seeming about the stuff. And remember, good reading
instruction does not teach children to merely sound out words. Good reading instruction teaches
children to be and become literate. To use thinking, reading, and writing for real purposes,
not to fill in bubbles in the artificial world of standardized tests. Now, let's take a look at
balanced literacy. Clowns, and again, I use the word in the most complimentary way possible.
Clowns in the clown club throw around this term balanced literacy as if it's a swear word,
a majority. Bet on literacy. You in there. Bet on literacy. Jessica Winter does this in her article.
Same with Emily Hanford. Jessica Winter uses her seeming to muddle up balanced literacy.
And with units of study with teachers college, and I would ask this of Jessica and Emily and the
other clowns, define what you think balanced literacy is. What is it? Now, it's one thing to
hear the term. It's another thing to know what the term is. Now, maybe when you first read the term
balanced literacy in a book, maybe you only looked at the letters. Maybe you didn't look at any of
the words around it. Maybe that's why you don't understand what balanced literacy is. You see,
Jessica, there are times when it's necessary to look at the surrounding words. It helps you
understand what you're reading. Now, this is what balanced literacy is. And I'll say this very slow,
asking that Jessica and Emily listen not only to the individual words, but the words surrounding
the individual words, so that you understand what I'm talking about. Let's start with what
balanced literacy is not. It's not an approach or method. Balance literacy also does not ignore or
diminish phonics instruction. It does not promote the queuing approach, whatever that is.
Balance literacy does not teach children to guess at words. And balanced literacy is not a
communist plot to overthrow America. Balance literacy is a continuum, a continuum with
explicit skills instruction on one end and meaning-based activities on the other end.
Balance literacy says that in any classroom, there should always be a balance between the two.
However, there's a sliding structure between the two ends of the continuum that gravitates
towards either end, depending on the needs of the students. Some students need more of this,
some need more of that. There is no standardized approach, but there should be 10 elements in a
comprehensive balanced literacy approach, phonemic awareness, phonics and word work,
activities to develop all three word recognition systems, activities for word identification
and instruction, daily reading practice, social interaction, authentic writing, comprehension,
instruction, vocabulary or word knowledge, and attention to the affective elements, motivation
and emotions. All 10. These are the 10 elements and they each exist to the degree to which each is
necessary with the students that you're working with. You wouldn't see any of these 10 in every
lesson, that would be silly, but over the course of the week, you could expect to see most, if not all.
And of course, when children are reading comfortably at reading level one, phonemic
awareness should be discontinued. And when they're reading comfortably at reading level two,
phonics instruction should begin to taper. Now, in your article, Jessica, you state, this is you
speaking, it's not me, I'm not making up your words, you're saying there's a longstanding
consensus among researchers that intensive phonics and vocabulary building instruction
and approach often referred to nowadays as the science of reading, that these are essential.
You're saying that intensive phonics instruction is essential, vocabulary building instruction
is essential. Well, let's break this down. What do you mean by longstanding? How long is longstanding?
Is it like 112 years? As long as the National Council of Teachers of English have existed?
Or is it 56 years? As long as the International Literacy Association has existed? How long is it?
And who are these nameless, faceless researchers? What is a researcher? Are they the researchers
who prove that nine out of 10 dentists recommend Crest Truth-Based? Are they the same researchers
who prove that you need to wait an hour after eating before you go swimming? Everybody believes
that phonics instruction should be part of an early reading, a part of early reading instruction.
Everybody believes that Jessica and Emily. But let's take a look at what the National
Reading Panel report says. Absolutely. This is the Bible quoted by the Science of Reading
Clown Club. Let's see what they actually say. What this report says about phonics and balanced
reading instruction. And this is going to blow your mind so you may want to sit down just a
little bit, Emily and Jessica. The limited impact of phonics. It says phonics instruction failed to
produce a significant impact on the reading performance of low-achieving readers in grades
two through six. Wow. Wow. Low-performing readers two through six. Limited impact.
But what do we do with struggling readers? We give them more of what has a limited impact.
That doesn't seem research-based. Impact of phonics on comprehension is limited.
You read to comprehend, don't you? It says that phonics instruction contributed only weekly,
if at all, and helping poor readers apply these skills to actually read text. Isn't that why we
do phonics? Not to score well on phonics sheets, but to actually read. And the report said that
there were insufficient data to draw any conclusions about the effects of phonics instruction with
normally developing readers above first grade. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself.
All right. What does it say about balanced literacy instruction? The National Reading Panel report
said programs that focus too much on teaching of letter sound relations and not enough on
putting them to use are unlikely to be very effective. Students need to apply their skills
in daily reading and writing activities. It says that systematic phonics instruction
should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a wait for it, wait for it, balanced
reading program. Quality literature should be included in a reading program. Phonics
should not become the dominant component of a reading program. It said that programs that
focus too much on phonics with little time spent practicing reading books are likely to be ineffective.
Well, well, I know that phonics is important. How should it be taught? What program should we buy?
The National Reading Panel said this. There are several ways to teach phonics. Synthetic phonics,
analytic phonics, embedded phonics, analytic phonics or analogy phonics or large unit phonics,
onset rhyme phonics, phonics through spelling. All approaches are equally effective.
And let's end with vocabulary. Since they insisted that reading instruction should consist only,
apparently, of intensive phonics instruction and vocabulary building instruction,
these are fancy-salary words. But we know everyone knows that attending to vocabulary
is important. But what does vocabulary building instruction look like? Tell me, Jessica and Emily,
you're the experts. What does it look like? It's one thing to say it, but what does it mean? Know
this, that children learn between 3,000 and 5,000 words a year. They don't learn these for a vocabulary
worksheet. So what does your vocabulary building instruction look like? It seems to me, Emily and
Jessica, that you think that early reading instruction consists mostly, if not exclusively, of intensive
phonics and vocabulary building instruction. Is that right? Well, I'm sure you want to be
research based in these conclusions. Can you find me just a couple of legitimate studies that
compares an approach using intensive phonics and vocabulary building instruction to a meaning-based
approach of instruction consisting of the 10 pillars? Not on the ability to do phonics worksheet,
but the ability to create meaning with print in the impact that it has. If so, please send the study
my way. I'll be happy to delete this podcast and make another one. This has been the Reading
Instruction Show. As always, I'm your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.