There we go. Good morning. This is the Reading Instruction Show, and I have a very, very
special guest in my studio, Susan Vincent. Susan, who are you?
Well, I'm happy to be here. It's great to chat with you, and I always love chatting
literacy. So my name is Susan Vincent, and I am an experienced teacher, i.e. old, but
I've been around early literacy for over 30 years. At 30 years, I stopped counting,
so I'm not sure how far past that I am, but I've been a first grade classroom teacher,
a reading specialist, a literacy coach, and I currently teach at the university level
teaching pre-service teachers. So that's who I am in a nutshell. I'm in Oxford, Ohio, at
Miami University, which is where I teach. Wow. Experience and knowledge. Well, Susan,
if you could say anything to the science of reading advocates, what in the heck would
you say? Well, I'm glad you asked, because I do love talking about this. And when I teach
my pre-service teachers the first day of class, I always like to give them my background so
they know who's teaching them. And I've discovered that as I go through kind of my experience,
it mirrors a lot of what's happening right now with the, if you want to call them, reading
wars or whatever. So if I could kind of go through my history and tell you, because in
a nutshell, what I would like to say to teachers in the field, administrators making decisions
about curriculum, legislators who are passing laws, I'm in Ohio, we have legislation being
passed right now that not only dictates what you do, it dictates what you can't do. And
some of what you can't do is very research based and successful. So all of that, you
know, there are things that I would like to say that I think balanced literacy or what
I hate even using terms like that, because we all think of different things when we hear
terms like that. But I think the practices that are commonly associated with balanced
literacy have either been misunderstood by the science of reading movement. And I do
think there are people that just misunderstand or purposefully misrepresented to move the,
you know, cause forward. And I do think there are people that purposefully misrepresent
maybe journalists, perhaps you might misrepresent when they know better. So my message would
be, we really need to be clear about what it is we're moving against. And so I'll just
tell you my background. I came to Miami University, which is where I teach here in Ohio, in the
1980s. And I was in a whole language program, they said flat out, you know, we're whole
language, that's what we do. I learned whole language. And then when I got my first job
as a first grade teacher, it was in a whole language district, they said we're whole
language. But even then, when it was as whole language as you can get in my district, we
had a phonics program that we taught every day 20 minutes a day with my first graders,
I was doing a phonics program, where they learned to hear sounds and words, they learned
the letter sounds, they learned to decode, I was doing it even back then. And in my undergraduate
program, we read articles that talked about balance, you know, we're not going to throw
kids in a pile of books and hope they learn to read, we have to teach them skills as well.
So I feel like even back then, we were doing a balanced job. So then after I was a first
grade teacher, I became a reading recovery teacher, my district had a plan that every
first grade and kindergarten teacher in the district would be trained. So I was trained
in reader recovery in the mid to late 90s, and did that for seven years. And then I became
a teacher leader, which meant I went around and trained the recovery teachers. But even
then, like I'd look back. And when I was first a reading recovery teacher, I inherited a set
of books, and they were very patterned. So this is issue number one, the issue of what books do
we put in front of emergent readers to read. And the science of reading movement would say,
balance literacy uses patterned books where kids don't have to look at the print, it's just about
memorizing looking at the picture and memorizing the words, and then saying if they don't actually
learn to interact with the print. And I think the thing is, I think both sides have valid points,
and that's how we get on this swing. And I think the valid point was that was happening. I saw it
happen. I had the same books with all the patterns that went on way too long. But my point is, and
it was around 1998, somewhere in there, all the recovery teachers were gathered together. And we
were told, you can't be using pattern text after what they said was after kids have left to right
directionality. I would go so far as to say after they have one to one matching, because pattern text
is a crutch to help children be able to say, oh, one word out of my mouth. I point to one word on
the page. So in 1998, we were told to get rid of the patterned books as soon as they had, you know,
that print concept of going left to right. So to me, that's a very false argument. That's one of
their main arguments is it's all about memorizing, you know, words, memorizing patterns. So then I
go on and I became a literacy coach. And I got involved. I don't know, do you subscribe to spell
talk by any chance? No, I do not. Or do you know what that is? I do not. Okay, well, you should
subscribe. So I was a reading specialist during the time that the dyslexia movement came about,
which I feel like was legitimate. I feel like there were a lot of kids who had learning disabilities
who were not taught with the appropriate instruction. I think that was legitimate. And at that time,
the special education teachers in our district asked us to join this listserv. And so it's kind
of an old fashioned listserv where you get emails, the discussion happens through emails. And it's
a science of reading movement. Louisa Mott's is on it. All the big names are on it plus thousands
and thousands and thousands of special ed teachers, speech therapists, Steven Dykstra, all that crew
is on this listserv. And I joined very naively thinking I would interact with these people and
we'd have these great conversations. And as soon as I started interacting, I learned very quickly
they were not interested in my point of view. But I didn't leave. I stayed on. I've been on probably
10 years now, because I learned from them what their point of view is, what their beliefs are,
what they think has gone wrong. And I think there are kernels of truth, things were happening,
that needed to be addressed, but it just went way too far, way too far. So I suggest what I believe
in learning from everybody, like let's hear what people have to say, that's how we become better.
