1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,880 This is the Reading Instruction Show. 2 00:00:03,880 --> 00:00:07,360 I'm your host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson. 3 00:00:07,360 --> 00:00:12,640 Today is the first in a series of podcasts looking at Wisconsin. 4 00:00:12,640 --> 00:00:16,520 Specifically, we'll look at the Reading League Wisconsin 5 00:00:16,520 --> 00:00:18,960 and personal attacks. 6 00:00:18,960 --> 00:00:21,920 Now, let me say upfront, I know the science 7 00:00:21,920 --> 00:00:25,720 of reading movement is not a monolithic group. 8 00:00:25,720 --> 00:00:27,720 I know as well that there are good 9 00:00:27,720 --> 00:00:31,640 and well-meaning people within the movement whose intent is 10 00:00:31,640 --> 00:00:35,040 to improve reading instruction and by doing so, 11 00:00:35,040 --> 00:00:37,960 to improve the lives of real people. 12 00:00:37,960 --> 00:00:44,640 I know that's your intent, but intent does not negate impact. 13 00:00:44,640 --> 00:00:48,960 Intent does not excuse you from the responsibility 14 00:00:48,960 --> 00:00:53,840 that your impact is having and will have. 15 00:00:53,840 --> 00:00:57,280 And in five years, when your top-down mandates 16 00:00:57,280 --> 00:01:01,760 will have been shown to have no impact or negative impact 17 00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:04,520 on students' reading, it will be shown 18 00:01:04,520 --> 00:01:07,720 to have pushed good teachers out of the classroom, 19 00:01:07,720 --> 00:01:10,880 made schools a less joyful place, 20 00:01:10,880 --> 00:01:14,920 and resulted in larger achievement gaps. 21 00:01:14,920 --> 00:01:16,320 Then what are you going to say? 22 00:01:16,320 --> 00:01:19,160 Who are you going to blame then? 23 00:01:19,160 --> 00:01:21,800 The thing is, we've seen this movie before. 24 00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:26,680 It was the Reading First Initiative of the early 2000s, 25 00:01:26,680 --> 00:01:29,440 part of No Child Left Behind. 26 00:01:29,440 --> 00:01:32,320 And the movie was very expensive 27 00:01:32,320 --> 00:01:34,520 and didn't have a happy ending. 28 00:01:34,520 --> 00:01:39,840 This science of reading movie will have a similar ending. 29 00:01:39,840 --> 00:01:44,480 Now, this podcast is about Reading League, Wisconsin, 30 00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:46,640 but it's also about attacks. 31 00:01:46,640 --> 00:01:49,720 And we'll get to the Wisconsin stuff in just a minute. 32 00:01:49,720 --> 00:01:51,600 Now, let's focus on the attacks. 33 00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:54,200 People call me all sorts of names online 34 00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:57,560 and use adjectives and nouns and metaphors 35 00:01:57,560 --> 00:02:02,280 to describe me that are always very complementary. 36 00:02:02,280 --> 00:02:03,760 And that's fine. 37 00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:07,080 I'd rather enjoy it, if I have to be honest. 38 00:02:07,080 --> 00:02:10,360 But let's just say for the sake of argument, 39 00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:15,960 let's say that I'm all those things that you say I am. 40 00:02:15,960 --> 00:02:18,800 Let's say I'm not very smart. 41 00:02:18,800 --> 00:02:19,680 I'm ignorant. 42 00:02:19,680 --> 00:02:20,800 I'm a bad person. 43 00:02:20,800 --> 00:02:21,440 I'm this. 44 00:02:21,440 --> 00:02:22,040 I'm that. 45 00:02:22,040 --> 00:02:24,040 Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. 46 00:02:24,040 --> 00:02:26,480 All well and good. 47 00:02:26,480 --> 00:02:31,120 But what exactly did I get wrong? 48 00:02:31,120 --> 00:02:35,600 What exactly is it with which you disagree? 