This is the Reading Instruction Show.
I'm your host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.
Today is the first in a series of podcasts looking at Wisconsin.
Specifically, we'll look at the Reading League Wisconsin
and personal attacks.
Now, let me say upfront, I know the science
of reading movement is not a monolithic group.
I know as well that there are good
and well-meaning people within the movement whose intent is
to improve reading instruction and by doing so,
to improve the lives of real people.
I know that's your intent, but intent does not negate impact.
Intent does not excuse you from the responsibility
that your impact is having and will have.
And in five years, when your top-down mandates
will have been shown to have no impact or negative impact
on students' reading, it will be shown
to have pushed good teachers out of the classroom,
made schools a less joyful place,
and resulted in larger achievement gaps.
Then what are you going to say?
Who are you going to blame then?
The thing is, we've seen this movie before.
It was the Reading First Initiative of the early 2000s,
part of No Child Left Behind.
And the movie was very expensive
and didn't have a happy ending.
This science of reading movie will have a similar ending.
Now, this podcast is about Reading League, Wisconsin,
but it's also about attacks.
And we'll get to the Wisconsin stuff in just a minute.
Now, let's focus on the attacks.
People call me all sorts of names online
and use adjectives and nouns and metaphors
to describe me that are always very complementary.
And that's fine.
I'd rather enjoy it, if I have to be honest.
But let's just say for the sake of argument,
let's say that I'm all those things that you say I am.
Let's say I'm not very smart.
I'm ignorant.
I'm a bad person.
I'm this.
I'm that.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
All well and good.
But what exactly did I get wrong?
What exactly is it with which you disagree?
Now, if I've got something wrong,
I'm happy to redo any video or podcast.
Just tell me what it is exactly that I got wrong.
Now, this is what I found out because when people attack me
or address me, however, I always respond
and I respond very politely.
I get a little snarky in my podcast.
I know, but when you respond to me individually,
I do respond to you politely and respectfully.
But I found out this about the people who attack me
and meaning-based literacy instructors.
Once they run out of names to call me and bad things
to say about me, they have nothing much to say.
That's when they resort to talking points that are always
wrong or distorted.
Now, they seem to like using the term debunked a lot.
Balanced literacy has been debunked.
They say the three queuing systems has been debunked.
Whole language has been debunked.
They say something has been debunked
when they don't fully understand what debunked means
in a research context.
And they'll say things like, I'm right because your idea
has been debunked.
And well, that's not really a valid argument, is it?
Well, I debunk you.
You're debunked.
OK, I'm debunked.
Fine.
But what about personal attacks versus addressing
substantive issues?
What exactly did I get wrong?
But you call people clowns and you use funny voices.
Yes, I do.
And thank you for bringing this up.
I do use metaphorical shorthand to denote
those who think they know a lot more about literacy
than they actually do.
And I call them clowns.
I'm sorry.
I really wish I didn't have to do this and use funny voices.
But always, always just like today,
I will tell you exactly what you got wrong
and exactly what's right.
Yes, I use sarcasm and parody and metaphorical shorthand
and funny voices to make my point.
But the point is there's always a point.
Now, I'd like to use only reason and research.
I really would.
I've tried that.
But the whole state of Wisconsin clearly illustrates
that this sometimes doesn't work.
So yes, I will continue to use reason and research.
But I will highlight my ideas with sarcasm, parody, metaphors,
and funny voices.
Now, recently, I did a podcast entitled
Emily Hanford, Reading Instruction and an Age of Clownery.
And I must say it was very popular, one of my highest
rated podcasts.
I posted a copy on a Facebook group called Green League
Wisconsin and waited, waited, waited with bated breath
for their approval and eventual posting.
Now, I sometimes said by YouTubes and podcasts
to groups that I know will have differing ideas,
I think it's a healthy thing to do.
Also, it's good for me to hear what others are thinking
for a couple of reasons.
First, it invites me to go back and reassess my own views
on things and to support my thinking
with additional research.
It sometimes invites me to evolve or modify my views.
And I have modified my views on several things over the years.
And the second reason I do this, because I also
think that the science of reading advocates, those
who think they know much more than they actually do,
e.g. clowns, would benefit greatly from hearing
what I have to say.
I'm what's called a reading expert.
Now, there's more with, many more with more expertise in me,
but I am a reading expert.
That's how the state of Minnesota classifies me.
