Welcome to another exciting episode of the Reading Instruction Show. I'm your
host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's podcast is wrestling with balanced
literacy instruction. This is my second podcast and a series of podcasts looking
at reading instruction issues in the state of Wisconsin. And I'm going to do a
bit of teaching and explaining here. So let's use a behavioral objective just
like this was a gosh darn lesson plan. And this is it. At the end of my podcast,
listeners will A, be able to define balanced literacy and B, provide at these
two reasons to explain why the Wisconsin State Legislature seems to be part of a
clown club. Now, a little context. I grew up in Wisconsin. I did my undergraduate
work at University of Wisconsin River Falls. I did my first year of teaching
first four years at Greenwood Elementary School in River Falls, Wisconsin. Spent
three years teaching as well in Grantsburg, Wisconsin. Wisconsin's right
next to Minnesota where I currently live. I've got plenty of friends and family.
Matter of fact, I'm going back to Wisconsin and next week. Wisconsin was a
great place to go to school in the late 60s and early 70s. It used to be a great
place to teach. It used to be a great place to send your kids to school. And
now I can say I'm glad I don't have kids in Wisconsin schools. I'm glad I'm not a
teacher in a Wisconsin school and I'm glad I'm not a professor in the UW
system. It's rather sad what Wisconsin has become and is becoming in terms of
education. Now, this is not Andy being a big meanie or name calling. It's a fact
that the Wisconsin Republican-led legislature has bullied teachers,
teachers unions, and literacy experts with their no-nothing top-down mandates.
They have deprofessionalized and disempowered teachers and stuck their
big red rubber noses in places where they don't belong. Interstage left
Corinne Hess, reporter for Wisconsin Public Radio. On her website, this is her
bio. Corinne Hess has a Wisconsin Public Radio reporter, is a Wisconsin Public
Radio reporter based in Milwaukee. Hess has reported on the Southeast
Wisconsin area for over 10 years. Writing for the Milwaukee Journal, Sentinel, the
Kenosha News, and other print media, Hess has won a number of awards from the
Milwaukee Press Club, the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, and others. And
that's what it said. And here's a bit of news. Ms. Hess was recently the
recipient of another award, the completely wrong award given to the
journalist who gets it completely wrong. Corinne, if you're gonna be a
journalist for heaven's sakes, you can't just vomit up the talking points handed
to you by for-profit entities. And that's obviously what you did here.
Somebody gave you some old talking points and you said, okay, maybe I can be the
next Emily Hanford and get large speaking fees. Or maybe you said, you know, I got a
lot of things to do today. I'll just print up what they gave me. I'm not quite
sure what was going on your head, Corinne, but whatever you did, it wasn't
journalism. Now, I'm addressing Corinne's article because her severe
ununderstanding of the science of reading and balanced literacy is
illustrative of what we see on the national level. So as a public service
to the state I once loved, you're welcome, I'll point out the errors and
distortion of Corinne Hess's Wisconsin Public Radio article in a couple of
podcasts. And in doing so, this will point out the many errors and distortions
occurring in states all over the nation and in other countries by those who
think they know much more about literacy instruction than they actually do. And we
have a special term for those people. We use it not to be mean or disrespectful or
demeaning, but as a metaphor for shorthand. We call them clowns using very
polite terms. That's because the image of a clown goes where a thousand words
can't. And also because it's fairly accurate, no disrespect intended. So in
September 26, 2023, the headline of Corinne Hess's article was this,
teacher prep programs not on the same page as Wisconsin's new reading law.
Let's unpacker it down a little bit. Teacher prep programs and a reading law.
Hmm, a law for how to teach reading. Imagine that. There's a law about reading
instruction. A law that dictates how a first grade teacher must teach reading.