49 00:02:35,600 --> 00:02:37,560 Now, if I've got something wrong, 50 00:02:37,560 --> 00:02:42,120 I'm happy to redo any video or podcast. 51 00:02:42,120 --> 00:02:47,240 Just tell me what it is exactly that I got wrong. 52 00:02:47,240 --> 00:02:51,800 Now, this is what I found out because when people attack me 53 00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:54,880 or address me, however, I always respond 54 00:02:54,880 --> 00:02:56,840 and I respond very politely. 55 00:02:56,840 --> 00:02:58,840 I get a little snarky in my podcast. 56 00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:01,360 I know, but when you respond to me individually, 57 00:03:01,360 --> 00:03:05,680 I do respond to you politely and respectfully. 58 00:03:05,680 --> 00:03:09,160 But I found out this about the people who attack me 59 00:03:09,160 --> 00:03:12,360 and meaning-based literacy instructors. 60 00:03:12,360 --> 00:03:16,160 Once they run out of names to call me and bad things 61 00:03:16,160 --> 00:03:21,080 to say about me, they have nothing much to say. 62 00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:24,880 That's when they resort to talking points that are always 63 00:03:24,880 --> 00:03:27,400 wrong or distorted. 64 00:03:27,400 --> 00:03:32,360 Now, they seem to like using the term debunked a lot. 65 00:03:32,360 --> 00:03:34,960 Balanced literacy has been debunked. 66 00:03:34,960 --> 00:03:37,800 They say the three queuing systems has been debunked. 67 00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:40,200 Whole language has been debunked. 68 00:03:40,200 --> 00:03:42,920 They say something has been debunked 69 00:03:42,920 --> 00:03:46,320 when they don't fully understand what debunked means 70 00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:48,960 in a research context. 71 00:03:48,960 --> 00:03:52,120 And they'll say things like, I'm right because your idea 72 00:03:52,120 --> 00:03:54,400 has been debunked. 73 00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:57,640 And well, that's not really a valid argument, is it? 74 00:03:57,640 --> 00:03:59,000 Well, I debunk you. 75 00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:01,320 You're debunked. 76 00:04:01,320 --> 00:04:02,520 OK, I'm debunked. 77 00:04:02,520 --> 00:04:04,360 Fine. 78 00:04:04,360 --> 00:04:08,480 But what about personal attacks versus addressing 79 00:04:08,480 --> 00:04:10,440 substantive issues? 80 00:04:10,440 --> 00:04:14,640 What exactly did I get wrong? 81 00:04:14,640 --> 00:04:20,400 But you call people clowns and you use funny voices. 82 00:04:20,400 --> 00:04:21,960 Yes, I do. 83 00:04:21,960 --> 00:04:24,560 And thank you for bringing this up. 84 00:04:24,560 --> 00:04:27,760 I do use metaphorical shorthand to denote 85 00:04:27,760 --> 00:04:31,400 those who think they know a lot more about literacy 86 00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:33,840 than they actually do. 87 00:04:33,840 --> 00:04:36,040 And I call them clowns. 88 00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:37,440 I'm sorry. 89 00:04:37,440 --> 00:04:43,280 I really wish I didn't have to do this and use funny voices. 90 00:04:43,280 --> 00:04:46,600 But always, always just like today, 91 00:04:46,600 --> 00:04:50,000 I will tell you exactly what you got wrong 92 00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:53,320 and exactly what's right. 93 00:04:53,320 --> 00:04:58,240 Yes, I use sarcasm and parody and metaphorical shorthand 94 00:04:58,240 --> 00:05:01,000 and funny voices to make my point. 95 00:05:01,000 --> 00:05:05,120 But the point is there's always a point. 96 00:05:05,120 --> 00:05:08,240 Now, I'd like to use only reason and research. 