I spent 41 years in education.
Nine of those have been as a classroom teacher.
The other 32 of these years have been as a scholar, researcher,
and educator working with practicing and pre-service
teachers.
I also tutor kids during the summer
to make sure I'm practicing, that I'm preaching what
I'm practicing.
And I've written several books about literacy and learning,
as well as a whole bunch of articles, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah.
There are many more with more impressive leaders to me.
But I just point this out to show you
that I don't rely on American public media documentaries,
movies, journalists, or podcasts to develop my understanding
of reading, reading instruction, research,
the research process, and reading research.
I base my understanding of literacy instruction
and my passion for good literacy instruction
by reading and analyzing a wide body of research
and a large range of research types of research.
My understanding of literacy learning
also comes from years of experiencing teaching actual children,
as well as my own research and scholarly endeavors.
And yes, I know all about Scarborough's rope.
It's a model based on a theory.
And it's one of several models based on several theories.
And yes, it makes sense.
Yes, it does.
It has a very inviting picture of a rope with two parts
and strands around each part.
And then the two parts come together
and they get tighter and tighter and tighter.
And it's a great theory for ropes, but for reading, not so much.
The rope makes good sense.
Yes, it does.
But good science is not based on what makes good sense.
It's based on what makes good research.
Now, the theory supporting Scarborough's rope
is based on data.
Absolutely.
No doubt about it.
Just not enough data and not the right kinds of data.
It uses data to support it.
However, it leaves a lot of data unaccounted for,
meaning that there's a large body and wide range of research
that the rope doesn't address.
It just ignores what doesn't fit into the theory.
Now, theories that leave a lot of data unaccounted for
and don't adequately explain phenomenon
are called weak theories versus robust theories.
The rope is based on the bottom-up theory of reading
or the phonological processing model
or the simple view of reading.
These are weak theories.
And Emily Hanford doesn't understand this.
And why should she?
She's a radio journalist.
And just because the theory includes some research data,
doesn't mean it includes a sufficient number
and type of research data.
And just because it explains some phenomena,
doesn't mean it explains all phenomena.
Now, in contrast, the interactive theory of reading
or the neurocognitive theory of reading,
which I've explained elsewhere, is a robust theory.
It encompasses a much wider body of research data
and describes a wider range of phenomena
related to reading and learning to read and the reading process.
And you can find plenty of models and colorful graphs
to describe how this theory works in reality.
But let's get back to Reading League Wisconsin.
I posted my podcast on the Reading League Wisconsin Facebook.
And to their credit, they were nice enough to respond.
They said, Andy, the Reading League Wisconsin
stands with the excellent objective reporting
provided by Emily Hunford.
As such, we will not approve posts that go on the attack.
Please think of your audience before submitting
potential posts.
Thank you, the Reading League Wisconsin.
Sorry for the funny voice.
So let's unpack that statement focusing on three words.
Objective, excellent, and attack.
Excellent, objective reporting.
And by the way, I welcome anybody from Reading League
Wisconsin to post on my LinkedIn page or my Facebook page.
I won't block your posts.
I'll approve everything.
I don't need to protect my listeners or readers
from ideas that may conflict with my own.
I don't need to protect them.
I trust them.
As well, I invite any of you to come on my podcast.
I'd love to have a discussion.
I won't edit it in any way.
All right, the three important words,
objective, excellent, and attack.
We are going to unpack them.
These are words.
And I picked them because these are words
that are misused within the science of reading movement.
So I'm unpacking them here.
And it's an analogy to the science of reading movement.
The first one is objective.
We need to divest ourselves of the idea
that Emily Hanford is objective.
Emily Hanford, like other media clowns,
may not use personal pronouns in her podcasts and articles.
But that doesn't mean she's objective.
She is incredibly subjective in what she chooses to include
and what she chooses to ignore.
Emily Hanford decided to create a certain picture.
And in doing so, she presents a very one-sided, subjective
perspective in an objective manner
with no personal pronouns.
But the objectivity of reporting style
does not negate the subjectivity of her reporting.
And the fact is she collects only those small factoids,
pulled out of any meaningful context,
that support a particular point of view, hers.
And in doing so, bashes attacks and demeans good teachers,
researchers, and literacy experts.
Now, American public media will not listen to or support
another perspective.
I've tried.
But after all, they've got a lot invested
in the Emily Hanford experience.