I would suggest you join. Okay, I will look at that. I agree with you. It's important to hear
what people are thinking. Even if they yell at you, it strengthens your own point of view.
Anyway, great story. Keep going. This is good. So I guess my next point would be
one of the other things balanced literacy is accused of besides the pattern text. So we could
have a discussion about what kind of text we put in front of children. But they also, like you see
it over and over again, three queuing. The approach is three queuing. And I just kind of want to set
the record straight. Even people who are balanced literacy people and reading recovery professionals
now start using the term three queuing. And we never used that term. That was never a thing.
It wasn't an approach. But now because of all the media calling it three queuing,
now we call it three queuing. And I refuse to call it three queuing because it's not a thing. But the
idea was when children read, when anybody reads, they are reading printed language. It's language.
And so inherent in printed language is the print. Also inherent in language is meaning.
Language is meaningful. That's what it's for. And also inherent are structural things like the way
things like the way English works. And that's the three things, meaning visual, which is the print,
the phonics, and language structure. Let's stick down. That is such an important part.
Three queuing is not an approach. It's not a strategy. It's a recognition that brain uses
interactive systems to recognize words during reading. I'm going to say it again. It is not a
method. It's not an approach. It's not a strategy. It's an understanding.
Yeah. And it's inherent. It's inherent in the reading. You can't take it away. So Ohio
passed legislation outlawing three queuing. How do you outlaw what's inherent in printed language?
Hey, you kids, don't use all of your brain. Just use the lighter sounds.
Yes. Yes. So that's problematic. Marie Clay, who, you know, they all, she started reading recovery
and brought it to the United States. And I trained. So she brought it first to Ohio State
University. That's where I got my training and reading recovery and as a teacher leader,
I had Gay Supernell, you know, the whole thing. But again, and I think this was around 2000-ish,
I can't remember when her publications changed. And she said flat out, I'm not using the term
queue anymore because it's so people are misunderstanding it and misinterpreting it.
We're done with queuing or she didn't even say queuing. We're done with talking about queues.
We're going to talk about sources of information. And so from about spend 23 years now that people
in our profession stopped using the term queue, but this movement went back in time and looked at
old publications, old things that were written and thought, ah, here's something. Here's a good
point we can make. And that's how this came about. Which just drives me crazy. Let's dig down on that.
You know, pulling up terms and misusing them, misapplying, even things, you know, Ken Goodman
has become a swear word to some people. Yes. He's been accused of a called it guessing at words.
Yes. Why? That just drives me crazy too. They pull a little thing and they misunderstand a term
and they misuse a term. And Marry Clay and Ken Goodman are are swear words to some. Yes. I would
posit they actually never read an article by these people. No. No. And so you mentioned the word
guessing. Yes. And I'd kind of like to talk about that as well because when they give the example
of guessing, the typical argument that they say or the example is those balanced literacy people
teach children to look at the first letter and the picture and then guess because that is a prompt
and a strategy that you might teach a kid. But I kind of want to explain it. It works in the exact
opposite way of what they're thinking it does. It teaches children not to guess because when we
teach emergent readers, we know that children who don't know anything about print concepts,
you know, little kids, two year olds, three year olds, four year olds, and they open a picture book,
they make it up as they should. That's a normal part of literacy growth. And we call it we always
called it inventing. They would invent the story and that's a normal, you know, stage you go through
before you learn how to use the print. Yeah. In order to stop that and to teach children that,
you know what, we don't just make it up. We have to use the printed symbols. The easiest symbol to
use is the first letter in a word. It's the easiest to see because space comes before it.