97 00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:09,640 I really would. 98 00:05:09,640 --> 00:05:11,880 I've tried that. 99 00:05:11,880 --> 00:05:16,840 But the whole state of Wisconsin clearly illustrates 100 00:05:16,840 --> 00:05:20,000 that this sometimes doesn't work. 101 00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:23,240 So yes, I will continue to use reason and research. 102 00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:28,800 But I will highlight my ideas with sarcasm, parody, metaphors, 103 00:05:28,800 --> 00:05:30,840 and funny voices. 104 00:05:30,840 --> 00:05:34,480 Now, recently, I did a podcast entitled 105 00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:40,040 Emily Hanford, Reading Instruction and an Age of Clownery. 106 00:05:40,040 --> 00:05:44,240 And I must say it was very popular, one of my highest 107 00:05:44,240 --> 00:05:46,480 rated podcasts. 108 00:05:46,480 --> 00:05:51,360 I posted a copy on a Facebook group called Green League 109 00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:55,840 Wisconsin and waited, waited, waited with bated breath 110 00:05:55,840 --> 00:06:00,720 for their approval and eventual posting. 111 00:06:00,720 --> 00:06:03,440 Now, I sometimes said by YouTubes and podcasts 112 00:06:03,440 --> 00:06:06,880 to groups that I know will have differing ideas, 113 00:06:06,880 --> 00:06:09,720 I think it's a healthy thing to do. 114 00:06:09,720 --> 00:06:13,680 Also, it's good for me to hear what others are thinking 115 00:06:13,680 --> 00:06:15,560 for a couple of reasons. 116 00:06:15,560 --> 00:06:20,560 First, it invites me to go back and reassess my own views 117 00:06:20,560 --> 00:06:23,200 on things and to support my thinking 118 00:06:23,200 --> 00:06:25,880 with additional research. 119 00:06:25,880 --> 00:06:30,640 It sometimes invites me to evolve or modify my views. 120 00:06:30,640 --> 00:06:35,000 And I have modified my views on several things over the years. 121 00:06:35,000 --> 00:06:38,480 And the second reason I do this, because I also 122 00:06:38,480 --> 00:06:42,520 think that the science of reading advocates, those 123 00:06:42,520 --> 00:06:45,720 who think they know much more than they actually do, 124 00:06:45,720 --> 00:06:49,920 e.g. clowns, would benefit greatly from hearing 125 00:06:49,920 --> 00:06:52,000 what I have to say. 126 00:06:52,000 --> 00:06:56,000 I'm what's called a reading expert. 127 00:06:56,000 --> 00:06:59,680 Now, there's more with, many more with more expertise in me, 128 00:06:59,680 --> 00:07:02,600 but I am a reading expert. 129 00:07:02,600 --> 00:07:07,800 That's how the state of Minnesota classifies me. 130 00:07:07,800 --> 00:07:10,360 I spent 41 years in education. 131 00:07:10,360 --> 00:07:13,360 Nine of those have been as a classroom teacher. 132 00:07:13,360 --> 00:07:18,360 The other 32 of these years have been as a scholar, researcher, 133 00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:22,440 and educator working with practicing and pre-service 134 00:07:22,440 --> 00:07:24,560 teachers. 135 00:07:24,560 --> 00:07:27,600 I also tutor kids during the summer 136 00:07:27,600 --> 00:07:31,360 to make sure I'm practicing, that I'm preaching what 137 00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:33,120 I'm practicing. 138 00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:36,480 And I've written several books about literacy and learning, 139 00:07:36,480 --> 00:07:39,200 as well as a whole bunch of articles, blah, blah, blah, 140 00:07:39,200 --> 00:07:41,120 blah, blah. 141 00:07:41,120 --> 00:07:44,760 There are many more with more impressive leaders to me. 142 00:07:44,760 --> 00:07:49,080 But I just point this out to show you 143 00:07:49,080 --> 00:07:54,720 that I don't rely on American public media documentaries, 144 00:07:54,720 --> 00:08:00,240 movies, journalists, or podcasts to develop my understanding 145 00:08:00,240 --> 00:08:04,520 of reading, reading instruction, research, 146 00:08:04,520 --> 00:08:09,200 the research process, and reading research. 