This means there are certain ways to teach reading that are legal and some
that are illegal. So are you going to bust kindly old Mrs. Peterson for the way
she teaches reading? Are the reading police going to kick down the door to
her first grade classroom and drag her away in handcuffs as her students watch
screaming and crying and back at headquarters? Listen, Mrs. Peterson, we
need you to talk. Where'd you get that balance literacy curriculum? It's not
a curriculum. It's an understanding that there should be a balance of skills
instruction and meaningful literacy experiences at every level of reading.
And we don't need to listen to that polywoggle, Peterson. Take her to the
hole. No, no, the National Reading Panel reports it. Reading panel,
Schmeeding panel. We only listen to anecdotal evidence around here. We're
the reading police. No, really. I can give you anecdotal evidence. Too late,
Peterson. Take it away. You have a law in Wisconsin for how you have to teach
reading. Imagine that. Thirty years ago, who could have imagined such a thing? A
law. They made a law for how reading should be taught. Don't they have better
things to do for goodness sakes? Well, here's the thing. We all know that real
literacy researchers and real literacy experts have been telling us for years
that there is no one size fits all approach to reading instruction. Real
literacy experts have made a very compelling case using a wide body of
research and reason to support a balanced literacy program, balanced
literacy instruction. So what do you do if you're a clown club? You can't win the
argument using research and reason in an academic setting. So what does the
clown club do? If all your name calling, educational testimony, emotional
testimony, anecdotal evidence, decontextualized data, and I thinkisms
doesn't work in an academic forum, then what do you do? Well, if you're a clown
club, you convince state legislature leaders to bully and threaten. That's
what you do. Good problem solving. Bad reading policy, but good problem
solving. Just so we're very, very clear here, the science of reading clowns
have lost the argument many times over. Science of reading clowns go around
debunking this and that all well and good, but all their debunker rate and
doesn't do anything to support their argument in an academic setting.
Those of us who support a balanced approach to literacy instruction, we've
already won the argument. So the science of reading clown club can't win the
argument. So they have to get lawmakers to bully, threaten, and harass. So we're
going to focus on the first paragraph of Corinne Hess's article and it says this,
by next year, Wisconsin schools will have to change the way they're teaching
children to learn to read. A sweeping bipartisan bill signed into law this
summer will shift schools from what has been known as balanced literacy to
the science of reading approach. Okay, well and good. Let's do some unpacker
rating here. We're going to focus on balanced literacy. Now,
I would posit that 99.9% of all those people who are against balanced literacy
are against something they don't really understand. They're against it because
somebody told them to be against it. They were told it was bad, but they don't
in fact really know why it's bad or even what balanced literacy is. Oh, they'll
say things like it teaches the queuing system. It teaches children to guess
at words. It doesn't teach phonics. We need more phonics. Phonics. So let's clear
this up once and for all what balanced literacy is and listen up state of
Wisconsin and all the other science of reading clowns. This is the last time I
should have to explain this. Balance literacy is not a program or a method.
It's not a curriculum. It's an understanding that children develop their full
literacy potential best when skills instruction is balanced with meaningful
literacy experiences. Literacy instruction can be balanced no matter what
program or curriculum or method you use as long as skills instruction is balanced
with literacy experiences. So let's get the International Literacy Association
to weigh in. Here's their definition. A balanced literacy program includes
both foundational and language comprehension instructional features such as
phonemic awareness and phonics, fluency, guided oral reading, vocabulary development,
and comprehension. Okay, that's their definition. Not my favorite definition,
but there it is. And just so you know, the International Literacy Association is
definitely in favor of balanced literacy instruction. Now, balanced literacy comes
in a variety of forms. It's not a standardized method. Teachers using a balanced approach
to literacy instruction recognize that some students need a bit more skills
instruction and some students need a bit less. Every student is a bit different.
So it looks a bit different in every classroom. Technically, even a strong
phonics based program can be balanced if teachers provide students with ample
amounts of time to engage in authentic reading and writing activities.
