This is the Reading Instruction Show. I am your host as always Dr. Andy Johnson.
The topic of today's podcast is Disresearchly. Now, did you ever notice
that those people making all the new laws about teaching children how to read?
See never to have actually taught children how to read? Yet there they go
making all the rules about reading instruction based on a whole lot of
anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and a bunch of I thinkisms. Now the irony
is that science, real science, not the fake kind used in radio documentaries, is
a process used to avoid I thinkisms. It's used to get above anecdotal evidence,
personal experience, and I thinkisms which get in the way of perceptions. What
do you mean germs they said? There's no such thing as germs. Use your common
sense. You just reach right in there with your hand and pull it out. Science of
reading advocates are wallowing in the very thing that real science seeks to
get above. I thinkisms. What's called the science of reading is an actuality, the
I thinkisms of reading. And here's the most unsciency science of reading ever.
They've determined that there was a problem that wasn't. Reading, not based
on any real research, but on data pulled out of context and I thinkisms. They
defined the cause of the problem that wasn't a problem as not a nephonics. And
they determined the single solution for the problem that was not a problem,
morphotics. But we should not make fun of those in the science of reading
movement. Many have a condition called dysresearchlia. Dysresearchlia is an
unwillingness to read or an inability to understand reading research. It impacts
3 to 5% of the population and contrary to popular belief, it's not a brain
disorder. That is, even though brain imaging research has shown there to be
anomalies in the brains of dysresearchliax, with basic educational
research courses, these anomalies largely disappear. Also, scientists have
proven that listening to Dr. Johnson's podcast helps to mitigate the effects of
dysresearchlia in 75.3% of the cases. Further, researchers have shown that
reading his books cures dysresearchlia in 98.7% of the cases. And
these are real researchers and scientists, the ones who wear white lab
coats and do commercials about toothpaste and bent carrots on TVs, not
those fake ones who publish in academic journals. Now, dysresearchliax make up a
disproportionate number of people within the science of reading movement. There's
a correlation coefficient of 0.8 between science of reading membership and
dysresearchlia. So, what are we to assume? We are to assume that the science of
reading causes dysresearchlia. Just like they say phonemic awareness causes
reading achievement, science of reading causes dysresearchlia. Now, early diagnosis
can help people with dysresearchlia look for the signs. Do they start quoting
Emily Hanford? Do they start talking about scientists proving things about
reading? Do they go around debunking things? Do they send you things published
in Education Week or by the National Council on Teacher Quality? And do they
say research says, research says, without citing any research? These are some of the
early signs. Now, here's another thing. Besides dysresearchlia, there's another
condition known as clownism. Clownism is where a person begins to think they know
much about reading instruction when in fact they know very little. And clownism
spreads when one clown infects others and their unknowing spreads. And currently
there's a near epidemic of clown-based unknowing. We would normally laugh at
clowns, but in this case, clowns are impacting real children. And it's not
really very funny. Money that could be spent on things that would actually
improve learning and reading achievement is being diverted to things that only
serve to enrich big publishing. This is money that could be spent on healthcare,
nutrition, smaller class sizes, good books in the classroom, and legitimate
teacher professional development. These are all things that impact reading
achievement much more than any reading program or method. And yet the unknowing
clownery continues. They say we're just one or two reading laws away from having
really good reading instruction. If we're able to just insert enough standards
into teacher preparation programs, they say, all our reading problems will be
solved and everybody will be reading above average. Funnics, they say, it's been
proven. Now the result of such clown-based thinking is that good reading
teachers are being overruled, disempowered, and driven from the classroom. And the
equity and achievement gap widens. Now central theme. One are the central
themes of the clown group is that they think children learn to read by
accumulating a whole bunch of teeny tiny sounding outward reading sub skills. And
if children just master a whole bunch of teeny tiny sounding outward reading
sub skills, they'll be able to put it all together someday and read. And the
clowns insist that young children must be taught things like diagraphs and
diphthongs and vowel protectors, controlled our vowels,
syllabification, syllable types, closed syllables, accents, and the schwa sound.