147 00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:12,680 I base my understanding of literacy instruction 148 00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:16,920 and my passion for good literacy instruction 149 00:08:16,920 --> 00:08:21,560 by reading and analyzing a wide body of research 150 00:08:21,560 --> 00:08:26,560 and a large range of research types of research. 151 00:08:26,560 --> 00:08:28,960 My understanding of literacy learning 152 00:08:28,960 --> 00:08:34,960 also comes from years of experiencing teaching actual children, 153 00:08:34,960 --> 00:08:39,560 as well as my own research and scholarly endeavors. 154 00:08:39,560 --> 00:08:45,080 And yes, I know all about Scarborough's rope. 155 00:08:45,080 --> 00:08:48,160 It's a model based on a theory. 156 00:08:48,160 --> 00:08:52,240 And it's one of several models based on several theories. 157 00:08:52,240 --> 00:08:54,240 And yes, it makes sense. 158 00:08:54,240 --> 00:08:56,240 Yes, it does. 159 00:08:56,240 --> 00:09:00,200 It has a very inviting picture of a rope with two parts 160 00:09:00,200 --> 00:09:02,200 and strands around each part. 161 00:09:02,200 --> 00:09:03,920 And then the two parts come together 162 00:09:03,920 --> 00:09:06,880 and they get tighter and tighter and tighter. 163 00:09:06,880 --> 00:09:13,240 And it's a great theory for ropes, but for reading, not so much. 164 00:09:13,240 --> 00:09:16,120 The rope makes good sense. 165 00:09:16,120 --> 00:09:17,160 Yes, it does. 166 00:09:17,160 --> 00:09:20,840 But good science is not based on what makes good sense. 167 00:09:20,840 --> 00:09:25,160 It's based on what makes good research. 168 00:09:25,160 --> 00:09:27,880 Now, the theory supporting Scarborough's rope 169 00:09:27,880 --> 00:09:29,760 is based on data. 170 00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:31,040 Absolutely. 171 00:09:31,040 --> 00:09:33,440 No doubt about it. 172 00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:38,640 Just not enough data and not the right kinds of data. 173 00:09:38,640 --> 00:09:42,080 It uses data to support it. 174 00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:47,080 However, it leaves a lot of data unaccounted for, 175 00:09:47,080 --> 00:09:51,280 meaning that there's a large body and wide range of research 176 00:09:51,280 --> 00:09:54,760 that the rope doesn't address. 177 00:09:54,760 --> 00:09:59,920 It just ignores what doesn't fit into the theory. 178 00:09:59,920 --> 00:10:04,840 Now, theories that leave a lot of data unaccounted for 179 00:10:04,840 --> 00:10:08,040 and don't adequately explain phenomenon 180 00:10:08,040 --> 00:10:13,720 are called weak theories versus robust theories. 181 00:10:13,720 --> 00:10:17,760 The rope is based on the bottom-up theory of reading 182 00:10:17,760 --> 00:10:20,440 or the phonological processing model 183 00:10:20,440 --> 00:10:22,600 or the simple view of reading. 184 00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:25,560 These are weak theories. 185 00:10:25,560 --> 00:10:28,840 And Emily Hanford doesn't understand this. 186 00:10:28,840 --> 00:10:30,680 And why should she? 187 00:10:30,680 --> 00:10:33,840 She's a radio journalist. 