It's the easiest thing to recognize in your mouth at first part. So in order to stop guessing,
the first step could be, you know, you said puppy, but look, look at the first letter. It's a D.
Let's think about how it can't be puppy, which you guessed. So that whole guessing thing, I think
our purposes were the exact opposite of what they think. And then the other strategy, and I don't,
I think this, I don't know if this was a Lucy Calkins or maybe it was in classrooms that work.
I don't know where it came from, but it was the cover the word, you know, the strategy,
like you might have a chart the kids are reading and one of the words you cover with a post-it note,
and then you just reveal letter by letter. And they're saying you're teaching them to guess.
You're having, you're covering the word and then saying, what do you think it is? Again,
I've used that strategy and I use it for the guessers because I need to teach them. You can't
guess. Let me show you. If you're saying like if the text is there is my house and they're saying
home, I'll cover it and say, okay, you think it's home. Let's check. Could it start like this?
Could there be an O next? Oh, but now look, what would you see if it was home? You'd see an M. Let's
look at what it actually is. And now let's talk about, you know, the O youth, like it's like an
out. So you know what to say there and there's an S. So what could it be? So for me, that cover the
word was not about guessing, it was about stopping guessing. And it develops metacognition. Does it
make sense? That's the purpose of reading. Yes. And so kind of to get back to that spell group
talk, and I think they've evolved too. When I first was getting emails from them, they were against
any kind of meaning making until like third grade, like, no, there can't be any meaning in the text
because children's minds might go away from the decoding and that would get in the way of orthographic
mapping. And all that, I think they've evolved from that. They didn't like any sight words,
even though OG and I'm trained in OG. So I'm not somebody who's not trained, like I'm trained in
OG, I'm trained in foundations, because I wanted to learn about everything so I can speak from a
point of knowledge. I think they've moved away from that. They didn't want sight words because
it got in the way of orthographic mapping. Like, if you memorize a word, then you haven't
orthographically mapped it and then that's going to mess up your whole system of reading.
How would you define orthographic mapping? To me, it's that when you have a lot of experience
seeing a printed word and you've matched the sounds coming out of your mouth with the printed
symbols and whatever form it is, letter by letter, it could be chunk by chunk, however,
but you've matched the sounds coming out of your mouth with the print that you're seeing
and your brain recognizes that word and knows that word and knows the meaning of it. And you've
done that enough that it becomes a sight word, like you just know it, then it's been orthographically
mapped. I mean, that's to me, that's what that is. And I don't know that I'm not an expert in
orthographic mapping, but what would you add to that or take away? I would just comment, you know,
the brain has naturally evolved to recognize patterns. It's a pattern recognition thing.
But when we hear the word cat, we don't associate it with short A words, we associate it with cat
things with meaning. That's how our brain organizes words, not by letters, but by concepts.
So this idea that as we're reading, our brain is acting like a computer matching letter sounds,
matching letter sounds, oh, it's focusing on concepts on meeting. Anyway, interrupt, did you?
No, no. I think that's right. And, you know, I always wonder back when they were saying there
should be no sight words and you shouldn't expose the kids to any words that they can't decode.
That's how the book should work. I always wondered what they thought about children who know their
own name. They come to school, and that's a sight word and most of them are not, you know,
phonically regular. How do they explain that? Or do they argue like, oh, you shouldn't teach
your child their name because it... Dolce, Zeno, Frye, these most frequent words. And there's
research to show that if you're not, these most frequent words freeze up short-term memory to
focus on meeting. So you're not saudi now, the in of. And you leave kindergarten with 40 or to
50 of these, you know? And it's just, it's one of those what I call I thinkisms. I think that's
right. So it's based on I thinkism that we shouldn't have sight words. Anyway, I like that. Sounds
like you have gone, lived through the history, reading first initiative. You went through that.