They must be taught these things, they say, using direct instruction with input,
modeling, guided practice, independent practice, and review. And once mastered,
they'll be readers at the end. It just makes sense, they say. To teach complex
things, they say, you break them down into small little puzzle pieces and teach
each puzzle piece explicitly. And after you teach all the puzzle pieces, children
are magically able to put it all together and read just like that. It just
makes sense. The clowns and disresearches tell me you learn to read by learning how
to sound out words. And the reason children can't read is because they can't
sound out words. And the reason they can't sound out words is because they
aren't being taught to sound out words. And the reason they're not being taught
to sound out words is because college professors are not teaching their
students how to teach sounding out words. And the reason why professors aren't
teaching sounding out word strategies is because they're all sleeper agents,
intent on bringing about the downfall of capitalism, organized religion, and
Western civilization. It just makes sense, they say. However, there are real
literacy scholars and researchers. They've known quite a lot of things about
effective reading instruction decades before Emily Hanford ever appeared on
the radio to teach us all about reading instruction. Thank you, Emily. She came to
save us from our ignorance. But here are five things that real literacy
scholars and researchers have known for quite a long time. Number one, balanced
literacy instruction is effective. Real literacy scholars and researchers have
known for decades that there needs to be a balance between teaching teeny tiny
reading sub skills and practice using them in authentic reading contexts. In
every reading class there needs to be some direct skills instruction, but there
also needs to be much more of other stuff, including and most importantly,
reading lots and lots and lots of good books at children's independent reading
level and below. Even the National Reading Panel recommends that phonics be
part of a balanced literacy program. And exactly how much direct skills
instruction is needed and how much reading? Well, it all depends on the student,
doesn't it? Number two, there are no reading wars.
Headline cell papers, it gets hits for podcasts and things, but it's a false
binary that was made to create chaos and confusion. Villains are identified to
rally the masses, but there are no real reading wars. In academic circles, among
real literacy scholars and researchers, there may be differences in emphasis, but
this idea that you're either for phonics or balanced literacy, you're either a
phonics teacher or a whole language teacher, is patently absurd. It's one of
the greatest unknowings perpetuated by clowns and disresearchly acts.
Balanced literacy and whole language approaches both include phonics
instruction. Balanced literacy includes phonics instruction. Whole language
approaches include phonics instruction. Phonics instruction is simply one tool
that's used to enable students to become fully literate. Now it's like saying,
are you in favor of nine irons or golf clubs? A nine iron is part of a set of
golf clubs. Good golfers use the nine iron only at certain times and in
certain situations. Well, nine irons have been proven to work, they say. Yes, nine
irons work in certain situations for certain shots, but it doesn't work for
all shots and that doesn't mean you should play all your golf with only a
nine iron. And the analogy here is apt. Clowns and disresearchly acts want
early reading instruction to consist primarily of direct skills instruction
focusing on phonics and phonemic awareness. In other words, they've passed
laws, reading laws, that restrict teachers to carrying only one club in their
golf bag to teach reading. Reading laws that are a one-club solution. They want
teachers to have just one tool in their teaching toolbox instead of many.
Abraham Maslow once said, if the only tool you have is a hammer, all the world
becomes a nail. And I say, if the only tool you have for teaching reading is
phonics instruction, all the world becomes a phonics worksheet. The third
idea, passing laws about reading instruction will not be effective. And
we've seen this movie before. The last iteration was the reading first
initiative of the early 2000s. Billions of dollars and countless teacher hours
were spent on nothing. But the untested hypothesis proposed by the clowns and
disresearchly acts is that passing massive sounding out word laws and
mandating strict sounding out word instruction will make reading achievement
test scores suddenly rise like bars of ivory soap in the bathtub. But that's an
untested hypothesis based on a whole lot of I thinkisms. However, I will check in
with you clowns and disresearchly acts. We'll look at any p data five years from
now. Not state criterion reference tests. Those aren't good for longitudinal
comparisons or state to state comparisons. And a p data uses norm
reference tests. So mark your calendars for October 23rd, 2028. I'll be doing my
big I told you so but you wouldn't listen podcast. The fourth thing, teachers
are being adequately prepared to begin to learn how to teach reading. In most
teacher preparation programs we have three semesters plus student teaching to
get students ready. Besides all of the educational psychology and human
development stuff, there's reading methods and math methods and social
studies methods and assessment methods and other things. There's no way any
teacher program, any teacher preparation program can create a finished
teaching product in three years let alone three semesters. Instead, we prepare
teachers to begin the journey and this shows the need for legitimate teacher
professional development and not the slot put out by the for-profit such as
letters but real legitimate professional development for teachers. Teachers are
being adequately prepared to teach reading but this does not mean we can't
do better. We always can. And the fifth thing, there is no massive reading
crisis. Comparing longitudinal and a EP reading scores since 1972 shows that
reading scores have remained steady or risen slightly. There is no massive
reading crisis. However, data has been pulled out of context, research has been
misinterpreted and isolated studies have been used to create the illusion.
There's no massive crisis but that does not mean we can't do better. So five
points that we all know. One, balanced literacy is effective. Two, there are no
reading wars. Three, passing laws about reading instruction will not be
effective. Four, by and large teachers are being adequately prepared to begin to
learn how to teach reading. And five, there is no massive reading crisis. This
has been the Reading Instruction Show. I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.