188 00:10:33,840 --> 00:10:38,200 And just because the theory includes some research data, 189 00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:41,880 doesn't mean it includes a sufficient number 190 00:10:41,880 --> 00:10:45,280 and type of research data. 191 00:10:45,280 --> 00:10:48,920 And just because it explains some phenomena, 192 00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:53,040 doesn't mean it explains all phenomena. 193 00:10:53,040 --> 00:10:56,720 Now, in contrast, the interactive theory of reading 194 00:10:56,720 --> 00:10:59,240 or the neurocognitive theory of reading, 195 00:10:59,240 --> 00:11:04,600 which I've explained elsewhere, is a robust theory. 196 00:11:04,600 --> 00:11:08,520 It encompasses a much wider body of research data 197 00:11:08,520 --> 00:11:12,040 and describes a wider range of phenomena 198 00:11:12,040 --> 00:11:17,760 related to reading and learning to read and the reading process. 199 00:11:17,760 --> 00:11:21,520 And you can find plenty of models and colorful graphs 200 00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:26,400 to describe how this theory works in reality. 201 00:11:26,400 --> 00:11:30,520 But let's get back to Reading League Wisconsin. 202 00:11:30,520 --> 00:11:34,120 I posted my podcast on the Reading League Wisconsin Facebook. 203 00:11:34,120 --> 00:11:38,160 And to their credit, they were nice enough to respond. 204 00:11:38,160 --> 00:11:42,480 They said, Andy, the Reading League Wisconsin 205 00:11:42,480 --> 00:11:46,560 stands with the excellent objective reporting 206 00:11:46,560 --> 00:11:49,360 provided by Emily Hunford. 207 00:11:49,360 --> 00:11:54,600 As such, we will not approve posts that go on the attack. 208 00:11:54,600 --> 00:11:58,000 Please think of your audience before submitting 209 00:11:58,000 --> 00:11:59,520 potential posts. 210 00:11:59,520 --> 00:12:03,000 Thank you, the Reading League Wisconsin. 211 00:12:03,000 --> 00:12:04,600 Sorry for the funny voice. 212 00:12:04,600 --> 00:12:09,240 So let's unpack that statement focusing on three words. 213 00:12:09,240 --> 00:12:13,920 Objective, excellent, and attack. 214 00:12:13,920 --> 00:12:16,720 Excellent, objective reporting. 215 00:12:16,720 --> 00:12:19,680 And by the way, I welcome anybody from Reading League 216 00:12:19,680 --> 00:12:25,080 Wisconsin to post on my LinkedIn page or my Facebook page. 217 00:12:25,080 --> 00:12:26,760 I won't block your posts. 218 00:12:26,760 --> 00:12:28,800 I'll approve everything. 219 00:12:28,800 --> 00:12:32,200 I don't need to protect my listeners or readers 220 00:12:32,200 --> 00:12:35,600 from ideas that may conflict with my own. 221 00:12:35,600 --> 00:12:37,040 I don't need to protect them. 222 00:12:37,040 --> 00:12:38,880 I trust them. 223 00:12:38,880 --> 00:12:42,600 As well, I invite any of you to come on my podcast. 224 00:12:42,600 --> 00:12:44,560 I'd love to have a discussion. 225 00:12:44,560 --> 00:12:46,920 I won't edit it in any way. 226 00:12:46,920 --> 00:12:49,440 All right, the three important words, 227 00:12:49,440 --> 00:12:51,560 objective, excellent, and attack. 228 00:12:51,560 --> 00:12:55,520 We are going to unpack them. 229 00:12:55,520 --> 00:12:56,880 These are words. 230 00:12:56,880 --> 00:12:58,960 And I picked them because these are words 231 00:12:58,960 --> 00:13:02,360 that are misused within the science of reading movement. 232 00:13:02,360 --> 00:13:04,320 So I'm unpacking them here. 233 00:13:04,320 --> 00:13:07,480 And it's an analogy to the science of reading movement. 234 00:13:07,480 --> 00:13:10,440 The first one is objective. 235 00:13:10,440 --> 00:13:13,520 We need to divest ourselves of the idea 236 00:13:13,520 --> 00:13:17,240 that Emily Hanford is objective. 237 00:13:17,240 --> 00:13:20,320 Emily Hanford, like other media clowns, 238 00:13:20,320 --> 00:13:25,320 may not use personal pronouns in her podcasts and articles. 239 00:13:25,320 --> 00:13:29,280 But that doesn't mean she's objective. 