That was interesting to me because my, you know, for reading first, it was funding that controlled
people. And my district was a higher socioeconomic district, and we didn't need the funding. And
we didn't take the funding and we didn't do reading first. So I continued to teach in this very balanced
place. Our kids did great. But at that point, I was a teacher leader who I went around to other
districts and trained teachers in other districts. So I was in a lot of different places that were
reading first. And what I found ended up matching the research that came out in 2008 that it didn't
work. But I found that the richer districts and they tended to be white continued to teach in a
balanced way with very engaging little books for children. And they were reaching high levels.
The districts that I were in that took reading first tended to be lower socioeconomic tended to
have more children of color tended to be like you would walk in and they were doing worksheets
and skills. And they had very nice handwriting. I would always say that they did a great job on
handwriting. But it was very skills oriented. And but it didn't translate into becoming a reader
who can comprehend text. So in 2008, when the research came out that it, you know, didn't make
a difference that we had done all this and reading first, I have to say I was not surprised at all.
But then what was heartbreaking to me was after all that, after that research came out, that's when
the dyslexia movement started. And then my district followed the dyslexia movement. And at that point,
we adopted Divils. We adopted like we started going that way after it had already been shown.
And then teaching changes because assessment drives how teachers are going to instruct.
Because sometimes their paycheck relies on it, their evaluations rely on it. And so when my
district started using we used AIMS web instead of Divils. And there was the whole how many nonsense
words can you read in one minute. So then you'd walk in classrooms and there's teachers teaching
nonsense words, because they need their kids to score high. And you have teachers training kids.
When you read, just go as fast as you can. If you don't know a word, just blow by it. If you're not
understanding it, don't go back and reread. Just keep going, because you've got to get a lot of
words per minute. So because we adopted that skill based assessment and we valued it so highly,
teaching changed as well. And I always ask, do we want students to be able to sound out words
or to be literate? To be literate is to use reading and writing for authentic purposes.
You go ahead and you sound out your silly words in isolation. I want my students to be literate.
And that speaks to what books we put in their hands. So to me, there are, you know,
leveled books have also been like they're against the law in Ohio now, leveled books are against the
law. And decodable books are what everyone has to use. But again, those are just labels. There are
leveled books that have the same level of decodability as some of the decodable books.
And so what I just really wish we could get to the point of is having teachers who have enough
professional knowledge to choose books that fit the needs of the students in front of them. So yes,
they have a chance to practice their decoding skills. But they also from the earliest days have
a chance to maintain meaning as they're decoding because it, you know, that's a tricky thing to
do two things at once. And if we have teachers who can look at books, no matter what the label is,
and decide this fits my purpose, this doesn't, instead of legislating, and then publishers
slap labels on, just, you know, it just drives me crazy. When the whole language movement came,
people were just slapping the whole language movement on stuff to sell product.
Yes. And now you see it, you see publishers doing that. You see consultants who are now,
I'm going to teach you phonics and science of reading. You know, a year ago I was balanced
literacy, but now I'm this and I understand like that's their living. That's how they have to make
a living with laws passed. You won't get hired in Ohio if you're not teaching that. So I understand
people doing this, but I just think that's why it's so important that legislators and decision
makers, administrators, learn the field and not just go by what, you know, journalists or a movement
to tell them. Or at least ask the experts. I want to ask you about journalists and maybe Emily
Hanford in just a minute, but the educational industrial complex is what I call it. It does not
exist to make money off our children. They are bloodsuckers feeding off the hopes and dreams
of parents, and we have public education to prevent that. So the for-profits have wormed their way in
and it just is not right. I don't, people need to make a living absolutely, but do you need to make
millions and billions of dollars off our children? That's a rhetorical question. Sorry.
Well, I agree with you completely. It breaks my heart that it's happening here in Ohio,
where they're mandating programs and outlawing other programs and not allowing teachers to decide
what's right for their own students, not allowing teachers to be professionals. We allow other
professions to be professionals. I think you're absolutely right. I always thought, what if there
was a science of plumbing and they mandated certain plumbing? I had a toilet that backed up
once and they're not teaching plumbing the right way. We need to have a science of plumbing.