And balanced literacy actually reflects the recommendations made by the National
Reading Panel. Now, I mentioned this because the National Reading Panel report
seems to be the holy book upon which the scientific
reading religion was founded. However, like many religions, its adherents seem not
to have read the holy scriptures. In the book of phonics, chapter two, verses six
through 10, it says this, look, look, I say a thun to thee, go ye therefore thun to
all the lands and maketh your reading instruction to be of a balanced kind of
a balanced kind, it shall be an unbalanced shall it be a balanced
shall it not be. Okay, I lied. It doesn't actually say that. But on page two dash
97 of the National Reading Panel report, it says this, quote, systematic phonics
instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a,
wait for it, wait for it, balanced reading program, unquote. It goes on to say, quote,
phonics should not become the dominant component in a reading program,
neither in the amount of time devoted to it, nor the significance attached, unquote.
Look it up. Page two dash 97 National Reading Panel report.
Now, balanced literacy is a continuum with skills instruction on one end, meaningful
literacy activities on the other. Balanced literacy recognizes that there's a sliding
structure somewhere between these two ends that moves towards either end based on students' needs.
There's a balance of skills instruction with meaningful reading and writing activities.
Balance literacy instruction is good. Unbalanced literacy instruction is bad.
The Wisconsin State Clown Club is promoting unbalanced literacy instruction.
Now, a comprehensive or complete literacy program is balanced and includes a balance
of 10 elements. Phonemic awareness, phonics, word recognition, word identification,
which is different from word recognition, daily reading practice, social interaction around good
books and writing, authentic writing activities, comprehension, vocabulary, and affect, which
is emotions and motivation. Now, how much of each of these elements is determined not by some clown
at a state legislature or some greasy-haired person writing curriculum in New York City,
but by the teacher working with the children every day. Every kid is different. Every kid needs a
little more of some elements and a little less of other elements. Now, if you're against balanced
literacy, by definition, you're then for unbalanced literacy instruction. Unbalanced literacy
instruction focuses overly much on one or two elements. Usually, it uses an extraordinary
amount of sounding out word instruction to the detriment of everything else. Unbalanced clowns
think that a whole lot of sounding out word instruction is an answer to the problem that
they made up called the reading crisis. Silly, silly clowns. They're so unbalanced.
And in saying balanced literacy is a bad thing, the Wisconsin state legislature is saying that they
know more than the 300,000 members of the International Literacy Association, a group that's been
doing research and scholarly work related to reading since 1956. Now, the International Literacy
Association says that balanced literacy instruction is a good thing. In contrast,
the Wisconsin state legislature says unbalanced literacy is a good thing.
Who should I believe here? The International Literacy Association has had the world's best
reading instructors, scholars, researchers, and teachers looking at reading instruction for almost
70 years. There have been world-renowned scholars and researchers, not one or two, but a whole
bunch of them. So, should I believe them or the Wisconsin state legislature? Or maybe I should
believe Emily Hanford. That's the ticket. Well, we call the inexperts, the legislative clowns say.
Sure you did. Here's the thing, you don't even know when an expert is in the area of literacy.
You may have found people representing an outlier position to reinforce your preconceived ideas,
but you did not call in a representative sample of literacy experts. You did not call in a
representative sample of real literacy experts. And besides, the International Literacy Association
has answered this question many, many times over the years, but you don't like the answer. So,
you shop around for an answer that you like and you shop around for people who have the answers
you like. And since it's called science of reading, shouldn't you use science to identify the problem
and look for solutions? After all, that's what science is, but you didn't. You use a lot of
personal accounts, anecdotal evidence, emotional testimony, data pulled out of context, and I
thinkisms to determine, to come to the conclusion that you're going to come to all along. You came
to the conclusion that more sounding out word instruction was the answer for a problem that
never was. And I hate to burst your clown balloons, but that's not how science works. So, let me help
you understand balanced literacy and the science of reading. When I was in Wisconsin, I competed in
wrestling both in high school and in college. When I taught in the mid-80s, I was also a high school
wrestling coach. I'm going to use a wrestling analogy that I hope will make things a bit clear.