240 00:13:29,280 --> 00:13:35,240 She is incredibly subjective in what she chooses to include 241 00:13:35,240 --> 00:13:38,640 and what she chooses to ignore. 242 00:13:38,640 --> 00:13:43,480 Emily Hanford decided to create a certain picture. 243 00:13:43,480 --> 00:13:48,360 And in doing so, she presents a very one-sided, subjective 244 00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:51,000 perspective in an objective manner 245 00:13:51,000 --> 00:13:54,160 with no personal pronouns. 246 00:13:54,160 --> 00:13:57,560 But the objectivity of reporting style 247 00:13:57,560 --> 00:14:02,160 does not negate the subjectivity of her reporting. 248 00:14:02,160 --> 00:14:06,960 And the fact is she collects only those small factoids, 249 00:14:06,960 --> 00:14:09,760 pulled out of any meaningful context, 250 00:14:09,760 --> 00:14:13,800 that support a particular point of view, hers. 251 00:14:13,800 --> 00:14:18,640 And in doing so, bashes attacks and demeans good teachers, 252 00:14:18,640 --> 00:14:23,280 researchers, and literacy experts. 253 00:14:23,280 --> 00:14:28,680 Now, American public media will not listen to or support 254 00:14:28,680 --> 00:14:30,360 another perspective. 255 00:14:30,360 --> 00:14:32,480 I've tried. 256 00:14:32,480 --> 00:14:35,720 But after all, they've got a lot invested 257 00:14:35,720 --> 00:14:38,040 in the Emily Hanford experience. 258 00:14:38,040 --> 00:14:41,640 So why should they listen to another perspective? 259 00:14:41,640 --> 00:14:47,160 So empirical fact number one, the reporting of Emily Hanford 260 00:14:47,160 --> 00:14:51,960 may not use personal pronouns, but it is not objective. 261 00:14:51,960 --> 00:14:55,040 And that's an empirical fact. 262 00:14:55,040 --> 00:14:58,040 You can see this by the information presented out 263 00:14:58,040 --> 00:15:01,880 of context and the information ignored 264 00:15:01,880 --> 00:15:04,800 and the unwillingness of Emily Hanford 265 00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:08,160 to allow certain facts into the consciousness 266 00:15:08,160 --> 00:15:11,760 of her listeners or readers. 267 00:15:11,760 --> 00:15:14,160 She doesn't allow a full picture of that 268 00:15:14,160 --> 00:15:16,520 which she seeks to depict. 269 00:15:16,520 --> 00:15:19,800 Now, let's take a look at excellence. 270 00:15:19,800 --> 00:15:24,960 What makes Emily Hanford's reporting excellence? 271 00:15:24,960 --> 00:15:26,000 Excellent. 272 00:15:26,000 --> 00:15:31,640 Empirical fact, I once took a journalism class back in college 273 00:15:31,640 --> 00:15:34,560 and using the Hanford expertise model 274 00:15:34,560 --> 00:15:38,880 that would make me a journalism expert. 275 00:15:38,880 --> 00:15:44,040 Explicit reporting from what I learned in Journalism 101 276 00:15:44,040 --> 00:15:48,200 was reporting that created an actual representation 277 00:15:48,200 --> 00:15:52,040 of that which occurred or is being depicted. 278 00:15:52,040 --> 00:15:55,120 And I was taught that excellence wasn't 279 00:15:55,120 --> 00:15:57,640 writing what people wanted to hear 280 00:15:57,640 --> 00:16:01,080 or writing that which would move your career along 281 00:16:01,080 --> 00:16:05,280 or writing to create sensationalism, excellence 282 00:16:05,280 --> 00:16:10,600 was depicting a view of reality that accurately represented 283 00:16:10,600 --> 00:16:13,960 that reality and presenting it in a way 284 00:16:13,960 --> 00:16:17,360 that the consumer could understand. 