Yes. That's an analogy. Yes. All right. Speak to Emily Hanford if you would.
And I will right up front tell you I've not listened to her. I won't and I know I need to and
I have people say, you have to. She upsets me so much. And back in the early days when she
had first put her stuff out and was becoming a name and she was on Twitter all the time and she
would interact with you. So I've interacted with her through these Twitter conversations
and I just find her so disingenuous and I know for instance back in the early days she came to
Ohio State to tour, read and recovery and sit in on lessons and learn from the people at Ohio State
and I know she seemed like she was going to be balanced and taking it all in and going to
represent what she saw there and then didn't. The opposite. So after that, after I knew that
that happened, I just, I think my blood pressure would go too high. It wouldn't be good for my
health but I still say I think I need to because she's changed everything. Like she's been the
driving force behind so much of this and getting awards for her great work when and I know journalists
don't have to be experts always in what they're reporting on but if they're reporting the facts
and she's not, she takes an opinion and pushes that. So that's how I feel it. I don't feel like
it is journalism. It's, to me that's not journalism. Objectivity presented in a very objective way.
Just because you don't use personal pronouns does not mean you're being objective in your reporting.
I listened to her original podcast, 8 p.m. years ago and of course I immediately got on American
public media and I said you got this wrong and how much time do you think I was given? They said,
oh no, she asked some people it was balanced and it's not and I like you. I refuse to put myself
through listening to her. Now she is invited to speak at the Illinois Reading Council conference
and I'm presenting there as well and it's like asking a faith healer to present at a medical
convention. Yes, yes. Why in heaven's name would you ask a charlatan to speak and give her that platform?
When you know that she has a personal monetary interest in making a big name for herself and she
found this movement that she could attach herself to and make that name for herself and now she's
famous. So I feel like she accomplished what she was really out to accomplish as opposed to being
out to help the field of literacy grow and help more children. I don't see it that way.
I hope 10 years from now they'll look back and call this the Hanford era because I want her to take
ownership for what she is doing to literacy. Take ownership for how literacy is going to go downhill.
It already is. Take ownership for how many good teachers leave the classroom because of the external
mandates. Take ownership of that Emily. Yeah, in Ohio for example, I know North Carolina mandated
letters training. Yes. Talk about making billions of dollars. Yes. In Louisiana most but in Ohio they
didn't mandate letters training but they mandated training in science of reading for all teachers.
So for example my district that I used to teach for you know 25 years has mandated all their
teachers to take letters training and on their own time it's very intense. I mean it's long.
It's hours and hours and hours and on their own time they're not provided time during the day.
They have to take letters training. I know that's happening all over the country. So you know they
talk about Lucy Calkins making money. Good grief. Who's making money now? Good grief. Well,
Louisa Motez who I think is a charlatan as well and the reason is I read her white paper on her
on the website and Lexia learning in Cambium are there to make lots and lots of money.
But she the the way she misuses research, misinterprets research, I don't know which is more
frightening that she doesn't know the difference or that she knows the difference and does it anyway.
She makes statements such as saying teachers don't know how to teach reading and she cites a research
study that really essentially she gave a poll on what she thought should be teachers should know
and based on that survey then she made the conclusion that all teachers don't know how to teach reading.
That's the type of of research in quotations that she uses to make her case and people just
see the sites and they go oh research well Louisa Motez must know what she's still talking about
when she either doesn't and that's a scary proposition or she doesn't she's making it up anyway.
That's and I think there's people I think both of that those things are true with the people in
this movement. I've interacted with people that I know believe this like they just misunderstand
and then I know there are people that I know understand and misrepresent it so I think
both things are going on. It's scary. It is scary. It's very scary. People who should know better
and do this anyway and do this anyway. Well then from that from that research that teachers don't
know how I personally have interacted online on Twitter with people who are so condescending to me
and it's in this very kind way like you know what it's not your fault that you don't know
how to teach children to read. You were never taught the right things and you know no one in
college ever taught you and you're ignorant that you can't help it and we're here to help you now
we're here to help you now which I find so insulting to say like and people say it who have never
taught anybody to read. Well let's pick up on that point. People sometimes get down on me because I
use funny voices and I'm sometimes a little attacking in my podcasts but for God's sakes
what have they been doing for the last 20 years?