Now, wrestling is a pretty complex skill to learn. A good wrestling coach uses balanced wrestling
instruction. That is, the coach teaches important wrestling skills within the context of real wrestling.
Wrestling. Wrestlers need to have a good grasp of some basic skills. Now, let's say that a wrestling
coach spent the whole practice teaching these basic wrestling skills and doing drills. That's all
they did for practice for all of the season. And if you gave a standardized wrestling test or somehow
these individual wrestling skills, those wrestlers would indeed score higher than wrestlers who did
not drill for the entire wrestling practice. But the question is, would these skills translate
into real wrestling situations like a match if in practice they weren't given the opportunity to
practice wrestling? Would they have the stamina to compete? Would they understand how to apply the skills?
And would the wrestlers find wrestling practice even the least bit enjoyable if all they did was
listen to the coach and practice isolated skills? The answer is no. A good wrestling coach teaches
a couple of basic skills each practice and maybe spends some time in situational drilling,
but then spends the most time doing a lot of actual wrestling. In this way, those skills
learned in practice are more apt to transfer to real life wrestling situations. And that's the
whole purpose, isn't it? Not to get high scores on standardized wrestling tests, but to perform
well during matches. Now, like a good reading teacher, good wrestling coaches watch their wrestlers.
And much of what is taught in practice is based on what they see and are seeing.
Good wrestling coaches don't rely on a wrestling scope and sequence chart to determine what needs
to be taught. They rely on their expertise and their observations of authentic wrestling performances.
Good wrestling coaches, like good reading teachers, understand that skills are not
mastered after a single encounter. The skills of wrestling and reading are mastered over time
as wrestlers and readers use them in authentic wrestling and reading contexts. The ability to
read and wrestle emerges naturally as wrestlers and readers are immersed in authentic reading
and wrestling situations and taught skills in that context. Good wrestling coaches, like good
reading teachers, differentiate reading instruction based on the needs of their wrestlers and readers.
They see that some wrestlers need more of some things and others need more of other things.
Good wrestling coaches, like good reading teachers, will sometimes call small flexible
groups together for short bits of instruction on a particular skill. And good wrestling coaches,
like good reading teachers, realize that all wrestlers and readers are different.
Based on their body type and particular strengths, different skills work better for some wrestlers
and not for others. It's important for wrestlers to find the skills that they are best at and use
them in a match. And like good reading teachers, good wrestling coaches rely on informal assessment
to determine both their wrestlers' strengths and weaknesses.
So, staying with this analogy, could you imagine if the science of reading people got a hold of
wrestling? You'd have a bunch of people who never coached wrestling telling school boards and
legislators how wrestling should be taught. Science of wrestling clowns would go to the
Wisconsin state legislature demanding that laws be passed, mandating how wrestling should be taught.
And they'd use data out of context, anecdotal evidence, emotional testimonies, and a whole
lot of I thinkisms. And maybe they'd even call in Emily Hanford. After all, she has as much
experience coaching wrestling as she does teaching reading. And a law would be passed and thereafter,
coaches could only use state approved science of wrestling curriculum. All wrestling moves would be
taught in a predetermined order whether or not the wrestlers needed them. And you couldn't coach
wrestling unless you coached in ways that you knew were bad for your wrestlers. And the scores on
standardized wrestling tests would be published in papers. The success of a wrestling program
wouldn't be determined by how wrestlers performed in actual matches. It wouldn't be determined by
wins and losses. Rather, it would be the scores on standardized wrestling tests that determined
the good programs. A law for how to teach wrestling. Hmm. I'm sure it's coming.
All right. Let's check back on our behavioral objectives. Turn to your neighbor and explain
what balanced literacy is. And then turn to your neighbor and give at least two reasons
to support the idea that the Wisconsin State Legislature is a clown club. This has been
the reading instruction show. I'm your host, Coach Johnson.