285 00:16:17,360 --> 00:16:21,240 And Emily Hanford's depiction of reading reality 286 00:16:21,240 --> 00:16:23,920 is far from this. 287 00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:26,600 Establish fact number two. 288 00:16:26,600 --> 00:16:29,280 According to the American Press Institute, 289 00:16:29,280 --> 00:16:33,280 the purpose of journalism is to provide citizens 290 00:16:33,280 --> 00:16:37,400 with the information they need to make the best possible 291 00:16:37,400 --> 00:16:41,160 decisions about their lives, their communities, 292 00:16:41,160 --> 00:16:44,480 their societies, and their governments. 293 00:16:44,480 --> 00:16:48,640 And I must say, Emily, you are not doing this. 294 00:16:48,640 --> 00:16:53,080 You're not providing the citizens the information they need. 295 00:16:53,080 --> 00:16:56,560 You're leaving out information and presenting 296 00:16:56,560 --> 00:16:59,920 a distorted view and getting pretty hefty speaking 297 00:16:59,920 --> 00:17:02,840 fees along the way. 298 00:17:02,840 --> 00:17:05,640 Now let's talk about attack. 299 00:17:05,640 --> 00:17:08,360 We're going to focus on attack. 300 00:17:08,360 --> 00:17:11,480 The Reading League of Wisconsin would not approve of posts 301 00:17:11,480 --> 00:17:18,280 that quote, go on the attack, unquote, go on the attack. 302 00:17:18,280 --> 00:17:22,160 And that's rather rich coming from the Reading League. 303 00:17:22,160 --> 00:17:26,000 And I guess it's a matter of perspective, isn't it? 304 00:17:26,000 --> 00:17:30,360 Now, do you think what Emily Hanford, Jessica Winter, 305 00:17:30,360 --> 00:17:35,840 and the other journalists are doing is not an attack? 306 00:17:35,840 --> 00:17:39,320 Do you think presenting inaccurate and untrue information 307 00:17:39,320 --> 00:17:42,440 is not an attack? 308 00:17:42,440 --> 00:17:45,960 Do you think the unfair portrayals in the media 309 00:17:45,960 --> 00:17:48,680 is not an attack? 310 00:17:48,680 --> 00:17:53,880 And do you think the attack by the science of reading advocates 311 00:17:53,880 --> 00:17:55,720 is not an attack? 312 00:17:55,720 --> 00:17:59,320 An attack is an attack. 313 00:17:59,320 --> 00:18:03,280 But they're doing it to me and other meeting-based educators, 314 00:18:03,280 --> 00:18:05,880 like a bunch of ants on a spider. 315 00:18:05,880 --> 00:18:06,880 But it's OK. 316 00:18:06,880 --> 00:18:08,440 We can handle it. 317 00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:12,200 It just muddies up the water a bit. 318 00:18:12,200 --> 00:18:15,280 Now this seems to be the attack formula. 319 00:18:15,280 --> 00:18:19,840 If you agree with something, it is excellent, objective reporting, 320 00:18:19,840 --> 00:18:22,440 or a passionate plea. 321 00:18:22,440 --> 00:18:27,760 If you disagree, it's an attack, a rant, or an unfair hit job. 322 00:18:27,760 --> 00:18:28,720 Of course. 323 00:18:28,720 --> 00:18:31,280 Now, established fact number three. 324 00:18:31,280 --> 00:18:36,360 In that podcast, I make no personal attacks on Emily Hanford. 325 00:18:36,360 --> 00:18:40,920 I'm focusing only on what she gets wrong, wrong, wrong, 326 00:18:40,920 --> 00:18:44,480 which is quite a bit and what she distorts. 327 00:18:44,480 --> 00:18:47,640 So here is my big fish. 328 00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:51,880 Number one, intent does not negate impact. 329 00:18:51,880 --> 00:18:54,200 The impact of the science of reading movement 330 00:18:54,200 --> 00:18:57,240 will be deep and devastating. 331 00:18:57,240 --> 00:18:59,520 And I hope we look back at this time. 332 00:18:59,520 --> 00:19:03,240 I hope we call it the Hanford era. 333 00:19:03,240 --> 00:19:07,160 I want her to take full responsibility for what she's doing 334 00:19:07,160 --> 00:19:11,320 and where we're at, casting doubt and dispersion, 335 00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:14,200 describing threats that aren't real, 336 00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:17,760 vilifying good teachers, and to what end. 337 00:19:17,760 --> 00:19:23,000 And how much is Emily charging for her speaking fees these days? 338 00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:26,760 And how much are school districts going to have to pay 339 00:19:26,760 --> 00:19:30,440 for all the curriculum changes and teacher training 340 00:19:30,440 --> 00:19:32,760 based on I thinkisms? 