You know we try to use research and reason and they do what you just said.
So somebody has to go out there and be the the the mean crabby person?
Well I feel like there's probably a lot of us who are not buying into the movement
but don't have a big voice and teachers who feel like they can't have a big voice you know in my
district where I taught you can't really have a big voice because this is what's happening and
it's not even just the district it's the state so they feel like they'll be in trouble if they do
anything different or speak out but I feel like there's a lot of us to feel this way and it's
common sense really but based on science and I feel like if we more of us come together and speak
up and educate people it's not about spouting opinions it's about educating people. I feel
like we could come to a reasonable place and help more children instead. That's why we have the
International Literacy Educators Coalition. It's a group of educators from around the world
that are feeling frustrated and recognize that teachers are afraid to speak out because they
can't. Yes and I would be the same way if I had a family to feed. Yes, yes. Shut up and do what I'm
told. Yes, yes and I'm glad you mentioned the international part of that because for years now
like I hang out on Twitter just because that's where I was able to connect with a lot of different
educators that I couldn't geographically you know hang out with and I've learned so much from
these networks that I formed on Twitter but one of the networks is with teachers from Australia
and UK who are going through the same thing and in UK they're farther along than we are.
Like they've already had the mandated programs there you know that's already happened and just on
a personal level talking to these teachers and just the craziness you know inspectors come to see
what page on the phonics book they're on it's just nuts and it hasn't worked that's what the
latest research showed out of UK it didn't work and they've done it for maybe a decade now. I think
why can't we learn we already did reading first and we didn't learn from that and now UK's just
done it and apparently we're not learning from that so I'm glad you mentioned the international
part of it because it's not just a US problem and I'm Canada too. I feel like I've made friends
all over the world Canada New Zealand Australia UK and it is refreshing I'm not crazy other people
think this way too. Yes well I've already made my podcast for 10 years from now and the title of
that is I told you so. I love it I love it. Oh that would actually be a fun podcast to do.
It really was and you know when I came to Miami University I got my undergrad here but I also
got my master's degree here and I had to write a thesis this is back in the early 90s and I chose
to write on the history of reading instruction in the US and I thought at the time this is so crazy
how we do this it's so nuts I'm glad I'm not going to have to live through that that's I really
thought that I'm glad you know we've learned from this we've learned from history I won't have to
live through this and then my whole career now I look back and I think ah my whole career witnessed
it continuing. It was back to the basics in the 80s and it was reading first in the early 2000s
in the arts and now it's come back with more of a vengeance with the science of reading.
More of a vengeance is right like more of a vengeance because the more prophets are behind
it push it and how do you how do you argue when you have a million dollar voice and I'm just a
little bald guy with a small little podcast. Yes yes and you know now we have legislation
in many states that you know cementing it it cements this until we get new legislators who
you know don't do this but I'm mentioning this not because I wrote a book but just to say so a
few years back a co-author teacher from the district where I worked and I wrote a book about
teaching emergent readers in small groups and it was really the purpose was to to say you know what
it's important what books you put in front and they shouldn't be patterned and here's how you can help
emergent readers use text but it's illegal now in my state my book like nobody in my state would be
able to buy my book because I talk about meaning structure and visual we talk about leveled books
like everything we talk about is illegal now and that children should be thinking about meaning
from the earliest stages so even that like even books now are against the law which just blows my
mind. Right I never thought we would be at this place never ever in this country I thought we
would be at this top-down authoritative place where small groups are dictating to the masses.
If you want to end with let's end with one big idea one big idea Susan that you'd like the world to know.
One big idea is and this is what I would say like to my pre-service teachers
please read all the research and please look carefully at the history and what certain
approaches did like there's research that shows the results of different approaches
please read all of it and be knowledgeable about all of it so that we can move forward
in a smarter way than we've done in the past that would be what I would say.
Excellent that is a good last word is learned so Donald would say.
All right thank you Susan for being a wonderful guest.
I enjoyed chatting with you as always I've always learned from you so thank you for your work
much appreciated.
All right.