So why should they listen to another perspective?
So empirical fact number one, the reporting of Emily Hanford
may not use personal pronouns, but it is not objective.
And that's an empirical fact.
You can see this by the information presented out
of context and the information ignored
and the unwillingness of Emily Hanford
to allow certain facts into the consciousness
of her listeners or readers.
She doesn't allow a full picture of that
which she seeks to depict.
Now, let's take a look at excellence.
What makes Emily Hanford's reporting excellence?
Excellent.
Empirical fact, I once took a journalism class back in college
and using the Hanford expertise model
that would make me a journalism expert.
Explicit reporting from what I learned in Journalism 101
was reporting that created an actual representation
of that which occurred or is being depicted.
And I was taught that excellence wasn't
writing what people wanted to hear
or writing that which would move your career along
or writing to create sensationalism, excellence
was depicting a view of reality that accurately represented
that reality and presenting it in a way
that the consumer could understand.
And Emily Hanford's depiction of reading reality
is far from this.
Establish fact number two.
According to the American Press Institute,
the purpose of journalism is to provide citizens
with the information they need to make the best possible
decisions about their lives, their communities,
their societies, and their governments.
And I must say, Emily, you are not doing this.
You're not providing the citizens the information they need.
You're leaving out information and presenting
a distorted view and getting pretty hefty speaking
fees along the way.
Now let's talk about attack.
We're going to focus on attack.
The Reading League of Wisconsin would not approve of posts
that quote, go on the attack, unquote, go on the attack.
And that's rather rich coming from the Reading League.
And I guess it's a matter of perspective, isn't it?
Now, do you think what Emily Hanford, Jessica Winter,
and the other journalists are doing is not an attack?
Do you think presenting inaccurate and untrue information
is not an attack?
Do you think the unfair portrayals in the media
is not an attack?
And do you think the attack by the science of reading advocates
is not an attack?
An attack is an attack.
But they're doing it to me and other meeting-based educators,
like a bunch of ants on a spider.
But it's OK.
We can handle it.
It just muddies up the water a bit.
Now this seems to be the attack formula.
If you agree with something, it is excellent, objective reporting,
or a passionate plea.
If you disagree, it's an attack, a rant, or an unfair hit job.
Of course.
Now, established fact number three.
In that podcast, I make no personal attacks on Emily Hanford.
I'm focusing only on what she gets wrong, wrong, wrong,
which is quite a bit and what she distorts.
So here is my big fish.
Number one, intent does not negate impact.
The impact of the science of reading movement
will be deep and devastating.
And I hope we look back at this time.
I hope we call it the Hanford era.
I want her to take full responsibility for what she's doing
and where we're at, casting doubt and dispersion,
describing threats that aren't real,
vilifying good teachers, and to what end.
And how much is Emily charging for her speaking fees these days?
And how much are school districts going to have to pay
for all the curriculum changes and teacher training
based on I thinkisms?
And who's making the money here?
Because somebody is.
Let me give you a hint.
Its first name is publishing, and its last name is companies.
Second idea.
We are not teaching children to sound out words,
we're teaching them to be and become literate.
This means using reading and writing for real purposes.
And even the national reading panel agrees
that sounding out word instruction
should be just one part of a balanced literacy program.
Third point, let's have the discussion.
Tell me what I got wrong.
Post on my Facebook page or my LinkedIn page.
Come on my podcast, I won't edit it.
And number four, if you claim to be a science of something,
you should abide by scientific principles.
Science of reading people are not doing that.
That means not coming to conclusions
about things based on I thinkisms, partial evidence,
anecdotal evidence, and radio journalists
who charge quite a lot for their speaking feeds.
And five, the last point here.
You can't win the argument.
So what do you do science of reading people?
You get state legislators to bully and harass
teachers and professors and school districts.
People are afraid to speak out because of the consequences.
Some are afraid they'll lose their job
or be attacked by the brain-eating zombies online.
In Wisconsin, the Department of Public Instruction
says this, they will be prohibited
from approving teacher education programs
unless they include science-based early literacy
instruction and do not incorporate
three-queuing, a model that emphasized that skilled reading
should include using meaning and set-in-structure cues
to read new words.
You bully and you threaten and you attack,
but you do it with a smile on your face.
How is that not an attack?
This has been the Reading Instruction Show.
I have been your host.
I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.