341 00:19:32,760 --> 00:19:35,080 And who's making the money here? 342 00:19:35,080 --> 00:19:36,440 Because somebody is. 343 00:19:36,440 --> 00:19:38,120 Let me give you a hint. 344 00:19:38,120 --> 00:19:42,560 Its first name is publishing, and its last name is companies. 345 00:19:42,560 --> 00:19:43,960 Second idea. 346 00:19:43,960 --> 00:19:48,280 We are not teaching children to sound out words, 347 00:19:48,280 --> 00:19:52,520 we're teaching them to be and become literate. 348 00:19:52,520 --> 00:19:58,960 This means using reading and writing for real purposes. 349 00:19:58,960 --> 00:20:02,240 And even the national reading panel agrees 350 00:20:02,240 --> 00:20:05,000 that sounding out word instruction 351 00:20:05,000 --> 00:20:10,120 should be just one part of a balanced literacy program. 352 00:20:10,120 --> 00:20:14,640 Third point, let's have the discussion. 353 00:20:14,640 --> 00:20:16,240 Tell me what I got wrong. 354 00:20:16,240 --> 00:20:20,240 Post on my Facebook page or my LinkedIn page. 355 00:20:20,240 --> 00:20:24,720 Come on my podcast, I won't edit it. 356 00:20:24,720 --> 00:20:31,240 And number four, if you claim to be a science of something, 357 00:20:31,240 --> 00:20:35,760 you should abide by scientific principles. 358 00:20:35,760 --> 00:20:38,920 Science of reading people are not doing that. 359 00:20:38,920 --> 00:20:41,720 That means not coming to conclusions 360 00:20:41,720 --> 00:20:45,600 about things based on I thinkisms, partial evidence, 361 00:20:45,600 --> 00:20:48,600 anecdotal evidence, and radio journalists 362 00:20:48,600 --> 00:20:52,360 who charge quite a lot for their speaking feeds. 363 00:20:52,360 --> 00:20:55,480 And five, the last point here. 364 00:20:55,480 --> 00:20:57,880 You can't win the argument. 365 00:20:57,880 --> 00:21:01,000 So what do you do science of reading people? 366 00:21:01,000 --> 00:21:04,240 You get state legislators to bully and harass 367 00:21:04,240 --> 00:21:08,280 teachers and professors and school districts. 368 00:21:08,280 --> 00:21:13,040 People are afraid to speak out because of the consequences. 369 00:21:13,040 --> 00:21:14,920 Some are afraid they'll lose their job 370 00:21:14,920 --> 00:21:19,960 or be attacked by the brain-eating zombies online. 371 00:21:19,960 --> 00:21:25,360 In Wisconsin, the Department of Public Instruction 372 00:21:25,360 --> 00:21:29,000 says this, they will be prohibited 373 00:21:29,000 --> 00:21:31,880 from approving teacher education programs 374 00:21:31,880 --> 00:21:35,080 unless they include science-based early literacy 375 00:21:35,080 --> 00:21:38,080 instruction and do not incorporate 376 00:21:38,080 --> 00:21:42,600 three-queuing, a model that emphasized that skilled reading 377 00:21:42,600 --> 00:21:45,960 should include using meaning and set-in-structure cues 378 00:21:45,960 --> 00:21:48,880 to read new words. 379 00:21:48,880 --> 00:21:53,600 You bully and you threaten and you attack, 380 00:21:53,600 --> 00:21:56,880 but you do it with a smile on your face. 381 00:21:56,880 --> 00:22:00,480 How is that not an attack? 382 00:22:00,480 --> 00:22:02,840 This has been the Reading Instruction Show. 383 00:22:02,840 --> 00:22:03,920 I have been your host. 384 00:22:03,920 --> 00:22:08,240 I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.